m

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1943

THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

kconb dnb £0irb Centuries

ILLUSTRATED from THE WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN

JOHN, BISHOP OF BRISTOL
MASTER OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE
AND
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

GRIFFITH FARRAN BROWNE & CO. LIMITED
35 BOW STREET, COVENT GARDEN
LONDON

[The Rights of Translation and Reproduction are Iteservcd

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

Soon after the first edition of this work issued from the Press,
I received a copy of a German work on the writings of
Tertullian, published at Berlin in 1825, by Dr. August Neander,
under the title of Antignosticus Geist des Tertullians, etc. As
it is probable that few other copies have yet reached England,
a short account of its object and contents may not be unaccept
able to the reader.
The learned author states in his preface that he is engaged in
writing an Ecclesiastical History of the first three centuries,
a portion of which will be occupied by an inquiry into the
different forms under which the Christian doctrine developed
itself; in other words, into the different doctrinal and practical
systems which arose during that period. The authors of those
systems he divides into two classes, the Idealists and the Real
ists ; the Idealists he again divides into the Ultra, from whom
the Gnostics took their rise, and the Moderate, who formed the
Alexandrian school. Of the Realists, he conceives Tertullian
to be the proper representative. His object therefore is,
by an analysis of Tertullian's writings, to present his readers
with an accurate view of the Realist system. He had done
the same with reference to the Gnostic system, in a work which
I have not seen. 5

vi Preface to the Second Edition.
In pursuing this object, he classes the writings of Tertullian
under three heads.

I. Those which were occasioned by the relation in which
the Christians of Tertullian's day stood to the heathen, which
were either composed in defence of Christianity and in con
futation of heathenism, or referred to the sufferings and conduct
of Christians in time of persecution, and to their intercourse
with the heathen.
II. Those which related to the Christian life, and to the
discipline of the Church.
III. Tertullian's dogmatical and polemical works.

I. Under the first head he mentions, as composed before
Tertullian's secession from the Church —
The tract ad Martyres,
The tract de Spectaculis,1
The tract de Idololatria,
The two books ad Nationes, ,

1 I have classed the tracts de Spectaculis and de IdololatriS, among the works
probably composed by Tertullian after he became a Montanist ; nor do Dr.
Neander's arguments appear to me of sufficient weight to establish a different
conclusion. He supposes these tracts to have been occasioned by the public
festivities which took place after the defeat of Niger and Albinus (pp. 14, 32) ;
and contends that Tertullian, if he had been then a Montanist, would, instead of
resorting exclusively to arguments drawn from Scripture, have also appealed to
the authority of the New Prophecy (p. 26). But the references to passing events
are of too general a character to warrant us in deciding positively upon the time
when the treatises were written ; and Dr. Neander himself admits (p. 112) that in
the tract de Spectaculis Tertullian uses stronger language respecting the incom
patibility of the military life with the profession of Christianity than in the tract
de Coronti, which was certainly composed after he became a Montanist. This
single fact, in my opinion, outweighs all the arguments on the other side.

Preface to the Second Edition. vii
The Apology,1
The tract de Testimonio Animae ;
as composed after Tertullian became a Montanist —
The tract de Corona,2
The tract de Fuga in Persecutione,
Scorpiace, The tract ad Scapulam.
II. Under the second head, Dr. Neander classes
The tract de Patientia,3
The tract de Oratione,4
The tract de Baptismo,
The tract de Pcenitentii,
The two books ad Uxorem,
The two books de Cultu Fceminarum,
among the works composed by Tertullian before he became a
Montanist. The tract de Exhortatione Castitatis,
The tract de Monogamia,
1 Dr. Neander supposes the two books ad Nationes to have been anterior to the
Apology, respecting the date of which he agrees with Mosheim (pp. 58, 76 note).
He infers also (p. 79), from the answer to the charge of unprofitableness brought
against the Christians by their enemies, that Tertullian could not have imbibed
the ascetic spirit of Montanism when he wrote the Apology. But the validity of
this inference may be questioned, as it is certain that Tertullian sometimes varied
his language with his object.
2 The largess alluded to in the tract de Corond was, according to Dr. Neander,
that given to the military on account of the victories of Severus over the Parthians
(p. 114). If this supposition is correct, we must assign the year 204 as the pro
bable date of the tract.
3 Dr. Neander remarks that a comparison of the modes in which Tertullian
applies the parables of the Lost Sheep and of the Prodigal Son in the tract de
Patientid, c. 12, and in that de Pudicitid, c. 9, will prove the former to have been
written before his secession from the Church (p. 168).
4 Dr. Neander considers the additional chapters of the tract de Oratione
genuine,

viii Preface to the Second Edition.
The tract de Pudicitia,
The tract de Jejuniis,
The tract de Virginibus velandis,1
The tract de Pallio,8
among those written after he recognised the prophecies of
Montanus. III. Of the works which fall under the third head, Dr. Neander
thinks that one only was written before Tertullian became a
Montanist — the tract de Prascriptione Hcereticorum. The rest
were written by him when a Montanist.
The five books against Marcion.
The tract adversus Valentinianos.
The tract de Carne Christi.
The tract de Resurrectione Carnis.
The tract adversus Hermogenem.
The tract de Anima.
The tract adversus Praxeam.3
The tract adversus Judsos.4
1 From the following passage in the second chapter of this tract (" Sed eas ego
Ecclesias propositi, quas et ipsi Apostoli vel Apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto
ante quosdam. Habent igitur et illse eandem consuetudinis auctoritatem, tempora
et antecessores opponunt magis quam posterse istse"), and from other incidental
expressions. Dr. Neander infers that the custom against which it was directed
prevailed in the Church of Rome.
- With respect to this tract, Dr. Neander interprets the expression, " Prsesentis
imperii triplex virtus, Deo tot Augustis in unum favente," of Severus, Caracalla,
and Geta, and supposes the tract to have been composed about the year 208.
He conjectures also that Tertullian was induced, after the death of his wife, to
adopt the ascetic mode of life, and, in consequence, to wear the pallium, the
peculiar dress of the ao-^rra* (p, 310).
3 Dr. Neander thinks with Blondel (p. 487) that the Bishop of Rome mentioned
in the first chapter of the tract against Praxeas, was Eleutherus : Allix was dis
posed rather to fix upon Victor.
4 On this tract Dr. Neander has written a short dissertation, the object of which
is to prove that the ninth and following chapters are spurious. In our remarks

Preface to the Second Edition. ix
Dr. Neander gives a more or less detailed analysis of each
tract, and occasionally introduces (most frequently in con
sidering the works included under the last head) the sentiments
of other ecclesiastical writers on the points under discussion —
a proceeding foreign from the plan which I had proposed to
myself. He is always learned and ingenious, but not altogether
free from that love of hypothesis for which the German writers
are remarkable.
There is an appendix to the work, containing two disserta
tions, — one on the last part of the tract adversus Judmos ; the
other on Tertullian's doctrine respecting the Lord's Supper,
which Dr. Neander supposes to be something intermediate
between that of Justin and Irenaeus, whom he asserts to have
maintained (he does not allege any passages in proof of the
assertion) the doctrine of consubstantiation, and the doctrine
of Origen, who did not allow that any divine influence was
united to the outward signs as such, but thought that the object
of sense was the symbol of the object of the understanding, only
to the worthy receiver ; though, in addition to that symbolical
relation, he conceived a sanctifying influence to be united with
upon Semler's theory respecting Tertullian's works, we stated that he grounded
an argument on the fact that a considerable portion of the third book against
Marcion is repeated in the tract against the Jews. Dr. Neander draws a different
inference from this fact. He observes that many of the passages thus repeated,
however suitable to the controversy between Tertullian and Marcion, are wholly
out of their place in a. controversy with a Jew. He concludes, therefore, that
Tertullian, having proceeded as far as the quotation from Isaiah in the beginning
of the ninth chapter of the tract against the Jews, from some unknown cause left
the work unfinished ; and that the remainder of the tract was afterwards added
by some person, who thought that he could not do better than complete it, by
annexing what Tertullian had said on the same passage of Isaiah in the third
book against Marcion, with such slight variations as the difference of circum
stances required. The instances alleged by Dr. Neander in proof of this position
are undoubtedly very remarkable ; but, if the concluding chapters of the tract are
spurious, no ground seems to be left for asserling that the genuine portion was
posterior to the third book against Marcion, and none consequently for ass rting
that it was written by a Montanist.

x Preface to the Second Edition.
the whole rite in the case of those who are capable of receiving
that influence. Dr. Neander thinks that to eat the flesh and
drink the blood of Christ meant, in Tertullian's view of the
subject, to appropriate to ourselves the divine Ao'yos who appeared
in the nature of man, and to enter into a living union with
Him through faith. He thinks also that in the words, " Caro
corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo
saginetur," Tertullian intended to say that, while the body, in
a supernatural manner, comes into contact with the body of
Christ, the soul receives into itself the divine life of Christ.
Dr. Neander justly remarks that on other occasions Tertullian
speaks as if the bread and wine were merely representative signs
of the body and blood of Christ. It may be doubted, therefore,
whether, in arguing upon the above expressions, he has made
sufficient allowance for the peculiarities of Tertullian's style.
If, however, he is correct, Tertullian must be classed with
those who maintain a real presence of Christ's body in the
Eucharist, but in a spiritual, not in a gross corporeal sense.
Dr. Neander appears himself to consider the bread and wine
as mere symbols.
In the body of Dr. Neander's work are also two disquisitions, —
one on a passage in the third chapter of the tract de Corona,
where Tertullian speaks of various customs observed in the
Church on the authority of tradition ; the other on an obscure
passage in the fourteenth chapter of the tract de Jejuniis, from
which Dr. Neander infers that the practice of fasting on a
Saturday already existed in the Western Church.
If the reader will compare Dr. Neander's classification of
Tertullian's writings with that which I have ventured to suggest,
he will find that the difference between us is not great ; and
with respect to some of the tracts on which we differ, the

Preface to the Second Edition. xi
learned author expresses himself with great diffidence. He was
too well aware of the dubious character of the proofs on
which his conclusions necessarily rest, to .adopt a more decided
language. I was myself restrained by similar considerations
from hazarding any positive decision of many of the controverted
points connected with Tertullian's life and writings. It would
have been no difficult task to bring forward the different pas
sages produced by preceding writers upon those points ; to add
others of equally, or more, doubtful application to the subject
in debate ; and after the parade of a formal discussion, to
pronounce between the contending parties. Such a proceeding
would have been very imposing, and have carried with it an
appearance of great learning and profundity ; but it would at
last have been only solemn trifling. When the facts are not
merely scanty, but susceptible of different interpretations,1 it
seems to follow as a necessary consequence, that the mind must
remain in a state of suspense ; and an author ought at least to
escape censure for avowing doubts which he really feels. Diffi
dence may imply a defect both in the moral and intellectual
character ; but it is surely less offensive in itself, and less likely
to be injurious in its consequences, than that presumptuous
rashness which ventures to deliver peremptory decisions where
there are scarcely materials even for forming an opinion.
I was naturally anxious to ascertain the opinion of Dr. Neander
1 For instance, Dr. Neander asserts that Tertullian had once been a heathen,
and produces, in support of the assertion, the first sentence in the tract de P<sni-
tentid (p. 3). " Pcenitentiam, hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus,"
etc. He afterwards (p. 5) alludes to the passages in the tracts de Exhortatione
Castitatis, c. 7, and de Monogamid, c. 12 ("Nonne et Laici Sacerdotis sumus?"
and "Sed quum extoUimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes
sumus," etc.), which have been alleged, in order to disprove the fact of Ter
tullian's admission into the priesthood, but thinks that they do not disprove it.
In both cases Tertullian speaks in the first person and in the plural number ;
yet in the former we are to suppose that he spoke in his own, in the latter in an
assumed character. Surely there is something very arbitrary in these decisions.

xii Preface to the Second Edition.
respecting the instances of the exercise of miraculous powers
mentioned by Tertullian, and the accounts of visions which
occur in his writings. . The learned author accounts for the
story of the female who came back from the theatre under the
influence of a demoniacal possession, by supposing that, being
conscience - stricken, she returned the answer recorded by
Tertullian, under the persuasion that she was possessed by an
evil spirit who made use of her organs of speech.1 The story
of the man who was chastised in a vision because his servants
had suspended garlands on his door in his absence, may, Dr.
Neander thinks, be accounted for on psychological principles.2
The view which he takes of the subject of visions is, that the
fermentation at first produced by Christianity in the nature of
man was accompanied by many extraordinary phenomena not
likely to occur in a similar manner at all times. New powers
were imparted to human nature, and those which had been
before concealed were brought into action. Moreover, the
necessities of the infant Church called for many unusual
interpositions of Providence. Great caution would of course be
requisite in forming a judgment respecting those phenomena,
since it would be easy to confound that which was natural with
that which was divine ; and into this error the turn of Tertullian's
mind would render him peculiarly liable to fall, by disposing
him to regard all such appearances as divine revelations. In a
subsequent part of his work, Dr. Neander mentions the story
of a female to whom the soul was exhibited in a corporeal shape
1 De Spectaculis, u. 26 (p. 31, note).
3 De Idololatrid, c. 15 (p. 54). I do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of
this observation. It is very easy to conceive that a man of a superstitious temper
might have been so affected on finding that his servants had complied with what
he deemed an idolatrous practice, as to dream that he was severely chastised for
their misconduct. But Tertullian's words convey the idea that the chastisement
was real. " Scio fratrem per visionem eadem nocte castigalu?n gravitcr quod
januam ejus, subito annuntiatis gaudiis publicis, servi coronassent." Are we to
suppose that the impression made on the mind by the dream affected the body,
and produced the same feeling of soreness as if the beating had been real ?

Preface to the Second Edition. xiii
— as an instance of Tertullian's readiness to consider visions as
communications from heaven.1 Although Dr. Neander has not
expressed himself decidedly, I infer from the general tenor of
his observations, that he objects altogether to the notion that the
exercise of miraculous powers was intended to be confined to
any particular persons or to any particular age. He supposes
Tertullian to have asserted that the possession of the extra
ordinary gifts of the Spirit was the peculiar characteristic of an
apostle, and regards this assertion as a proof of Montanism.2
He speaks also of the impropriety of confining the charismata to
the apostolic age. To what I have before said on this disputed
subject I will now add, that we usually infer what will be the
future course of the divine government from considering what it
has been ; and thus Christians living towards the end of the
second century — who had either themselves conversed, or had
heard the accounts of others who had conversed, with men who
had witnessed the exercise of miraculous powers — could not be
justly charged with credulity for expecting the continuance of the
same powers in the Church. Centuries have since elapsed,
during which no miraculous narrative deserving of. credit can be
produced. Our case, therefore, is widely different. They who
contend that, because the first teachers of the gospel were
endowed with miraculous powers in order to prove their divine
commission, it is not unreasonable to suppose that similar
powers would be imparted to those who in subsequent ages went
forth to convert heathen nations, may fairly be called upon to
produce an instance, subsequent to the times of the immediate
successors of the apostles, in which such powers have been
actually conferred.
1 De Animd, c. 9 (p. 465).
8 The passage on which Dr. Neander builds this inference is in the tract de
Exhortatione, c. 3 : " Proprie enim Apostoli Spiritum Sanctum habent in operibus
prophetise, et efficacia virtutum, documentisque linguarum ; non ex parte, quod
cseteri," p. 242.

xiv Preface to. the Second Edition.
, Dr. Neander's notions respecting the authority ascribed by
the early Christians to tradition seem to coincide with my own.-
He says, "These two fountains of the knowledge of the doctrine
of faith — the collection of the apostolic writings and oral tradition
— sent forth streams, flowing by the side of each other through
all communities which agreed in the essentials of Christianity,
and especially through the communities which were of apostolic
foundation. But as the stream of tradition necessarily became
more turbid in proportion as the distance from the apostolic
times increased, the writings of the apostles were designed by
Providence to be an unadulterated source of divine doctrine
for every age. Though on some occasions the Christians of
those days might appeal solely to the authority of tradition,
they uniformly maintained that the doctrine of Christianity in
all its parts might be deduced from Holy Writ" (p. 312).
The spirit in which Dr. Neander's remarks on Tertullian are
conceived is widely different from that in which it has been
fashionable of late years to think and speak of the Fathers. M.
Barbeyrac, whose views were directed to the systematic develop
ment of the principles of ethics, looking only at Tertullian's
defects, regarded him as an author who was incapable either of
thinking naturally, or preserving a just medium ; who delivered
himself up to the guidance of his African imagination, which
magnified and confounded all the objects presented to it, and
did not allow him to consider any one with attention ; who, in
short, had disfigured the morality of the gospel by his extrava
gances, and thereby inflicted a serious injury on Christianity
itself. Dr. Neander, on the contrary, to whose mind the image
of the Christian community, as it existed under the immediate
superintendence of the apostles, appears to be continually
present, discovers in Tertullian the working of that spirit which
animated the early converts ; and regarding him as a man whose

Preface to the Second Edition. xv
whole souL was absorbed in his desire to promote the practical-
influence of the gospel, is little disposed to speak with harsh
ness of. terrors which arose from the overflowings -of Christian
zeal.1 Looking rather, to the internal feeling: than to the terms in
which it is expressed, he discerns, matter for commendation in- pas
sages in which others have found." nothing but extravagance and
absurdity. The concluding passage of the tract de Spectaculis,
which called forth Gibbon's animadversions, appears to Dr.
Neander to contain a beautiful specimen of lively faith and
Christian confidence ; though he wishes that the vehemence of
Tertullian's zeal had. been tempered by a larger infusion of
Christian love.2 He ventures even to defend the celebrated
1 I have, in the fourth chapter of the present work, examined certain passages
of Tertullian's writings, from which it has been inferred that he did not recognise
the distinction between the clergy and laity. Dr. Neander accounts (p. 204) for
the apparent inconsistency in his language, by supposing that he stood on what
may be termed the boundary mark of two periods, — the period of original simple
Christianity, and the period of the establishment of a system of Church-authority.
During the former period there was a perfect equality among Christians ; no dis
tinction of orders ; all were priests. The separation of the clergy from the laity,
and the gradation of ranks among the former, were subsequently introduced by
injudicious attempts to transfer the institutions of the Mosaic to the Christian
dispensation. This view of the subject frequently occurs in Dr. Neander's work ;
but I must confess my inability to reconcile it either with the statements contained
in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, or with the natural course of things.
If the Church of Christ on earth was in fact what it is in theory, the distinction
between the clergy and laity would doubtless be tmnecessary. But where are we
to look for the period of original simple Christianity of which Dr. Neander speaks ?
Even the apostles found themselves under the necessity of appointing particular
orders of men for the accomplishment of particular objects, and of making new
regulations in order to correct the abuses which from time to time sprang up.
The distinction, therefore, of the clergy from the laity, and of orders among the
clergy, arose out of the necessities of what Dr. Neander elsewhere (p. 341) calls
that frail compound of spiritual and sensual — human nature ; not out of any
designed imitation of the Mosaic institutions. After it had once been established,
we might naturally expect to find the language of the Old Testament respecting
the Jewish priesthood applied to the Christian : at first only in the way of analogy,
but subsequently perhaps to promote the interested views of ambitious men. Dr.
Neander has pointed out a remarkable instance of the application of the phrase
ology of the Old Testament to the celebration of the Eucharist in the tract de
Oratione, c. 14 (p. 184, note).
2 P. 34-

xvi Preface to the Second Edition.
declaration, " Certum est, quia impossibile,"1 which has con
tributed more than any other circumstance to bring Tertullian's
writings into discredit; and says with great truth, that how
strangely soever it may sound when separated from the context,
yet when taken in connexion with what precedes, it is only an
exaggerated mode of stating that a Christian readily admits, on
the authority of Revelation, that which men, who rely solely on
the conclusions of their own reason, pronounce impossible.
There can be no doubt that Dr. Neander has entered more
deeply into Tertullian's character, and has, in consequence, been
enabled to form a juster estimate of his merits and defects, than
the philosophical jurist or the sceptical historian. Yet there
are, perhaps, occasions in which Dr. Neander himself has inter
preted Tertullian's expressions too strictly ; and, though aware of
the difficulty of referring the opinions of a man on whom the
feeling of the moment had so much influence, to general
principles, he has not always been able to resist the temptation
to generalize, and has in consequence extracted from Tertullian's
words a train of thought of which he himself was probably never
conscious.2 I will now proceed to mention the principal additions
and alterations which have been made in this second
edition. In chapter i. p. 42, n. 1, the reader will find a passage dis
proving Semler's assertion that Eusebius has never mentioned
Miltiades as a writer against the heretics. The passage is in
the Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 28.
In chapter iii. p. 88, I had given an erroneous account of
the exordium of the tract de Testimonio Animce, having
1 De Came Christi, c. 4, p. 394. 2 P. 380.

Preface to the Second Edition. xvii
substituted in the place of the argument there urged by
Tertullian, that which he uses in the passage in the Apology,
to which I had referred in the note. The error is now
corrected. In chapter v. p. 172, n. 2 (note 209, first edition), the reader
will find an attempt to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in
Tertullian's language respecting the state of the soul during the
interval between its separation from the body and the general
resurrection. In chapter vi. p. 226 (p. 453, first edition), I have inserted a
note containing a reference to the custom which existed in
Tertullian's time, of reserving a portion of the consecrated
bread, and eating it at home before every other food. Dr.
Neander thinks that this custom gave rise to the practice of
administering the communion only in one kind. He observes
also that the practice of daily communion appears from the
writings of Tertullian to have then prevailed, at least in the
African Church. See de Idololatrid, c. 7.
There are some minor alterations which it is unnecessary to
specify ; and at the end of the volume will be found a list of
addenda, some of which have been suggested to me by the
perusal of Dr. Neander's work. Notwithstanding all the care
which I have been able to bestow, the learned reader will
doubtless discover additional errors and omissions. One
mistake has, however, been imputed to me, of which I
have not been guilty. I have never mentioned, incidentally or
otherwise, that Stephen, Bishop of Rome, was contemporary
with Tertullian.
In the introduction to the present work I have stated that the

xviii Preface to the Second Edition.
object which I proposed to myself in my lectures on the writmgs of
Tertullian was, to employ them, as far as they could be employed,
in filling up Moslieim's outline of ecclesiastical history. After
this explicit declaration, it may appear almost unnecessary to
add that I never intended to compose an Ecclesiastical History
of the Second and Third Centuries. My labours were directed
to an humbler object — to assist in collecting materials for a
future historian of the Church. My persuasion has always been,
that a good ecclesiastical history of that or any other period
will never be composed until the works of each writer who
flourished during the period have been examined, and the
information which they supply, collected and arranged under
different heads. I did not mean to propose Mosheim's arrange
ment as the best which could be devised ; I followed it because
his history is that which is in most general use among theological
students in this country. I deem it also most essential to the
successful execution of such a plan, that the testimony of each
author should be kept as distinct as possible. If I may form a
judgment from Dr. Neander's preface, his view of the subject
nearly coincides with my own. He there states that he has
published a volume on the Gnostic system, which must necessarily
include an examination of the work of Irena^us ; a friend, at his
request, is employed on the writings of Cyprian : in the volume
of which I have now given a short account, we have the spirit of
Tertullian, the representative of the Realists ; there remain,
therefore, for consideration only the Moderate Idealists of the
Alexandrian school, whose opinions will be found in the writings
of Clemens and Origen. Having thus prepared the way by
analysing the works of the five principal authors of the second
and third centuries, the learned author will proceed to the
completion of his ecclesiastical history of that period. With
the design of facilitating the composition of a similar history, I
had, in the fulfilment of the duties of my office, before I lectured

Preface to the Second Edition. xix
on the writings of Tertullian, examined the writings of the
Fathers who preceded him ; whether I shall at any future period
be able to lay before the public the result of the examination
must depend upon the time which I can spare from other
avocations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAfJK
Introduction, ,.,.,..'

CHAPTER I.

ON TERTULLIAN AND HIS WRITINGS.

Jerome's Account of Tertullian, ....
Whether Tertullian ever was a .Presbyter ?
Whether a Presbyter at Rome or af Carthage ?
Whether originally a Gentile ? .
His Adoption of Montanism, .....
Account of Montanus from Eusebius, ....
Account of Montanus from Epiphanius,
Account of the peculiar Opinions of Montanus,
Account of his Pretensions. The Variation in Mosheim's Language on
this subject, ......
His Discourses probably committed to writing,
The Notion that the Apostles did not publicly teach the Doctrine of the
Gospel in its full perfection, ....
This Notion supported by the authority of Clemens Alexandrinus,
Causes of Tertullian's Secession from the Church,
Importance of his Writings, .....
Unsuccessful Attempts to arrange them in Chronological Order,
Date of the Tract de Pallio, .....
Date of the first Book against Marcion,
Date of the Tract cle Monogamia, and the two Books ad Nationes,

24 5
ib. 6
ib.

IIi5 16
it. iS
ib. 19
2021
il:

XX11

Table of Contents.

Difficulty of ascertaining what Works were, and what were not, written
before Tertullian's Secession from the Church
The Tract de Poenitentia,
The Tract de Oratione,
The Tract de Baptismo,
The two Tracts ad Uxorem, . .
The Tract ad Martyres,
The Tract de Patientia,
The Tract adversus Judaeos,
The Tract de Prsescriptione Haereticorum,
The Tract adversus Hermogenem,
The Apology,
The two Books ad Nationes,
The Tract de Testimonio Animse,
The Tract ad Scapulam,
Tracts containing decisive marks of Montanism : — De Corona, de
Anima, de Virginibus velandis, de Resurrectione Carnis, against
Praxeas, Books I., III., IV., and V. against Marcion, the Tracts
de Fuga in Persecutione, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis, cle
Pudicitia, .....
Mistake of Gibbon respecting the Tract de Corona
The second Book against Marcion,
The Tract de Came Christi,
Scorpiace, .....
The Tract against the Valentinians,
The Tract de Spectaculis,
The Tract de Idololatria,
The First Book de Cultu Fceminarum,
The Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, .
Classification of Tertullian's Works,
Works not now extant,
The Tract de Paradiso,
The Tract de Spe Fidelium, .
The Six Books de Ecstasi, and the Seventh against Apollonius
The Tract against the Apelliaci,
The Tract against Hermogenes, de Censu Animae
The Tract de Vestibus Aaron, .
The Tract ad Amicum Philosophum, .

Table of Contents. xxiii

PAGE

Tracts, the Titles of which appear in the Codex Agobardi, . . 32
Learning, Style, and Latinity of Tertullian, . . . -33
Examination of Semler's Objections to the Genuineness of Tertullian's
Writings, ........ 35

CHAPTER II.
ON THE EXTERNAL HISTORV OF THE CHURCH.
The wide Diffusion of Christianity in Tertullian's day, . . 45
Whether to be ascribed to the exercise of Miraculous Powers ? . 48
Instances of the exercise of Miraculous Powers recorded by Tertullian, 51
Instances of Visions, ....... ib.
The Miracle of the Thundering Legion, . . . -53
The proposal of Tiberius to receive Christ among the Deities of
Rome, ........ 55
Two causes of the rapid Propagation of Christianity assigned by
Mosheim — Translations of the New Testament, and Apologies
composed in defence of Christianity, . j , . .56
Concerning the Laws which applied to the Christians as a Sect, . 57
Sketch of the Apology, . . . . . 60
Gibbon's Remarks on the early Apologists for Christianity, . . 66
Sufferings of the early. Christians, and honours annexed to Martyrdom, 68
Account of the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, . . .74
Account of the Tract ad Martyres, . . . . . , 75
Account of the Scorpiace, . ¦ , , ; • ¦ • . ib.
General Observations on the subject of Martyrdom, . . -77
Allusion to the Duration of Christ's Ministry, . . . • 7.9
Allusion to the Census of Augustus and our Lord's Descent from David
through Mary, ....... ib.
Allusion to the Miraculous Darkness at the Crucifixion, . . 80
Condition of the Jews in Tertullian's time, .... ib.
Appendix to Chapter II., containing Extracts from the late Dr. Hey's
unpublished Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, . . .81

XXIV

Table of Contents.

CHAPTER III.

ON THE STATE OF LETTERS AND PHILOSOPHY.
Account of the Tract de Testimonio AnimEe, .
Remarks on the prevalent disposition to undervalue the Argument a
posteriori, .......
Account of the Treatise de Anima, ....
Tertullian's Opinions respecting Angels and Demons, .

PAGE 87

90
95
106

CHAPTER IV.

ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.

Tertullian's Account of the Christian Assemblies,
On the Distinction between the Clergy and Laity,
Tertullian's Notion of the Origin of the Church,
On the Distinction of Orders among the Clergy,
Tertullian's Account of the Origin of the Episcopal Office and of its
Duties, .......
On the Independence of the Apostolic Churches,
On the Titles Pontifex Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum, Papa,
On the Order of Readers (Lectores) and of Widows, ;
On Synods or Councils, .....
On the Distinction between Catechumeni and Fideles,
On the Penitential Discipline of the Church, .
On the Distinction between Mortal and Venial Sins, .
' Silence of Tertullian on the subject of Auricular Confession, .
Christian Authors mentioned by Tertullian,

noin114 ib.
»5117 11S
120 121122 125126128 ib.

Table of Contents.

xxv

CHAPTER v.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH

The consideralion of the First and Second Articles of out Church deferred,
Article III. Christ's Descent into Hell,
Article IV. The Resurrection of Christ,
Account of the Tract de Carne Christi,
Account of the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis
Article V. deferred,
Article VI. The Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salva on,
On the Tradition of the Church,
Tertullian's Testimony to the Canon of Scripture
Tertullian's Account of the Septuagint Version,
Tertullian's Account of the Book of Enoch,
On the expression Authenticw Litera, .
On the Epistle to the Hebrews,.
Travels of Paul and Thecla,
Whether the Canon of Scripture was determined by the authority of
Councils? .....
Remarks on the Work entitled Palseoromaica,
On the Words Instrumentum, Testamentum, Digesta,
On the Title of the Epistle to the Ephesians, .
Quotations not found in Scripture,
Article VII. Of the Old Testament, .
Article VIII. The three Creeds,
Article IX. Original Sin,
Two strange Opinions of Tertullian,
Article X. Of Free-will,
Article XI. Of the Justification of Man,
Article XII. Of Good Works, .
Article XIII. Of Works before Justification, .
Article XIV. Of Works of Supererogation,
Article XV. Of Christ alone without Sin,
Article XVI. Of Sin after Baptism, .
Article XVII. Of Predestination and Election,
Article XVIII. Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only in the name of
Christ, ........

171

xxvi Table of Contents.

PAGR

Article XIX. Of the Church, ...... 171
Article XX. Of the Authority of the Church, .- . . ib.
Article XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils, . , ib.
Article XXII. Of Purgatory, ... . ib.
Pearson's Notion respecting the Perpetual Virginity, . . 173
Article XXIII. Of ministering in the Congregation, . . .174
Article XXIV. On speaking in the Congregation in a known tongue, 175
Article XXV. Of the Sacraments, . . . . .176
Article XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers which hindereth
not the effect of the Sacraments, . . . . 177
The consideration of Articles 27, 28, 30 deferred, . . .178
Article XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests, . , . . ib.
Article XXXIII. Of Excommunicate Persons, etc. , . 179
Article XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church, . . 180
Articles XXXV. XXXVI. omitted, . . . . ib.
Article XXXVII. Of Civil Magistrates, . . ib.
Article XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, etc., . . .181
Article XXXIX. Of a Christian Man's Oath, . . ib.
On the Millennium, ..... . ib.
On the final Salvation of all Men, ..... 182
On the approaching End of the World, .... ib.
Examination of Mosheim's Chapter on the Doctrine of the Church in
the Second Century, . . . . . . 183
Examination of M. Barbeyrac's Strictures on Tertullian, in his Traite
de la Morale des Peres, ...... 189

CHAPTER VI.
ON THE CEREMONIES USED IN THE CHURCH.
Forms observed in Prayer, ...... 201
Account of the Tract de Oratione, ... . 202
Whether the Public Prayers were'extemporaneous? . . . 203
Sunday, or the Lord's Day, and the Sabbath, kept as days of rejoicing, 204
Christmas Day, Easter, and Whitsuntide, .... ib.

Table of Contents.

xxvn

Commemoration of the Days on which the Martyrs suffered
Account of the Tract de Jejuniis,
Fasts observed in the Church, .
Fasts observed by the Montanisls,
Observations on Fasting,
Observations on the Monastic Mode of Life,
On the Agape, or Feast of Charity,
On Vigils and Processions,
Article XXVII. Account of Tertullian's Tract de Baptismo,
On the Forms observed in Baptism,
On the Baptism of John,
Whether Tertullian was acquainted with the Jewish Baptism o
Proselytes?
Whether the Apostles were baptized ? .
On the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation,
On Heretical Baptism, and the propriety of rebaptizing.
On the Baptism of Martyrdom,
On the right of the Laity to baptize,
On Infant Baptism,
On the Seasons. for administering Baptism,
Article XXVIII. On the Eucharist, .
On Transubstantiation,
Article XXX. On Communion in both kinds.
On Marriage, ....
On Extreme Unction, .
On the Sign of the Cross, . .
On Exorcism and Exsufflation,
On the Custom of announcing certain Flours of the Day,

PAGE 205 il>.
206207 208 2IO21 I
212
213 214 2l62172l8219220 ib. k
ib.
222
223 ib.
224
226 ib.
227 ib.
22S ib.

CHAPTER VII.

CONCERNING THE HERESIES AND DIVISIONS WHICH TROUBLED
THE CHURCH.

Account of the Tract adversus Judosos,
The Nazarenes and Ebionites, ¦

229234

XXV111

Table of Contents.

The Philosophical Heretics,
Saturninus — Cerdo — Marcion, .
Account of the Five Books against Marcion,
Lucan, Severus, Blastus, Apclles,
Bardesanes, Tatian, Basilides, Carpocrates,
Valentinus, ....
Account of the Tract against the Valentinians
The Followers of Valentinus, .
The Cainites, ....
The Grecian Heretics, Artemon — Theodotus — Praxeas,
Account of the Tract against Praxeas,
Comparison of Tertullian's Opinions with those declared in the First,
Second, Fourth, Fifth Articles of our Church, and in the Nicene
and Athanasian Creeds,
Titles applied to Christ,
On the Corruptibility of Christ's Flesh, His Ubiquity and Personal
Appearance,
Hermogenes — Account of the Tract against him,
Simon Magus, . . .
Menander, the Samaritan,
The Nicolaitans, ....
Heretics who asserted the Mortality of the Soul,
General Observations, ....

PAGE 235 236 237251253 ib.ib.
25S259 260 ib.

273279 280 ib.
2852S62S7 ib.
ib.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY
OF THE
SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES.

INTRODUCTION.
The following pages contain the substance of a course of
lectures delivered by the author, as Regius Professor of
Divinity, in the Lent and Easter terms of 1825. He had
previously delivered two courses on the writings of the Fathers ;
and the plan which he then pursued was, first to give a short
account of the author's life ; next an analysis of each of his
works ; and lastly, a selection of passages, made principally
with a view to the illustration of the Doctrines and Discipline
of the Church of England. The peculiar character of the
writings of the earlier Fathers pointed out this as the mode
in which the information to be derived from them might be
most clearly and usefully exhibited to the theological student.
In proceeding, however, to the writings of Tertullian, the next
in order of time to those whose works had been previously
reviewed, it occurred to the author that a different mode
might be adopted with advantage ; and that they might be
rendered subservient to the illustration of ecclesiastical history
in general. They who have read Mosheim's work require
only to be reminded that he divides the history of the Church
into two branches, external and internal. Under the former
he comprehends the prosperous and adverse events which befell
it during each century ; under the latter, the state of learning
and philosophy, the government, doctrine, rites and ceremonies
of the Church, and the heresies which divided its members
and disturbed its tranquillity, during the same period. This
A

2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
arrangement was not an original idea of Mosheim ; the _ Cen-
turiators of Magdeburgh had before adopted nearly a similar
plan. His work is, moreover, of a very compendious character,
designed to present his readers with a general and connected
view of the history of Christianity from its first promulgation ;
and to assist their studies, by directing them to the sources
from which, if they are so disposed, they may derive more
particular and detailed information. The object, therefore, which
.the author proposed to himself in his Lectures on the Writings
of Tertullian, was to employ them, as far as they could be em
ployed, in filling up Mosheim's outline, by arranging the in
formation which they supply under the different heads above
enumerated. Still, it was necessary for him so far to adhere
to his original plan as to prefix a brief account of Tertullian
himself, in order that the student might be enabled accurately
to distinguish the portion of ecclesiastical history which his
writings serve to illustrate, as well as justly to appreciate the
importance to be attached to his testimony and opinions.1

CHAPTER I.
ON TERTULLIAN AND HIS WRITINGS.
The following account of Tertullian 2 is given by Jerome : s —
"Tertullian a presbyter, the first Latin writer after Victor
and Apollonius, was a native of the province of Africa and
city of Carthage, the son of a proconsular centurion : 4 he
1 The edition of Tertullian's works, to which the references in the following
pages are made, is that of Paris, 1675.
2 He is called in the MSS. of his works Quintus Septimius Florens Tertulli-
anus ; and in the concluding sentence of the tract de Virginibus Velandis he calls
himself Septimius Tertullianus. But whether that sentence is genuine may be
reasonably doubted. The same remark applies to the concluding words of the
tracts de Baptismo and de Exhortatione Castitatis. The final mention of
Tertullian in the latter is omitted in the Codex Agobardi. Jerome calls him
Septimius Tertullianus. Ep. ad Fabiolam sub fine.
3 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum,
* A proconsular centurion appears to have been a species of officer who was
constantly in attendance upon the proconsul to receive his commands. See the
note of Valesius in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 1. ii, c. 2. This part of Jerome's account
has been supposed to be founded on a passage in the Apology, c. 9 : " Infantes

Second and Third Centuries. 3
was a man of a sharp and vehement temper, flourished under
Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, and wrote numerous works,
which, as they are generally known, I think it unnecessary
to particularize. I saw at Concordia in Italy an old man
named Paulus. He said that, when young, he had met at
Rome with an aged amanuensis of the blessed Cyprian, who
told him that Cyprian never passed a day without reading
some portion of Tertullian's works ; and used frequently to
say, ' Give me my master,' meaning Tertullian. After remain
ing a presbyter of the Church until he had attained the middle
age of life, Tertullian was, by the envy and contumelious treat
ment of the Roman clergy, driven to embrace the opinions
of Montanus, which he has mentioned in several of his works
under the title of the New Prophecy ; but he composed,
expressly against the Church, the treatises de Pudicitia, de
Persecutione, de Jejuniis, de Monogamia, and six books de
Ecstasi,1 to which he added a seventh against Apollonius?
penes Africam Saturno immolabantur palam usque ad proconsulatum Tiberii,
qui ipsos Sacerdotes in iisdem arboribus templi sui obumbraticibus scelerum
votivis crucibus exposuit, teste militia patriae nostrae, quae id ipsum manus illi
proconsuli functa est." Rigault says that one MS. reads " Patris nostri."
1 The six books de Ecstasi and the seventh against Apollonius are lost. Mon
tanus pretended that he was frequently thrown into a species of rapture or ecstasy ;
and that, while in that state, he saw visions and received communications from
the Spirit, which enabled him to foretell future events. This circumstance was
urged by his opponents as an argument against the truth of his pretensions to
inspiration ; and Miltiades, of whom Tertullian speaks with respect, wrote a
treatise to show that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, self) t»5 pAi Si7»
^srpaifriTfiii U ixtnatru XxXug. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 17. Tertullian wrote
his books de Ecstasi in defence of Montanus ; and a passage in the fourth
book against Marcion, c. 22, will put the reader in possession of his notions on
the subject of prophetic inspiration. He is speaking of the Transfiguration,
when, according to St. Luke, St. Peter knew not what he said ; on which Ter
tullian observes, ''Quomodo nesciens? utrumne simplici errore, an ratione quam
defendimus in causa Novas Prophetiae, gratiae ecstasin, id est, amentiam con-
venire? In Spiritu enim homo constitutus, praesertim quum gloriam Dei con-
spicit vel quum per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus
scilicet virtute divina, de quo inter nos et Psychicos (the name given by Tertullian
to the orthodox) quaestio est." Comp. adv. Marc. 1. i. c. 21, sub fine; 1. v. c. 8,
sub fine; adv. Praxeam, c. 15. In like manner Tertullian supposes that in the
deep sleep or ecstasy (txrmm in the Septuagint) into which Adam was thrown,
when his rib was taken from him to form Eve, he was enabled to predict the
perpetual union of Christ and the Church : ' ' Nam etsi Adam statim prophetavit
magnum illud Sacramentum in Christum et Ecclesiam " (the reference is to Ephe-
sians v. 31). " ' Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro ex carne mea. Propter
hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et adglutinabit se uxori suae et erunt duo
in carnem unam,' accidentiam Spiritus passus est ; cecidit enim ecstasis super
ilium, Sancti Spiritus vis, operatrix Prophetiae." De Animd, c. n. Tertullian is
very fond of this notion respecting the deep sleep or trance into which Adam was
thrown ; we find it again de Virgin. Vel. c. 5 ; de Animd, c. 21, 45 ; de Jejuniis, c. 3.
2 Apollonius is mentioned as an opponent of Montanus by Eusebius, Bed,
Hist. 1. v. c. 18.

4 The Ecclesiastical History of the
He is reported to have lived to a very advanced age, and to
have composed many other works which are not extant."
The correctness of some parts of this account has been
questioned. Doubts have been entertained whether Tertul
lian was a presbyter. It is certain that he was married, for
among his works are two treatises addressed to his wife.
How then were the Roman Catholics to dispose of a fact
which appeared to militate strongly against their favourite doc
trine of the celibacy of the clergy ? The easiest mode was
to deny that he ever became a presbyter ; and, in support
of this opinion, two passages,1 in which he appears to speak
of himself as a layman, have been quoted from works sup
posed to have been written when he was far advanced in
life. On these passages Allix remarks that the course ot
Tertullian's argument in some measure compelled him to speak
in the first person ; 2 and he opposes to them one from the
treatise de Anima,3 in which our author states that he remained
in the church, or place of religious assembly, after the people
were dismissed, for the purpose of recording and investigating
the accounts given by a Christian female, to whom visions were
vouchsafed, of what she saw in her spiritual ecstasies ; an (office
which, in the opinion of Allix, would not have been assigned him
had he not been a presbyter. It must, however, be confessed
that this passage is by no means decisive of the controversy ;
and we must be content to receive the fact of Tertullian's ad
mission to the priesthood, as the majority of Roman Catholic'
divines have received it, upon the authority of Jerome. We
shall hereafter have occasion to notice the different conjectures
proposed by them, in order to deprive their Protestant opponents
of the argument which the example of Tertullian supplies in
favour of a married priesthood.
Another question has been raised respecting the place where
Tertullian officiated as a presbyter ; whether at Carthage, or
at Rome. That he at one time resided at Carthage may be
1 " Vani erimus si putaverimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis licere.
Nonne et Laici Sacerdotes sumus ? Scriptum est, regnum quoque nos et Sacerdotes
Deo et Patri suo fecit." De Exhort. Castit. c. 7. Again, "Sed quum extoUimur
et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc omnes Sacerdotes,
quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit. Quum ad peraequationem disciplinae
Sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, et impares sumus." De Mono-
gamid, c. 12.
2 Dissertatio de Tertulliani Vita et Scriptis, c. ¦*. •> C. 9.

Second and Third Centuries. 5
inferred from Jerome's account ; and is rendered certain by
several passages in his own writings.1 Allix supposes that the
notion of his having been a presbyter of the Roman Church
owed its rise to Jerome's statement, that the envy and abuse
of the Roman clergy impelled him to espouse the party of
Montanus. Optatus2 and the author of the work de Hceres-
ibus, which Sirmond edited under the title of Prcedestinatus,
expressly call him a Carthaginian presbyter.3 Semler, however,
in a dissertation inserted in his edition of Tertullian's works
(c. 2), contends that he was a presbyter of the Roman Church.
We know, he argues, that Tertullian visited Rome ; for he speaks
of the profusion of pearls and precious stones which he saw
there.4 Eusebius tells us that he was accurately acquainted with
the Roman laws,5 and on other accounts a distinguished person
at Rome. He displays, moreover, a knowledge of the proceed
ings of the Roman Church with respect to Marcion and Valen
tinus,6 who were once members of it, which could scarcely have
been obtained by one who had not himself been numbered
among its presbyters. The question is of little importance,
nor do the arguments on either side appear to be of so con
vincing a nature as to warrant a peremptory decision. Semler
admits that, after Tertullian seceded from the Church, he left
Rome and returned to Carthage.
Jerome does not inform us whether Tertullian was born of
Christian parents, or was converted to Christianity. There are
passages in his writings which seem to imply that he had been a
Gentile : 7 yet he may perhaps mean to describe, not his own
condition, but that of Gentiles in general before their conversion.
Allix and the majority of commentators understand them literally,
as well as some other passages in which he speaks of his own
infirmities and sinfulness.8
1 De Pallia, c. I. Apology, c. 9. Scorpiace, «,-. 6. De Res. Carnis, c. 42.
2 Adv. Parmenianum, 1. i. 3 C. 26.
i De Cultu Fosminarum, 1. i. u. 7. " Gemmarum quoque nobilitatem vidimus
Romae," etc.
5 Eccl. Hist. 1. ii. c. 2. It should, however, be observed that Valesius,
following Rufinus, understood the words vm fjMkwTa. Irt 'P«/A*,f Xaprpw to mean
that Tertullian had obtained distinction among Latin writers.
6 De Prmscriptione Hmreticorum, c. 30.
7 " Pcenitentiam hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus, caeci, sine
Domini lumine, natura tenus norunt." De Pamitentid, c. 1. "Nobis autem et
via nationum patet, in qua et inventi sumus." De Fugd in Persec. c. 6. " Et
nationes, quod sumus nos." Adv. Marc. 1. iii. c. 21. " Haec et nos risimus
aliquando ; de vestris fuimus." Apology, c. 18.
8 De Cultu Fosm. 1. ii. c. 1. De Res. Carnis, c. 59. De Posnitentid, c. 4, 12.

6 The Ecclesiastical History of the
His writings show that he flourished at the period specified by
Jerome, that is, during the reigns of Severus and Antoninus
Caracalla, -or between the years 193 and 216; but they supply
no precise information respecting the date of his birth, or any of
the principal occurrences of his life. Allix places his birth about
the year 145 or 150; his conversion to Christianity about 185;
his marriage about 186 ; his admission to the priesthood about
192 ; his adoption of the opinions of Montanus about 199; and
his death about 220 : but these dates rest entirely upon con
jecture. 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 Eusebius 1 the
statement of an anonymous author, supposed by Lardner and
others to be Asterius Urbanus, who wrote it about thirteen years
after the death of Maximilla, one of the prophetesses who
accompanied Montanus. From this statement we learn that he
began to prophesy at Ardabau, a village in that part of Mysia
which was contiguous to Phrygia, while Gratus was proconsul of
Asia ; that many persons were induced to believe him divinely
inspired, particularly two females, Maximilla and Priscilla or
Prisca, who also pretended to possess the same prophetic gifts ;
that the fallacy of their pretensions was exposed, and their
doctrine condemned ; and that they were themselves excom
municated by different synods held in Asia. The same anony
mous author adds that Montanus and Maximilla hanged them
selves ; and that Theodotus, one of the earliest supporters of their
cause, was taken up into the air and dashed to pieces by the
spirit of falsehood, to whom he had consigned himself under the
expectation that he should be conveyed into heaven. The
author, however, tells us that he does not vouch for the truth of
either of these stories.
Considerable difference of opinion prevails respecting the
exact period when Montanus began to prophesy. The date of
the proconsulship of Gratus has not been ascertained ; but in
speaking of the persecution in which the martyrs of Lyons and
Vienne suffered, Eusebius says,2 that Montanus and his com-
De Patientid, c. i. In the tract de Idololatrid, c. 4, he says of himself, "Et
quid ego modicae memoriae homo ? "
1 Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 16.
2 Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 3. The martyrs addressed letters to the brethren in Asia
and Phrygia, as well as to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, respecting the New

Second and Third Centuries. 7
panions then began to be spoken of as prophets in Phrygia.
The seventeenth year of Marcus Antoninus, or the year 177, is
assigned by Eusebius himself as the date of the persecution in
Gaul. In speaking also of the works of Apollonius of Hierapolis,
who flourished about the year 170, Eusebius says * that he wrote
against the Cataphrygian heresy, of which Montanus then began
to lay the foundations. Epiphanius2 places the rise of this
heresy in the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius, or the year
157, in which date he is followed by Pearson and Beausobre ;
Baratier places it as early as 126. Lardner decides in favour
of the date assigned by Eusebius, whose authority on chrono
logical questions is more to be relied upon than that of
Epiphanius. It appears from the account given by the anonymous author
already quoted, that the followers of Montanus were numerous
and powerful.3 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. The general opinion
of Christians in those days, founded as they conceived on
apostolic authority, was that the spirit of prophecy would remain
in the Church until the second coming of Christ.4 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 wondering multitude as the surest signs of
divine inspiration.
From a long extract, given by Eusebius s out of the writings of
Apollonius against the Montanists, we collect that their leader
was charged with recommending married persons to separate;
Prophecy. Irenaaus does not expressly mention the Montanists, but is supposed
to allude to them twice, 1. iii. c. n, p. 223 ; 1. iv. c. 61. Clemens Alexandrinus
twice mentions the Cataphrygians. Strom. 1. iv. p. 511. A. 1. vii. p. 765 c.
1 Eccl. Hist. 1. iv. c. 27. 2 Har. 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 appears from Epiphanius to have herself foreseen this objection,
and to have furnished her followers with an answer by declaring that after her no
prophetess would appear, but the end of the world would come.
5 Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 18.

8 The Ecclesiastical History of the
with laying down laws respecting fasts ; 1 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
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 himself he says that he composed
his work forty years after Montanus began to prophesy.
The account given by Epiphanius of the Montanists is 2 that
they received both the Old and New Testaments, believed in the
resurrection of the dead, and maintained the catholic doctrine
of the Trinity. Their error consisted in supposing that Montanus,
Maximilla, and Priscilla were divinely inspired ; and maintaining
that the recognition of the Charismata, or spiritual gifts, announced
by Montanus, was of absolute necessity. The larger portion of
the account of Epiphanius is taken up in refuting the notions of
Montanus respecting inspiration ; and proving that the prophets
both of the Old and New Testaments, at the time when they
delivered their predictions, were in a state of complete self-
possession, and perfectly understood what they said. He gives
some specimens of the prophecies of Montanus and his female
associates, which are of the most extravagant character.3 In one
of them Montanus says, "I am the Lord God who dwell in man."
In another, " I am no angel or ambassador : I myself, God the
Father, am come." Yet Epiphanius seems not to have under
stood these expressions as designed to convey the idea that
Montanus represented himself to be God the Father. Otherwise
he would scarcely have said that the Montanists agreed with the
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
1 The expression is • vtitrnias vou.t>8iTyirKs. Montanus did not merely himself
observe additional fasts, but enjoined the observance of them by others.
2 Hear. 28 or 48. a Sect. 4, 10, n, 12, 13.

Second and Third Centuries. g
decease. The former observes, in confutation of her predictions,
that in the interval of thirteen years which had elapsed between
her death and the time at which he wrote, the world and the
Church had enjoyed profound peace ; the latter that, although
she had been dead 220 years, the world still continued to exist.
Epiphanius mentions also the respect entertained by the Mon
tanists in his day for a desolate spot in Phrygia called Pepuza,
once the site of a town, which had been levelled with the ground ;
and adds that they expected the heavenly Jerusalem to descend
there. To the general head of Cataphrygians he refers a number
of minor sects, called Quintilliani, Pepuziani, Priscilliani, Arto-
turitae, and Tascodrugitse.1 The first three were so called in
consequence of a vision seen by a female, of the name of
Quintilla or Priscilla,2 at Pepuza. The Artoturitas derived their
name from using bread and cheese in the celebration of Eucharist ;
nad the Tascodrugitae from their custom of putting the forefinger
on the nose in the act of prayer ; Tao-/c6s in the Phrygian language
signifying a stake, and Spovyyoi 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 favourite notion of enthusiasts in all ages of
the Church, that the heavenly Jerusalem would descend on
earth, and that the saints would reign there for a thousand
years.3 We find him also uniformly asserting the orthodoxy
of the Montanists upon the fundamental doctrines of Christi
anity; though with respect to the Trinity they appear to have
introduced certain novel illustrations of the generation of the
1 Ho3r. 29 or 49.
2 Tertullian wrote his treatise de Baptismo against a female named Quintilla,
who denied the necessity and efficacy of baptism. He describes her as belonging
to the sect of Cainites (Caiani), wild and profligate fanatics, who called Cain their
father, and regarded with particular veneration Esau, Corah, Judas, and all the
characters noted in Scripture for their opposition to the will of God. Perhaps,
therefore, Tertullian called Quintilla a Cainite from analogy only, because she set
herself against a divine ordinance, not because she was actually a member of the
Sect. 3 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.

i o The Ecclesiastical History of the
Son from the Father.1 We learn further from Tertullian that
Montanus denied to the Church the power of granting ab
solution 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.
Mosheim asserts,2 on the authority of the work already
quoted under the title of Prcedestinatus, 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 persecutions inflicted on His saints. The more judicious
and sober-minded Christians would naturally take alarm at
the open avowal of tenets, the necessary effect of which must
be to render their religion obnoxious to the ruling powers,
and to bring upon them fresh hardships and sufferings. We
have seen that Maximilla predicted the speedy approach of
those wars and tumults which were to precede the end of the
world ; and there are passages in Tertullian's works 3 which
lead to the suspicion that he entertained similar sentiments.
He appears, however, to have felt. the necessity of concealing
them, and is betrayed by the struggle between his conviction
and his prudence into occasional inconsistency of language.
He sometimes speaks as if Christians ought, at others as if
they ought not, to pray for the speedy consummation of all
things.4 One question still remains to be considered — What was the
precise nature of the pretensions of Montanus ? The two
passages, quoted by Epiphanius from his Prophecies, would
at first sight lead us to suppose that he gave himself out to
be God the Father. Some writers have thought that he pre
tended to be the Holy Ghost, who was incarnate in him, as
the Word was in Jesus. Mosheim appears at different times
1 " Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam Paracletus docet, sicut
radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et Sol radium." Adv. Praxeam, c. 8.
2 "De rebus Christianis ante Constantinum." Sceculum Secundum, c. 67.
3 See particularly the concluding chapter of the tract de Spectaculis, where
Tertullian's exultation at the prospect of the approaching triumph of the Chris
tians, and of the punishment of their adversaries, nearly gets the better of his
discretion. ' ' Quale autem spectaculum in proximo est adventus Domini jam
indubitati, jam superbi, jam triumphantis ? " See also de Oratione, c. 5.
4 Compare Apology, c. 32, 39 ; ad Scapulam, c. 2, with dc Oratione, u. 5 ; de
Res, Carnis, c. 22, sub in.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 1
to have held different opinions on the subject. In his work
de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum,1 he thus speaks
of Montanus : " Homo nullius nominis, minime malus, natura
tristis, debilisque judicii, morbo quodam animi in tantam in-
cidebat amentiam, ut Spiritum Sanctum seu Paracletum ilium
qui animaverat Apostolos Jesu Christi, divinitus sibi obtigisse
contenderet ad res futuras maximi momenti prasdicandas, et
morum vitaeque disciplinam, priori ab Apostolis tradita. sancti-
orem et meliorem, tradendam." But in his Ecclesiastical His
tory? he gives the following account of the pretensions of
Montanus : " Montanus pretended to be the Paraclete or Com
forter, whom the Divine Saviour, at His departure from the
earth, promised to send to His disciples to lead them into all
truth. Neither have they," he adds, "who inform us that
Montanus pretended to have received from above the same
Spirit or Paraclete, which formerly animated the apostles, in
terpreted with accuracy the meaning of this heretic. It is
therefore necessary to observe here that Montanus made a
distinction between the Paraclete promised by Christ to His
apostles and the Holy Spirit that was shed upon them on
the day of Pentecost; and understood by the former a divine
teacher, pointed out by Christ under the name of Paraclete
or Comforter, who was to perfect the gospel by the addition
of some doctrines omitted by our Saviour, and to cast a full
light upon others which were expressed in an obscure and
imperfect manner, though for wise reasons which subsisted
during the ministry of Christ. This Paraclete, Montanus repre
sented himself to be." It is scarcely necessary to observe
that the former statement is directly at variance with the
latter, which Mosheim professes to have collected from an
attentive perusal of Tertullian's writings. As my own perusal
of the same writings has conducted me to the conclusion that
the former, not the latter, is the correct representation of the
pretensions advanced by Montanus, I shall proceed to state the
reasons on which my opinion is founded.
Mosheim refers to no particular passage. Let us first turn
to the commencement of the treatise de Virginibus velandis,
which contains the fullest and most connected account of Ter
tullian's notions respecting the Paraclete. Having laid down
what he calls the immutable rule of faith respecting the Father
and the Son, Tertullian goes on to say " that those parts of the
1 Saculum Secundum, c. 66. 2 Century ii. c. 5, p. 237, note.

1 2 The Ecclesiastical History 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 perfection by Him who was substituted in the place
of the Lord, i.e. the Holy Spirit.1 Man in his earliest state was
directed by the fear of God implanted in his nature ; under the
law and prophets he was in his infancy ; under the gospel, in
his youth ; but now, through the Paraclete, he has reached the
state of perfect manhood." In this passage the Paraclete and
the Holy Spirit are clearly identified.
We will now proceed to the tract de Monogamia, in which
Tertullian is endeavouring to establish the superior sanctity of a
life of celibacy, and contending that the apostle's words, " It is
better to marry than burn," imply only a permission granted in
condescension to the infirmities of human nature.2 " Whether,
then," he proceeds, " we look to the grounds on which the per
mission was granted, of to the preference given to a state of
celibacy (in the preceding words of St. Paul, ' It is good for a
man not to touch a woman '), the evident tendency of the
apostle's reasoning is to do away the permission to marry. This
being so, why may not the same Spirit, coming after the days of
the apostles at the appropriate time (there being, according to
the Preacher, a time for all things) for the purpose of leading
Christians into all truth, — why may not, I say, the same Spirit
have imposed a final and complete restraint upon the flesh, and
called men away from marriage, not indirectly, but openly ? —
especially as St. Paul's argument, that ' the time is short,' is much
more forcible now that 160 years have elapsed since he wrote
his Epistle. Had such been the injunction of the Paraclete,
ought you not thus to have reasoned with yourself? This is
in truth the ancient discipline exhibited in the flesh and will
of the Lord (who was not married), and afterwards in the
1 " 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 Pr&scriptione Hcereticorum, c. 13: "Misisse
vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui credentes agat ;" and again, c. 28 : " Neglexerit
officium" Dei villicus, Christi vicarius. "
2 C. 3 : " Igitur si omnia ista obliterant licentiam nubendi," etc. It should be
observed that Tertullian's professed object, in the second and third chapters of the
tract dc Monogamid, is to show that although the injunctions of the Paraclete
were new and burdensome to human weakness, Christ had prepared the minds of
His followers to expect that such would be their character. Compare c. 14.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 3
recommendations and examples of His apostles. This is the
holiness to which we were originally destined. The Paraclete
introduces no new doctrine ; He now definitely enjoins that of
which He before gave warning; He now requires that for
which He has hitherto been content to wait. Reflect upon
these observations, and you will easily be convinced that it
was competent to the Paraclete to limit man to a single mar
riage ; since He might (in perfect consistency with the doctrine
of Christ and His apostles) have forbidden marriage altogether :
and if you rightly understand the will of Christ, you will admit
it to be credible that the Paraclete would curtail a liberty
which might with propriety have been wholly taken away. Nay,
you will acknowledge that, in this case also, the Paraclete is
your advocate, since He has not imposed upon your weakness
the obligation of absolute and undeviating continence." Surely
the fair inference to be deduced from the comparison of this
and the preceding passage is, not that Montanus pretended
to be the Paraclete,1 or made a distinction between the Para
clete promised by Christ to His apostles and the Holy Spirit
that was shed upon them on the day of Pentecost ; but that
Montanus conceived himself to be inspired by the same Spirit
as the apostles, though it was his peculiar office to close as
it were the Christian revelation, and to place in a clear and
refulgent light those sublime truths, those doctrines of per
fection, 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 Pentecost. To say that the Holy Spirit
inspired the apostles, and the Paraclete Montanus, is to make
a distinction only of words ; if, as is evident from the general
tenor of Tertullian's writings, he identified the Holy Spirit
with the Paraclete.2 It is true that Tertullian generally speaks
of the New Prophecy as proceeding from the Paraclete ; but
this is not invariably the case. In the treatise against Praxeas,
he calls it the prophecy of the Holy Spirit.3 He makes a dis-
1 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. n, he quotes some words, as spoken
by the Paraclete through the prophetess Prisca : " De quibus luculenter et Para
cletus per Prophetidem Priscam, ' Carnes sunt et carnem oderunt. ' "
2 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
rx altero. " Adv. Praxeam, c. 25. And in the tract de Jejuniis, c. 13, we find
" Spiritus Sanctus — qua Paracletus, id est, advocatus."
3 "Hie interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit, Spiritum Sanctum, tertium

14 The Ecclesiastical History of the
tinction between the revelations vouchsafed to the apostles
and to Montanus with respect to their different degrees _ of
perfection ; but none with respect to the source from which
they were derived. For in the tract de Prcescriptione Hcere-
ticorum, he says that " the Paraclete was the Teacher of the
apostles when they went forth to preach unto the Gentiles;"1
and, in the tract de Resurrectione Carnis, that " the Holy
Spirit, having previously allowed some doctrines to remain
involved in a certain degree of obscurity in order to prove
the faith of Christians, had now removed all ambiguities by
a clear and explicit development of the whole mystery of
the gospel, through the New Prophecy which had been poured
out abundantly from the Paraclete."2 My conclusion is, that
the pretensions of Montanus were correctly represented by
Augustine, when he said of him and his two female associates,
"Adventum Spiritus Sancti a Domino promissum in se potius
quam in Apostolis fuisse asserunt ; " 3 and by Philaster, accord
ing to whom the Montanists held that the fulness of the Holy
Spirit was not given to the apostles, but to Montanus.4 This
is also the view taken by Lardner ; 6 who says that " the fol
lowers of Montanus supposed God to have made some ad
ditional revelations by him for the perfection of believers."
But when Lardner, speaking of the comparative importance
attached by the Montanists to the revelations made to their
leader and to the apostles, contends that "they could not
think this inspiration of Montanus equal to that of the apostles,
as it did not relate to the great articles of faith, but chiefly to
matters of external order and discipline," he certainly does not
give an accurate representation of the opinions of our author;
who ought perhaps so to have reasoned, but in fact reasoned
otherwise. Tertullian, who believed that Montanus was com
missioned to complete the Christian revelation, could not deem
him inferior to the apostles, by whom it was only obscurely
nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum majestatis, unius praedicatorem monarchic
sed et oixovopias interpretatorem, si quis sermones Novae Prophetiae ejus admis-
erit," c. 30.
1 "Quod si nationibus destinati doctores Apostoli, ipsi#quoque doctorem con-
secuti erant Paracletum, " c. 8.
2 ' ' Sed quoniam nee dissimulare Spiritum Sanctum oportebat, quo minus et
hujusmodi eloquiis superinundaret, quae nullis haereticorum versutiis semina sub-
spargerent, imo et veteres eorum cespites vellerent, idcirco jam omnes retro
ambiguitates et quas volunt parabolas aperta atque perspicua totius sacramenti
praedicatione discussit per Novam Prophetiam de Paracleto inundantem." Sub
fine. 3 Liber de Hcsresibus, c. 26. 4 Hceres. Cataphryges.
5 Historv of Heretics. Of the Montanists, t. 19.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 5
and imperfectly developed ; nor can Lardner's statement be
reconciled with the distinguished appellation of Trvev[iaTiKoi, or
spiritual, which Tertullian confers on the Montanists ; while
he brands with the epithet of uVuxwcoi, or animal,1 those who,
though they believed all the fundamental articles of the Christian
faith, rejected the new revelation from the Paraclete.
Tertullian's works furnish presumptive proof that the effusions
of Montanus and his female associates had been committed to
writing. A passage has been already cited containing a saying
of the prophetess Prisca;2 and in the treatises de Fugd, in
Persecutione and de Pudicitia are citations from the discourses
of Montanus.3 Yet the work, from which Epiphanius made his
extracts, could not have been known to our author. Had he
been acquainted with it, he could scarcely have failed in his
treatise against Praxeas to give some explanation of expressions
which appear at first sight to identify Montanus with God the
Father. Such were the tenets and pretensions of Montanus, as far as
we can collect them from the writings of authors who lived near
his time; and particularly of Tertullian, who appears to have
adopted all his peculiar opinions. Some of his followers are
said to have fallen into great errors both of doctrine and prac
tice, though we may reasonably suspect that they were in many
instances charged with crimes which existed only in the inven
tion of their accusers. Montanus was evidently a man of weak
intellects, who was induced partly by a superstitious temper,
partly by the desire of distinction, himself to pursue, and to
recommend to others, an ascetic course of life.4 The austerity
of his doctrine and practice naturally gained him admirers and
1 " Homines solius animae et carnis." De Jejuniis, c. 17. 2 Note 38.
3 "Spiritum vero si consulas, quid magis Sermone illo Spiritus probat? namque
omnes pene ad Martyrium exhortatur non ad fugam, ut et illius commemoremur
' Publicaris, inquit : bonum tibi est. Qui enim non publicatur (T«;«Ji/>'/[t«T/JtT«i)
in hominibus, publicatur in Domino. Ne confundaris : justitia te producit in
medium. Quid confunderis, laudem ferens? Potestas fit quum conspiceris
ab hominibus.' Sic et alibi, 'Nolite in lectulis, nee in aborsibus et febribus
mollibus optare exire, sed in Martyriis, ut glorificetur qui est passus pro vobis.' "
De Fugd in Persec. c. 9. " Si et Spiritum quis agnoverit, audiet et fugitivos de-
notantem," 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 Pudicitid, c. 21.
4 The anonymous author in Eusebius imputes the conduct of Montanus to this
motive.

1 6 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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
severity of his fasts, his mind might occasionally become dis
ordered, and he might mistake for realities the creations of a
distempered fancy.
The notion that the doctrine of the gospel was not publicly
delivered by the apostles in its full perfection, but that certain
important truths were reserved which the minds of men were
not yet able to bear, does not appear to have been peculiar to
the school of Montanus. The Valentinians held a similar
language, and supposed these mysterious truths to relate to their
extravagant and unintelligible fancies respecting the Pleroma
and the successive generations of ^Eons.1 Even among the
orthodox, a notion not altogether dissimilar very generally pre
vailed. The principal object of the Stromata of Clemens
Alexandrinus is to point out the distinction between the Chris
tian who is perfected in knowledge (-vtuo-tikos), 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 imme
diate revelation from above, and of which the apostles were
ignorant. He supposes them to have been revealed by Christ
to Peter, James, and John, at the time of the Transfiguration,
and to Paul at a subsequent period ; and to have been by them
orally transmitted to their successors in the superintendence of
the Church.2 When, however, we come to inquire into the
nature of this sublime knowledge,3 we find that it consisted of
subtle explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity and of other
1 De Pr&scriptione H&reticorum, c. 25.
2 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, I. 14. p.
774, 1. 27. p. 802, 1. 36. p. 806, 1. 25. Ed. Potter. Mr. Rennell, in his Proofs oj
Inspiration, has inadvertently referred to the first of these passages as bearing
testimony to the inspiration of the New Testament, p. 46.
3 Clemens says that he is not at liberty to disclose fully and openly wherein
this ytSins consists, as it is of too pure and spiritual a nature to be comprehended
by Christians in general, 1. i. p. 327, 1. 41. The notion, if not originally sug
gested y certain passages in St. Paul's Epistles, was at least defended by a
reference to them. Strom. 1. v. p. 683, 1. 18.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 7
Christian doctrines ; of allegorical and mystical interpretations
of Scripture ; and of moral precepts not widely differing from
those, the observance of which was enjoined by Montanus, though
carried to a less degree of extravagance. For instance, Clemens1
does not pronounce second marriages positively unlawful, but says
that a man who marries again after the decease of his wife falls
short of Christian perfection. The notions of Clemens bear a
close affinity to mysticism, and are calculated to form a sort of
philosophic Christian, raised far above the sensible world, and
absorbed in sublime contemplations ; those of Montanus would
lead men to place the whole of virtue in bodily austerities and acts
of mortification : both may be justly charged with having assisted
in paving the way for the introduction of the monastic mode of life.
There is nothing more flattering to the pride of man than the
persuasion that he is the favoured depositary of knowledge
which is unattainable by the generality of his fellow-creatures ;
that, while they are destined to pass their lives amidst thick
clouds and darkness, he, with a select few, is permitted to bask
in the meridian sunshine of divine truth. Both the philosophy
and the religion of the Gentile world had their external and
internal doctrines ; and from them in an evil hour the distinction
was introduced into the Church of Christ. Clemens Alex-
andrinus is the earliest Christian writer in whose works any
allusion to it appears ; and we say that he introduced the dis
tinction in an evil hour, because on it and on the account which
he gives of its origin, are founded the two principal arguments
urged by Roman Catholics in defence of their doctrinal and
other corruptions. When driven from every other point, they
fly, as to a last refuge, to the disciplina arcani and to oral tradi
tion; 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 com
municated important truths to the apostles, which were neither
intended for the ear, nor adapted to the comprehension of the
great body of believers, and which had come down to his own
time through the medium of oral tradition.
But to return to Tertullian, his adoption of the opinions of
Montanus has, without the slightest semblance of truth, been
imputed by Pamelius and others to disappointed ambition. He
1 Strom. 1. hi. p. 548, 1. 26.

1 8 The Ecclesiastical History of the
was indignant, they say, because he was defeated in his pre
tensions to the see, either of Rome or Carthage. The true
cause of his defection from the Church is to be sought in the
constitution and temper of his mind ; to which the austere doc
trines and practice of the new prophet were perfectly congenial,
and of which the natural warmth and acerbity were, as Jerome
informs us, increased by the censures, perhaps by the misrepre
sentations, of the Roman clergy.1
Before we quit this part of the subject, it will be necessary to
obviate an objection, which the foregoing statement may possibly
suggest. " What reliance, it may be asked, can we place upon
the judgment, or even upon the testimony of Tertullian, who
could be deluded into a belief of the extravagant pretensions of
Montanus ? or what advantage can the theological student derive
from reading the works of so credulous and superstitious an
author ? " These are questions easily asked, and answered
without hesitation by men who take the royal road to theological
knowledge : who either through want of the leisure, or impatience
of the labour, requisite for the examination of the writings of
the Fathers, find it convenient to conceal their ignorance under
an air of contempt. Thus a hasty and unfair sentence of con
demnation has been passed upon the Fathers, and their works
have fallen into unmerited disrepute. The sentence is hasty,
because it bespeaks great ignorance of human nature, which
often presents the curious phenomenon of a union of the most
opposite qualities in the same mind ; of vigour, acuteness, and
discrimination on some subjects, with imbecility, dulness, and
bigotry on others. The sentence is unfair, because it condemns
the Fathers for faults 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 per
sons who argue thus in the case of the Fathers, argue differently
in other cases. Without intending to compare the gentle, the
amiable, the accomplished Fenelon, with the harsh, the fiery,
the unpolished Tertullian, or to class the spiritual reveries of
Madame Guyon with the extravagances of Montanus and his
prophetesses, it may be remarked that the predilection of
Fenelon for the notions of the mystics betrayed a mental weak
ness, 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 Fdnelon, throw aside his works
1 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum.

Second and Third Centuries.

19

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 instruc
tion and delight. Let us show the same candour and sound
judgment in the case of the Fathers; let us separate the wheat
from the tares, and not involve them in one indiscriminate
conflagration. The assertion may appear paradoxical, but is
nevertheless true, that the value of Tertullian's writings to the
theological student arises in a great measure from his errors.
When he became a Montanist, he set himself to expose what
he deemed faulty in the practice and discipline of the Church.
Thus we are told indirectly what that practice and that discipline
were ; and we obtain 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 genuine
ness and integrity of the books of the New Testament, or the
information relating to ceremonies, discipline, and doctrines of
the Primitive Church, Tertullian's writings form a most im
portant link in that chain of tradition which connects the
apostolic age with our own.
Attempts have been made to arrange Tertullian's works in
chronological order -,1 with how little success we may judge from
the diversity of opinions which has prevailed among learned
men respecting the date of a single tract, that entitled de Pallio.
1 For the better understanding of the remarks upon Tertullian's writings, the
dates of the principal events connected with the reign of Severus are inserted as
given by the Benedictines in their learned work, L' Art de Verifier les Dates.

Commencement of the reign of Severus,

¦ 193

Defeat of Niger, .

• 195
Taking of Byzantium,
196
Defeat of Albinus,
• 197
Caracalla associated in the empire,
r98
War against the Parthians,
. 198
Severus returns from that war,
203
Celebration of the secular games,
. 204
Plautianus put to death, .
204 or 205
War in Britain, .
. 208
Wall built by Severus,
210
Death of Severus,
211
Caracalla born,
188
 called Caesar,
196
 , , Augustus,
198
Geta born,
. 189
 called Caesar,
198
 ,, Augustus,
. 208
20 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 ex
cited the ridicule and censure of his fellow-citizens of Carthage ;
and he composed the treatise de Pallio in answer to their
attacks. Pamelius, with whom Scaliger agrees, supposes that it
is the earliest of Tertullian's works now extant, written imme
diately after his conversion to Christianity, on which occasion he
put on the pallium, the garment then universally worn by Chris
tians. Salmasius contends that the pallium was the dress, not
of Christians in general, but of presbyters only; and that the
tract was consequently written after the admission of Tertullian
into that order. Allix1 differs both from Pamelius and Salmasius,
and affirms that the pallium was worn only by those Christians
who adopted an ascetic course of life ; he concludes, therefore,
that the tract was written shortly after Tertullian openly professed
himself a Montanist. Each of the three critics supports his
opinions by quotations from the tract itself; and there is one
passage which at first sight would lead the reader to hope that
the date might be ascertained with a considerable degree of
precision. Tertullian2 says that three persons were then united
in the administration of the empire, and that the world enjoyed
profound peace. Unfortunately, the commentators cannot agree
among themselves whether the three emperors were Severus,
Antoninus Caracalla, and Albinus,3 or Severus, Antoninus Cara
calla, and Geta>;4 or whether the profound peace of which
Tertullian speaks was that which followed the suppression of
Niger's revolt, or that which the empire enjoyed during the
latter years of the life of Severus. Semler6 leans to the former
opinion, but admits that the question is involved in great
obscurity. In fact, the style of the treatise is so declamatory
and rhetorical, that no inference can be safely drawn from par
ticular expressions. To me,6 however, it appears to have been
1 Dissertatio de Tertulliani vild et scriptis, c. 6.
2 ' ' Quantum urbium aut produxit, aut auxit, aut reddidit praesentis Imperii
triplex Virtus! Deo tot Augustis in unum favente, quot census transcripti ! "
etc., c. 2.
3 A. S. 196. 4 A. S. 208. 5 Dissertatio in Tertullianum, c. 1.
8 This inference I draw from the following passages : — "Enimvero quum hanc
primum sapientiam vestit, quce vanissimis superstitionibus renuit, tunc certissime
pallium super omnes exuvias et peplos augusta vestis, superque omnes apices et
titulos sacerdos suggestus ; deduc oculos, suadeo, reverere habitum unius interim
erroris tui renuntiatorem," c. 4, sub fine. And again, "Sed ista pallium loquitur.
'At ego jam illi etiam divinae Sectre ac Disciplinaa commercium confero.' Gaude
pallium, et exulta ; melior jam te Philosophia dignata est, ex quo Christianum
vestire ccepisti, " c. 6.

Second and Third Centuries. 2 1
written as a defence of the general adoption of the pallium at
that period by the Christians of Carthage ; or perhaps of its
adoption by himself in particular, because he deemed it more
suitable to the Christian character.
The only work which supplies positive evidence of its date, is
the first book against Marcion. In c. 15, Tertullian says that
he is writing in the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor
Severus, or the year 207. 1 There is also positive evidence in
this book that the author was, when he wrote it, a believer in the
prophecies of Montanus.2
In a passage from the tract de Monogamia,3 already referred
to, Tertullian says, that 160 years had elapsed since St. Paul
addressed his First Epistle to the Corinthians. Pamelius in
consequence assigns the year 213 as the date of the tract,
conceiving that the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written
in 53. But in the first place, learned men are not agreed
respecting the exact date of the Epistle, some fixing it as late
as 59 ; and in the next, it is highly probable that Tertullian did
not speak with precision, but used round numbers. In the first
Address ad Nationes our author says, in one place that 250
years, in another that 300 years had not yet elapsed since the
birth of Christ : 4 it is evident, therefore, that in neither instance
did Tertullian mean to express the precise number.
Unable to discover in the works themselves any marks by
which their dates may be precisely ascertained, later critics have
been content to divide them into two classes ; those written
before Tertullian adopted the errors of Montanus, and those
written afterwards. But even on this point a diversity of
opinions subsists, and the commentators are not agreed to
which of the two classes each work belongs. Unless indeed
the tract contains some allusion to the Paraclete or to the New
Prophecy, we are not warranted in positively asserting that it
was written by a Montanist ; nor 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
1 " Ad decimum quintum jam Severi Imperatoris."
2 " Sed etsi nubendi jam modus ponitur, quern quidem apud nos Spiritalis Ratio,
Paracleto Auctore, defendit, unum in Fide matrimonium prcescribens," c. 29.
3 C. 3. See page 12.
4 The first number occurs in c. 7, the second in c. 9.

2 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
fact that one of the tenets maintained by that heresiarch occurs
in a particular work, is not of itself sufficient to prove that Ter
tullian, when it was written, was professedly a Montanist. There
were in that age, as in most ages of the Church, two parties, the
advocates of a milder and of a severer discipline. In the latter
class would be many whose opinions respecting the course of
life to be pursued by a Christian would not differ widely from
those of Montanus, although they might give no credit to his
pretended revelations from heaven. The natural disposition of
Tertullian would incline him to the more rigid side; yet it is
probable that a gradual change was effected in his sentiments,
and that, as he advanced in years, they continually assumed
a harsher and more uncompromising character. Such is the
usual progress of opinion, and we know that on two points at
least this change actually took place in his case, — the readmission
of penitents into the Church, and the degree of criminality to be
attached to a second marriage. As the inclination to the severe
discipline of Montanus always existed in Tertullian's mind, and
increased by slow and almost imperceptible degrees, it is scarcely
possible, in the absence of all external testimony, to draw a well-
defined line of separation between the works which were and
those which were not composed before his secession from the
Church. Having premised these observations respecting the diffi
culty 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 commentators to have been written
before Tertullian had become a follower of Montanus.
Erasmus doubted the genuineness of the tract de Pcenitentia,
partly on account of its superiority in point of style to the
acknowledged works of Tertullian, and partly because it con
tains opinions at variance with those which he has expressed in
the tract de Pudicitia. In the former,1 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 latter,2 he denies that adulterers, as well as idolaters and
murderers, can ever be reconciled to the Church. But in the
commencement of the tract de Pudicitia '¦' he himself alludes to
1 See c. 7, 8, 9. 2 See c. 5.
3 C. 1. " Erit igitur et hie adversus Psychicos titulus, adversus mea quoque
sentential retropenes illos societatem," etc.

Second and Third Centuries. 23
this change in his sentiments, which is also mentioned by
Jerome ; x and the necessary inference from a comparison of
the passages is, that the tract de Pcenitentia, is genuine, and
that it was composed while Tertullian was yet a member of the
Church. A passage in the fifth chapter of Hilary's Commentary on St.
Matthew2 implies that Tertullian composed the treatise de
Oratione before he quitted the communion of the Church. It
is certain that he mentions the Shepherd of Hermas 3 without
bestowing upon it any of those opprobrious epithets which he
employs in the treatise de Pudicitia,^ written after he became a
Montanist. Allix thinks that he discovers traces of a leaning to Mon
tanism in the tract de Baptismo. He founds his suspicions on
an allusion to the name of Pisciculi,5 which Tertullian applies
to the Christians, and on the mention of Charismata.6 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 this book,7 where Tertullian says that three
persons compose a church ; a notion which frequently occurs in
1 Epistle to Damasus on the parable of the Prodigal Son : ' ' Unde vehementer
admiror Tertullianum in eo Libro, quem de Pudicitia adversum Pcenitentiam
scripsit et sententiam veterem nov& opinione dissolvit, hoc voluisse sentire."
2 " De Orationis autem Sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus vir
Sanctae memoriae liberavit. Quamquam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum
scripserit ; sed consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem.'
3 C. 12. 4 C 10.
s ' ' Sed nos Pisciculi secundum <%8S» nostrum Jesum Christum in aqua nascimur, "
c. 1. Cicero says (de Divinatione, 1. ii. c. 34, or 11 1) that the original Sibylline
verses were acrostics ; and in the eighth book of the spurious verses are some
acrostics commencing with the initial letters of the words "In«>« Xeitrrls, 8eo5
Ti«, larie, of which letters the word lx,6!t -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.
1 " Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur,
necessario adjicitur Ecclesiae mentio ; quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus est," c. 6.

24 The Ecclesiastical History of the
the works confessedly written after he became a believer in the
New Prophecy.
Allix, in like manner, discovers a leaning to Montanism in the
two treatises ad Uxorem ; in the former of which Tertullian
dissuades his wife, in case she should survive him, from con
tracting a second marriage ; in the latter, fearful that she might
be unwilling to impose upon herself so severe a restraint, he
cautions her at least not to marry a heathen. This condescen
sion to human weakness is so utterly at variance with the harsh
language which he applied to second marriages after he became
a Montanist, that I cannot assent to the opinion of Allix.
In the tract ad Martyres is an allusion x to a practice which
then prevailed, of restoring penitents to the communion of the
Church, at the request of persons confined in prison on account
of their profession of Christianity. If we compare the tone of
this allusion with the pointed condemnation of the practice in
the tract de Pudicitia? we must, I think, conclude that Tertullian
was not yet a convert to Montanism when he wrote the tract ad
Martyres. The death of the philosopher Peregrinus, which
happened between the years 164 and 170, is mentioned in c. 4 ;
and the concluding sentence has been supposed, with great
appearance of probability, to relate to the numerous executions,
particularly of persons of the senatorial order, which took place
after the defeat and death of Albinus ; s 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 Patientia 4
and de Fuga in Persecutione, will lead to the conclusion that the
former was written while he was yet a member of the Church.
The treatise adversus Judceos is supposed by Pamelius to have
been written in the year 198; by Allix (after Baronius) in 208.
Allix grounds his opinion on the expressions respecting the state
of the Roman empire which occur in c. 7, and which he con-
1 C. 1. •' Quam pacem quidam, in Ecclesia non habentes, a Martyribus in carcere
exorare consueverunt. Et ideo eam etiam propterea in vobis habere et fovere et
custodire debetis, ut si forte et aliis praestare possitis."
2 C 22. * A. S. 197.
4C. 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.

Second and Third Centuries. 2 5
ceives 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 tract de
Prcescriptione ffcereticorum,1 that it was written after Tertullian
became a Montanist. But, as was observed with respect to the
tract de Baptismo, the context suggests no reason why we
should restrict the word to the peculiar gifts of the Paraclete of
Montanus. Allix also quotes a passage from the first book
against Marcion, from which he argues that it was prior to the
tract de Prascriptione Hcereticorum ; 2 the context leads me to
an opposite conclusion. Besides, had the tract been written by
a Montanist, some mention of the Paraclete would probably
have been introduced into the short summary of faith given
in c. 13 ; as is the case in the first chapter of the tract
de Virginibus velandis. The conclusion also warrants the
inference that it was written before all the treatises against
particular heresies.3 It was certainly prior to the tract de Came
Christi.^ It was also prior to the tract against Hermogenes,b in the first
chapter of which there is an allusion to it. Allix thinks that
Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote against Hermogenes,
because he charges that heretic with marrying repeatedly ; 6 but
I doubt whether the words are sufficiently precise to warrant the
inference. Great diversity of opinion prevails among the commentators
respecting the date of the Apology. Allix appears to me to have
shown satisfactorily that it was written, not at Rome, but at
1 C. 29.
2 " Sed alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus Hcsreticos, etiam sine
retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sint de Prasscriptione Novitatis.
Nunc quatenus admittenda congressio est, interdum, ne compendium Prascrip-
tionis ubique advocatum diffidentiae deputetur, regulam Adversarii prius prse-
texam, ne cui lateat in qua principalis quaestio dimicatura est," c. i.
3 C. 43. "Sed nunc quidem generaliter actum est a nobis adversus haereses
omnes, certis et justis et necessariis praescriptionibus repellendas a conlatione
Scripturarum. De reliquo, si Dei gratia annuerit, etiam specialiter quibusdam
respondebimus. "
4 C. 2. " Sed plenius ejusmodi praescriptionibus adversus omnes haereses alibi
jam usi sumus."
6 C. 1. " Solemus Hasreticis compendii gratis de posteritate praescribere."
6 C. 1. " Prasterea pingit illicite, nubit assidue. Legem Dei in libidinem
defendit. "

26 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Carthage ; 1 and it was addressed, not to the Senate, but to the
governors of Proconsular Africa.2 He has not, however, been
equally successful in proving that it was written so late as the
year 217. I cannot discover in the passage in which Tertullian
speaks of the reformation of the Papian laws any reason for
thinking that Severus was then dead ; 3 I should rather infer the
contrary. The allusion to the conspiracies which were daily
detected at the very time when the book was written,4 as well as
the enumeration of the barbarous nations which either then were,
or had recently been, at war with Rome,6 correspond to the
events which took place during the reign of Severus ; and as the
work contains internal testimony that the Christians were then
suffering persecution, why may it not have been written soon
after the promulgation of the law by which the Christians were
forbidden to make proselytes, that is, about the year 204 ? 6 The
date assigned by Mosheim, in a tract written expressly on the
subject, is 198. It was not to be expected that any marks of
Montanism would appear in the Apology.
The two books entitled ad Nationes have come down to U6 in
so imperfect a state that it is difficult to ascertain whether they
were designed to be a distinct work from the Apology, or whether
Tertullian at first wrought his materials into this form, which he
1 Speaking of Rome, Tertullian says, c. 9, " Ecce in ilia religiosissima urbe
^Eneadum;" and in c. 21, sub fine, he thus addresses the Romans: " Ut ad vos
quoque, dominatores gentium, aspiciam ;" and again, in c. 35, " Ipsos Quirites,
ipsam vernaculam septem collium plebem, convenio : " modes of expression which
he would scarcely have used had the tract been written at Rome.
2 In designating the persons to whom the Apology is addressed, he styles them
in general Praesides ; thus, "Veritatis extorquendae Praesides," c. 2. "Ex ipsis
etiam vobis justissimis et severissimis in nos Praesidibus," c. 9. " Hoc agite, boni
Praesides," c. 50. In c. 2 he uses the expression, "Hoc imperium cujus ministri
estis ; " and from a passage in c. 45, ' ' Deum non Proconsulem timentes," it may
fairly be inferred that he was writing in a province governed by a proconsul.
3 "Nonne vanissimas Papias Leges, quae ante liberos suscipi cogunt quam
Julias matrimonium contrahi, post tantae auctoritatis senectutem heri Severus
constantissimus Principum exclusit ? " c. 4.
4 " Unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini ? " and again, ' ' Sed et qui nunc scelestarum
partium socii aut plausores quotidie revelantur, post vindemiam parricidarum
racematio superstes," etc., c. 35. This passage appears to relate to the triumph of
Severus after his return from the Parthian war, and to the conspiracy of Plautianus,
which took place about the year 204.
6 C. 37. " Plures nimirum Mauri et Marcomanni ipsique Parthi."
6 The part taken by the Syrians of Palestine in favour of Niger greatly irritated
Severus, and probably gave occasion to this law. Ailii 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. Judaeos fieri sub
gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit," p. 904. Speaking shortly
afte of the inhabitants of Alexandria, he says, ' ' Multa praeterea his jura mutavit. "

Second and Third Centuries. 2 7
afterwards thought proper to change. The arguments are for
the most part the same as those urged in the Apology, and are
frequently expressed in the same words. Allix fancied that
he found an allusion to the assumption of the title of Parthicus
by Caracalla,1 and concluded, therefore, that these books were
written after the death of Severus ; but I suspect that the allusion
existed only in his own fancy.
The tract de Testimonio Animce was subsequent to the Apology,
to which it contains a reference. " Ut loco suo edocuimus ad
fidem earum (Divinarum Scripturarum) demonstrandam," c. 5.
The reference is to the nineteenth chapter of the Apology, in
which Tertullian establishes the superior antiquity of the Hebrew
Scriptures to the literature of the Gentiles.
The terms in which Tertullian speaks,2 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 ;8
as well as to a preternatural extinction of the sun's light, which
occurred at Utica, and which Allix supposes to have been an
eclipse of the sun that happened in the year 210. He agrees
with Scaliger and Holstenius in thinking that this was one of the
latest of Tertullian's works, and written about the year 217. In
c. 4, Tertullian mentions Cincius Severus among the governors
who treated the Christians with lenity. This governor was put
to death by Severus after the defeat and death of Albinus.4 The
tract contains no traces of Montanism, yet was probably written
after the author became a Montanist.
The treatises in which we find positive allusions to the
1 "Ita vero sit, quum ex vobis nationibus quotidie Caesares, et Parthici, et
Medici, et Germanici," 1. i. c. 17. Allix drew his inference from a passage in the
life of Caracalla which goes under the name of jEHus 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. 2 C. 4. The cure was performed by the use of oil. Severus laboured under an
arthritic complaint. sElii Spartiani Severus, p. 903 D.
3 C. 3. " Extincto pene lumine."
4 A.D. 198. sElii Spartiani Severus, p. 902 A.

28 The Ecclesiastical History of the
prophecies of Montanus are those — de Corona? de AnimA? de
Virginibus velandis? de Resurrectione Carnis? against Praxeas?
the first,0 third,7 fourth,s and fifth 9 books against Marcion, and
the tracts de Fuga, in Persecutione, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis,
and de Pudicitia. The four last-mentioned tracts are stated by
Jerome to have been composed by our author in direct opposition
to the Church, and their contents fully confirm the statement.
With respect to their order, we know only that the tract de
Monogamia was prior to that de Jejuniis™ which contains a
reference to it.
Gibbon affirms it "to be evident that Tertullian composed his
treatise de Corona long before he was engaged in the errors of
Montanus." n I am afraid that the historian was induced to
adopt this opinion because it assisted him in transferring the
sentiments expressed by Tertullian from the followers of Montanus
to the primitive Christians in general; and thereby to confirm
his representation of their rashness and extravagances. But the
allusion to the New Prophecy in the first chapter affords a com
plete refutation of the assertion. Gibbon also supposes the event
which gave occasion to the treatise to have happened at Carthage,
when a donative was distributed to the soldiers by the Emperors
Severus and Caracalla, and consequently before the title of Caesar
was conferred on Geta, that is, before the year 198. But should
we allow the correctness of this date to be better ascertained than
it really is, the only inference to be drawn from it would be, that
even at that early period Tertullian had openly avowed his belief
in the prophecies of Montanus. There is, moreover, in this
tract an allusion to a tract on Public Spectacles,"12 which Tertullian
composed in Greek ; if it agreed with the Latin tract now extant,
he was probably a Montanist when he wrote it. Tertullian
appears in the tract de Corona to announce his intention of
writing the Scorpiace.13
The second book against Marcion affords an example of the
difficulty of accurately determining from the treatises themselves
1 C. 1. " Qui prophetias ejusdem Spiritus Sancti respuerunt. "
2 Cc. 9, n, 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.
3 Cc. 1, 17. 4 C. 11. s Cc. 1, 2, 8, 13, 30. e C. 29. ? C. 24.
* C. 22. 9 C. 16. " Ut docent Veteres et Novae Prophetiae."
10 C. 1. n Chapter 15, note 49.
12 "Sed et huic materiae propter suaviludios nostros Graeco quoque stilo satis-
fecimus," c. 6, sub, fine.
13 C. 1. " Sed de quasstionibus confessionum alib docebimus. "

Second and Third Centuries. 29
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 Came Christi, though we
find in it an express reference to the fourth book against Marcion?
and to the Scorpiace,2 in which we also find a reference to the
works against Marcion. Jerome, in his work against Vigilantius,
c. 3, says that the latter tract was written against the Cainites, a
branch of the Gnostics, who appear to have spoken contemptu
ously of martyrdom, and to have dissuaded Christians in times
of persecution from exposing themselves to danger by an open
profession of their faith ; contending that he was the true martyr,
nap-ris, who bore testimony to the gospel by his virtuous life and
conversation.3 Here, then, we might expect to find strong proofs
of Tertullian's Montanism ; yet they do not occur. There is in
the Scorpiace an allusion to the establishment of the Pythian
games at Carthage, as if it had recently taken place.4
If the Proculus, whom Tertullian calls Proculus noster,6 and
mentions with respect in his treatise against the Valentinians, was
the same, to whose dispute or dialogue with Caius both Eusebius
and Jerome refer,6 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 that of asking revelations
from heaven.7 The introduction of the New Jerusalem in the
last chapter,8 when compared with the final chapter of the fourth
book against Marcion, supplies in my opinion far more decisive
proof of his Montanism. Allix has shown satisfactorily that it
was written, not at Rome, but at Carthage.9 It was prior to the
1 C. 7. " Audiat igitur et Apelles quid jam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo
libello, quo ad Evangelium ipsius provocavimus." The reference is to c. 19.
2 C. S- " 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.
3 Compare Irenaeus, 1. iii. c. 20 ; 1. iv. c. 64 ; ¦ and Clemens Alexandrinus, 1. iv.
c. 4, p. 571, 1. 10.
4 "Adhuc Carthaginem singulae civitates gratulando inquietant, donatam
Py thico Agone post stadii senectutem, " c. 6.
5 C. 5.
6 Hist. Eccl. 1. vi. c. 20. Catalogus Scriptorum Eccl. sub Caio.
7 C. 29. " Quod revelationes petis."
8 ' ' Qualis Civitas nova Hierusalem? "
9 ' ' Quanta praeterea Sacra, quanta Sacrificia praecedant, intercedant, succedant,
quot Collegia, quot sacerdotia, quot officia moveantur, sciunt homines illius urbis

30 The Ecclesiastical History of the
tract de Idololatri&x and the 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. In the tract de
Idololatria3 Allix fancies that he discovers an allusion to the
festivities which took place at Carthage, when the birthday of
Geta was celebrated in the year 203.
The notion that three persons compose a church has been
already mentioned as indicative of Montanism.4 It occurs in
the tract de Exhortatione Castitatis : 6 yet I am led to infer,
from a comparison of this tract with that de Monogamia, that
Tertullian, when he wrote it, had not embraced the tenets of
Montanus in all their rigour.
Perhaps we shall not deviate very widely from the truth, if we
adopt the following classification of Tertullian's works, without
attempting to arrange them in the order in which they are written.
Works probably written while he was yet a member of the
Church : — De Pcenitentia.
De Oratione.
De Baptismo.
The two books ad Uxorem.
Ad Martyres.
De Patientia,
Adversus Judasos.
De Praescriptione Hasreticorum.6
Works certainly written after he became a Montanist : —
First book against Marcion.
Second book against Marcion.7
(Romas) in qua Daemoniorum conventus consedit," c. 7. " Proinde tituli:
Olympia Jovi, quas sunt Romae Capitolina," c. 11. Observe also the use of the
word Praesides in the last chapter.
1 C. 13. 2 C. 8. 3 C. 15. 4 P. 48.
6 C. 7. "Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laid." Compare de Pudicitid, c. 21.
Pamelius supposes that the three persons alluded to in the latter passage were
Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla ; but, as it appears to me, without sufficient
grounds. * Referred to in the first book against Marcion, c. 1 ; adv. Praxeam, t. 2 ; de
Cai-ne Christi, c. 2 ; adv. Hermogenum, c. 1.
1 Referred to in the Scorpiace, c. 5. In the treatise de Animd, c. 21, where
the allusion is to c. 5. De Res. Carnis, cc. 2, 14.

Second and Third Centuries. 3 1

De Anima.1
Third book against Marcion.
Fourth book against Marcion.2
De Carne Christi.3
De Resurrectione Carnis.4
Fifth book against Marcion.
Adversus Praxeam.
Scorpiace.5De Corona Militis.
De Virginibus Velandis.
De Exhortatione Castitatis.
De Fuga in Persecutione.
De Monogamia!.8
De Jejuniis.
De Pudicitia.

Works probably written after he became a Montanist : —
Adversus Valentinianos.
Ad Scapulam.
De Spectaculis.7
De Idololatria.
The two books de Cultu Foeminarum.
Works respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced: -
The Apology.
The two books ad Nationes.
The Tract de Testimonio Animas.8
De Pallio.
Adversus Hermogenem.
1 Referred ,to in the tract de Res. Carnis, cc. z, 17, 45. Compare cc. 18
and 21.
2 Referred to in the tract de Carne Christi, c. 7.
3 Referred to in the tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 2. See also the con
cluding words of the tract de Carne Christi.
4 Referred to in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 10.
6 In c. 4, Tertullian speaks as if he had already refuted all the heretics.
6 Referred to in the tract de Jejuniis, c. 1.
7 Referred to in the tract de Idololatrid, c. 13, and in the first book de Cultu
Foeminarum, c. 8. In the tract de Corond, c. 6, is a reference to the Greek
tract de Spectaculis.
s Subsequent to the Apology, see c. 5. Prior to the tract de Carne Christi, in
the twelfth chapter of which it is quoted.

32 The Ecclesiastical History of the
In addition to the works already enumerated, Tertullian com
posed others not now extant : —
A treatise entitled de Paradiso.1
Another, de Spe Fidelium.2
Six books de Ecstasi,3 and a seventh against Apollonius, men
tioned by Jerome in his account of our author.
A tract against the Apelliaci, or followers of Apelles.4
A tract against Hermogenes,6 entitled de Censu Animas.
In the treatise de Anima, Tertullian mentions his intention
of discussing the questions of Fate and Free-Will, upon the
principles of the gospel.6
Jerome mentions other works of Tertullian : —
One de vestibus Aaron.7
One ad Amicum Philosophum : 8 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
voliimen 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 Animas Summissione, De
Superstitione Sasculi, De Carne et Anima. The tracts them
selves are not extant in the MS..; which appears at one time to
have contained the tracts de Paradiso and de Spe Fidelium.
1 Mentioned in the tract de Animd, c. 55, and in the fifth book against
Marcion, c. 12.
2 Mentioned in the third book against Marcion, c. 24, and by Jerome in his
account of Papias.
3 There is an illusion to the books de Ecstasi in the fourth book against
Marcion, c. 22.
4 Mentioned in the treatise de Carne Christi, c. 8.
5 Mentioned in the treatise de Animd, cc. 1, 3, 22, 24. 6 c_ 20.
7 Epistola ad Fabiolam de veste Sacerdotali, sub fine.
8 Epistola 22, ad Eustochium de Custodid 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.

Second and Third Centuries. 33
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 litera
ture that was studied in his day. Eusebius 2 mentions particu
larly his knowledge of Roman law,3 which displays itself in his
frequent use of legal terms; and his quotations embrace not
only the poetry and history, but also the natural philosophy 4 and
medical science of antiquity.6 The Greek language must have
been familiar to him, as he composed in it three treatises,6
not now extant. So great indeed was his reputation for genius
and learning that, notwithstanding his secession from the Church,
succeeding ecclesiastical writers always speak of him with high
respect. Cyprian, as we have seen, called him his master, and
never passed a day without reading some portion of his works.
We cannot, however, among the merits of Tertullian, reckon that
of a natural, flowing, and perspicuous style. He frequently
hurries his readers along by his vehemence, and surprises them
by the vigour as well as inexhaustible fertility of his imagination ;
but his copiousness is without selection ; and there was in his
character a propensity to exaggeration, which affected his lan
guage 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 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 season ; both were deficient
in taste, discrimination, and judgment. In one of his letters to
Mr. Fox, Mr. Wakefield complains that the "words of Tertullian,
Arnobius, Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, and Ammianus Marcellinus,
are usually marked in dictionaries as inelegant and of suspicious
authority, when they are, in reality, the most genuine remains
1 Cent. ii. c. 5, sect. 23.
2 Hist. Eccl. 1. ii. c. 2.
3 See the tract de Animd, c. 6, sub fine.
4 He appears to have been well acquainted with Pliny.
5 See the tract de Animd, cc. 2, 6.
6 Those de Spectaculis (see de Corond, 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
Prcesript. Haret. c. 6 ; adv. Hermogenem, ca 19, 40 ; adv. Praxeam, c. 3 ; ad
Scapulam, c. 4 ; de Idololatrid, 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.
E

34 The Ecclesiastical History of the
of pure Roman composition," or as he previously expressed
himself, "of the language of the old comedians and tragedians,
of Ennius and Lucilius." x I am far from intending to assert
that this statement is wholly destitute of foundation. When
I have myself been obliged to consult the dictionaries for the
meaning of some strange and portentous word which crossed me
in my perusal of Tertullian's works, I have occasionally found
that it had been used by Plautus ; but the general opinion
which I have formed respecting Tertullian's Latinity cannot
be better expressed than in the words of the learned Ruhnken :
" Fuit nescio quis — qui se pulchre de Latina Lingua meriturum
speraret, si verba et verborum constructiones ex Tertulliano —
in Lexicon referret. A cujus sententia. dici vix potest quanto-
pere dissentiam. Sit Tertullianus quam velis eruditus, sit omnis
peritus antiquitatis ; nihil impedio ; Latinitatis certe pessimum
auctorem esse aio et confirmo. At usus est sermone eo quo
tunc omnes Afri Latine loquentes utebantur.
Atopi'o-Sej' 8 e£eo"ri, Sokw, rots Aoopieeao'tv.
Ne hoc quidem concesserim. Nam si talis Afrorum sermo fuit,
cur, non dicam Apuleius et Arnobius scriptores priscae elegante
studiosi, sed Cyprianus, etc., aliter locuti reperiuntur ? Quid
ergo ? Fecit hie, quod ante eum arbitror fecisse neminem.
Etenim quum in aliorum vel summa infantia tamen appareat
voluntas et conatus bene loquendi, hie, nescio qua ingenii per-
versitate, cum melioribus loqui noluit, et sibimet ipse linguam
finxit duram, horridam, Latinisque inauditam ; ut non mirum
sit per eum unum plura monstra in Linguam Latinam, quam per
omnes Scriptores semi-barbaros, esse invecta."2
¦ In the preceding remarks we have all along taken for granted
that the works, the dates of which we have been investigating,
were composed by an individual named Tertullian. This fact
we conceived to be established by testimony precisely similar to
that by which the genuineness of the works of every author is
ascertained — by the testimony of writers whose proximity to the
times in which he lived, and whose opportunities of information
rendered them competent to form a correct opinion on the sub
ject. We are told that Cyprian, who was Bishop of Carthage
within forty years after the period at which Tertullian lived there,
held his works in the highest estimation ; and in confirmation of
this statement we find that Cyprian frequently repeats, not only
1 Letter 54. 2 Prafatio ad Schelleri Lexicon.

Second aud Third Centuries. 35
the sentiments, but even the words contained in the writings now
extant under his name. We find Eusebius,1 a diligent inquirer
into all points connected with ecclesiastical history, quoting
within a century after Tertullian's death one of his works which
had been translated into Greek, and speaking of him as well
known in the capital of the world.2 We find Jerome, who has
left us a catalogue of ecclesiastical authors accompanied by
succinct accounts of their lives and writings, quoting various
works of Tertullian without giving the slightest hint that he
entertained a doubt of their genuineness. We find him quoted
by Augustine,3 who had resided at Carthage and made inquiries
there respecting the sect which bore his name ; and by subsequent
writers, who may be deemed too far removed from his time to be
received as independent witnesses. Here surely is a chain of
testimony sufficient to satisfy even a sceptical mind. It did not,
however, satisfy that of Semler, who in a dissertation, inserted
in his edition of Tertullian's works,4 endeavours to fix a mark
of spuriousness, not only upon them, but also upon the writings
which are extant under the names of Justin Martyr and Irenasus.
His theory is, that all those works, though bearing the names of
different authors, proceeded from one and the same shop estab
lished at Rome ; and were the produce of the joint labours of
a set of men, who entered into a combination to falsify history
and corrupt the Scriptures, principally with the view of throwing
discredit upon certain persons, Marcion, Valentinus, etc., whom
they thought fit to brand with the title of heretics.5 This, it
must be allowed, is a theory which, for novelty and singularity,
will bear a comparison with the boldest speculations of the
German critics. Let us therefore inquire upon what foundations
it rests ; first observing that we neither profess, nor deem it
incumbent upon us, to give a full and complete solution of all
the doubts and difficulties which an ingenious mind may frame,
1 L. ii. c. 2. The only work of Tertullian quoted by Eusebius is the Apology,
which he states to have been translated into Greek, and with which alone he
appears to have been acquainted. He was perhaps little versed in the Latin
language, and had never met with the tracts composed by Tertullian himself in
Greek, which were of less general interest than the Apology.
2 If we adopt the interpretation suggested by Valesius, after Rufinus, of the
words ra» fiMUtrrn. iwi "SiifLw kxfi.vp£v, "inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus,"
the inference will be strengthened.
3 Liber de Ho3resibus, 86. Tertullianista. 4 Hal& Magdeburgicce, 1770.
5 " Ex una atque eadem officina quidam libri videntur prodiisse quos studio-
sissimfe solebant variis et diversis Scriptoribus dlvidere. Antiquissima fuit haec
Societas et impensa sive ab uno sive a duobus dlligentia, quae cum Romand ilia,
tam Graeca quam Latina, Societate nova videtur sic cohaerere ut communi con-
silio operam dederint." Sect x. See also the concluding section.

36 The Ecclesiastical History of the
in order to disprove the genuineness of works written sixteen
centuries ago. Were this requisite, vain would be the attempt
to establish the genuineness of any work of great antiquity ; for
by the mere lapse of time many facts and circumstances are con
signed to oblivion, the knowledge of which can alone enable us
to dispel all obscurity and to reconcile all seeming contradictions.
In these cases we must not expect demonstration, but be content
to weigh probabilities and ascertain on which side the evidence
preponderates. To proceed then to Semler's proofs, or rather surmises, for the
latter appears the more appropriate term. He first complains
that the allusions contained in these books to the life and history
of their author are very scanty and obscure, and afford no useful
information.1 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.2
But this insinuation is utterly unsupported by proof. The author,
whoever he may be, certainly meant his readers to suppose that
he lived in the time of Severus ; and his statements in many
points accord, in none are at variance with the accounts handed
down to us by the historians of that Emperor's reign. The
manners and customs which he describes, the transactions to
which he alludes, correspond with the information which we
derive from other sources. Still his works . may be wholly of a
fictitious character ; he may have invented the circumstances
which are supposed to have occasioned them — the calumnies
against which he defends the Christians — the persecutions which
he exhorts them to bear with constancy — the heretical opinions
which he undertakes to confute ; and he may have occasionally
interspersed historical facts in order to give his inventions an air
of probability. All this we may allow to be possible. But what
are we to think of the Montanism of our author ? was that also
fictitious ? What could induce a member of Semler's new
Roman society, who comes forward at one time as the apologist
for Christianity and the vehement champion of orthodoxy, to
assume at another the character of a separatist from the Church?
This fact appears to be wholly irreconcilable with Semler's
1 ' ' Solent autem mediocria et parum luculenta esse, quae horum Librorum
Auctor de se et de suis rebus commemorat." Sect. i.
2 ' ' Solet enim hie Scriptor Declamatorum imitari exemplum qui ipsi confingunt
.argumenti, quod sibi desumpserunt, tempus, et omnes lUas rerum Appendices
quibus tempora solent commode et studiose distingui." Sect. i.

Second and Third Centuries. 37
theory. It should also be observed that the few notices of
Tertullian's personal history which occur in his works are not
introduced with any parade, or in order to answer a particular
purpose, but in that incidental manner which has usually been
deemed most strongly indicative of truth.
Semler next proceeds to consider Jerome's account of Tertul
lian, on which he remarks that had Jerome been able to discover
more particulars of our author's life, he would certainly have
inserted them.1 This is by no means clear ; for the extreme con
ciseness with which he has drawn up his notices of ecclesiastical
writers proves that he made no laborious researches into the
history of their lives, but contented himself with such informa
tion as happened to fall in his way. Semler further conjectures
that even the particulars in Jerome's brief account were not
derived from independent sources, but collected from Tertullian's
works.2 This may be partly true ; he might have inferred from
different passages that Tertullian was born in Africa, resided at
Carthage, and flourished during the reigns of Severus and Cara
calla. But, not to mention the story respecting Cyprian's
admiration of Tertullian, for which he gives his authority, whence
did he learn that Tertullian remained a presbyter of the Church
until he reached the middle age of life, and was extremely old
when he died ? It may be doubted whether the generality of
readers, unless they had previously learned the fact from some
other source, would infer, from the perusal of the works now
extant, that Tertullian had ever been admitted to the order of
priesthood. Semler finds another difficulty in Jerome's account, which
begins thus : " Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post
Victorem et Apollonium Latinorum ponitur." The obvious
meaning of these words is that Jerome had at length, after
enumerating so many Greek authors, arrived at the place which
Tertullian's name was to occupy ; he being the first Latin
ecclesiastical writer after Victor and Apollonius" of whom Jerome
had before spoken. Semler thinks that the more accurate state
ment would have been that Tertullian was the first presbyter
who used the Latin language, and that this was in fact Jerome's
1 " Haec Hieronymus ; qui profecto, si plura requirere atque discere potuisset ad
historiam Tertulliani facientia, haud dubie hie omnino perscripsisset." Sect. 2.
2 ' ' Nisi quidem putemus talia Hieronymum ipsum conjecturis reperisse ex variis
horum scriptorum locis. " Sect. ii.

38 The Ecclesiastical History of the
meaning ; x an assertion in which few of his readers will, I con
ceive, be disposed to acquiesce. But how, asks Semler, can
Tertullian be called the first presbyter who used the Latin
language, when he himself says that he composed several
treatises in Greek ? I must confess myself at a loss to discover
the slightest inconsistency between the two statements. If an
author composes three treatises in Greek, and two or three and
twenty in Latin, may he not with propriety be classed among
Latin writers ? It is probable that Jerome had never met with
Tertullian's Greek compositions ; it is nearly certain that Euse
bius had not.
"But," continues Semler, "in the beginning of the treatise
de Testimonio Animce, 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. This, he contends, is a mere fiction of the author's
brain.2 In vain, he says, shall we seek in the history of the
Church for a confirmation of this statement ; in vain try to dis
cover any traces of those learned works by which the early
apologists for Christianity asserted its cause. Had such writings
ever existed, they could not have been unknown to Eusebius and
Jerome, who are, however, entirely silent on the subject." These
are bold affirmations. Let us inquire how far they are supported
by proof. The ecclesiastical writers whom Tertullian mentions
by name are Justin Martyr, Tatian, Miltiades, and Irenasus.3
All of 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, " men of reading and well acquainted with
the Greek learning." 4 We are also in possession of the Apology
1 ' ' Optare licet, ut Hieronymus scripsisset et nan-asset accuratius, Tertullianus
Ldtinorum presbyter primus est ; nempe id vult Hieronymus eorum hominum,
qui Romae Latind lingud uti solebant, Tertullianus fuit primus presbyter. At hie
idem Tertullianus Grcscarum multarum Scriptiomtm se auctorem dixit ; quomodo
igitur Latinorum dicitur primus esse Romanus presbyter?" Sect. x.
2 " Confictum est 'hoc argumentum universum declamatorum more ; nisiputamus
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
Preparatione 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. Audemus, igitur, statuere scriptorem talia
ultro confinxisse, ex suo ingenio rem illam arbitratum." Sect x.
3 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. He also mentions Clemens Romanus and
Hermas, but they do not appear to have written in defence of Christianity.
4 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 13.

Second and Third Centuries. 39
of Athenagoras, and the work of Theophilus against Autolycus ;
both of which were prior in time to the Apology of Tertullian,
and contain, especially the former, frequent references to profane
literature as well as arguments drawn from the heathen philo
sophy in defence of Christianity. But the most extraordinary
part of Semler's statement is that which respects Jerome ; among
whose works is an epistle, entitled ad Magnum Oratorem? and
written expressly to defend his own practice of 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 Emperor Adrian,
and describing the work of the latter as almost entirely composed
of opinions taken from the philosophers.2 He adds that Apolli-
narius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tatian, Bardesanes, and Irenasus
had carefully pointed out the different philosophical sects tp
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 him
self entirely to scriptural testimonies, the authority of which
Demetrianus did not acknowledge, and had not appealed to
the poets and philosophers, whose authority a heathen could
not have disputed. The apologists for Christianity were well
aware that no writings which did not bespeak an acquaintance
with the learning and philosophy of the age, would gain a
moment's attention from a heathen philosopher ; and they
accordingly adapted their mode of reasoning to the temper and
prejudices of the persons with whom they had to deal. The
remarks with which Tertullian prefaces his tract de Testimonio
Animce are meant as an apology for deviating from the estab
lished course, ' and appealing, not to the speculations of the
philosophers, but to the testimony borne by the soul of man in
favour of the doctrines of Christianity.
" But even," continues Semler, " if such works as 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."3 Why
not? Was the communication between the different parts of
1 Ep. 84. - Contextum Philosophorum sentcntiis.
3 ' ' Pamelii sententiam vel illud evertit ; Tertullianus Romas, Carthagine, tot
scriptorum libellos, qui inter Graecos satis remoti ab istis urbibus vivebant,
nancisci non potuft." Sect, x.

40 The Ecclesiastical History of the
the Roman Empire so difficult that years must elapse before a
work published in Greece could be known at Rome or Carthage ?
Let us hear the opinion of Gibbon. Speaking of the public
roads as they existed in the time of the Antonines, he says that
" they united the subjects of the most distant provinces by an
easy and familiar intercourse." 1 With respect to the Christians
in particular, he states that, by the institution of provincial
synods, which took place towards the end of the second cen
tury, a regular correspondence was in the space of a few years
established between the most remote Churches.2 We find ac
cordingly the Churches of Vienne and Lyons well acquainted
with the state of the Asiatic Churches ; and Irenaeus, the Bishop
of Lyons, acting the part of a mediator between the latter and
the Roman pontiff, in the dispute which arose respecting the
celebration of Easter.
' The mention of Irenasus leads me to consider another of
Semler's objections. " Who," he asks, " can read the works of
Irenasus which are now extant without being convinced that the
author was alike deficient in talent and information?3 Yet
Tertullian has designated him as a minute inquirer into all
kinds of learning (or doctrine). Does not this grossly inap
plicable eulogium clearly bespeak the sophist and declaimer ? "
To this objection we reply, that we are scarcely competent to
form an opinion respecting the talent of Irenasus from a work
which, with the exception of part of the first book and some
scattered fragments, is extant, not in the original, but in a
barbarous Latin translation. From the portions of the original
which still remain we should infer that he possessed one of
the most useful qualifications of an author — that of being
able to write perspicuously upon a very obscure and un
promising subject. What ground, moreover, is there for
supposing that Tertullian, in pronouncing this eulogium upon
Irenasus, referred only to the single work, now extant,
against the Gnostics? Eusebius gives a list of other works
written by him, and uniformly speaks of him as a person to
1 Chap. i. p. 51. Ed. 4to. 2 Chap. xv. p.. 491.
3 " Quis autem sine taedio et stomacho legat istam declamationem, 'Irenasus,
omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator?' Nos certe statuimus, hoc
encomium monstro non carere. Ea, quae nobis supersunt, Irenasi profecto
hominis ingenium humile et parum excultum pras se ferunt ; ista vero Ter-
tulliani 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.

Second and Third Centuries. 41
whose authority great weight was attached in all ecclesiastical
concerns.1 But Tertullian, it seems, was not content with praising; he
also borrowed from Irenasus, and that too without acknowledg
ment.2 His treatise against the Valentinians is not merely an
imitation ; it is in many places a translation of the first book of
that author's work ; yet he gives not the slightest intimation of
the source from which he has drawn so largely. How are we to
account for this extraordinary fact ? Only, as Semler would
persuade us, by adopting his theory, that there existed a club
of authors who " sent forth their own productions into the
world under borrowed names, and appeared at one time as the
Greek Irenasus, at another as the Latin Tertullian." But if this
were so, whence arises the great inequality which Semler himself
has discovered between them? How comes it that, while the
works of Tertullian exhibit such an extent and variety of know
ledge, those of Irenasus, according to Semler, betray a miserable
poverty of intellect and learning ? 3
The close resemblance between Tertullian and Irenasus in the
case alluded to may, in our opinion, be satisfactorily accounted
for. The design of the first book of Irenasus and of Tertullian's
treatise is precisely the same — to explain the doctrine of the
Valentinians respecting the generation of yEons ; 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, indeed, is Semler's assertion that Tertullian has
not even named Irenasus ; whom he has named, even in the very
passage which Semler quotes, in conjunction with Justin,
Miltiades, and Proculus.4 He there states that all these writers
1 Hist. Eccl. 1. v. c. 26.
2 "Jam novas rei alius superest cbservatio, quae non parum facit ad illus-
trandam hujus suspicionis rationem. Ista enim Irenasi, quas sunt nostris in
manibus, scripta, si comparantur cum his Tertulliani nostri, mirifice conveniunt.
Scimus autem Tertullianum istum esse illorum primum qui Irenasi nomen re-
citant inter scriptores ; nempe omnium doctrinarum curiosissimum exploratorem
dicebat Irenaeum noster Tertullianus. Si vero ille Irenasus Lugduni scripsit
istos libros adversus haereses, quomodo Tertullianus isto jam tempore hoc (1.
hos) libros oculis et manibus usurpavit suis? Quo autem jure sic fecit Ter
tullianus, ut ex Graeco illo textu Irenasi sublegeret sua et Latine repeteret, quas
ille creditur scripsisse Grasce? 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.
3 See the quotation from section x. in note 166.
4 ' ' Nee undique dicemur ijpsi nobis finxisse materias quas tot jam viri sancti-

42 The Ecclesiastical History of the
had refuted the Valentinians ; and declares that it is his earnest
wish to imitate them, not only in this work of faith (the
refutation of heresy), but in all others. He has therefore
told his reader, as plainly as he could, that in this treatise he
is only an imitator; and his occasional deviations from the
statement of Irenasus convince me that he did not borrow
from him alone, but also from the other writers whom he has
mentioned. Semler, however, has other objections in reserve, founded
on this very passage from the tract against the Valentinians?
" How happens it that Tertullian alludes to and speaks re
spectfully of Miltiades, who, as we learn from Eusebius, com
posed a work expressly against the prophecy of Montanus ? "
This question will perhaps be best answered by another. Would
not a forger of writings in Tertullian's name carefully have
avoided such an appearance of inconsistency ? The fact ap
pears to be perfectly reconcilable with 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.2 It is wholly
irreconcilable with Semler's theory.
" But what are we to think of the extraordinary reason
tate et prasstantia. insignes, nee solum nostri Antecessores sed ipsorum Hasresiar-
charum contemporales, instructissimis voluniinibus et prodiderunt et retuderunt :
ut Justinus Philosophus et Martyr, ut Miltiades Ecclesiarum Sophista, ut
Irenasus omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator, ut Proculus noster vir-
ginis senectas et Christianas eloquentias 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 alias erunt quam quae retractantur. Nemo tam otiosus fertur
stylo, ut materias habens fingat." Adv. Valentin, c. 5.
1 Section iv. note 27. ' ' Miltiades vero ? Ecquid tandem illud est, Ecclesiarum
Sophista? quid tandem est? Putamusne Tertullianum legisse aliquid hujus
Miltiadis? Miltiadis aliquas scriptiones Eusebius" (Hist. Eccles. 1. v. c. 17) "ex
Rhodone nominat contra Montanum, Priscillam et Maximillam : contra gentes
et Judasos ; sed contra Gnosticos aut Hasreticos nihil. Cur ergo hie excitatur,
quasi scripserit adversus Valantinianos ? " Though Eusebius may not have men
tioned 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, r.a.1 b.U\$S»
ii rlvaiv lirri ye&fAfAoirx, xeMrfidriea, ™v Sin-roeos xeevw, a, tfitivoi zreos Tot IQvn iirrle rr,^
a.\Y,0lloL5 xa,j rreos T«ff tote ctteitrlis lyex-^ctv' Xtyu Se 'Icvo-tivov, za.) MiATlaSoy, xeci
ta.riu.vou s-oci KAfl/ifyTO?, nx) iriem ?z}.£igvui> iv ois asrktrt QloXoytirtzi o 'Xeto'TOS. Eccl.
Hist. 1. v. c. 28. 2 De Jejuniis, c. 1.

Second and Third Centuries. 43
assigned by Tertullian for introducing the names of Miltiades
and the rest ? 1 He supposes that he may be charged with
inventing the strange opinions which he imputes to the Valen
tinians, and thinks it necessary to guard himself against the
charge by appealing to the authority of Justin Martyr, etc.
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 sur
prise that an author, who was about to detail opinions so
extravagant as those entertained by the Valentinians, should
apprehend that his readers might suspect him of attempting to
impose upon them the fictions of his own brain as the religious
tenets of others. In the tract de Baptismo, we find Tertullian
offering a similar apology for the extravagance of an opinion
which he undertakes to refute, and affirming with great solemnity
that he had himself heard it advanced.2
Semler grounds another argument in support of his theory
on the fact that a considerable portion of the third book against
Marcion is repeated almost word for word in the treatise against
the Jews? But the difficulties arising out of this fact are not
greater on the supposition that Tertullian was the real author
of both the works, than on the supposition that they were com
posed 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 con-
1 Section iv. note 27. Semler introduces the passage quoted in note 170 by
the following words : — " Ipse hie scriptor videtur (sicut dici solet) se prodere sicut
sorex : nam hoc ipso libro adversus Valentinianos, c. 5, sic scribit." He then
gives the passage at length, and subjoins, " Totus hie locus videtur aliquid
monstri prodere. Si omnino Romas alibique vivebant homines hasretici, eos
igitur non solus Tertullianus noverat : Christiani alii similiter hanc Hasreticorum
causam sciebant. Itaque non intelligimus qua ratione amoliatur hie scriptor
eam suspicionem, qua dici ipse possit sibi finxisse materias."
2 The opinion was proposed in the form of a dilemma. The apostles did
not receive Christian baptism, inasmuch as they were baptised 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, Ter
tullian adds, " Audivi, Domino teste, ejusmodi, ne quis me tarn perditum
existimet, ut ultr6 exagitem, libidine styli, quas aliis scrupulum incutiant," c. 12.
3 Sect. ix.

44 The Ecclesiastical History of the
sidering. Both Marcion and the Jews denied, though on diffe
rent principles, that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Old
Testament. Both, therefore, were to be refuted by showing that
the prophecies respecting the Messiah were actually accomplished
in him ; and this is the object of the two passages in which we
find so close a resemblance. When Tertullian had the argument
ready stated and arranged to his hand, it would surely have been
an egregious waste of time to amuse himself in varying the
language, especially as the passages in question consist entirely
of expositions of prophecies. He does, however, make such
alterations as the difference of the circumstances under which
he is writing appears to require. It should be observed that
the treatise adversus Judceos is expressly quoted by Jerome as
the work of Tertullian.1
It would be foreign from the immediate object of this volume
to discuss the reasons assigned by Semler for asserting that the
works now extant under the names of Justin and Irenasus con
tain manifest plagiarisms from Clemens Alexandrinus, and that
they are consequently spurious.2 He admits that they are quoted
as genuine by Eusebius ; 3 and this circumstance alone will pro
bably, in the opinion of sober critics, outweigh a thousand
conjectures unsupported by positive evidence.
I have devoted so much time to the examination of Semler's
Dissertation, not on account of its intrinsic value, which I am
far from estimating highly, but out of regard to the distinguished
place which has been assigned him among Biblical critics.4 His
object evidently is to destroy the authority of Justin, Irenasus,
and Tertullian ; but he does not fairly and openly avow it ; he
envelops himself in a cloud, and uses a dark mysterious
language, designed to insinuate more than it expresses. The
reader finds his former opinions unsettled, yet is not told what
he is to substitute in their place ; and is thus left in a dis
agreeable 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
1 In his comment on the ninth chapter of Daniel.
2 Sect. xiv. , xv., xvi. 3 Hist. Eccl. 1. v. c. 8, 1. iv. c. 18.
4 The most valuable part of Semler's Dissertation is, in my opinion, that which
relates to Tertullian's quotations from Scripture, and to the Latin version from
which he derived them ; to this I shall perhaps recur hereafter.

Second and Third Centuries. 45
could not be deemed an independent witness to the tenets of
those heretics — had he said, with respect to our author's writings
in general, that the natural vehemence of his temper betrayed
him into exaggeration, and caused him to indulge in a declamatory
tone, which renders it often difficult to determine to what extent
his expressions are to be literally understood, and his statements
received as matters of fact — had Semler even gone further, and
contended that there was reasonable ground for suspecting that
Irenasus x and Tertullian had, either through ignorance or design,
occasionally misrepresented the opinions of the Gnostics, and
imputed to them absurdities and extravagances of which they
were never guilty, — had he confined his assertions within these
limits, they would probably have met with the concurrence of
all who are conversant with the subject. But when he proceeds,
upon surmises such as we have been now considering, and in
opposition to the unanimous voice of ecclesiastical antiquity, to
denounce the writings of Irenasus and Tertullian as the offspring
of fraud and imposture — as the productions of men who had
combined together for the purpose of palming forgeries on the
world — he overleaps the bounds of sober and rational criticism,
and opens a door to universal incredulity.

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.2 To
refute the charges of disloyalty and disaffection to the emperors
1 We should always bear in mind that far the greater portion of the work of
Irenasus is extant only in a barbarous Latin translation, which lies under heavy
suspicions of interpolation.
2 ' ' Obsessam vociferantur civitatem : in agris, in castellis, in insulis Christianos :
omnem sexum, astatem, conditionem, etiam dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen
quasi detrimento mcerent. " Apology, c. i.

46 The Ecclesiastical History of the
which had been brought against the Christians, he thus appeals
to the patience with which they bore the injuries and cruelties
inflicted on them. " Not," he says, " that we are destitute of
the means of resistance, if our Christian principles allowed us
'to resort to them.1 Though we date our existence only from
yesterday, we have filled every part of your empire ; we are to
be found in your cities, your islands, your camps, your palaces,
your forum. ... So great are our numbers that we might
successfully contend with you in open warfare ; but were we
only to withdraw ourselves from you, and to remove by common
consent to some remote corner of the globe, our mere secession
would be sufficient to 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 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.2 He elsewhere speaks also
of the immense revenue which might be collected, if each Chris
tian was allowed to purchase the free exercise of his religion for
a sum of money.3
After we have made all reasonable allowance for any ex
aggeration 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 composed
a numerous and respectable portion of the subjects of Rome.
Nor were the triumphs of the gospel confined within the limits
of the Roman Empire. " Christ is preached among the bar
barians"4 is the incidental, and therefore less suspicious ex
pression of Tertullian. " We witness," he says, while arguing
against the Jews, " the accomplishment of the words of the
Psalmist (as applied by St. Paul), ' their sound is gone out
1 "Quid tamen de tam conspiratis unquam denotastis, " etc. ? Apology, c. 37.
2 Ad Scapulam, c. 5. In c. 2, speaking of the Christians, he says, "Quum
tanta hominum multitudo, pars pene major civitatis cujusque, in silentio et
modestia agimus."
3 "Tanta quotidie asrario augendo prospiciuntur remedia censuum, vectigalium,
collationum, stipendiorum : nee unquam usque adhuc ex Christianis tale aliquid
prospectum est, sub aliquam redemptionem capitis et sectae redigendis, quum
tantas multitudinis nemini ignotae fructus ingens meti possit." De Fugd in
Persecutione, c. 12.
4 "Et apud barbaros enim Christus.'' De Corond, c. 12.

Second and Third Centuries. 47
into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.'
For not only the various countries from which worshippers
were collected at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, but the
most distant regions have received the faith of Christ. He
reigns among people whom the Roman arms have never yet sub
dued : among 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."1 The
language is declamatory; yet such a representation would not
have been hazarded, unless it had been realized 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 con
tents himself for the most part with simply stating the fact.
Convinced of the divine origin of the gospel, he ascribed the
triumphs of the cross to the power of God bringing to pass
in the fulness of time the events wtiich had been foretold by
the prophets, without deeming it necessary to go in quest of
secondary causes of the rapid progress of Christianity. But
though he has not expressly directed his attention to the de
velopment 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 interesting information
on the subject.
The success which attended the preaching of the apostles,
and their immediate successors, is doubtless to be principally
ascribed to the supernatural powers, by the exercise of which
they proved their divine commission. But the writings of
Tertullian furnish little reason for supposing that the preachers
of the gospel in his day were indebted for their success to
the display of similar powers. He asserts indeed that Chris
tians possessed the power of expelling demons,2 of curing
diseases, of healing the wounds occasioned by the bites of
1 Adversus Judaos, c. 7. " Quem exaudierunt omnes gentes, id est, cui omnes
gentes crediderunt, cujus et prasdicatores Apostoli in Psalmis David ostend-
untur," etc
2 ' ' Edatur hie aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, quem dasmone agi constat. Jussus
a quolibet Christiano loqui, Spiritus ille tarn se dasmonem conritebitur de vero,
quam alibi Deum de falso." Apology, c. 23. See also cc. 37, 43. " Quod calcas
Deos nationum, quod daemonia expellis, quod medicinas facis." De Spectaculis,
c. 29 ; de Testimonio Anima, c. 3.; ad Scapulam, c, 2 ; de Corond, c, n ; de
Idololatrid, c. n.

48 The Ecclesiastical History of the
serpents ; 1 but he casts a doubt upon the accuracy of his
own statement, by ascribing to Christians in general those extra
ordinary gifts which, even in the days of the apostles, appear
to have been confined to them, and to the disciples upon
whom they laid their hands.2
The miraculous powers conferred upon the apostles were
the credentials by which they were to prove that they were
the bearers of a new revelation from God to man, and thus
to mark the commencement of a new era in the order of the
divine dispensations. We might, therefore, infer from the pur
pose for which they were conferred that they would in process
of time be withdrawn.3 That they have been withdrawn is
a fact which few Protestants will controvert, though great differ
ence of opinion prevails respecting the precise period to which
we must refer this important alteration in the circumstances
of the Church. Gibbon has endeavoured to convert what he
terms the insensibility of the Christians to' the cessation of
miraculous gifts into an argument against their existence at
any period. " So 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
1 " Nobis fides prassidium, si non et ipsa percutitur diffidentia signandi statim et
adjurandi et unguendi bestias calcem. Hoc denique modo etiam Ethnicis saspe
subvenimus, donati a Deo ea potestate quam Apostolus dedicavit, quum morsum
viperas sprevit.'' Scorpiace, c. 1.
2 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
gifts to others. See Acts vi. 6 (compared with vi. 8 and viii. 6), viii. 17, 18,
xix. 6.
3 A view somewhat similar seems to have been taken by Pascal in the following
extract from his Pensles, which has been pointed out to me by a learned friend.
" J£sus Christ a fait des miracles, et les Apotres en-suite, et les premiers Saints
en ont fait aussi beaucoup : parce que les Propheties n'etant pas encore accom-
plies et s'accomplissant par eux, rien ne rendoit temoignage que les Miracles. II
etoit prddit que le Messie convertiroit les nations. Comment cette prophetie se
fut-elle accomplie sans la conversion des nations? et comment les nations se
fussent-elles converties au Messie, ne voyant pas ce dernier effet des Propheties
qui le prouvent? Avant done qu'il filt mort, qu'il fut resuscite, et que les nations
fussent converties, tout n'etoit pas accompli. Et ainsi il a fallu des miracles pen
dant tout ce tems-la. Maintenant il n'en faut plus pour prouver la vf'rite de la
Religion Chr^tienne : car les Propheties accomplies sont un miracle subsistan ."
Diverses preuves dejisus Christ, c. 16.

Second and Third Centuries. 49
respectable than that of the age which preceded it."1 The
inference which he manifestly intends his readers 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 mir
aculous 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 sub
ject would be a mark no less of folly than presumption; but
I may be allowed to state the conclusion to which I have
myself been led, by a comparison of the statements in the
book of Acts with the writings of the Fathers of the second
century. My conclusion then is, that the power of working
miracles was not extended beyond the disciples upon whom
the apostles conferred it by the imposition of their hands.
As the number of those disciples gradually diminished, the in
stances 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 apostles had been laid.
That event would, in the natural course of things, take place
before the middle of the second century : at a time when,
Christianity having obtained a footing in all the provinces of
the Roman Empire, the miraculous gifts conferred upon its
first teachers had performed their appropriate 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
effusion of supernatural gifts upon the Church. Or if doubts
and misgivings crossed their minds, they would still be un-
1 Chap. xv. p. 477, ed. 4to. We have given only the purport of Gibbon's
observations.

50 The Ecclesiastical History of the
willing openly to state a fact, which might shake the steadfast
ness of the friends, and would certainly be urged by the enemies
of the gospel as an argument against its divine origin. They
would pursue the plan which has been pursued by Justin
Martyr, Theophilus, Irenasus, etc.; they would have recourse to
general assertions of the existence of supernatural powers, with
out attempting to produce a specific instance of their exercise.
The silence of ecclesiastical history respecting the cessation
of miraculous gifts in the Church is to be ascribed, not to the
insensibility of 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 inquirer 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. I perceive in the language of the
Fathers,1 who lived in the middle and end of the second century,
when speaking on this subject, something which betrays, if not a
conviction, at least a suspicion, that the power of working miracles
was withdrawn, 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
1 In confirmation of this remark, I refer the reader to the following passages of
Tertullian's works. In the tract de Pudicitid 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 discipline, 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 redintegraverunt, quod nemo nisi Christus : immo et plagas
inflixerunt, quod noluit Christus ; non enim decebat eum sasvire qui pati venerat.
Percussus est Ananias et Elymas, Ananias morte, Elymas cascitate, ut hoc ipso
probaretur Christum et hasc facere potuisse. Sic et prophetas casdem et cum ea
mcechiam pcenitentibus ignoverant, quia et severitatis documenta fecerunt. Exhibe
igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica (f. legendum Apostolica et Prophelica)
exempla, et (f. ut) agnoscam divinitatem, et vindica tibi delictorum ejusmodi
remittendorum potestatem. Quod si disciplinas solius officia sortitus es, nee
imperio 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 argument proceeds on the supposition that the
miraculous powers which had been exerted by the prophets and apostles no longer

Second and Third Centuries. 5 1
instance of a particular miracle. Those who followed them were
less scrupulous, and proceeded to invent miracles ; very different
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 credulity of man
kind. In every succeeding age miracles multiplied in number,
and increased in extravagance, till at length, 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.1
But to return to Tertullian. The only specific instances which
he mentions of the exercise of supernatural powers relate to the
exorcism of demons. He is contending in the Apology2 that
the gods of the heathen are no other than demons ; of which
assertion he offers the following proof : " Bring," he says, " before
your tribunals a man possessed with a demon : the evil spirit, if
commanded by a Christian, will speak and confess himself a
demon. In like manner, produce a person supposed 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 demon." In the tract de Spectaculis 3 we find
a story of a female who went to the theatre, and returned
possessed by a demon. 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." 4
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 Beet mihi eandem potestatem in aliquo sine iisdem probationibus
credere." In the tract de Prascriptione H&reticorum, 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.
1 Gibbon, c. xxviii. p. 99, ed. 4to. 2 C. 23, quoted in note 7.
° ' ' Nam et exemplum accidit, Domino teste, ejus mulieris quas theatrum adiit
et inde cum dasmonio rediit. Itaque in exorcismo quum oneraretur immundus
Spiritus quod ausus esset fidelem adgredi. ' Constanter et justissime quidem,
inquit, feci : in meo eam inveni,' " c. 26.
4 See also the tract ad Scapulam, c. 4. "Nam et cujusdam notarius, quum a
dasmone prascipitaretur, liberatus est ; et quorundam propinquus et puerulus. Et
quanti honesti viri, de vulgaribus enim non dicimus, aut a daemoniis aut valetu-

5 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Surely if miraculous powers still subsisted in the Church, the
writings of Tertullian would have supplied some less equivocal
instances of their exercise.
Gibbon has animadverted on the evasions of Middleton
respecting the clear traces of visions to be found in the apostolic
Fathers.1 Yet it appears to me that Middleton might have
admitted their existence without any detriment to the main
position of his essay. His object was to prove that, after the
apostolic age, no standing power of working 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 influence of the Holy
Spirit, told them that it was expedient so to do. This position
is perfectly compatible with the belief that God still revealed
Himself in dreams to pious members of the Church, for their
especial comfort and instruction. The distinction 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. He mentions a Christian female to
whom visions were frequently vouchsafed in the time of divine
service.2 They related for the most part to points which had
formed the subject of previous discussion. On one occasion, a
question having arisen respecting the soul, it was exhibited to
her in a corporeal state. He tells another story of a female,
who saw in a dream a linen cloth, on which was inscribed, with
accompanying expressions of reprobation, the name of an actor
whom she had heard that very day at the theatre.3 Tertullian
adds that she did not survive the dream five days. An un
fortunate 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 ; 4 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 nudas.' " 5 It should be observed that all these visions are
dinibus remediati sunt ! " In the tract de Exhoriatione Castitalis, c. 12, sub fine,
is a story of a man who married a second wife under the idea that she was barren ;
but she proved pregnant ; preternaturally, as our author would insinuate. See
also two stories in the tract de Animd, c. 51.
1 Chap, xv., note 71. 2 De Animd, c. 9. 3 De Spectaculis, o. 26.
4 De Idololatrid, c. 15. 5 De Virginibus velandis, c. 17.

Second and Third Centuries. 5 3
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.
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 manifesta
tions 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 Thundering Legion. He
asserts in the Apology,1 as well as in the Address to Scapula? that
Marcus Antoninus became a protector of the Christians, because
during his expedition into Germany he, together with his army,
was preserved from perishing with thirst by a seasonable shower
of rain, procured by the prayers of his Christian soldiers. In
support of his assertion, he appeals to a letter of the Emperor, in
which the deliverance of the army was ascribed to this cause ; he
does not, however, affirm that he had himself seen the letter.
The story has been repeated by subsequent writers, and has
received, as might be expected, considerable additions in the
transmission. Not only were the Roman soldiers preserved by
the seasonable shower, but the army of the enemy was destroyed
by a storm of thunder and lightning which accompanied it.3
That during the German war the Roman army suffered severely
from want of water, and was relieved from a situation of great
peril by a seasonable shower of rain, is a fact which does not rest
on the single authority of Tertullian. It is recorded by several
profane writers, and confirmed by the indisputable testimony of
the Antonine column. Nor was Tertullian singular in regarding
the event as preternatural : the heathen historians did the same.
But while Tertullian ascribes the deliverance of the Emperor to
the prayers of his Christian soldiers, Dion Cassius gives the credit
of it to certain magical rites performed by an Egyptian named
Arnuphis ; 4 and on the Antonine column it is attributed to the
1 "At nos e contrario edimus protectorem, si literas M. Aurelii gravissimi
imperatoris requirantur, quibus illam Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte
militum precationibus impetrato imbri discussam contestatur," c. 5.
2 ' ' Marcus quoque Aurelius in Germanica expeditione, Christianorum militum
orationibus ad Deum factis, imbres in siti ilia impetravit," c. 4.
3 Hist. Eccl. Eusebii, 1. v. c. 5. Apollinarius, who was prior to Tertullian,
appears to have mentioned the storm of thunder and lightning.
4 See the Epitome of Dion by Xiphilinus. Marcus Antoninus, p. 246 C, ed.
H. Steph. 1568.

54 The Ecclesiastical History of the
immediate interposition of Jupiter Pluvius. This latter circum
stance 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 reconcilable with his general character, nor with
the harsh treatment experienced by the Christians during his
reign. Referring the reader to Lardner 1 for a full account 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 designs 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 interposi
tion of divine power, exerted in compliance 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 disposi
tion to ascribe events to the immediate interference of the
Almighty. The Christians in Africa had been deprived of their
burial grounds ; 2 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. He accounts
1 Heathen Testimonies, Marcus Antoninus, sect. iii.
2 "Sicut et sub Hilariano prasside, quum de areis sepulturarum nostrarum
adclamassent, ' Area non sint,' Areas ipsorum non fuerunt ; messes enim suas
non egerunt," c. 3. Our author plays upon the double meaning of the word
area, which signifies a threshing-floor as well as an enclosure. Ad Scapulam,
c. 3-

Second and Third Centuries. 5 5
in a similar manner for an extraordinary quantity of rain which
had fallen in the year preceding that in which his Address to
Scapula was written.1 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 take this opportunity of offering a few remarks upon
another fact, not of a miraculous nature, related by Tertullian:
He says, in the Apology? that the Emperor Tiberius, having
received from Palestine an account of those supernatural events
which proved the Divinity of Christ, proposed to the Senate that
He should be received among the deities of Rome — that the
Senate rejected the proposal — that Tiberius retained his opinion,
and menaced all who brought accusations against the Christians.
In a subsequent passage Tertullian states that the account was
sent to Tiberius by Pilate, who was in his conscience a Christian ; 3
and adds an expression which implies that worldly considerations
alone prevented Tiberius from believing in Christ. . The story is
repeated by Eusebius,4 who appeals to Tertullian as his authority
for it. Lardner, after a detailed examination of the objections
which have been made to its truth, pronounces it deserving of
regard.6 Mosheim also seems to be of opinion that it ought not
to be entirely rejected.6 Gibbon treats it as a mere fable, but
some of his arguments appear to me far from convincing. One
1 Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
2 "Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Christianum in seculum introivit,
annuntiata sibi ex Syria Palestina, quas illic veritatem illius dignitatis reve-
laverant, detulit ad Senatum cum prasrogativa suffragii sui. Senatus, quia non
ipse probaverat, respuit. Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatus periculum
accusatoribus Christianorum," c. 5. In this passage Pearson would read "quia
non in se probaverat," for " quia non ipse probaverat," and interpret the sentence
thus : The Senate rejected the proposal because Tiberius had not approved a
similar proposal in his own case — had himself refused to be deified. Lardner con
tends that this must be the meaning, even if ipse is retained. But a sentence
which precedes, " Vetus erat decretum, he qui Deus ab Imperatore consecraretur,
nisi a Senatu probatus," shows 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 sak conscientia Chris-
tianus, Caesari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit. Sed et Cassares credidissent super Christo,
si aut Cassares non essent seculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse
Cassares," c. 21.
4 Hist. Eccl. 1. ii. c. 2. 5 Heathen Testimonies, c. *.
6 Ecclesiastical History, Cent. i. c. 4.

56 The Ecclesiastical History of the
is founded on a misrepresentation of Tertullian's statement :
"We are required," says Gibbon,1 "to believe that Tiberius
protected the Christians from the severity of the laws many years
before such laws were enacted, or before the Church had assumed
any distinct name or existence." Now Tertullian says not a
word about any protection from the severity of the laws, afforded
by Tiberius to the Christians; he merely says that Tiberius
threatened all who accused them. This threat appears to me to
have referred to the inveterate 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 more than once that Nero was the first Emperor
who enacted any such laws.2 I must, however, confess my own
opinion to be that the story is liable to just suspicion. It rests
entirely on the authority of Tertullian. How happened it that
so remarkable a fact, as a public proposal from the Emperor to
the Senate to receive Christ among the gods of Rome, escaped
the notice of every other writer ? Justin Martyr, who on two
different occasions appeals to what he calls the Acts of Pilate,3
in confirmation of the gospel narrative of our Saviour's sufferings
and miracles, is silent respecting the proposal of Tiberius to the
Senate. But to proceed with the information supplied by Tertullian's
works respecting the causes which contributed to the rapid
growth of Christianity during the latter part of the second
century. We have seen that they furnish no ground for ascrib
ing 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, Mosheim has noticed two : 4 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, render it highly probable that a Latin
1 Chap. xvi. p. 556, ed. 4to.
2 Apology, cc. 5, 21 ; ad Nat. 1. i. c. 7 ; Scorpiace, c. 15.
3 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.
4 Century ii. part i, c. i.

Second and Third Centuries. 5 7
translation existed in his day.1 By such a translation the history
and doctrines of the gospel would be 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 mis
represent 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 doubtless con
firmed and increased by the numerous Apologies for Christianity
to which Mosheim alludes. Among these the Apology of Ter
tullian 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 Chris
tians at that period, or the point of view in which they were
regarded by the Roman laws.
Mosheim 2 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 edicts of Nero, and Nerva had abrogated
the sanguinary laws of his predecessor Domitian." Gibbon 3 also
infers from Pliny's celebrated letter to Trajan that, when the
former accepted the government of Bithynia, " there were no
general laws or decrees of the Senate in force against the Chris
tians ; and that neither Trajan nor any of his virtuous pre
decessors, whose edicts were received into the civil and criminal
jurisprudence, had publicly declared their intentions concerning
the new sect." If, however, we attach any weight to the state
ments of Tertullian, the conclusions both of Gibbon and
1 Semler indeed insinuates that the works, extant under Tertullian's name,
contain the first specimens of a Latin translation. " Itaque videmur hie ipsa
primordia Latince Translationis occupare et deprehendere. " And again, "Aut
illud scivit (Tertullianus) tarn pauca esse adhuc Evangelii Latini exemplaria (nulla
forte alia, quam hoc primum, suum ipsius)," etc., sect. iv. 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 Graecum ullum codicem Evangel-
zorum aut Epistolarum," etc., ibid.
2 Century ii. part i. c, 2. 3 Chap. xvi. p. 540, ed. 4to.

58 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Mosheim are erroneous. In 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 Apology? after having stated that Nero and
Domitian were the only Emperors who had persecuted the
Christians, he says, as we have already seen, that Marcus
Antoninus became their protector in consequence of the miracu
lous deliverance of his army in the German expedition.3 " Not,"
he adds, " that the Emperor abrogated the punishment enacted
against them, but he indirectly did away its effect, by denouncing
a heavier punishment against their accusers.4 What, then," our
author proceeds, " are we to think of laws which none but the
impious, the unjust, the vile, the cruel, the trifling, the insane
enforce ? of which Trajan partly frustrated the effect by forbid
ding all inquiries to be made after Christians? 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 Pliny's letter6 and Trajan's answer, that the only offence
laid to their charge by the informers was their religion ; and that,
in the estimation both of the Emperor and the proconsul, the
mere profession of Christianity constituted a crime deserving of
punishment. 1 " Et tamen permansit, omnibus erasis, hoc solum institutum Neronianum,''
etc. , c. 7. Compare the Apology, c. 4. " Sed quoniam, quum ad omnia occurrit
Veritas nostra, postremo legum obstruitur auctoritas adversus eam, " etc.
2 C. 5. Tertullian says that Domitian's persecution was of short duration, and
that the Emperor himself put a stop to it.
3 P. 106.
4 "Sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus pcenam dimovit, ita alio modo
palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusatoribus damnatione, et quidem tetriore.
Quales ergo leges ista, quas adversus nos soli exequuntur impii, injusti, turpes,
truces, vani, dementes? quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est, vetando inquiri
Christianos ; quas nullus Hadrianus, quanquam curiositatum omnium explorator ;
nullus Vespasianus, quanquam Judasorum debellator ; nullus Pius, nullus Verus
impressit. " Apol. c. 5. " Quoties enim in Christianos desasvitis, 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.
5 Pliny's words are, ' ' Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani ; confitentes iterum
ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus : perseverantes duci jussi. Neque enim
dubitabam, qualecunque esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe et infiexibilem
obstinationem debere puniri." L. x. ep. 97. Trajan answers, " Conquirendi
non sunt ; si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt."

Second and Third Centuries. 59
But whether there were, or were not, any laws in force ex
pressly 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 1 edict against companies and
associations,' and the law 2 which forbade the introduction of any
new deity whose worship had not been approved by the Senate.
If, on the contrary, he was just and humane, he discountenanced
all informations against them, suggested to them the answers
which they ought to return when brought before the tribunals,
and availed himself of every pretext for setting them at liberty.3
Thus, while in one part of the empire they were suffering the
most dreadful persecution, in another they were at the very
same moment enjoying a certain degree of ease and security.
For even the power of the governors was not always sufficient to
ensure their safety, or to prevent them from falling 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.4 On these occa
sions the intimidated magistrates too often deemed it expedient
to yield to the clamorous demands of the multitude, and to
gratify their sanguinary impatience by suspending the tardy forms
of law, and delivering the Christians to instant death.
The Apology of Tertullian is, as has been already observed,6
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 dejejuniis, c. 13. " Nisi forte
in Senatus-consulta et in Principum mandata, coitionibus opposita, delinquimus. "
2 See the Apology, c. 5, quoted in note 2, p. 53 of this chapter.
3 In the Address to Scapula, c. 4, are recorded the names of several governors
who displayed great lenity in their treatment of the Christians ; but the latter
appear to have regarded the evasions, suggested by the kindness of their judges,
with distrust , as the devices of Satan to shake their stedfastness, and to betray
them into a criminal compromise of their faith. See the Apology, c. 27; Scorpiace,
C. II.
- " Quoties etiam, prasteritis vobis, suo jure nos inimicum vulgusinvaditlapidibus
et incendiis ? " Apology, c. 37. " Neque enim statim et a populo eris tutus, si
officia militaria redemeris.'' De Fugd 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 tenta-
tiones emittuntur." De Spectaculis, c 27.
B Chap. i. p. 52.

60 The Ecclesiastical History of the
addressed to the governors of Proconsular Africa, and we learn
from the commencement that their attention and jealousy had
been excited by the increasing number of the Christians ; x but
that, instead of being induced to inquire into the real nature of
a religion which attracted so many proselytes, they suffered them
selves to be hurried away by their prejudices, and condemned it
unheard. So great indeed was their ignorance, that they mis
took even the name of the new sect ; calling those who belonged
to it, not Christiani, but Chrestiani.2 Tertullian 3 exposes, with
great power of argument and eloquence, the injustice of punishing
Christians merely because they were Christians, without inquir
ing whether their doctrines were in themselves deserving of hatred
and punishment. He complains that in their case alone all the
established forms of law were set aside, and all the rules usually
observed in the administration of justice violated.4 Other
criminals were heard in their own defence, and allowed the
assistance of counsel ; nor was their own confession deemed
sufficient to their condemnation. The Christian, on the con
trary, was simply asked whether he was a Christian ; and either
his sentence was pronounced 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 con
fession 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 unreason
ableness 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 abandoned themselves
to the most shameful excesses.6 In vain did they challenge their
opponents to make good these horrible charges. In vain did
i C. i. 2 C. 3. 3 C. 1.
4 C. 2. Compare ad Scapulam, c. 4.
5 Cc. i. 7, 8. One of the opprobrious appellations applied to the Christian was
" Tertium Genus," the precise meaning of which Tertullian does not appear him
self to have understood. Ad Nationes, 1. i. cc. 7, 8, 19. See also Scorpiace, c. 10 ;
de Virgin, vel. c. 7.

Second and Third Centuries. 61
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.1 "You are\
determined," says Tertullian, " to close your eyes against the |
truth, and to persist in hating us without a cause. You are com- '
pelled 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 disobedient, and your slaves dishonest, if they are but
careful to abstain from all communication with this detested
sect." Tertullian alludes to an ancient law, which prohibited even
the Emperor from introducing the worship of any new deity, unless
it had been previously approved by the Senate.2 As the worship
of Christ had not received this preliminary sanction, the Chris
tians, 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. On the contrary, he boldly maintains that the
Christians had done right in renouncing the worship of gods, who
were in reality no gods, but mortals to whom divine honours had
been ascribed after death, and whose images and statues were
the abode of evil spirits, lurking there in ambush to destroy the
souls of men.3
The absurdity and extravagance of the heathen mythology
open to -Tertullian a wide field for the exercise of his eloquence
and wit ; 4 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
1 C. 3. 2 Cc. 5, 6. See p. 39.
3 Cc. 10, ii, 22, 23, 27. 4 Cc. 12, 13, 14, 15.

62 The Ecclesiastical History of the
ground that they believed stories equally horrible respecting their
own deities, at another he warmly inveighs against the gross in
consistency of imputing to a Christian as a crime that which was
not deemed derogatory to the character of a god.
But 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.1
Not content with falling into the double error, first, of confound
ing the Christians with the Jews, and next of receiving as true the
idle tales related by Tacitus respecting the origin and fortunes of
the Jewish people,2 they persisted in accusing the Christians of
worshipping the head of an ass ; although, as our author justly
observes, the Roman historian 3 had himself furnished the means
of disproving his own statement, by relating that, when Pompey
visited the temple of Jerusalem, and entered the Holy of Holies,
he found there no visible representation of the Deity. Since they
could give credit to so palpable a falsehood, we cannot be sur
prised 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, Tertullian takes
the opportunity of stating in spirited and eloquent language the
Christian notions of the deity, and of insisting upon the genuine
ness and antiquity of the Jewish Scriptures, by which the know
ledge of the one supreme God, of the creation of the world, and of
the origin of mankind, had been preserved and transmitted from
age to age.4 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.6
It has been remarked that the treatment of the primitive
Christians formed a solitary exception to that system of uni
versal toleration which regulated the conduct of the Roman
government towards the professors of other religions'. Gibbon
appears to have assigned the true reason of this deviation
from its usual policy, when he observes that, while all other
people professed a national religion, the Christians formed a
1 C. 16. 2 Hist. 1. v. c. 4. 3 Hist. 1. v. c. 9.
4 Cc. 17, 18, iq, 20, 21. ' C. 47.

Second and Third Centuries. 63
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 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. 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 Egypt, and at the same
time persecuting the professors of a religion which inculcated
the worship of one pure, spiritual, omniscient, omnipotent G°d,
— a God in every respect worthy to receive the adorations of
intelligent beings.2 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.
Sometimes the Christians fell into an error not uncommon
with very zealous advocates ; they urged arguments which were
easily retorted upon themselves, and were even converted into
pretences for1 persecuting their religion. We have seen that
they were in the habit of accounting for events by the immediate
interposition of Providence ; of ascribing favourable events to
their own prayers, and calamities to the divine displeasure,
excited by the cruelties inflicted upon them.3 The pagans,
in answer, appealed 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 pro
sperity was to be attributed solely to that piety towards the
gods which had always formed a striking feature in the national
1 Chap. xvi. p. 523, ed. 4to. 2 Cc. 24, 28, ad Scap. u. vs.
3 P. 54-

64 The Ecclesiastical History of the
character.1 "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 anger of the gods by utterly rooting out
their enemies from the earth."2 The stated returns of the
public games and festivals were, as has been already observed,3
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 ground of accusation against the Christians was,
that they refused to sacrifice to the gods for the safety of the
Emperor.4 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 consequently in
capable 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."
As the Christians cautiously abstained from every act which
in the least approximated to idolatry, the seasons of public
festivity were to them seasons of the most imminent danger.5
Their abhorrence of every species of excess, their refusal to join
in obstreperous or indecent expressions of joy, to illuminate
their houses in the day-time, or to hang garlands over their
doors, were construed by their adversaries into certain marks
Of disloyalty. Tertullian answers this charge by appealing to
the uniform tenor of their conduct ; " a less equivocal proof,"
he adds, "of our affection towards our sovereign than those
1 Cc. 25, 26. 2 C. 40. 3 P. 59.
4 Cc. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 6 Cc. 35, 36, 38, 39,

Second and Third Centuries. 65
outward demonstrations of joy which have been displayed in
our own time by men who at the very moment were plotting
his destruction.1 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 feelings df 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 necessary tendency is to increase our
love towards God and towards our neighbour — to make us better
men and better subjects."
But though the enemies of the gospel might be compelled
to allow that a Christian was a peaceable, they still accused him
of being an unprofitable citizen.2 The charge, however, if we
may judge from Tertullian's answer, resolved itself principally
into this, that the Christians brought no offerings to the temples,
and contributed nothing towards defraying the expenses of the
public games, or to the support of those trades which were
more immediately connected with the pomps and ceremonies
of idolatry. In his remarks upon this charge, Tertullian ex
pressly 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 mankind — pimps, assas
sins, and fortune-tellers — may complain with truth that the
Christians are unprofitable to them. But all who think that the
best man is the most useful citizen, must admit the claim of the
Christian to that character, whose religion teaches him that
not only his actions, but his very thoughts must be pure, and
who regulates his conduct by a reference, not to the imperfect
laws of man, the penalties of which he might hope to evade,
but to the perfect law of that God, from whom nothing can be
hid, and whose vengeance it is impossible to escape."
Unable either to, fix any stain upon the morals of the Chris
tians, or to substantiate the charges of irreligion and disloyalty
against them, their enemies proceeded in the last place to
1 Ad Scapulam, c. 2. - Cc. 42, 43, 44, 45.
C

66 The Ecclesiastical History of the
undervalue Christianity itself, and to represent it as a mere species
of philosophy.1 " The philosophers," they said, " inculcate in
nocence, justice, patience, sobriety, charity ; and what do the
Christians more ? " " Be it so," is Tertullian'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 philo
sophy has never yet produced in its votaries ? "
The conclusion of the Apology points out to us one cause
of the rapid growth of Christianity, which has been overlooked
by Mosheim — the admirable courage and constancy with which
the Christians bore the torments inflicted upon them by their
persecutors.2 " 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. For who can behold it, and not
inquire into the nature of that faith which inspires such super
natural courage?3 Who can inquire 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 ? "
I cannot quit this part of my subject without briefly noticing
Gibbon's remarks on the Apologies published by the early Chris
tians, in behalf of themselves . and their religion.4 He admits
that they expose with ability the absurdities of polytheism, and
describe with eloquence and force the innocence and sufferings
i C 46.
2 C. 50. In the Scorpiace, our author argues as if sufferings voluntarily endured
in the defence of a religion prove not merely the sincerity of the sufferer's per
suasion" but also the truth of the religion. " Castenvm pati oportebat omnem
Dei prasdicatorem et cultorem qui ad Idololatriam provocatus negasset obsequium,
secundum illius quoque rationis statum, qua et prassentibus tunc et posteris dein-
ceps commendari veritatem oportebat, pro qua fidem diceret passio ipsorum
Defensorum ejus, quia nemo voluisset occidi, nisi compos veritatis," c. 8.
3 Compare ad Scapulam, c. 5. 4 Chap. xv. near the end.

Second and Third Centuries. 67
of their brethren. But when they attempt to demonstrate the
divine origin of Christianity, then in his opinion they entirely
fail ; and the only feeling which they excite in the mind of the
reader is regret that the cause was not defended by abler advo
cates. He particularly blames them for insisting more strongly
upon the predictions which announced, than upon the miracles
which accompanied the appearance of the Messiah.1 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 exposi
tions of the evidences of Christianity. Such an idea never
entered into 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 per
suade 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 perspicuous account of its doctrines and moral
precepts. Yet when he explains the notion of the Supreme
Being, entertained by the Christians, he adverts, though con
cisely, to the grounds on which their belief was founded. He
shows 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 Scrip
tures ; 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 accomplish
ment of many of the prophecies contained in them.2 When
again he proceeds to explain those doctrines which are more
peculiarly Christian, he says that Christ was proved to be the
Word of God, as well by the miserable state to which, agreeably
to the prophecies of the Old Testament, the Jewish nation was
reduced in consequence of its rejection of Him, as by the
miracles which He wrought during His residence upon earth.3
I know not what further evidence of the divine origin of Chris-
1 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, showing 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,
cc. 17, 18, 19, 20, 3 C, 21.

68 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 decide 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 estimation of the dispas
sionate and reflecting reader of the present day, was not without
its effect in silencing the clamours of malice and of ignorance.
They who think with Daille" 1 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 appealing to the Scriptures in confirmation of
his statement, adopted the most efficacious mode of extending
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 in
trepid constancy of its members ; but it was too well aware of the
infirmity of human nature not to know that even the sincerest con
viction of the truth of Christianity might not always be sufficient
to support the convert in the hour of danger. In order, there
fore, 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
appellation has been generally confined to those who proved the
sincerity of their faith by the sacrifice of their lives, in the time
of Tertullian 2 it was used with greater latitude, and compre
hended 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 Con-
1 " La Sagesse exquise et l'inestimable beaute' de la discipline mgme de Jdsus
Christ est, je l'avoue, le plus fort et le plus stir argument de sa VeriteV' Quoted
by Dr. Hey in his Lectures, Book I. end of c. 13.
2 Thus in the tract de PrcescriplioJie Hareticorum, u. 3. " Si etiam Martyr
apsus de regula. fuerit."

Second and Third Centuries. 69
fessors.1 To this lax use of the term martyr must be chiefly
ascribed the erroneous 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 Dodwell was willing to allow, it is certain that his opinion
approaches much nearer to the truth than that of his opponents.2
We shall, however, form a very inadequate idea of the suffer
ings 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 en
counter trials of the severest kind, though their sufferings attracted
not the public attention. When we consider the species of
authority exercised by heads of families in those days, and the
hatred by which many were actuated against Christianity, we
may frame to ourselves some notion of the condition of a wife,
a child, or a slave, who ventured to profess a belief in its doc
trines.3 This alone was deemed a sufficient cause for repudiating
a wife, or disinheriting a son ; and Tertullian mentions by name
a governor of Cappadocia, who avenged the conversion of his
wife by persecuting all the Christians of the province.4 So
heinous indeed was the offence that it cancelled all obligations.6
He who committed it became at once an outcast from society,
and was considered to have forfeited his claim to the good
offices of his nearest kinsman ; nor were instances wanting, if
1 Tertullian sometimes applies the term Confessor to one who was imprisoned
on account of his religion. " Et quum in carcere fratrem vult visitari, Confessoris
imperat curam." Scorpiace, c. II.
2 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 persecu
tion ; de Prascriptione Hareticorumi c. 36 ; adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 5 ; Scor
piace, c. ult. Perpetua, of whose martyrdom an account is still extant under
the title of Passio Perpetua ac Felicitatis ; de Animd, c. 55. Rutilius, who
having for some time avoided persecution by flight, and even, as he conceived,
secured his safety by the payment of a sum of money, was suddenly seized, and,
after undergoing severe torments, cast into the flames ; de Fugd in Persecutione,
c. 5, and Justin, adv. Valentinianos, c. 5. Tertullian relates also that St. John
the Evangelist was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, and came out unhurt.
De Prascript. Haret. c. 36.
3 ' ' Uxorem jam pudicam maritus, jam non zelotypus, ejecit : filium jam sub-
jectum pater, retro patiens, abdicavit : servum jam fidelem dominus, olim mitis,
ab oculis relegavit : ut quisque hoc nomine emendatur, offendit." Apology, c. 3.
4 Ad Scapulam, c. 3.
5 In the first tract ad Ndtiones, Tertullian says that informations were frequently
laid against the Christians by their slaves, c. 7. "Quid? quum domestici eos
vobis prodant? omnes a nullis magis prodimur: quanto magis, si atrocitas tanta
sit quas justitia indignationis omnem familiaritatis fidem rumpit."

jo The Ecclesiastical History of the
Tertullian's expressions are to be literally understood, in which a
brother informed against a brother, and even a parent against a
child.1 Yet, amidst the trials and afflictions to which he was sub
jected, 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 community of
danger as well as of faith and hope. The love which they bore
to each other excited the astonishment, though it could not
subdue the hostility, of their heathen persecutors.2 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 re
ligion, was supported by the reflection, that his brethren anxiously
watched over his fate, and that no exertion would be wanting
on their part to mitigate its severity — that he should be main
tained during his confinement by their voluntary contributions3 —
that devout females would flock to his prison to kiss his chains,4
and penitents to obtain through his intercession a speedier re
storation to the communion of the Church.5 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
1 I speak doubtfully, because there is something in our author's mode of ex
pressing 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 jrater fratrem, et pater filium in mortem, et insurgent filii in
parentes et mortificabunt eos ; manifeste iniquitatem istam in casteros pronuntiavit,
quam in Apostolis non invenimus. Nemo enim eorum aut fratrem aut patrem
passus est traditorem, quod plerique jam nostri. Dehinc ad Apostolos revocat :
Et eritis odio omnibus propter nomen meum .- Quanto magis nos, quos a parenti-
bus quoque tradi oportet ! " Scorpiace, c. 9. " Sed et fratres nostras et patres
et filios et socrus et nurus et domesticos nostras ibidem exhibere debebis, per quos
traditio disposita est," c. 10.
2 Vide "inquiunt, ut invicem se diligunt." Apology, c. 39.
3 Apology, c. 39 ; ad Martyres, cc. 1, 2 ; de Jejuniis, c. 12.
4 "Quis in carcerem ad osculanda vincula Martyris reptare patietur?" Ad
Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 4.
5 ' ' Quam pacem quidam in Ecclesia non habentes a Martyribus in carcere
exorare consueverunt." Ad Martyres, 1. i. After Tertullian had seceded from
the Church, he denied that it possessed the power of pardoning crimes of a
heinous nature, and ridiculed the notion that attention ought, to be paid to the
intercession of a martyr. De Pudicitid, u. 22.

Second and Third Centuries. J i
an example to all its members, and possess a prior claim to its
dignities and honours.1 If he was destined to lose his life, he
had been taught that martyrdom was a second and more effi
cacious baptism 2 — that it washed away every stain 3- — and that,
while the souls of ordinary Christians passed the interval be
tween their separation from the body and the general resurrec
tion in a state of incomplete enjoyment, that of the martyr was
secure of immediate admission to the perfect happiness of
heaven.4 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 per
secution. Nor can it be dissembled that 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 the guilt of suicide.5 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? When Tertullian says,6 that the Christian'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 " ? r But this desire was tempered
1 " Sed alium ex martyrii prarogativd loci potitum indignatus." Adv. Valen-
tinianos', c. 4. See de Fugd in Persecutione, c. n.
2 De Patientid, c. 13; Scorpiace, c. 6, sub fine ; de Pudicitid, c. 9, sub fine,
c. 22 ; de Baptismo, c. 16.
3 Apology, sub fine. " Omnia enim huic operi delicta donantur."
4 "Nemo enim, peregrinatus a corpore, statim immoratur penes Dominum,
nisi ex martyrii prarogativd, Paradiso scilicet, non inferis, deversurus." De
Resur. Carnis, c. 43; Scorpiace, c. 12. "Ad ipsum divinas sedis ascensum."
De Patientid, c. 13.
5 " Denique cum omni sasvitia vestra concertamus, etiam ultro erumpentes,
magisque damnati quam absoluti gaudemus. " Ad Scapulam, c. 1. "Absitenim
ut indigne feramus ea nos pati quas optamus," c. 2. See also c. 5.
6 " In primis, quia nihil nostra refert in hoc aevo, nisi de eo quam celeriter
excedere." Apology, c. 41.
7 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, 1. i. c. 5- "Ipso Apostolo festinante ad Dominum."
De Exhort. Castitatis, c. 12. See also de Spectaculis, c. 28.

7 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 useful
ness would continue. Though he was prepared — though he
longed for the summons to depart — he did not venture to
anticipate it ; and, far from courting martyrdom, he employed
all warrantable methods of preserving his life. Tertullian him
self, 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 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 indiscriminate 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 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
1 "Ergo, inquitis, cur querimini quod vos insequamur, si pati vultis, quum
diligere debeatis per quos patimini quod vultis ? Plane voiumus pati ; verum eo
more, quo et bellum nemo quidem libens patitur, quum et trepidare et periclitari
sit necesse ; tamen et praeliatur omnibus viribus, et vincens in praelio gaudet qui
de praelio querebatur, quia et gloriam consequitur et prasdam," c. 50.

• ' Second and Third Centuries. 73
unto ideath. In like manner it may be presumed that, when the
primitive Christians voluntarily presented themselves before the
tribunal of the magistrate, 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 showing him that he must wade through a sea of blood
in order to accomplish his purpose. Such is the construction
put by Lardner upon the conduct of the Asiatic Christians,1 who
during a persecution presented themselves in a body before the
tribunal of Arrius Antoninus, the proconsul.2 He regards as an
act of well-timed as well as generous self-devotion, that which
Gibbon produces as an instance of the indiscreet ardour of the
primitive Christians.3 His view is, in my opinion, confirmed by
the context ; 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 ; 4 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 punishment, either influenced by compassion, or observ
ing 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 inconsistency in his language
respecting the conduct to be pursued by Christians in times of
persecution. As he advanced in life, his notions became con
tinually more severe. We have already observed that, in the
1 Heathen Testimonies. Observations on Pliny's letter, sect. vii.
2 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 proconsul of
Asia. Casaubon fixes upon an Arrius Antoninus who was murdered during the
reign of Commodus. j&lii Lampridii Commodus, p. 870.
3 Chap. xvi. p. 552, ed. 4to. 4 Ad Scapulam, u. 5.

74 The Ecclesiastical History of the
tract de Patientid,? he speaks as if it were allowable for a
Christian to consult his safety by flight. But in the tract de
Fuga in Perseaitione — 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 incoherent
declamation — he denounces flight in time of persecution as an
impious attempt to resist the divine will. " Persecutions," he
argues, " proceed from God, for the purpose of proving the faith
of Christians;2 the attempt, therefore, to avoid them is both
foolish and wicked : 3 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. Our Saviour, it is true, said to
His disciples, 'When they persecute you in one city, flee to
another.'4 But this injunction applied only to their particular
circumstances : had they been cut off in 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.8 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 has already been made to a passage in the tract
which we are now considering,6 where Tertullian speaks of the
immense revenue which might be collected if each Christian was
allowed to purchase the free exercise of his religion for a sum of
money.7 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. Tertullian, as might be expected,
condemns this practice in the strongest terms.8 "Christians,"
he says, " who have been redeemed with the precious blood of
1 See the passage quoted in chap. ii. note 4, p. 24. Compare ad Uxorem, 1. i. c.
3. " Etiam in persecutionibus melius est ex permissufugere de oppidoinoppidum,
quam comprehensum et distortum negare. Atqui isti beatiores, qui valent beati
testimonii confessione non excidere." 2 Cc. 1-5.
3 C. 4. " C. 6. Matt. x. 23. 5 c. 8.
3 Note 3, p. 46, 7 C. 13. s C. n, ad fin.

Second and Third Centuries. 75
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 religion, pointing out to them various topics of
consolation, and exhorting them to courage and constancy under
their sufferings. It might be supposed that the duty of prepara
tion for the cruel fate which awaited them would have left them
neither time nor inclination to engage in disputes with each
other.1 They appear, however, to have disagreed in prison,
and part of Tertullian's address is taken up in warning them not
to allow the enemy of their salvation to gain a triumph by their
dissensions. Their disputes appear from our author's expressions
to have beeft 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 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 obliga
tion to encounter martyrdom.2 "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 show that it is the bounden duty of Christians
to endure the severest sufferings rather than do any act which
can be construed into a participation in idolatry. The heinous-
ness of that sin in the sight of God is proved by the numerous
denunciations in the Old Testament against it ; 3 and by the
severe punishments inflicted on the Israelites, for adopting the
rites of their idolatrous neighbours. 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 ; 4 to shrink, for instance, from martyrdom, if we should be
called ' to so severe a trial of our faith. This conclusion our
1 C. 1. 2 C. 1. See chap. ii. p. 29. 3 Cc. 2, 3.
4 C. 4. This notion is carried to the utmost pitch of extravagance in the tract
de Idololatrid, c. 22.

76 The Ecclesiastical History of the
author supports by references to the example of Daniel, and the
three Jews who were thrown into the fiery furnace by Nebuchad
nezzar, for refusing to bow down to the golden image.1 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.2 He
contends, therefore, that when God calls men to suffer for the
gospel, far from deserving, as the Valentinians insinuated, on
that account to be censured as cruel, He affords a striking proof
of His goodness, by enabling us to vanquish in turn the enemy
of our salvation by whom Adam was vanquished.8
From the Old Testament Tertullian proceeds to the New,
and argues that one principal object of our Saviour's discourses
to His disciples was to confirm their faith, and prepare them
cheerfully to encounter the persecutions which awaited them.4
The interpretation which the apostles put upon the words of
Christ is, he adds, manifest both from their writings and their
conduct. 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.6
Some of the evasions suggested by the Valentinians for the
purpose of enabling the convert at once to save his life and
satisfy his conscience, 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 equivoca
tion ; for after the party accused had denied that he was a
Christian, they compelled him also to deny and blaspheme
Christ. The Valentinians also contended that, as St. Paul
enjoins Christians to be subject to the higher powers, without
limiting the injunction, he meant that they were to obey the
magistrate, even when commanded to abjure Christianity.8
1 C. 8. 2 C. 5. 3 C. 6. 4 CCi 9_I2i
6 Cc. 12, 13, 14. 6 C. 15. 7 C. 9. Matt. x. 33.
8 C. 14. Rom. xiii. 1.

Second and Third Centuries. 77
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.1 It
must, however, be admitted that Tertullian occasionally displays
no less dexterity than his opponents in misinterpreting Scripture
and wresting it to his own purpose. Thus he says that the fear
which, according to St. John, is cast out by perfect love, is the
fear of persecution.2
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 reference 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 of
the apostles,3 and instructing their brethren to encounter per
secution, not merely with firmness, as the lot to which they were
especially called by their profession, but with cheerfulness and
joy, since they thereby became partakers in their blessed Master's
sufferings — instead of confining themselves to these sound and
reasonable topics of exhortation, they represented martyrdom as an
object to be ambitiously sought ; forgetting that, although resigna
tion 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.
1 C. 10.
- C. 12. 1 John iv. 18. The same interpretation is repeated in the tract de
Fugd in Persecutione, c. 9.
3 1 Pet. iv. 12.

78 The Ecclesiastical History of the
We have seen that Tertullian complains of the total disregard
of the established forms of law manifested by the heathen
magistrates in their proceedings against the Christians.1 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. From a passage in the Address to Scapula, we
may conclude that death by the sword was the punishment
appointed in the case of the Christians ; 2 but Tertullian says
that in many instances they had been burned — " a severity of
punishment," he adds, "to which even criminals convicted of
sacrilege or treason are not doomed." Nor were the governors
content with inflicting bodily sufferings on their unhappy victims.
Those more refined and ingenious torments, which Gibbon
supposes to have existed only in the inventions of the monks of
succeeding ages, were, if we may believe Tertullian, actually
resorted to in his day.3 The primitive Christians scrupulously
complied with the decree pronounced by the apostles at Jeru
salem, in abstaining from things strangled and from blood ; when,
therefore, they were exhausted by long fasting, food containing
blood was offered to them, in the hope that they might be
seduced into an act of disobedience.4 Tertullian states also that
attempts were frequently made to overcome the chastity of
the female martyrs ; and that, instead of being exposed to the
wild beasts, they were consigned to the keepers of the public
stews, to become the victims either of seduction or of brutal
violence.6 I shall proceed to notice some other facts mentioned by
Tertullian, which, though they do not relate immediately to the
history of his own times, are yet worthy of observation. In the
tract against the Jews, he says that Christ suffered in the reign
of Tiberius Csesar, in the consulship of Rubellius Geminus and
1 P. 120.
2 ' ' 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 Prasside Legioms
et a Prasside Mauritanias vexatur hoc nomen, sed gladio tenus, sicut et a prim-
ordio mandatum est animadverti in hujusmodi," c. 4. Compare ad Nationes, L i.
c. 18. " Incendiali tunica." And ad Martyres, c. 5. " In tunica ardente. "
3 Chap. xvi. p. 544, ed. 4to.
4 Apology, c. 9 ; de Monogamid, c. 5. " Et libertas ciborum et sanguinis
solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit."
5 "Nam et proxime ad Leonem damnando Christianam, potius quam ad
Leonem, confessi estis labem pudicitias apud nos atrociorem omni poena et omni
morte reputari." Apology, sub fine. See also de Pudicitid, c. 1.

Second and Third Centuries. 79
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.1 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.2 It is allowed that the consulship 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 maintaining
that opinion. To these passages, however, has been opposed
another from the first book against Marcion,3 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 suffered. 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 Mr. Benson's work
on that subject.4
Tertullian 6 more than once speaks of a census taken during
the reign of Augustus, the documents relating to which were
preserved in the Roman archives, and, according to him, afforded
1 C. 8, sub fine. Compare c. 10, sub fine.
2 " Post enim Augustum, qui supervixit post nativitatem Christi, anni 13
efficiuntur : cui successit Tiberius Caesar, et imperium habuit annis 22, mensibus
7, diebus 20. Hujus quintodecimo annq imperii passus est Christus, annos habens
quasi 30 quum pateretur," c. 8. Tertullian affirms also that Christ was born in
the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus, of which he dates the commencement
from the death of Cleopatra.
3 C. 15. ' ' At nunc quale est ut Dominus a 12 Tiberii Cassaris revelatus sit ? "
In a subsequent chapter Tertullian speaks as if the ministry of Christ had com
menced 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
dignatus est, Spiritus Salutaris," c. 19. So in 1. iv.-c. 7. "Anno quintodecimo
principatus Tiberiani, proponit (Marcion) eum descendisse in civitatem Galilasss
Caphamaum, utique de ccelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat."
4 C. vii. sect. i. p. 274.
5 " Cujus nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de domo? de censu denique
Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum Dominicas nativitatis Romana Archiva custodi-
unt?" Ad Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 7. We must bear in mind that Tertullian is arguing
with a heretic, who affirmed that Christ was not born at all, but descended upon
earth a perfect man. Again, c. 19, ' ' Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc
(f. tunc) in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum." Andc. 36, " Vel de recentibus Augus-
tianis censibus adhuc tunc fortasse pendentibus." See also de Carne Christi, c. 2.
" Molestos semper Cassaris census." In the treatise de Pallio, c. 1, Sentius Satur-
ninus is mentioned as having presided at the ceremonies which attended the
admission of Carthage among the colonies of Rome.

80 The Ecclesiastical History of the
incontestable evidence of our Lord's nativity. He states, how
ever, that this census was taken by Sentius Saturninus, and con
sequently appears to contradict the account given by St. Luke,
who ascribes it to Cyrenius. In this, as in the former case, I
shall not attempt to examine the solutions of the difficulty which
have been proposed by different learned men, but shall refer the
reader to Lardner.1 One circumstance, however, seems worthy
of observation. Tertullian 2 uniformly appeals to the census as
establishing the descent of Christ from David through Mary,
whose genealogy he also supposes to be given in St. Matthew's
Gospel.3 In the Apology,'1' Tertullian 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." Gibbon5 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 Sibyl
line verses, which relate the prodigy exactly in the words of the
gospel. It is certain that Tertullian6 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 history of the
Church, as illustrated by the writings of Tertullian, with briefly 1
adverting to the few notices which can be collected from them
respecting the condition of the Jews in his time. He describes 8
1 Credibility of the Gospel History. Objections against Luke ii. i, 2, con
sidered. 2 " Ex stirpe autem Jesse deputatum, per Mariam scilicet inde censendum. Fuit
enim de patria Bethlehem, et de domo David, sicut apud Romanos in censu de-
scripta est Maria, ex qua nascitur Christus. " Adv. Judaos, c. 9. Compare adv.
Marc. 1. iii. cc. 17, 20. 1. iv. cc. 1, 36. "Qui vultvidere lesum, David filium credat
per virginis censum. '' See also 1. v. c. 1, and c. 8, where there is a very fanciful
application of Isaiah xi. 1. Compare de Carne Christi, c. 21.
3 De Carne Christi, c. 22.
4 '' Eodem momento dies, medium orbem signante sole, subducta est. Deliquium
utique putaverunt, qui id quoque super Christo prasdictum non scierunt ; ratione
non deprehensa, negaverunt. Et tamen eum mundi casum relatum in archivis
vestris," c. 21.
5 Chan. xv. note 194.
6 Ad Nationes, 1. ii. c. 12, sub fine. The verses there quoted may be found in
the Apology of Athenagoras, c. 26, DePallio, c. 2. See Salmasius in loco,
7 See note 5, p. 79.
8 '' Dispersi, palabundi, et cceli et soli sui extorres vagantur per orbem, sine
homine, sine Deo rege, quibus nee advenarum jure terram patriam saltem vestigio

Second and Third Centuries. 8 1
them as dispersed throughout the world, having neither God
nor a fellow-mortal for their king ; not allowed to set foot upon
their native land ; reduced, in a word, to a state of the lowest
degradation. Appendix to Chapter II.
By the kindness of the Rev. Samuel Hey, Rector of Steeple
Ashton, and of Dr. Richard Hey, of Hertingfordbury, 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 —
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 modern times. The
reader, in perusing the following extracts, should bear in mind
that at the time when Dr. Hey wrote, the controversy excited
by Dr. Middleton's Essay was still fresh in the recollections of
men. After some preliminary remarks, Dr. Hey observes : — " The
authors on both sides of this question, concerning the reality of
the miraculous powers in the primitive Church, seemed 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 appear indefensible, the cause of Christianity should
suffer by the condemnation of its early propagators. Those who
accuse the Fathers of superstition, weakness, or falsehood, con
sider what indelible disgrace they shall bring upon popery by
showing the impurity of the sources from which all its distinguish
ing doctrines have taken their rise. But why, in searching after
the truth, should we give the least attention to any consequences
whatsoever ? We know with certainty beforehand that error of
salutare conceditur." Apology, c. 21. Compare adv. Judaos, c. 3. " Unde Israel
in novissimo tempore dignosci haberat, quando secundum sua merita in sanctam
civitatem ingredi prohiberetur." See also c. 13, and& Pudicitid, c. 8. Ecclesias
tical writers sometimes speak as if Adrian's prohibition applied only to the pre
cincts of Jerusalem or .iEiia ; 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. 1. iv. c. 6 ; Justin Martyr, Apology, i. p. 84 B.

82 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 con
duct 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 considering 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 foundation in reason), it has already suffered, even in the
estimation of those who think the objections of weight. All
agree (at least all Protestants) that there have been pious frauds
and forged miracles, as well as that the sacred order have been in
some ages extremely vicious. The only difference then is in the
degree of this charge, or rather about the century with regard to
which it ought to take place ; but .what difference can such a
circumstance as that make in respect of the divine origin of
Christianity ? We may therefore, without fear or scruple, enter
upon the discussion which I have been proposing, and probe
every apparent wound with resolution and accuracy.
" But as all reasoning on subjects of this nature must have its
foundation in facts (for we can no more argue upon points of
history without ascertaining^^, than upon points of philosophy
without experiments), the first part of our business is to collect
from ecclesiastical writers narratives of those miracles wrought,
or pretended to be wrought, in the Christian Church which seem
to be most worthy of our attention, and most likely to afford
our 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 pre
tensions to the possession of miraculous powers. We have
already spoken in a former lecture of those Fathers who are
called the Apostolic, of Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas ; 1
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
1 Hennas had visions. Note of Dr. Hey.

Second and Third Centuries. 83
Church, and the immediate successors of the apostles in that
government (as well as their companions and friends), ever speaks
of himself as capable of counteracting the ordinary powers of
nature : they all endeavour to inculcate 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 iincontro-
verted, is very nearly so ; some ambiguous expressions concerning
the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit have been, not without
great violence, extended to signify an extraordinary communica
tion 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 because they are said to have been
performed concerning 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, Irenseus,
Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, and Tertullian. We might add
Origen, and indeed every other writer after them till the Refor
mation ; 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

84 The Ecclesiastical History of the
of assuming the power of raising the dead ; and yet Irenasus says
that this was frequently done on necessary occasions, and that
men so raised had lived amongst them many years. Irenasus
only affirms this in general, without mentioning any particular
instance, and it is somewhat strange that no instance was ever
produced in the three first centuries, insomuch that the heathens
gave no credit to the affirmations of the Fathers upon this head.
' Tantum enim,' x says Irenasus, ' absunt ab eo ut mortuum ipsi
excitent, ut ne quidem 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 demoniacs, 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 ? "
" 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 viola
tions of truth which have been fully exposed, it is absolutely
impossible to believe the common run of miraculous stories ; no
evidence can equal the prior probability which we have of
their falsehood. Then there are many relations of preternatural
events which no one believes (or perhaps a very trifling party),
though they have been attested with all possible formality and
exactness. The Abbe' Paris is mentioned by every one on this
subject: he only died in 1735. The variety of miracles which
1 The whole passage is as follows : — " Tantum autem absunt ab eo ut mortuum
excitent, quemadmodum Dominus excitavit, et Apostoli per orationem, et in
fraternitate saspissime propter aliquid necessarium, ea quas est in quoque loco
Ecclesia universa postulante per jejunium et supplicationem multam, reversus est
Spiritus mortui et donatus est homo orationibus sanctorum, ut ne quidem credant
hoc in totum posse fieri," 1. ii. c. 56. Again, c. 57 : "Jam etiam, quemadmodum
diximus, et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis multR"
Instead of the heathens, Dr. Hey should have said the heretics, for of them
Irenasus is speaking.

Second and Third Centuries. 85
were said to have been performed at his tomb is truly surprising
in an improved age ; but not less so the strength, the precision,
the regularity of the attestations of them, taken before magis
trates of the greatest gravity and authority. Mons. de Montgeron,
a person of eminent rank in Paris, published a select number of
them in a pompous volume in quarto, which he 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 facts ; the Jesuit party never owned
their belief of them, for the Abb£ 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 Abb£ 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 the 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 concern
ing 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 super
natural operations of witches. All the nations of Christendom
have so far taken their powers for granted as to provide legal
remedies against them, — nay, even capital punishments for their
supposed crimes. At this time there subsist in this university
one, if not several foundations for annual sermons, to be
preached against them. It is shocking to think of the number
of poor wretches who have suffered cruel deaths on account of
this superstition ; and yet there does not now seem to remain the
least trace of it amongst liberal people, or indeed in any rank
whatsoever.1 If we consider how an incredulous person, during
its existence, would.be blamed for opposing the united sense of
1 We are afraid that Dr. Hey here overrates the intelligence of the people of
this country.

86 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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.' 1
" Far different from those we have been speaking of, are the
miracles of the gospel — rational, benevolent, seasonable, of
extensive use, disinterested, free from superstition and morose-
ness, promoting good morals, called out by the greatness of
the occasion in a series, coincident with the purposes of God
manifested in prior revelations of His will. Nor would even
these 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.' " 2

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 introduced by Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria. On this
subject the writings of Tertullian afford no information. Not
1 Dr. Middleton does not seem to fall far short of Mr. Hume On Miracles,
Note of Dr. Hey.
2 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 deceived both as to what is done, and
what can be done : every 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, etc., under the laios of nature. Note by Dr, Hey, written
in 1783.

Second and Third Centuries. 87
that he was unacquainted with the tenets of the different sects —
his works, on the contrary, show that he had studied them with
diligence and success ; or that he entertained that mortal enmity
to philosophy and letters which Mosheim imputes to the Mon
tanists in general, for he appears even to have thought that the
philosophers, who opposed the polytheism of their countrymen,
were in some measure inspired by the spirit of truth ; x but he
clearly saw, and has, in his controversial writings against the
heretics, pointed out the pernicious consequences to the interests
of Christianity, which had resulted from the attempt to explain
its doctrines by a reference to the tenets of the philosophers.2
" 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." 3
Although, however, the writings of Tertullian 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 informa
tion. We will begin, therefore, with the treatise de Testimonio
Anima, 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. In a short
exordium,4 Tertullian points out the inconsistency and perverse-
ness 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.
1 "Idem (Socrates) et quum aliquid de Veritate sapiebat, Deos negans,"etc.
Apology, c. 46. "Taceo de Philosophis, quos, superbia severitatis et duritia
disciplinas ab omni timore securos, nonnullus etiam afflatus Veritatis adversus
Deos erigit. " Ad Nationes, 1. i. c. 10.
2 ' ' Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid Academias et Ecclesias ? quid
Hasreticis et Christianis ? Nostra institutio de porticu Solomonis est, qui et ipse
tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quasrendum. Viderint qui
Stoicum, et Platonicum, et Dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. Nobis
curiositate opus non est post Christum lesum, nee inquisitione post Evangelium."
De Prcescriptione Haretic. c. 7. He traces the origin of all the heresies by which
the peace of the Church was disturbed to the heathen philosophy : ' ' Ipsas denique
haereses a Philosophic subornantur." Ibid. "Cum Philosophis — Patriarchis, ut
ita dixerim, Hasreticorum. " 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."
4 Compare the Apology, c. 46.

88 The Ecclesiastical History of the
He then proceeds to address the soul, enumerating at the same
time the opinions entertained by the philosophers respecting its
origin. " Stand forth," he says, " O soul, whether, as the
majority of 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 subsequently introduced into the body :
whatever thine origin, and in whatever manner thou makest
man a rational animal, capable of sense and knowledge —
stand forth." 1 "I do not, however," he adds, " address my
self to the soul in an artificial state, such as it becomes after
it has been tutored in the schools of philosophy, but to the
soul in its natural state, possessing only that knowledge
which it has either within itself or learns immediately from its
Creator." The testimony which, according to Tertullian, the soul bears
to the unity of God, consists in exclamations like the following,
which burst forth involuntarily from the mouths even of pagans,
in common conversation : — " God grant that it may be so " — " If
God will." 2 " How happens it," asks our author, still addressing
the soul, " that instead of naming any one of the numerous
deities who are the objects of heathen worship, you use the
word Deus, and thus unconsciously bear testimony to the exist
ence of one supreme God ? " In like manner the soul evinces
its knowledge of the attributes of God, of His power and good
ness, by exclaiming, " God bless you ; God is good ; I commend
you to God ; God sees all things ; God will repay : " as it evinces
its knowledge of the author of evil, by the execrations which
it pronounces against demons.3 By the fear also of death, by
its innate desire of fame, and by involuntary expressions of
feeling respecting the dead, it declares its consciousness that
1 "Consiste in medio, Anima, seu divina et asterna 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 capacissimum," c. i. In c. 4 are briefly enumerated
the opinions of the different philosophers respecting the state of the soul after
death. " C. 2. 3 C. 3.

Second and Third Centuries. 89
it shall exist in another state, and its anticipation of a future
judgment.1 " Such is the testimony which the soul bears to the unity and
attributes of God, and to the reality of a future state of retribu
tion. 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 Him who created the soul. But you will say,
perhaps, that these exclamations, which burst as it were in
voluntarily 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 con
versation, almost without meaning, and transmitted either by
written or oral tradition. Be it so. Whence then were they
derived by the man who first used them ? The notion must
have been conceived in the soul before it was delivered to the
tongue, or committed to writing. To account for the general
use of these expressions by saying that they have been handed
down by written tradition, is in fact to trace them to God Him
self ; for the earliest writings in the world are the Jewish Scrip
tures, 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." 2
The confirmation which the natural testimony of the soul
affords to the truth of Christianity was evidently a favourite topic
with Tertullian.3 He urges the same argument in the Apology?
IC.4. 2 Cc. 5, 6.
3 Compare de Animd, c. 41 ; de Carne Christi, c. 12 ; de Resurrectione
Carnis, c. 3 ; adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 10.
4 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 qu& disposuit,
virtute qua potuit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentum majestatis suae, unde et
Grasci nomen mundo xir,u.m accommodaverunt. Invisibihs est, etsi videatur ;
incomprehensibUis, etsi per gratiam repraesentetur ; inasstimabilis, etsi humanis
sensibus aestimetur ; ideo verus et tantus est. Casterum quod videri communiter,
quod comprehendi, quod asstimari potest, minus est et oculis quibus occupatur, et
manibus quibus contaminatur, et sensibus quibus invenitur. Quod vero immen-
sum est, soli sibi notum est ; hoc est quod Deum asstimari facit, dum asstimari
non capit. Ita eum vis magnitudinis et notum hominibus objicit et ignotum. Et
hasc est summa delicti nolentium recognoscere quem ignorare non possunt. Vultis
ex operibus ipsius tot ac talibus quibus continemur, quibus sustinemur, quibus
oblectamur, etiam quibus exterremur — vultis ex animas ipsius testimonio com-

90 The Ecclesiastical History of the
and Milner in 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 speak
ing, 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 ? By an appeal to the
testimony borne to the existence of one supreme God, by the
natural voice of conscience, and by the works of creation.1 To
this testimony, therefore, Tertullian appeals; and in thus appeal
ing, 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 showing that the revela
tion which God has been pleased to make of Himself, in His
probemus? quas licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institutionibus pravis circum
scripta, licet libidinibus et concupiscentiis evigorata, licet falsis Diis exancillata,
quum tamen resipiscit, ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, et
sanitatem suam potitur, Deum nominat, hoc solo nomine quia proprio Dei veri.
Deus magnus, Deus bonus, et quod Deus dederit, omnium vox est. Judicem
quoque contestatur ilium. Deus videt, et Deo commendo, et Deus mihi reddet.
O testimonium anima? naturahter Christianas 1 Denique pronuntians hasc, non
ad Capitolium, sed ad ccelum respicit. Novit enim sedem Dei vivi ; ab illo et
inde descendit."
1 The following are selected from numerous passages in which Tertullian appeals
to this testimony : — " Tractandum et hie de revelationis qualitate, an digne cognitus
sit (Deus), ut constet an vere ; et ita credatur esse, quem digne constiterit revelatum.
Digna enim Deo probabunt Deum. Nos definimus Deum primo natura cogno-
scendum, dehinc doctrina recognoscendum. Natura, ex operibus ; doctrina, ex
prasdicationibus. " Adv. Marc. 1. i. c. 18. Compare 1. ii. c. 3 ; adv. Valentinianos,
c. 20. " Denique ante legem Moysi scriptam in lapideis tabulis, legem fuisse
contendo non scriptam, qvras naturahter intelh'gebatur et a Patribus custodiebatur.
Nam unde Noe Justus inventus, si non ilium naturalis legis justitia prascedebat?"
Adv. Judaos, c. 2 ; de Virginibusvel. cc. 1, 16. " Nos unum Deum colimus, quem
omnes naturahter nostris ; ad cujus fulgura et tonitrua contremiscitis : ad cujus
beneficia gaudetis." Ad Scapulam, c. 2. "Si enim anima, aut divina aut a Deo
data est, sine dubio datorem suum novit." De Testim. Anima, c. 2. "Quum
etiam ignorantes Dominum nulla exceptio tueatur a pK]ena, quia Deum in aperto
constitutum, et vel ex ipsis ccelestibus bonis comprehensibilem ignorari non licet,
quanto cognitum despici periculosum estU " De Pcenitentid, c. 5 ; ae Spectaculis,
c, 2 ; de Corond Militis, c. 6 ; ad Nationes, 1. ii. c. 5.

Second and Third Cenhiries. 9 1
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 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 existence 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 per
fections, 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 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) from
the first man."1 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
contemplation of the works of creation, etc.? " Because, it is
said, between matter and spirit, things visible and invisible, time
1 Doctrine of Grace, Book III. c. *. Warburton is speaking in the person of an
opponent of Natural Religion.

9 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 understand
ing. What then are the grounds on which that assent is given ?
The mere statement cannot alone be sufficient to produce con
viction. The truth is that the understanding assents, because
the fact proposed agrees with our previous observations — with
the previous deductions of reason. Reason tells us that there
are in the nature of man faculties for the existence of which we
cannot account by any 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 revela
tion infer that fact from it. The latter is doubtless by far the
more difficult operation ; but we are now speaking only of its
possibility or impossibility. The same series of proofs by which
we establish a known truth might surely have conducted us to
the knowledge of that truth.1
Let us suppose a sceptic to ask why we believe the existence
of God : what must be our reply ? According to the writers
whose opinions we are now considering, " this truth was
originally made known by revelation." But if the sceptic pro
ceeded to deny, as he probably would, the authority of the reve
lation, by what arguments must we endeavour to convince him ?
The answer is, " We must necessarily refer him to those testi
monies, which the natural and moral phenomena of the world
abundantly 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
1 To borrow an illustration from science. For how long a period were the ablest
mathematicians employed in endeavouring to effect the passage from finite to in
finite, or from discrete to continuous, in geometry ? The discovery was at length
made, and therefore was at all times possible.

Second and Third Centuries. 93
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 investiga
tion. We possess certain records, the genuineness of which we
have ascertained. These declare that at a certain time a revela
tion was made from Heaven, and that the person who was sent
to make it, attested the truth of His mission by miracles." Per
haps the sceptic will reply that no human testimony can establish
the credit of a miracle. How is this objection to be answered but
by a reference to the natural world ? by showing that what we
call the course of nature, from which a miracle is said to be a
deviation, is in fact only a system appointed by the God of nature,
and consequently liable to be suspended or altered according to
His pleasure ? Or perhaps the sceptic may say that pretensions
to miraculous powers have abounded in all ages ; and that, as
such pretensions have in the majority of instances been shown 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 show that the
purposes for which the miraculous powers are said to have been
exerted were consonant to just conceptions of the divine nature
and attributes ; and those conceptions derived from sources
extraneous and independent of the revelation itself. For we
must not, in the first instance, say that we obtain the knowledge
of the nature and attributes of God from a revelation, and then
prove the truth of that revelation by a reference to the knowledge
so obtained.
But is not this, it will be asked, to constitute human reason
the judge of the divine dispensations ? Is it not to say that man,
blind and ignorant man, can certainly determine what ought and
what ought not to proceed from God? By no means. It is
only to compare one set of facts with another ; to compare the
conceptions of the divine nature, which we derive from the
perusal of the Bible, with those which we derive from the con
templation of the phenomena of the natural and moral world. If
the written word and the visible world both proceed from the
same author, they cannot but agree in the testimony which they
bear to His character and attributes.
Men, it is true, have not unfrequently been induced by the
love of paradox, by the desire of obtaining a reputation for
superior talent and acuteness, or by other motives of a similar

94 The Ecclesiastical History of the
description, to assert the all-sufficiency of human reason, and to
deny the necessity of a revelation. Hence many good and pious
Christians have run into the opposite extreme, and been disposed
to regard all who have recourse to reason and the light of nature
in the investigation of religious truth as little better than infidels,
puffed up with a 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 exercise of our
various faculties on the phenomena of the visible world, is as
strictly the gift of God as that which we derive from the perusal
of His revealed Word.
Warburton, in the second and third cftapters 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 d 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 continually
run into extremes ; sometimes exalting human 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 them
selves at the greatest possible distance from it, they took every
opportunity of launching forth into the praises of human reason,
and asserting its sufficiency to the discovery of divine truth, till
the gospel at length came to be spoken of as a mere republication
of the religion of nature. The infidel was not slow in availing
himself of the advantage which such unguarded expressions
afforded him, and began to deny the necessity of revelation,
under the pretence that natural religion was sufficient for every
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 extreme, and decrying

Second and Third Centuries. 95
natural religion with as much vehemence as their predecessors
had extolled it. — To return to Tertullian.
We have seen his opinion respecting the testimony borne by
the soul of man to the unity and attributes of God, and to a
future state. Let us now examine his sentiments respecting the
soul itself, which are detailed in the treatise de Anima? After
the body of flesh of Adam 2 had been formed out of the dust of
the earth,3 God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,4 and
man became a living soul. Man, therefore, is composed of two
parts, o-api and i/tix^j Caro and Anima,5 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 voSs, Animus or Mens. He describes
voBs,6 or Animus, as coexistent and consubstantial with the soul,
1 We have seen that our author wrote a distinct treatise on the origin of the
soul, de Censu Anima, against Hermogenes, who contended that it was formed
out of matter. Chap. i. p. 32.
2 C. 3. See, concerning the creation of man, de Resurrectione Carnis, cc. 5, 7.
3 Tertullian supposes the earth, out of which man was made, to have been in a
humid state, having been lately covered with water. De Baptismo, c. 3 ; adv.
Valentinianos, c. 24 ; adv. Hermogenem, c. 29. '' Qui tunc de limo formari
habebat." Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. " De limo caro in Adam." De Animd, c. 27.
For a definition of the body see de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 33.
4 This breath Tertullian sometimes calls the substance of God. ' ' A rationali
scilicet artifice non tantum factus (homo), sed etiam ex substantia ipsius animatus. "
Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. Compare adv. Marc. 1. ii. cc. 5, 6. " Quoquo tamen,
inquis, modo substantia 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 Animd, c. n.
5 Tertullian sometimes uses the word Spiritus to designate the soul. See de
Baptismo, cc. 4, 5 ; de Panitentid, 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. "Quas non intestinis transi-
guntur, sed in ipso Spiritu et Anima digeruntur." See also c. 17, sub fine, and
de Animd, cc. 10, 11. But generally Tertullian uses the word Spiritus to
designate the Holy Spirit, the communication of whose influence constitutes the
spiritual man, *9ivf*.«.rixhc, in contradistinction to the animal man, >tyuxtx6e. " Qui
non tantum animas erant, verum et spiritus," c. 26. In c. 41 we find the spirit
clearly distinguished from the soul. ' ' Sequitur animam nubentem Spiritui caro,
ut dotale mancipium, et jam non animas famula, sed Spiritus." Using the word
Spiritus in this sense, he calls the soul suffectura Spiritus ("Quia suffectura est
quodammodo Spiritus Anima," adv. Marc. 1. 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
Monogamid, c. 1.
6 ' ' Proinde et animum, sive mens est, »oDf apud Grascos, non aliud quid
intelligimus, quam suggestum animas ingenitum et insitum et nativitus proprium,
quo agit, quo sapit, quem secum habens ex semetipsa se commoveat in semet-
ipsa," c. 12. Again, in the same chapter, near the end : "Nos autem animum

96 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 evident from the language of common
life. We say that a rich man feeds so many souls, not so many
minds ; that a dying man breathes out his soul, not his mind ;
that Christ came to save the souls, not the minds of men.1
"The Scriptures then," Tertullian proceeds, "prove, in opposi-
J tion to Plato, that the soul has a beginning. They prove also,
' in opposition to the same philosopher, that the soul is corporeal." 2
On this last point great difference of opinion existed ; some
philosophers maintaining, with Cleanthes, that as there could be
no mutual action of things corporeal and things incorporeal upon
each other, and as the soul and body certainly do act upon each
other, the soul must be corporeal.3 Plato, on the contrary,
contended that every body must be either animale, animated by
a soul, in which case it will be set in motion by some internal
action ; or 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.4 To this Tertullian replies that undoubtedly the soul
can neither be called animale nor inanimale ; still it is a body,
though sui generis. It is itself set in motion by external action,
when, for instance, it is under the influence of prophetic inspira
tion ; and it sets bodies in motion, which it could not do if it
were not a body. Plato further argued that the modes in which
we arrive at the knowledge of the qualities of things corporeal
ita dicimus animas concretum, non ut substantia alium, sed ut substantias
officium." Again, in c. 18 : " Putabis quidem abesse animum ab anim&, siquando
animo ita afncimur, 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 tam animam, quam mentem atque animum
intelligi mavult, id est, non substantiam ipsam, sed substantias saporem."
1 C. 13. 2 C. 4.
3 C. 5. Tertullian also ascribes a body to the Spirit. ' ' Licet enim et animas
corpus sit aliquod, suae qualitatis, sicut et spiritus. Adv. Marc. 1. 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
Carne 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 sit rei cujusque." Adv. Hermogenem,
c 35-
4C 6.

Second and Third Centuries. 97
and things incorporeal, are perfectly distinct. The knowledge of
the former is obtained through the bodily senses — sight, touch,
etc. ; 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 sustenance ; the latter is supported by
meat and drink ; the former by wisdom and learning." Here
Tertullian appeals to medical authority,1 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. His last argument is
drawn from the Scriptures, which speak of the torments endured
by the soul of the rich man when in a state of separation from
the body — in that intermediate state in which the soul remains
until the general resurrection.2 But if the soul can suffer, it must
be corporeal ; were it jiot 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.3 But though invisible
to the eye of sense, it is visible to the eye of the spirit ; for St.
John, when in the Spirit, beheld the souls of the martyrs.4 The
specimens already produced will give the reader a sufficiently
accurate idea of the arguments by which the parties in this
dispute supported their respective opinions ; we will therefore
proceed at once to state Tertullian's conclusion. He ascribes to
the soul 5 a peculiar character or constitution, boundary, length,
breadth, height, and figure.6 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
1 Soranus, the physician whom Tertullian quotes by name, appears to have
been a materialist, and to have maintained the mortality of the soul.
2 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
reprassentabuntur et corpora, quia neque pati quicquam potest anima sola sine
stabiii materia., id est, carne." See also de Testimonio Anima, c. 4.
3 C. 8. 4 Apoc. vi. 9.
5 C. 9. 6 The Latin word is " habitum."
D

98 The Ecclesiastical History of the
ethereal colour,' and in form agreeing exactly with the human
form. For when God breathed into Adam the breath of life,
that breath, being diffused through every part and member of
his body, produced an interior man corresponding in all respects
to the exterior.
Having shown that the soul is corporeal, our author proceeds
I to maintain that it is simple and uncompounded ; in opposition
to certain philosophers who distinguished between the soul and
the spirit, anima and spiritus^ and made the latter a different
substance from the former ; the soul being, according to them,
the vital principle, the principle by which men live — the spirit
that by which they breathe.1 Anatomists, they said, inform us
that moths, and ants, and gnats have no organs of respiration ;
they have the vital without the breathing principle ; those prin
ciples are consequently distinct But Tertullian will not allow
that we can thus reason from an insect to a human being.2
In the nature of man, life and breath are inseparable. The
distinction, therefore, between anima and spiritus 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. 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.3
The simplicity of the soul necessarily implies that it is indi
visible.4 When, therefore, the philosophers talk of the parts
of the soul, they speak inaccurately : they should say powers, or
faculties, or operations, as of moving, acting, thinking, seeing,
hearing, etc. Because different parts of the body are, as it
were, allotted to the different senses, we must not suppose
* Cc. 10, 11.
2 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, quas
apud nos in homine privata res est, non modo ut Dei opus quod et castera, sed ut
Dei flatus quod hasc sola, quam dicimus cum omni instructu suo nasci. "
3 " Erunt enim et alias Spiritus species, ut ex Deo, ut ex diabolo,'' c. 10. Com
pare c. 18. " Ob hasc ergo prasstruximus neque animum aliud quid esse, quam
animas suggestum et structum : neque spiritum extraneum quid quam quod et
ipsa per flatum. Casterum accessioni deputandum, quod aut Deus postal, aut
Diabolus adspiraret,"
4 C. 14.

Second and Third Centuries. 99
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 pro
duces a variety of sounds.. With respect to the seat of the
soul, the part of the body in which the principle of vitality
and sensation peculiarly resides, to rryzp.ovLKov, principale, Ter
tullian places it in the heart ; grounding his opinion upon those
passages of Scripture in which man is said to think, to believe,
to sin, etc. with the heart.1
While, however, Tertullian denies that the soul is divisible
into parts, he admits Plato's distinction respecting its rational
and irrational qualities, though he explains the distinction
in a different manner.2 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 I
parents into transgression. Plato applied the terms 8vp,iKbv and
kTri6vp.-qTiK.bv to the irrational qualities of the soul ; but, says
Tertullian, there is a rational as well as irrational indignation
and desire ; indignation at sin, and desire of good.
The credit due to the testimony of the senses 3 was a question
on which great diversity of opinion existed among the philo
sophers.4 The Platonists contended that no credit can be
given to them, because in many instances their testimony is at
variance with fact. Thus a straight oar immersed in the water
appears bent — a parallel row of trees appears to converge to a
point — the sky in the horizon appears to be united to the sea.
The state of natural philosophy in 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,
1 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 15. The ancient anatomists appear to have insti
tuted 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.
2 C. 16. 3 C. 17.
4 In the tract de Corond, c. 5, Tertullian calls the senses the instruments of the
soul, by which it sees, hears, etc. Compare the first Tusculan, c. 20, or 46.

ioo The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 fallacy of
the senses l was the notion that the soul, so long as it is united
to the body, cannot attain to the knowledge of the truth ; 2 but
must be involved in the maze of opinion and error. The
business, therefore, of the wise man is to abstract the mind
from the senses, and to raise it to the contemplation of those
invisible, incorporeal, divine, eternal ideas which are the pat
terns 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
obtained through the former.
I In opposition 3 to those who affirmed that the soul of the infant
was destitute of intellect,4 which they supposed to be sub
sequently 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, accord
ing to the different circumstances of birth, health, education,
condition of life.5 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 circumstances. This remark is particu
larly directed against the Valentinian notion that different seeds
— material, animal, or spiritual — are introduced into the souls
of men after their birth ; 6 whence arise the diversities of cha-
i c. 18.
2 The distinction between scientia and opinio must be familiar to all who are
acquainted with Cicero's philosophical writings.
3 Cc. 19, 20, 21.
4 In other words, that the infant possesses the vital, but not the intellectual
principle. 6 Compare cc. 24 and 38. 6 Compare c. 11.

Second and Third Centuries. 101
racter 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 sufficiency of man to form within
himself by the mere exercise of his free-will a holy temper and
disposition; he expressly states that the freedom of the will is
subject to the influence of divine grace.1 The following may be
taken as a correct representation of his meaning. The character-
of man is not irrevocably fixed, as the Valentinians affirm, by any
qualities infused into his soul subsequently to his birth. The
diversities of character observable in different individuals, 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 now recapitulates all that he has said on the sub
ject of the soul ; 2 and affirms that it derives its origin from the
breath of God — that it is immortal ; 3 corporeal ; that it has a
figure ; is simple in substance ; possessing within itself the prin
ciple 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 an insight into futurity.4
Moreover, the souls of all the inhabitants of the earth are
derived from one common source, the soul of Adam.
1 "Hasc erit vis divinas gratias, potentior utique natura, habens in nobis sub-
jacentem sibi liberam arbitrii potestatem, quod atiriZaitnoti dicitur, quae quum sit et
ipsa naturalis atque mutabilis, quoquo vertitur, natura convertitur. Inesse
autem nobis to a.im\siiiria naturahter, jam Marcioni ostendimus et Hermogeni,"
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."
3 Immortal in its own nature. Compare de Res. Carnis, cc. 18, 34, 35.
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.

102 The Ecclesiastical History of the
This last point he proceeds to establish by first refuting Plato's
notions respecting the origin and pre-existence of the soul.1
According to him, Plato said that the souls of men are con
tinually passing to and fro between heaven and earth ; that
they originally existed in heaven with God, and were there
conversant with those eternal ideas of which the visible things
below are only the images. Hence during their residence on
earth they do not acquire any new knowledge, but merely recall
to their recollection what they knew in heaven, and forgot in
their passage from heaven to earth. Plato further argued
that the heavenly powers, the progeny of God,2 who were
entrusted by Him with the creation of man, and received for
that purpose an immortal soul, froze around it a mortal body.3
In refuting these notions, Tertullian argues principally upon
the inconsistency 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.4 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.5 This notion he conceives to be
sufficiently refuted by the experience of every pregnant woman.6
His own opinion is, that the soul and body are conceived
together; the womb of the mother being impregnated at the
same time by the respective seeds, which, though different in
kind, are from the first inseparably united. I must omit the
arguments by which he supports this opinion. They are of
such a nature that he feels himself obliged to apologise 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 conclusion is, that when
God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, the seeds of the body and
soul were inseparably united together in him, and have been
derived, in the same state of union, from him to his posterity.
Thus Tertullian establishes his position that the souls of all
1 C. 23. 2 "Genimina Dei.'
3 " Mortale ei circumgelaverint corpus." 4 C. 24.
5 C. 25. " Perinde animam, extraneam alias et extorrem uteri, prima aspiratione
nascentis infantis adduci, sicut exspiratione novissima educi."
0 " Respondete matres, vosque prasgnantes, vosque puerperas ; steriles et mas-
culi taceant ; vestras natures Veritas quasritur, vestras passionis fides convenitur, an
aliquam in fcetu sentiatis vivacitatem alienam de vestro? de quo palpitent ilia,
micent latera, tota ventris ambitio pulsetur, ubique ponderis regio mutetur?" etc.

Second and Third Cenhiries. 10.3
mankind are derived from one common source, the soul of
Adam. Quitting Plato,1 Tertullian now passes to the Pythagorean
doctrine of the metempsychosis. I will mention one of his argu
ments against this doctrine, on account of the information which
it supplies respecting the height to which cultivation and civiliza
tion were then carried. "If the doctrine of the metempsy
chosis," he says, " is true, the numbers 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 increase that,
although we are continually sending out colonies, and penetrat
ing into new regions, we cannot dispose of the excess. Every
country is now accessible to the traveller and the merchant.
Pleasant farms now smile where formerly were dreary and
dangerous wastes — cultivated fields now 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; everywhere
are houses, and inhabitants, and government, and civilized life.
Still our population continually increases, and occasions fresh
grounds of complaint ; our numbers are burthensome to the
world, which cannot furnish us with the means of subsistence.
Such is our state that we no longer look upon pestilence, and
famine, and wars, and earthquakes as positive evils, but as reme
dies provided by Providence against a greater calamity — as the
only means of pruning the redundant luxuriance of the human
race." 2 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 Tertullian's 3 other arguments against the doctrine
of the metempsychosis, as well as his observations respecting the
difference of the sexes in the human species ; 4 the state of the
fcetus in the womb ; 5 the growth of the soul to maturity ; 6 and
the corruption of human nature.7 To his remarks, however, on
1 C. 28. 2 C. 30.
3 He occupies eight chapters, from c. 28 to c. 36, in the discussion of this doc
trine, and in proving that Simon Magus and Carpocrates founded some of their
heretical notions upon it.
4 C. 36. * C 37. «C. 38. 1 Cc. 39, 40, 41.

104 The Ecclesiastical History of the
the last of these topics I shall hereafter have occasion to refer.
The next subject of which he treats is sleep.1 Having stated
the opinions of the different philosophers, he prefers that of the
Stoics, who defined sleep — a temporary suspension of the activity
of the senses.2 Sleep he conceives to be necessary only to the
body ; the soul, being immortal, neither requires nor even admits
a state of rest.3 In sleep, therefore, when the body is at rest,
the soul, which never rests, being unable to use the members of
the body, uses its own, and the dreamer seems to go through all
the operations necessary to the performance of certain acts,
though nothing is performed.4 Tertullian 6 admits that there are
well-authenticated accounts of persons who never dreamed in
the course of their lives. Suetonius 6 says that this was the case
with Nero ; and Theopompus,7 with Thrasymedes. Our author
mentions also the story of Hermotimus ; s of whom it was re
corded that, when he slept, his soul entirely abandoned and
wandered away from his body. In this state (his wife having
revealed the secret) his body was seized by his enemies, who
burned it, and his soul, returning too late, found itself deprived
of its habitation. Tertullian does not attempt to reconcile these
phenomena with his theory of the perpetual activity of the soul,
but says that we must receive any' 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.9 We have seen that Tertullian
applies the word ecstasies — which he interprets " Excessus sensus
amentia? instar " 10 — to the state of the prophet's mind when under
the influence of inspiration. He applies the same term to the
state of the soul when dreaming, and evidently supposes that
the knowledge of future events was frequently communicated to
it in dreams.11 Some dreams,12 he adds, proceed from God;
'Cc. 42, 43. 2 " Resolutionem sensualis vigoris. "
3 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 18. " Arctius dicam, ne in somnum quidem cadit
Anima cum corpore, ne turn quidem sternitur cum carne. Etenim agitatur in
somnis et jactitatur ; quiesceret autem si jacaret."
4C. 45. We have seen in what sense Tertullian ascribes members to the soul.
5 C. 44. 6 In Nerone, c. 46.
7 See Plutarch, de defectu Oraculorum, c. 50.
8 See Pliny, Hist. Nat. 1. vii. c. 52. Plutarch, de Damonio Socratis, c. 22,
calls him Hermodorus.
* 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.
i° C. 45. » C. 46. 12 C. 47.

Second and Third Centuries. 105
others from demons ; others are suggested by intense application
of the mind to a particular subject ; others again are so utterly
wild and extravagant that they can scarcely be related, much less
accounted for or interpreted. These last are to be ascribed
peculiarly to the ecstatic influence.
From sleep, the image of death, Tertullian passes to death itself,
which he defines the separation of the soul from the body.1
" When we say," he continues, " that death is natural to man,
we speak with reference not to his original nature as given him
by his Maker, but to his actual nature as polluted by sin. Had
Adam continued in his state of innocence, this separation of the
soul from the body would never have taken place. Sin intro
duced 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 ? " 2 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 judgment.3
The souls of the martyrs alone pass not through this middle state,
but are transferred immediately to heaven.
Tertullian proceeds to inquire whether the soul, after it has
once passed into the lower parts of the earth, can leave them and
revisit these upper regions.4 This question he determines in the
negative, arguing principally from the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus. But the demons 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 present
ing themselves under human forms, persuade men that they
are the ghosts of persons deceased. Thus Saul was persuaded
that he saw and conversed with Samuel. In like manner, Ter
tullian refers to the agency of demons 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 in what state, it may be asked, does the soul remain
during its abode in the lower parts of the earth ? 6 Does it sleep ?
1 Cc. 50, Si- s C. 52- 3 C 55- 4 Cc. 56, 57.
8 C. 58. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 17, and the 40th of King Edward's

106 The Ecclesiastical History of the
" 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 inter
mediate 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 examination 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 tf"; 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 trifling, or the arguments
more inconclusive, than those which occur in the writings of the
most celebrated philosophers of antiquity. It would be the
extreme of absurdity to compare the writings of Plato and Ter
tullian as compositions ; but if they are considered as specimens
of philosophical investigation, of reasoning and argument, he
who professes to admire Plato will hardly escape the charge of
inconsistency if he thinks meanly or speaks contemptuously of
Tertullian. In further illustration 01 our author's philosophical opinions,
we shall proceed briefly to state his notions respecting the nature
of angels and demons. He asserts, in the first place, that there
are spiritual substances, or material spirits — this is not denied
even by the philosophers. l These spiritual or angelic substances
Articles.1 " Qui animas defunctorum prasdicant usque ad diem judicii absque omni
sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corporibus mori, et extremo die cum
illis excitandas, ab Orthodoxa Fide, quas nobis in Sacris Literis traditur, prorsus
dissentiunt." 1 Apology, c. 22. " Atque adeo dicimus esse substantias quasdam Spiritales ;
nee nomen novum est. Sciunt dasmones Philosophi, Socrate ipso ad dasmonii
atbitrium expectante . . . dasmones sciunt Poetas ; et jam vulgus indoctum in
usum maledicti frequentat . . . Angelos quoque etiam Plato non negavit." See-
also adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. c. 8. "Sedadflatus Dei generosior Spiritu Materiali,
quo Angeli constiterunt." Apology, c. 46. "Quum secundum Deos Philosophi
Dasmones deputent.'' De Animd, c 1.

Second and Third Centuries. 107
were originally created to be the ministers of the Divine will, but
some were betrayed into transgression.1 Smitten with the beauty
of the daughters of men, they descended from heaven,2 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.3 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 these corrupt angels sprang demons, a still more
corrupt race of spirits, whose actuating principle is hostility
against man, and whose sole object is to accomplish his destruc
tion.4 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 subtlety of their substance, they can
operate on the soul as well as the body ; while they inflict
diseases on the one, they agitate the other with furious passions
and ungovernable lust. By the same property of their substance
they cause men to dream.5 But their favourite employment is
to draw men off from the worship of the true God to idolatry.6
For this purpose they lurk within the statues of deceased
mortals ; 7 practising illusions upon weak minds, and seducing
them into a belief in the divinity of an idol.8 In their attempts
to deceive mankind, they derive great assistance from the rapidity
with which they transport themselves from one part of the globt
to another.9 They are thus enabled to know and to declare
1 "Nos officia divina Angelos credimus." De Animd, c, 37: Apology, c. 22;
de Idololatrid, c. 4.
2 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 Fceminarum, 1. i. c. 3.
3 De Cultu Fceminarum, 1. i. c. 2 ; 1. ii. cc. 4, 10. De Idololatrid, u. 9.
Apology, c. 33.
4 Apology, c. 22. Compare de Spectaculis, u. a.
5 De Animd, cc. 47, 49. Apology, c. 23.
6 Apology, cc. 23, 27. Compare de Idololatrid, cc. 3, 4, 13.
7 De Spectaculis, cc. 10, 12, 13, 23, where Tertullian ascribes the invention of
the games and scenic exhibitions to the demons.
8 The illusions practised by the professors of magic were, according to our
author, peculiarly the work of demons ; when, for instance, the object of the
incantation was to raise a dead man from the grave, a demon presented himself
under the figure of the deceased. De Animd, c. 57, where the miracles performed
by Pharaoh's magicians are mentioned. See p. 51.
0 Apology, c. 22.

108 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 demons
which enabled them to communicate to the Pythian priestess
what Crcesus 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 foretell the changes of the weather,
and thus procure for the idol the reputation of possessing an
insight into futurity. When by their delusions they have induced
men to offer sacrifice, they hover about the victim, snuffing up with
delight the savoury steam, which is their proper food.1 The
demons employed other artifices in order to effect the destruction
of man. As during their abode in heaven they were enabled to
obtain some insight into the nature of the divine dispensations,
they endeavoured to preoccupy the minds of men, and to prevent
them from embracing Christianity, by inventing fables bearing
some resemblance to the truths which were to become the objects
of faith under the gospel.2 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
another life, should be revealed, the common people might think
the former equally credible, the philosopher equally incredible
with the latter.
As the purpose for which the angels were created was to
execute the commands of God,3 they who retain their original
purity still occupy themselves in observing the course of human
affairs, and fulfilling the duties allotted them;4 — thus, one angel
1 " Hasc enim dasmoniorum pabula sunt." Ad Scapulam, c. 2,
^Apology, c. 22. " Dispositiones etiam Dei, et tunc Prophetis concionantibus
exceperunt et nunc lectionibus resonantibus carpunt." C. 21. '' Sciebant qui penes
vos fabulas ad destructionem veritatis istius amulas prasministraverunt." C. 47.
" Omnia adversus veritatem de ipsa veritate constructa sunt, operantibus asmula-
tionem istam Spiritibus erroris. Ab his adulteria hujusmodi salutaris disciplinas
subornata ; ab his quasdam etiam fabulae immissas, quae de simihtudine fidem
infirmarent veritatis, vel eam 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,'' etc. See also de Pra-
scriptione Hareticorum, c. 40, and some very fanciful instances in the tract de
Spectaculis, c. 23.
3 See note 1, p. 107. The word angel, as Tertullian remarks, is descriptive, not
of a nature, but an office. " Angelus, id est, nuntius ; officii, non naturae vocabulo. "
De Carne Christi, c. 14.
4 De Spectaculis, c. 27. " Dubitas enim illo momento, quo in Diaboli Ecclesia
fueris, omnes Angelos prospicere de ccelo, et singulos denotare, etc. ? "

Second and Third Centuries. 109
is especially appointed to preside over prayer ; x another over
baptism ; 2 another to watch over men in their dying moments,
and as it were to call away their souls ; 3 another to execute the
righteous judgments of God upon wicked men.4 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.5 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 demons, assigning to each individual his attend
ant demon ; ° thus he accounts for the story of the Damon of
Socrates.7 I will conclude this chapter by a few remarks on Gibbon's
representation of the opinions entertained by the primitive
Christians respecting demons. " It was," he says, " the uni
versal sentiment both of the Church and of heretics, that the
demons were the authors, the patrons, and the objects of
idolatry." 8 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 illusions upon the senses of mankind, and
thus confirming their belief in the divinity of the idol. But they
were not, at least in Tertullian's estimation, the objects. He
1 " Angelo adhuc Orationis astante." De Oratione, c. 12.
2 ' ' Angelus Baptismi Arbiter. " De Baptismo, c. 6.
3 " De ipsius statim Angeli facie, Evocatoris animarum, Mercurii Poetarum."
De Animd, c. 53, sub fine.
4 "Et judex te tradat Angelo Executionis, et ille te in carcerem mandet
infernum." De Animd, c. 33.
5 Adv. Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 9. De Carne Christi, cc. 3, 6. J' Igitur quum
relatum non sit unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare,
hoc esse proprium Angelicas potestatis ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. "
6 " Nam et suggessimus nullum pene hominem Carere daemonic" De Animd,
c 57-
7 Apology, c. 46. " Sane Socrates facilius diverso Spiritu agebatur ; si quidem
aiunt daemonium illi a puero adhaesisse, pessimum revera pasdagogum." De
Animd, c. 1. See also cc. 23, 39.
8 Chap. xv. p. 463, ed. 410.

1 10 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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.1 The demons were content to lead man
into error, and to feed upon the savoury steam arising from the
sacrifices, without attempting to propose themselves as the
immediate objects of worship.2

CHAPTER IV.
ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH.
Following Mosheim's arrangement, we now proceed to inquire
what information can be derived from the writings of Tertullian
respecting the government and discipline of the Church in
his day. The edict of Trajan,3 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. "We form,"4 he says, "a body, being joined to
gether by a community of religion, of discipline, and of hope.
In our assemblies we meet to offer up our united supplications
to God, to read the Scriptures, to deliver exhortations, to pro
nounce censures, cutting off from communion in prayer and in
every holy exercise those who have been guilty of any flagrant
1 "Quando etiam error orbis propterea Deos prassumpserit, quos homines
interdum confitetur, quoniam aliquid ab unoquoque prospectum videtur utilita-
tibus et commodis vitas. " Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. n. See also the Apology,
cc. 10, xi ; de Idololatrid, c. 13.
2 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 quas
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 flowers.
The demons alone (who lurk within the idols) profit by thf.se superstitious
practices. 3 See chap. ii. p. 58, n°te 4. 4 C. 39.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 1 1
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 distresses of the orphan, the aged, or the shipwrecked mariner.
A portion is also appropriated to the use of those who are suffer
ing 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 assemblies, Tertullian
appears to speak of the Presidentship as conferred solely in con
sideration of superior age and piety.1 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 have already noticed,2 and shall again have occasion to
notice, Tertullian's sentiments respecting a second marriage.
They who maintained its lawfulness alleged the passages 3 in the
1 Tertullian's words are: " Prassident probati quique Seniores, honorem istum
non pretio, sed testimonio adepti " — which Bingham translates, The bishops and
presbyters, who preside over us, are advanced to that honour only by public testi
mony, 1. iv. c. 3, sect. iv. 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, 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 sancti-
tati nuptias secundas, disciplina Ecclesiae et prasscriptio Apostoli declarat, quum
digamos non sinit prassidere." Compare also de Idololatrid, c. 7, with de Corond,
c. 3 ; de Jejuniis, c. 17, with I Tim. v. 17. But Bingham ought surely to have ex
plained why he affixed a sense to the words so foreign from their literal meaning ;
especially as in another place, 1. ii. c. 19, sect, xix., he speaks of certain seniores
ecclesia who were not of the clergy, yet had some concern in the care of the
Church. 2 Chap. i. p. 9.
3i 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. n. Our
author, however, complains that there was great laxity of discipline on this point.
' ' Quot enim et digami prassident apud vos, insultantes utique Apostolo ? " De
Monogamid, c. t2.

1 1 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which St. Paul enjoins that
bishops, priests, and deacons shall be pwa ywatKos avSpts — 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, lay
men were at liberty to contract a second marriage. To evade
this inference, Tertullian has recourse to the following argu
ment:1 — "Do not," 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 kingdom and a priesthood to God and His
Father.' The authority of the Church and its honour, which
derives sanctity from the assembled clergy, has established the
distinction between the clergy and laity. In places where
there are no clergy, any single Christian may exercise the
functions of the priesthood, may celebrate 2 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 the hearers, but the
doers, of the law are justified by God, according to the apostle. ¦ If,
therefore, you possess within yourself the right of the priesthood
to be exercised in cases of necessity, you ought also to conform
1 De Exhort. Cast. c. 7, referred to in chap. i. p. 4, note 1. I now give the whole
passage. " Vani erimus, si putaverimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis
licere. Nonne et Laici Sacerdotes sumus ? Scriptum est, Regnum quoque nos et
Sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter Ordinem et Plebem consti-
tuit Ecclesias autoritas, et honor per Ordinas consessum sanctificatus." (There is
an ambiguity in the latter clause of this sentence, which must be differently trans
lated, according as honor is referred to F.cclesia or to Differentia inter Ordinem
et Plebem. I have adopted the former sense, though by no means certain of its
correctness. I conceive the allusion to be to the higher seats occupied by the
clergy, apart from the laity, in the places of religious assembly. In the tract de
Fugd 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 verecundias et modesties incumbit, quum ea majoribus competant.")
' ' Adeo ubi Ecclesiastici Ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos
es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici ; unusquisque enim sudfide vivit,
nee est personarum accepiio apud Deum. Quoniam non audiiores legis justifica-
buntur a Deo, sed f adores, secundum quod et Apostolus dicit. Igitur si habes
jus sacerdotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est, habeas oportet etiam disciplinam
sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. Digamus tinguis? digamus
offers? quanto magis Laico digamo capitale est agere pro sacerdote, quum ipsi
sacerdoti digamo facto auferatur agere sacerdotem ? Sed necessitati, inquis,
indulgetur. Nulla necessitas excusatur, quae potest non esse. Noli denique
digamus deprehendi, et non committis in necessitatem 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, etc., has bestowed
a whole chapter on this passage.
2 So the word offers must, I think, be translated in this passage.

Second and Third Centuries. 113
yourself to the rule of life prescribed to those who engage in the
priesthood, the rights of which you may be called to exercise.
Do you, after contracting a second marriage, venture 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 sufficient ground for degrading a priest from his order ? But
you will plead the necessity of the case as an apology for the act.
The plea is invalid, because you were not placed under the neces
sity of marrying a second time. Do not marry again, and you
will not run the hazard of being obliged to do that which a diga
mist 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 passages which have been
brought forward to prove that he did not recognise the distinction
between the clergy and the laity; whereas a directly opposite
inference ought to be drawn. He limits the right of the laity
to exercise the ministerial functions to extraordinary cases — to
cases of necessity. Were they to assume it in ordinary cases,
they would be guilty of an act of criminal presumption, as he
indirectly asserts in the tract de Monogamia, where he pursues
the very same train of reasoning in refutation of the same objec
tion.1 That he recognised the distinction between the clergy and
laity is further proved by the fact that, among other accusations
which he urges against the heretics, he states that they conferred
orders without making strict inquiry 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 cere
monies of religion.2 In showing that the distinction was recog
nised by Tertullian, we have incidentally shown that it was gene
rally recognised in the Church. This, indeed, is implied in the
very words clerus and ordo ecclesiasticus, which frequently occur.
1 " Sed quum extoUimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus:
tunc omnes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit ; quum ad peraequa
tionem disciplinas sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, et impares sumus."
De Monogamid, c. 12. We may, however, infer from this passage that in Ter
tullian's day the validity of the distinction was occasionally questioned.
2 " Ordinationes eorum temerarias, leves, inconstantes. Nunc neophytos con-
locant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc Apostatas nostras. " De Prascriptione Hare
ticorum, c. 41 ; and in the same chapter, " Nam et Laicis sacerdotalia munera
injungunt.'' In the tract de Idololatrid, c. 7, Tertullian complains that the artifi
cers of idols were admitted into orders ; " Adleguntur in Ordinem Ecclesiasticum
Artifices Idolorum."

f 14 The Ecclesiastical History of the
But what, it may be asked, is Tertullian's meaning 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 we must ascertain what was his notion
of the Church ; and for this purpose we will turn to the tract
de Prcescriptione Hareticorum, in which he takes a rapid survey
of its origin and progress. " Christ," he says, " during His
residence on earth, declared the purposes of His mission, and
the rule of faith and practice, either publicly to the people or
privately to the disciples, of whom He attached twelve more
immediately to His person, intending that they should be the
teachers of the Gentiles.1 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 Judsea : they then went
forth to the Gentile's, preaching in like manner and founding
churches in every city. From these churches others were pro
pagated and continue to be propagated at the present day,
which are all reckoned in the number of apostolic churches,
inasmuch as they are the offspring of apostolic churches. More
over, all these churches constitute one Church,2 being joined
together in the unity of faith and in the bond of peace." In
conformity with this view of the origin of the Church, 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, therefore, he says
that the authority of the Church made the distinction between
the clergy and laity, the expression, in his view of the subject,
is manifestly equivalent to saying that the distinction may be
traced to the apostles, the founders of the Church. Thus he
1 C. 20. Compare cc. 32, 36. " Si hasc ita se habent, ut Veritas nobis adjudi-
cetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli a
Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit," c. 37.
2 On the Unity of the Church, see c. 32, and de Virgin, vel. c. 2. This Church
Tertullian calls the house of God. De Pudicitid, c. 7. In it were preserved the
authentic rule of faith and discipline, and the genuine Scriptures. De Prascript.
Hareticorum, cc. 21, 37, et passim. With respect to particular churches, Ter
tullian admits by implication that they may fall into error, c. 27.

Second and Third Centuries. 115
contends that all virgins should be compelled to wear veils,1
because such was the practice in those churches which had
been founded either by the apostles or by apostolic men ; and
consequently the probable inference was that it was of apostolic
institution. It is true that, after his separation from the Church,
he held a different language. He then began to contend, as
we have already seen,2 that wherever three, though laymen,
were gathered together, there was a church ; and in the tract
de Pudicitia? he says that any number of individuals, who meet
together under the influence of the Spirit, constitute a church ;
which is not a number of bishops, but is the Spirit itself acting
through the instrumentality of a spiritual man (-Tryeu/xaTtKos as
opposed to i^uxikos) — that is, of a man who believed in the
revelations and prophecies of Montanus.
At the same time that Tertullian bears testimony to the exist
ence of a distinction between the clergy and laity, he bears
testimony also to the existence of a distinction of orders among
the clergy. One of his charges against the heretics is that
they neglected this distinction. "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."4 In the tracts de Baptismo^ and
de Fuga in Persecutione,6 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 tract de Prcescriptione Hareticorum, he throws
1 De Virginibus vel. c. 2. l Chap. i. p. 30.
3 " 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 Posnitentid, c. 10. " In
uno et altera Ecclesia est ; Ecclesia vera Christus.'' De Fugd in Persecutione,
c. 14. "Sit tibi in tribus Ecclesia." Pamelius, as we observed in chapter i. p. 30,
note 5, supposes without sufficient grounds that, in the tract de Pudicitid, c. 21,
by the three who were to constitute a church, Tertullian meant Montanus and his
two prophetesses. There is no necessity to invent absurdities for our author,
who has to answer for so many of his own. Again, in the tract de Baptismo,
c. 6, " Quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia
quae trium corpus est."
4 ' ' Itaque alius hodie Episcopus, eras alius : hodie Diaconus, qui eras Lector •
hodie Presbyter, qui eras Laicus." De Prascript. Hareticorum, c. 41.
5 c. 17. 6 C, 11. See also de Prascript, Hareticorum, c. 3.

116 The Ecclesiastical History of the
out the following challenge to the heretics.1 " Let them show,"
he says, " the origin of their churches ; let them trace the suc
cession 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 show their origin. That of
Smyrna traces its bishops in an unbroken line from Polycarp,
who was placed there by St. John ; that of Rome from Clemens,
who was placed there by St. Peter : 2 and every other church
can point out the individual to whom the superintendence of
its doctrine and discipline was first committed by some one of
the apostles." The same statement is repeated in the fourth
book against Marcion?
But how clearly soever the distinction between the bishops
and the other orders of clergy may be asserted in the writings
of Tertullian, they afford us little assistance in ascertaining
wherein this distinction consisted. In a passage to which we
have 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 ; 5 but the passages to
which he refers scarcely bear him out in the assertion. One of
them we have already considered.6 In another, Tertullian says
1 C. 32. See also the tract de Fugd in Persecutione, c. 13. " Hanc Episco-
patui formam Apostoli providentius condiderunt."
2 Irenasus, 1. 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 suppos
ing 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. iv. Had the works
of Irenasus and Tertullian proceeded from Semler's Roman Club, this apparent
contradiction would probably have been avoided.
3 C. 5. sub in. Among other statements contained in the passage is the follow
ing : " 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. iii. We do not deny that this inference may be legitimately drawn from
Tertullian's words. But by the expression Ordo Episcoporum he did not mean
the order of bishops, as distinct from priests and deacons, but the succession of
bishops in the churches founded by St. John.
4 See note 5 on p. 115. " Dandi (baptismum) quidem habet jus summus Sacer
dos, qui est Episcopus ; dehinc Presbyteri et Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi
auctoritate, propter Ecclesias honorem." De Baptismo, c. 17.
B L. ii. c. 2, sect. v.
6 In note 1, p. 111. The passage is in the Apology, c. 39.

Second and Third Centuries. 117
that the communicants received the eucharist only from the
hands of the presidents ; 1 and in a third, that a digamist was
not allowed to preside in the church.2 But in neither case
is it certain that Tertullian meant to speak exclusively of bishops,
since priests might administer the sacraments ; and he says
that he had himself known instances of priests who had been
degraded for digamy.3 The bishops, doubtless, presided when
they were present ; but in their absence the office devolved upon
one of the presbyters. The regulation of the internal economy
of each particular church was certainly vested in the hands of
the bishop.4 He appointed, for instance, days of fasting, when
ever the circumstances of the church appeared to call for such
marks of humiliation.6
The passages already alleged sufficiently prove that, in Ter
tullian's estimation, all the apostolic churches were independent
of each other, and equal in rank and authority.6 He professes,
indeed, a peculiar respect for the Church of Rome ; not, however,
because it was founded by St. Peter, but because both that
apostle and St. Paul there sealed their testimony to the gospel
with their blood, and St. John was there thrown into the cauldron
of burning oil.7 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.8 Tertullian
himself contends that they were spoken by our Saviour with a
1 De Corond Militis, c. 3. '' Eucharistias Sacramentum nee de aliorum manu
quam de Prassidentium sumimus."
2 Ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 7, also quoted in note 1, p. in. "Quum digamos non
sinit prassidere."
3 De Exhort. Castit. c. 7, quoted in note 1, p. 112. "Quum ipsi Sacerdoti
Digamo facto auferatur agere Sacerdotem."
4 De Virginibus velandis, c. 9.
5 " Benfe autem quod et Episcopi universes plebi mandare jejunia assolent, non
dico de industria stipium conferendarum ut vestras capturas est, sed interdum et
ex aliqui solicitudinis Ecclesiasticas causa." 'De Jejuniis, c. 13.
8 We have seen that in one sense our author called all orthodox churches
apostolic. 7 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 36.
8 C. 21. "De tua nunc sententia quasro unde hoc jus Ecclesiae usurpas. Si
quia dixerit Petro Dominus : Super hanc petram, etc. , idcirco prassumis et ad te
derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id est, ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri
propinquam, qualis es evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem
personaliter hoc Petro conferentem ? Super te, inquit, asdificabo Ecclesiam meam,
et dabo tibi claves, non Ecclesia ; et quascunque solveris vel alligaveris, non quas
solverint vel alligaverint. Sic enim et exitus docet. In ipso Ecclesia extructa

1 1 8 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 punishment 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, however, in the Scorpiace a passage in which
Tertullian appears at first sight to admit that Christ had trans
mitted the power of the keys through Peter to His Church.1
" Nam etsi adhuc clausum putas ccelum, memento claves ejus
hie Dominum Petro, et per eum Ecclesia? reliquisse, quas hie
unusquisque interrogatus atque confessus ferat secum." But the
concluding words show his meaning to have been, not that the
power of the keys was transmitted to the Church as a society,
but to each individual member who confessed, like St. Peter,
that Jesus was Christ, the Son of the living God ; or as he
expresses himself in the tract de Pudicitia, to the spiritual Church
of Montanus.2 For the Scorpiace 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 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.3 Allix indeed affirms
that our author is speaking of an edict promulgated, not by the
est, id est, per ipsum ; ipse clavem imbuit ; vides quam — Viri Israelita, auribus
mandate qua dico : lesum Nazaren>um, virum a Deo vobis destinatum, et reliqua.''
(Acts ii. 22.) " Ipse denique primus in Christi baptismo reseravit aditum ccelestis
regni, quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et alligantur quas non fuermt soluta
secundum veram salutem, et Ananiam vinxit vinculo mortis," etc. Compare de
Praseriptione Hareticorum, c. 22. '' Latuit aliquid Petrum asdificandas Ecclesias
petram dictum, claves regni ccelorum consecutum, et solvendi et alligandi in ccelis
et in terris potestatem. "
1 C. 10. 2 See the passage quoted in note 2, p. 113 of this chapter.
3 ' ' Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium, Pontijex
scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporum dicit — 'Ego et mcechias et fornicat'onis,
delicta pcenitentia functis dimitto.'" De Pudicitia, c. 1.

Second and Third Centuries. 119
Roman Pontiff, but by the Bishop of Carthage.1 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 remark
able expressions : — " Neque enim quisquam nostritm Episcopum
se Episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi
necessitatem collegas suos adigit." That this remark is aimed at
some bishop who had called himself Episcopus Episcoporum,
cannot, we think, be doubted. The majority of writers apply
it to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, from whom Cyprian differed on
the point in question. Allix, on the other hand, supposes that
Cyprian, having Tertullian's words in his mind, alluded .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 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.2 The statements of both parties in this
question must be received with some degree of caution, for each
writes with a view to a particular object. The Romanists
contend that although 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, we may observe that Bingham, has
produced instances of the application of the title, Summi Ponti-
fices, to ordinary bishops.3
The word Papa occurs in the tract de Pudicitia, and being
coupled with the epithet benedictus, is generally supposed to
mean a bishop,4 and according to the Romanists, the bishop of
Rome.6 But whatever may be its meaning in this particular
passage, it is certain that the title of Papa was at that period
given to bishops in general.6 After Tertullian's secession from
1 C. 8.
v Ep. S3, ed. Fell. " Et quidem apud antecessores nostros quidam de
Episcopis istic in Provincial nostra, dandam pacem mcechis non putaverunt, et in
totum pcenitentias locum contra adulteria clauserunt."
3 L. ii. c. 3, sect. vi. 4 " Bonus Pastor et benedictus Papa concionaris," c. 13.
6 The Romanists cite the following words from the tract de Prascriptione
Hareticorum, c. 30, in confirmation of their interpretation: — " Sub Episcopatu
Eleutherii benedicti."
6 See Cyprian's works. Cler. Rom. ad Cler. Carthag. Epp. 8, 23, 31, 36.

1 20 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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. 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 contri
butions upon the members for the purpose of bribing the
governors and military to connive at the religious meetings of
the Christians.1
Besides bishops, priests, and deacons, Tertullian mentions an
order of readers, Lectores, whose office it was to read the
Scriptures to the people.2 He speaks also of an order of
Widows, and complains that a bishop, in direct violation of the
discipline of the Church, had admitted into that order a virgin
who had not attained her twentieth year.3 The third book of
the Apostolic Constitutions is entitled tre.pl XVP^>V — and it is here
directed, in conformity to the injunction of St. Paul, that no
widow shall be appointed who has not attained the age of sixty.4
She was moreover to have been only once married — a restriction
also founded on St. Paul's injunction.6 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 instructing the younger females of the community, in
watching over their conduct and framing their morals. They
1 ' ' 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
Fugd in Persecutione, c. 13.
2 "Hodie Diaconus, qui eras Lector. De Prascript. Haret, c. 41." See
Bingham, 1. iii. c. 5.
3 "Plane scio alicubi Virginem inViduatu abannis nondum viginti collocatam ;
cui si quid refrigerii debuerat Episcopus, aliter utique salvo respectu disciplinas
prasstare potuisset." De. Virginibus vel. c 9. See also de Monogamid, c. 16.
' ' Habet Viduam utique, quam adsumat licebit ; " and de Exhortatione Castitatis,
c. 12. " Habe aliquam uxorem spiritalem, adsume de Viduis."
4 1 Tim. v. 3-1 1. Titus ii. 3.
5 So Tertullian, ad Uxorem, 1. 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 praster annos sexaginta non tantum univiras, id est,
nuptas, aliquando eliguntur, sed et matres et quidem educatrices filiorum : scilicet,
ut experimentis omnium affectuum structas facile norint casteras et consilio et
solatio juvare, et ut nihilominus ea decucurrerint, per quas fcemina probari potest."

Second and Third Centtiries. 1 2 1
were not allowed to perform any of the ministerial functions ; to
speak in the church, to teach, to baptize, etc.1 They were main
tained out of the common stock, and had a higher place allotted
them in the public assemblies. St. Paul appears to speak of widows
in the strict sense of the word ; subsequently the name was
given to females who had led a life of celibacy, and generally to
the order of deaconesses.2 According to Hammond, there were
two sorts of yripax — that is, 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 sustained by the Church ; — he supposes St. Paul
to speak of the latter.3 Suicer, on the contrary, says that the
deaconesses were ofiginally widows, and that the admission of
unmarried females was of a subsequent date.4 The reader will
find in Bingham all the information which ecclesiastical antiquity
supplies on the subject.5
In addition to the notices which may be collected from the
writings of Tertullian respecting the constitution of each par
ticular church, and the distinction of orders in it, we learn
from them that synods were in his time held in Greece, com
posed of deputies from all the churches,6 who might be con
sidered as representing the whole body of Christians dispersed
throughout Greece. These meetings were always preceded by
solemn fasts, and opened with prayer. In them all the more
important questions which arose from time to time were dis
cussed ; 7 and thus the unity of doctrine and discipline was
preserved. Baronius supposes that Tertullian alludes to par
ticular councils which were convened at that time by Zephyrinus,
1 "Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesid loqui (i Cor. xiv. 34), sed nee docere,
nee tinguere, nee offerre, nee ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotahs 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 Prascriptione Haretic. c. 41. Compare de Baptismo, c. 1, sub fine, c. 17.
Females, however, might prophesy, agreeably to St. Paul's direction, 1 Cor. xi. 5.
"Casterum prophetandi jus et illas habere jam ostendit, quum mulieri etiam
prophetanti velamen imponit." Adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 8.
2 Ignatius ad Smyrnaos, sub fine.
3 Note on 1 Tim. v. 3. 4 Sub voce BicbxiviffB-x. 5 L. ii. c. 22.
6 ' ' Aguntur prasterea per Grascias ilia certis in locis concilia ex universis Ecclesiis,
per quas et altiora quasque in commune tractantur, et ipsa reprassentatio totius
nominis Christiani magnsl veneratione celebratur. — Conventus autem illi, statio-
nibus prius et jejunationibus operati, dolere cum dolentibus, et ita demum con-
gaudere gaudentibus norunt. " De Jejuniis, c. 13.
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 Pudicitid,
c. 10.

j 22 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Bishop of Rome, for the purpose of condemning the Montanists ;
others suppose that he alludes to councils held by the Mon
tanists 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, to use Tertullian's expression,
were not born, but became Christians, they went through a
course of instruction in the principles and doctrines of the
gospel, and were subjected to a strict probation, before they
were admitted to the rite of baptism.1 In this stage of their
progress they were called catechumens ; of whom, according to
Suicer,2 there were two classes — one called audientes, who had
only entered upon their course, and begun to hear the word of
God ; the other o-watTowres, or competentes, who had made
such advances in Christian knowledge 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.3 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 Fideles.4 The
importance which Tertullian attached to this previous probation
of the candidates for baptism appears from the fact that he
founds upon the neglect of it one of his charges against the
heretics. "Among them," he says, "no distinction is made
between the catechumen and the faithful or confirmed Christian :
the catechumen is pronounced fit for baptism before he is
1 "Fiunt, non nascuntur, Christiani,'' Apology, c. 18.
2 Sub voce xocr*l%av/&tvoi.
3 " An alius est Intinctis Christus, alius Audientibus ? " And again, " Itaque
Audientes optare Intinctionem, non prassumere oportet." De Panitentid, c. 6.
In the same chapter Tertullian speaks of the Auditorum tyrocinia, and applies
the title of Novitioli to the catechumens. In the tract de Idololatrid, c. 24, we
find the following distinction : — " Hasc accedentibus ad fidem proponenda, et
ingredientibus in fidem inculcanda est ; " and the following in the tract de Specta
culis, c. 1 : — " Cognoscite, qui quum maxime ad Deum acceditis, recognoscite,
qui jam accessisse vos testificati et confessi estis.*'1 In the tract fife Prascriptione
Hareticorum, c. 14, our author distinguishes between doctores and quasrentes.
" Est utique frater aliquis doctor, gratia scientias donatus : est aliquis inter
exercitatos conversatus ; aliquis tecum, curiosius tamen, quasrens."
4 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 tentationis ejusmodi. Omnes ita observant a Categhumenis usque
ad Confessores et Martyres, vel Negatores."

Second and Third Centuries. 123
instructed ; all come in indiscriminately ; all hear, all pray to
gether." 1
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.
They began by insisting on the necessity of repentance and
amendment of life.2 Unfortunately, the effect of their exhorta
tions upon the minds of their hearers was frequently counter
acted by a fatal perversion of the doctrine of the Church
respecting the efficacy of baptism.3 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 righteous
ness 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 forfeit
ing his hopes of eternal happiness. So general had this licentious
practice become, that Tertullian devotes a considerable portion
of the tract de Pxnitentia, to the exposure of its folly and wicked
ness;4 and the historian of the Roman Empire might there have
found better arguments than those which he has extracted from
Chrysostom, against the delay of baptism,5 though our author's
attention was not immediately directed to that subject.
'"Inprimis quis Catechumenus, quis Fidelis, incertum est: pariter adeunt,
pariter audiunt, pariter orant." And again, " Ante sunt perfecti Catechumeni
quam edocti. " De Prascript. Haretic. c. 41.
2 See the first five chapters of the tract de Panitentid.
3 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 divinum beneficium, id est, abolitionem delic-
torum, inituris aquam omnimodo salvum esse ; sed ut eo pervenire contingat
elaborandum est. Quis enim tibi, tarn infidas pcenitentias viro, asperginem unam
cujuslibet aquas commodabit?" De Panitentid, c. 6.
4 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."
5 Chap. xx. note 68.

124 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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's faith; suiting his
instructions to the comprehension and previous acquirements of
the proselyte, and proceeding from the simpler to the more
sublime and mysterious doctrines of the gospel. Of some the
communication was postponed until the convert had been bap
tized, 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,
In our account of Montanus, we stated that part of that know
ledge, yiwis, 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 interpretations of Scripture.1 We find occasionally
in Tertullian's works, expressions implying that he also admitted
the existence of interpretations, the knowledge of which was
confined to those whom he terms the more worthy? But he
condemns, in the most pointed manner, the notion that the
apostles had kept back any of the truths revealed to them, and
had not imparted them alike to all Christians. He applies to
it the name of madness, and considers 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.3
Having already delivered our opinion respecting the mischievous
consequences which have arisen to the Church from the counte
nance 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.
In the passage already cited from the Apology? Tertullian
1 Chap. i. p. 16.
2 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 ndsse," c. 3 ; and in the tract de Idololatrid, speak
ing of the brazen serpent set up by Moses in the wilderness, he says, " Sive quas
alia figuras istius expositio dignioribus revelata est," c. 5.
8 ' ' Sed ut diximus, eadem dementia est, quum confitentur quidem nihil Apos
tolos ignorasse, nee diversa inter se prasdicasse ; non tamen omnia volunt illos
omnibus revelasse : quasdam enim palam et universis, quaedam secreto et paucis
demandasse." De Prascriptione Haretic. c. 25. See also c. 26..
4 See p. in. The sentence was pronounced by the president. " Quomodo ut

Second and Third Centuries. 125
states one purpose of the Christian assemblies to have been the
maintenance of discipline by pronouncing censures, according to
the circumstances of the offence, against those who had erred
either in practice or in doctrine. We have seen that the prose-
Zyte, before he was admitted to the baptismal font, was subjected
to a strict probation.1 In baptism he received the remission of
all his former transgressions, and solemnly renounced all his
former carnal desires and impure habits.2 If, however, through
the weakness of human nature and the arts of his spiritual
adversary, he was afterwards betrayed into sin, the door of mercy
was not closed against him ; he might still be restored to the
favour of God and of the Church by making a public confession
of his guilt. It was not sufficient that the unhappy offender felt
the deepest remorse, and that his peace of mind was destroyed
by the 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, 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. 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.3 In this state of
degradation and exclusion from the communion of the faithful
he remained a longer or a shorter period, accorc'ng to the
magnitude of his offence ; when that period was expired, the
bishop publicly pronounced his absolution, by which he was
restored to . the favour of God and to the communion of the
Church.4 Such is the account given by Tertullian of the
Exomologesis, or public confession enjoined by the Church for
sins committed after baptism. Its benefits could be obtained
only once ; 5 if the penitent relapsed, a place of repentance was
auferatur de medio illorum ? Non utique ut extra Ecclesiam detur ; hoc enim
non a Deo postularetur quod erat in Prassidentis officio. " De Pudicitid, c. 14.
1 P. 122. 2 See the tract de Panitentid, cc. 7, 9.
3 Compare de Pudicitid, c. 5. sub fine, c. 13. "Et tu quidem pcenitentiam
mcechi ad exorandam fraternitatem," etc.
4 See the passage quoted from the tract de Pudicitia, c. 13 , in note 4. p. 124, and
c. 18 sub fine. ' ' Salva. ilia pcenitentias specie post Fidem, quas aut levioribus delictis
veniam ab Episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus et irremissibilibus a Deo solo. "
. 5 " Collocavit in vestibulo pcenitentiam secundam, quas pulsantibus patefaciat ;
sed jam semel, quia jam secundo ; sed amplius nunquam, quia proxime frustra."
De Panitentid, c. 7. See also c. 9.

126 The Ecclesiastical History of the
no longer open to him. Although, however, he could not be
reconciled to the Church in this world, we must not infer that
Tertullian intended to exclude him from all hope of pardon in
the next. They indeed who, through false shame or an un
willingness 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.1 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.2
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 ; 3 and that he there spoke as if all crimes,
committed after baptism, might once, though only once, be
pardoned upon repentance.4 But in the tract de Pudicitia,
which was written after he had seceded from the Church, we
find him drawing a distinction between greater and less offences
— between those which could not, and those which could be
pardoned by the Church.6 If, for instance, a Christian had been
excommunicated for being present at a chariot race, or a combat
of gladiators, or a dramatic representation, or any gymnastic
exercise;6 for attending any secular game or entertainment, or
working at any trade which ministered to the purposes of idolatry,
1 De Panitentid, cc. 10, ii, 12.
2 See de Pudicitid, 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 be pardoned by God alone. See cc. n, 18, sub fine.
3 See chap. i. p. 22.
4 See particularly the commencement of c. 8. But at other times Tertullian
speaks as if idolaters, apostates, and murderers were never re-admitted to the
communion of the Church. De Pudicitid, cc. 5, 9, 12, sub fine. ' ' Hinc est quod
neque Idololatrias neque sanguini pax ab Ecclesiis redditur." Crimes against
nature were also under the same irremissible sentence of exclusion. ' ' Reliquas
autem libidinum furias impias et in corpora et in sexus ultra jura naturae, non
modo limine, verum omni Ecclesias tecto submovemus ; quia non sunt delicta, sed
monstra," c. 4. See Bingham, 1. xviii. c. 4. ; 1. xvi. c. 10, sect. ii.
5 De Pudicitid, cc. 1, 2. " Secundum hanc differentiam delictorum pcenitentias
quoque conditio discriminatur. Alia erit, quas veniam consequi possit, in delicto
scilicet remissibili ; alia quas consequi nullo modo potest, in delicto scilicet
irremissibili," c. 18, sub fine. "Hasc ut principalia penes Dominum delicta." De
Patientid, c. 5.
6 " Ita licet dici perisse quod salvum est. Perit igitur et fidelis elapsus in
spectaculum quadrigarii furoris, et gladiatorii cruoris, et scenicas fosditatis, et
xysticae vanitatis, in lusus, in convivia secularis solennitatis ; in officium, in

Second and Third Centuries. 127
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 himself 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. In a subsequent passage he classes among the
venial sins — being angry without a cause, and allowing the sun
to go down upon our wrath, acts of violence, evil-speaking, rash
swearing, non-performance of contracts, violations of truth ; and
among the heinous sins — homicide, idolatry, fraud, denial of
Christ, blasphemy, adultery, and fornication.1 Of these he says
that there is no remission, and that even Christ will not intercede
for those who commit them. Such were the severe notions of
discipline entertained by Tertullian after he became a Montanist.
In his tract de Pudicitid, he applies them to adulterers and
fornicators in particular, and even extends them to those who
contract a second marriage ; 2 branding the orthodox,3 who
recommended a milder course, with the name of tyoyutoi,
animates, 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.
We may take this opportunity of observing that Tertullian's
ministerium alienas idololatrias aliquas artes adhibuit curiositatis ; in verbum
ancipitis negationis aut blasphemias impegit ; ob tale quid extra gregem datus est,
vel et ipse forte ira, tumore, asmulatione, quod denique saspe fit dedignatione
castigationis abrupit ; debet requiri atque revocari." De Pudicitid, c. 7.
1 " Cui enim non accidit aut irasci inique et ultra solis occasum, aut et manum
immittere, aut facilfe maledicere, aut temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, aut
verecundia aut necessitate mentiri ? in negotiis, in officiis, in quasstu, 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, quas veniam non capiant, homicidium,
idololatria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, utique et moschia 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.
" Quas septem maculis capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idololatria, blasphemia,
homicidio, adulterio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude," c. 9. On other occasions
Tertullian appears to overlook the distinction between greater and lesser offences.
" Quum — omne delictum voluntarium in Domino grande sit." Ad Uxorem, 1. ii.
c. 3.
2 " Et ideo durissime nos, infamantes Paracletum disciplinas enormitate,
Digamos foris sistimus, eundem limitem liminis machis quoque et fornicatoribus
figimus, jejunas pacis lachrymas profusuris, nee amplius ab Ecclesia quam
publicationem dedecoris relaturis." De Pudicitid, c. 1, sub fine.
3 See chap. i. note 1, p. 13. The tract de Pudicitid was directed against an edict,
published by a bishop (probably of Rome), and allowing adulterers and fornicators
to be reradmitted to the communion of the Church upon repentance. See p. n8.

1 28 The Ecclesiastical History of the
works contain no allusion to the practice of auricular con
fession. 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. He alludes to the Shepherd of Hennas in a
manner which shows 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 day, of sitting
down after the conclusion of the public prayers, owed its origin
to a misinterpretation of a passage in that work.1 In his later
writings, when he had adopted the rigid notions of Montanus
respecting the perpetual exclusion of adulterers from the com
munion of the Church, he speaks with great bitterness of the
Shepherd of Hermas as countenancing adultery;2 and states that
it had been pronounced apocryphal by every synod of the
orthodox Churches. Yet the opinions expressed in the treatise
de Panitentid, written before Tertullian became a Montanist,
appear to bear something more than an accidental resemblance
to those contained in the Shepherd of Hermas?
We have seen that Tertullian mentions Clemens Romanus
as having been placed in the see of Rome by St. Peter ; and
Polycarp in that of Smyrna, by St. John.4
In speaking of the authors who had refuted the Valentinian
heresy,5 he mentions Justin, Miltiades,6 and Irenasus. To them
he adds Proculus, supposed by some eminent critics to be
the same as Proclus, who is stated by the author of the brief
Enumeration of Heretics? subjoined to Tertullian's treatise de
Prascriptione Hareticorum, to have been the head of one of the
two sects into which the Cataphrygians or Montanists were
1 De Oratione, c. 12.
2 "Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pastoris, quas sola moechos 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 Pudicitid, c. 10. Again in c. 20: " Illo Apocrypho Pastore
mcechorum." 3 Compare de Panitentid, cc. 7, 8, 9, with the Shepherd of Hermas, Mand. iv.
u 3.
4 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 32, quoted m p. 116.
6 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5.
6 See Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 1. v. c. 17. 1 C. 32.

Second and Third Centuries. 129
divided. He appears to have made a distinction between the Holy
Ghost and theParaclete ; the former inspired the apostles, the latter
spoke in Montanus, and revealed through him more numerous and
more sublime truths than Christ had delivered in the gospel.
Proclus did not, however, like ^Eschines, the head of the other
division of the Cataphrygians, confound the Father and the Son.
Eusebius,1 and after him Jerome 2 and Photius,3 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 Lardner justly
observes,4 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. Tertullian speaks of Tatian as one of the
heretics who enjoined abstinence from food,6 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 speaks of the visions
seen by the martyr Perpetua, I infer that a written account of
her martyrdom had been circulated among the Christians.6 Some
have supposed that Tertullian was himself the author of the
account still extant of the Passion of Perpetua atnd Felicitas?

CHAPTER V.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.
We now come to a more important and more extensive branch
of our inquiries — to the information which the writings of Ter
tullian supply respecting the doctrine of the Church in his day.
1 Eccl. Hist. 1. vi. c. 20.
2 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Caius.
3 Bibliotheca, Cod. 48. 4 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 40.
5 De Jejuniis, c. 13.
6Dc Animd, c. 35. " Quomodo Perpetua, fortissima Martyr, sub die passionis
in revelatione Paradisi, solos illic commartyres suos vidit ? "
'Lardner, Credibility, c. 40. E

1 30 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 statement of Ter
tullian'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 Inferi he defines to be a deep and vast recess in the very
heart and bowelsJ of the earth.2 He sometimes distinguishes
between the Inferi! and Abraham's Bosom ; 3 at others,4 includes
under the 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 happiness which
will afterwards be their portion in heaven. For neither can the
1 See chap. iii. note 4, p. 89.
2 "Nobis Inferi, non nuda cavositas nee subdivalis aliqua mundi sentina cre-
duntur ; sed in fossa terras, et in alto vastitas, et in ipsis visceribus ejus abstrusa
profunditas." De Anima, c. 55.
3 " Aliud enim Inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahas sinus." Adv. Marcionem,
1. iv. c. 34.
4 " Casterum vester Christus pristinum statum Judasis pollicetur ex restitutione
terras ; et post decursum vitas, apud Inferos, in sinu Abrahas, refrigerium.'' Adv.'
Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 24. This passage applies to the peculiar notions of Marcion.
See note 7 on opposite page. ' ' Igitur si quid tormenti sive solatii anima prascerpit
in carcere seu diversorio Inferum, inigne, vel in sinu Abrahas. " De Animd, 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
Idololatrid, c. 13 ; de Animd, c. 9, sub fine.

Second and Third Centuries. 131
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.1 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? The Bosom of Abraham, though not in
heaven, was yet elevated far above the place in which the souls
of the wicked were confined.3
Tertullian defines Paradise to be a place of divine pleasant
ness, appointed for the reception of the spirits of the saints.4
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 St. John, in the Apocalypse, saw the souls of the
martyrs, and of the martyrs only, under the altar.6 According to
Marcion, they who lived under the law were consigned to the
Inferi, there to receive their reward or punishment ; while heaven
was reserved to the followers of Christ.7
Gehenna is,8 as Tertullian expresses himself, a treasure of
sacred fire beneath the earth, destined for the punishment of the
wicked. These preliminary observations will enable us fully to compre-
1 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. 2 See de Animd, c. 38, and de Res. Carnis, c. 42. "Ne Inferos experiatur,
usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos."
3 ' ' Eam itaque regionem sinum dico Abrahas, etsi non ccelestem, sublimiorem
tamen Inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram animabus justorum, donee consum
mate rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat." Adv. Mar
cionem, 1. iv. c. 34.
4 " Et si Paradisum nominemus, locum divinas amcenitatis recipiendis Sanctorum
spiritibus destinatum, maceria quadam igneae illius zonae a notitia orbis communis
segregatum." Apology, c. 47. Tertullian appears to identify it with the Paradise
in which Adam and Eve were placed. De Res. Carnis, c. 26, sub fine.
sDe Animd, c. 35 ; de Res. Carnis, c. 43. " Nemo enim peregrinatus a cor
pora statim immoratur penes Dominum nisi ex martyrii prasrogativa, scilicet
Paradiso, non Inferis deversurus."
* C. 6, v. 9.
7 ' ' Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit" (Tertullian is speaking of the parable of Lazarus) ;
" scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tcrmenti, sive refrigerii, apud Inferos
determinat iis positam, qui Legi et Prophetis obedierint ; Christi vera et Dei sui
ccelestem definit sinum et portum." Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 34.
8 "Gehennam si comminemur, quas est ' ignis arcani subterraneus ad pcenam
thesaurus." Apology, c. 47. See de Panitentid, cc. 5, 12 ; de Res. Carnis, cc,
34. 35-

1 3 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
hend Tertullian's notions respecting Christ's descent into hell.
We have seen that he defines death to be the separation of the
soul from the body.1 Christ really died : 2 His soul was therefore
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 benefits which
His mission was designed to communicate. 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 pro
poses as the second end of Christ's descent into hell is stated by
Tertullian in the form of an objection to his own opinions. " Sed
in hoc, inquiunt, Christus Inferos adiit, ne nos adiremus."3
Pearson's words are — " Secondly, by the descent of Christ into
hell all those which believe in Him are secured from descending
thither : He went into those regions of darkness that our souls
might never come into those torments which are there."
Tertullian's opinions respecting Christ's resurrection, the subject
of our fourth Article, may be learned from the treatise entitled de
Carne Christi, which he wrote in confutation of certain heretics,
who denied the reality of Christ's flesh, or at least its identity
with human flesh.4 They were apprehensive that if they admitted
the reality of Christ's flesh, they must also admit His resurrection
in the flesh, and consequently the resurrection of the human
2Chap. iii. p. 105.
2 ' ' Quid est autem illud quod ad interna transfertur post divortium corporis,
quod detinetur illic, quod in diem judicii reservatur, ad quod et Christus moriendo
descendit, puto, ad animas Patriarcharum ? " De Animd, c. 7. " Siquidem
Christo in corde terras triduum mortis legimus expunctum, id est, in recessu
intimo, et interno, et in ipsi terra operto, et intra ipsam clauso, et inferioribus
adhue abyssis superstructo. Quod si Christus Deus, quia et homo, mortuus
secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secundum easdem, huic quoque legi satisfecit,
formd humana mortis apud Inferos functus, nee ante ascendit in sublimiora
ccelorum, quam descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut illic Patriarchas et Prophetas
compotes sui faceret, " etc. , c. 53. He died according to the fashion of the death
of man, in that His soul was separated from His body. Tertullian, therefore,
agrees with Pearson respecting the first end of Christ's descent into hell. " I con
ceive 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.
3 De Animd, c. 55.
4 " Prasterea et nos volumen prasmisimus de carne Christi, quo eam et solidam
probamus adversum phantasmatis vanitatem, et humanam vindicamus adversus
qualitatis proprietatem." De Res. Carnis, c. 2.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 33
body after death.1 Some, therefore, as Marcion, denied the
reality both of Christ's birth and of His flesh : 2 others, 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 with it, or rather absorbed
in it.6 Others affirmed that Christ assumed the angelic sub
stance;6 Valentinus assigned Him a spiritual flesh;7 others
argued that Christ's flesh could not be human flesh, because it
proceeded not from the seed of man;8 and Alexander, the
Valentinian, seems to have denied its reality, on the ground that
if it was human flesh, it must also be sinful flesh, whereas one
object of Christ's mission was to abolish sinful flesh.9 Should the
reader deem the opinions now enumerated so absurd and trifling
as to be altogether undeserving of notice, he must bear in mind
that from such an enumeration alone can we acquire an accurate
idea of the state of religious controversy in any particular age.
1 De Came Christi, c. i. 2 Ibid. s Ibid.
4 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.
5 Cc. 10, n, 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.
6 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.
7 C i5.
8 Tertullian's answer is, that on the same ground we must deny the reality of
Adam's flesh, c. 16, sub fine.
9 I say seems, for I am not certain that I understand the objection. The words
of Tertullian are, " Insuper argumentandi libidine, ex forma ingenii hasretici,
locum sibi fecit Alexander ille, quasi nos adfirmemus, ideirco 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 show 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 corresponding Greek in the printed editions is xarixem tw ufixeriay U rr, e-aexl.
Had Tertullian a different reading inhis Greek MSS. ? or did he confound Rom.
viii. 3 with Rom. vi. 6, i'va xotra.eyr,Ovi ra trufia. t*,s ufAxerieis? Jerome translates the
Greek xaraeyiu by evacuo, c. 16. See adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 14.

134 The Ecclesiastical History of the
In opposition to these various heretical notions, our author
shows that Christ was born,1 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 Father, — being man,
though God ; 3 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 the end of the treatise, Tertullian mentions various
strange notions respecting the session of Christ at the right hand
of God.4 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 of Christ's resurrection,
we will take this opportunity of giving a short account of
Tertullian's treatise de Resurrectione Carnis. The heretics,
1 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 other
wise to assign any reasonable cause why He should be born. See cc. 2, 3, 4, 5,
20, 21, 22, 23.
2 ' ' 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.
3 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 ; caroet sanguis, etsi nostris puriora ; idem tamen et substantia et forma
qua ascendit talis etiam descensurus, ut Angeli affirmant (Acts i. 11) agnoscendus
scilicet iis, qui ilium convulneraverunt. Hie, sequester Dei atque hominum
appellatus (1 Tim. ii. 3), ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi, carnis quoque
depositum servat in semetipso, arrabonem summas totius. Quemadmodum enim
nobis arrabonem Spiritus reliquit, ita et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit et vexit
in coslum pignus totius summas, illuc quandoque redigendse." 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.
4 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.

Second and Third Centuries. 135
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 opposed to the Supreme God. Hence
they attached an idea of inherent corruption and worthlessness
to all His works — among the rest, to the flesh or body of man;
affirming that it could not rise again, and that the soul alone was
capable of inheriting immortality.1 Tertullian, therefore, in the
first place endeavours to prove that God cannot deem that flesh
beneath His notice, or unworthy to be raised again, " which He
framed with His own hands in the image of God ; — which He
afterwards animated with His own breath, communicating to it
that life, of which the principle is within Himself; — which He
appointed to inhabit, to enjoy, to rule over His whole creation ;
— which He clothes with His sacraments and His discipline,
loving its purity, approving its mortifications, and ascribing a
value to its sufferings." 2
Having thus removed the preliminary objections founded on
the supposed worthlessness of the flesh, our author proceeds to
prove that the body will rise again ; 3 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. 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.4 Such a sup
position, on the contrary, is countenanced by Scripture.5 Ter-
1 Cc. 4, 3. 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.
2 See c. 9, where Tertullian sums up the arguments advanced in the preceding
chapters. " Igitur ut retexam, quam 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 dis-
ciplinisque vestivit — cujus munditias amat — cujus castigationes probat — cujus
passiones sibi adpreciat — hasccine 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 prasfatio Patris ad Filium, Faciamus
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Et fecit hominem Deus. Id
utique quod finxit, ad imaginem Dei fecit ilium, scilicet Christi," c. & Compare
adv. Praxeam, c. 12.
3 C. 11. Compare the Apology, c. 48.
4 C. 32. Compare Pearson, Article xi. p. 374.
5 Tertullian's words are, " Sed ne solummodo eorum corporum resurrectio
videatur praedicari quas sepulchris demandantur, habes scriptum ; " then follows a

1 36 The Ecclesiastical History of the
tullian further contends that the doctrine of the resurrection of
the body is rendered credible by innumerable instances of a
resurrection in the natural world.1 The passage has been trans
lated and adopted by Pearson in his Exposition of the Eleventh
Article of the Creed? He does not, indeed, appear to have been
aware that some of the instances alleged are nothing to the
purpose — such as the changes of day and night, of summer and
winter. If any inference is to be drawn from them, it would
rather be in favour of an alternate dissolution and restoration of
the same bodies. Among other illustrations, the instance of the
phcenix is brought forward, of which the early Fathers appear to
have been fond.3
Flaving established the power of God to raise the dead body,
Tertullian next inquires whether any reasons exist which should
induce Him to exert that power.4 As He intends to judge man
kind, and to reward or punish them according to their conduct
in this life, it is evident that the ends of justice will not be
'attained, unless men rise again with the same bodies which they
had when living.5 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. 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.6 The
same inference may be drawn from the compound expression
resurrectio mortuorum ; "for man," as Pearson,7 who urges both
this argument and the preceding, paraphrases the words, " man
dieth, not in reference to his soul, which is immortal, but his
body." The arguments of the heretics against the resurrection of the
body were deduced either from general reasoning or from
passages of Scripture. Of the former description were the
following. "The body, you say, in the present life is the
receptacle or instrument of the soul by which it is animated.
passage which in Semler's Index is stated as a quotation from Revelation xx. 13 ;
but if our author had that passage in view, he has strangely altered it.
1 C. 12. Compare the Apology, c. 48. 2 P. 376.
8 C. 13. 4 Cc. 14, 13.
5 Compare Apology, c. 48. Pearson, Article xi. p. 376. Adv. Marcionem,
1. v. c. 12.
6 C. 18. Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. v. cc. 9, 14. ' Article xi. p. 382.

Second and Third Centuries. 137
It has itself neither will, nor sense, nor understanding. How
then can it be a fit subject of reward or punishment? or to
what purpose will it be raised? Why may not the soul exist
in the next world, either wholly divested of a body, or clothed
in an entirely different body ? " 1 Tertullian replies that, although
the principle of action is in the soul, it can effect nothing with
out the body.2 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 reunited
to the body, sinful actions will remain unpunished.
" If then," the heretics rejoined, " the body is to be raised,
is it to be raised with all the infirmities and defects under which
it laboured on earth ? Are the blind, the lame, the deformed,
those especially who were so from their birth, to appear with
the same imperfections at the day of judgment?"3 "No,"
replies Tertullian : " the Almighty does not His work by halves.
He, who raises the dead to life, will raise the body in its perfect
integrity. This is part of the change which the body will
undergo at the resurrection. For though the dead will be
raised in the flesh, yet they who attain to the resurrection of
happiness will pass into the angelic state and put on the vesture
of immortality ; 4 according to the declaration of St. Paul, that
'this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality ' — and again, that ' our vile bodies
will be changed that they may be fashioned like unto the
glorious body of Christ.'" We must not, however, suppose
that this change is incompatible with the identity of the body.5
Continual 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 immor
tality, as the mind, the memory, the conscience which he now
has will not be done away,6 so neither will his body. Otherwise
he would suffer in a different body from that in which he sinned ;
and the dispensations of God would 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. Never-
1 Cc. 16, 17. ^ Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 24 ; 1. v. c. 10.
3 Cc. 4, 57. 4 Compare cc. 36, 42, and 53.
5 Cc. 35, 56. ° The corresponding Latin word is aboleri, c. 56.

138 The Ecclesiastical History of the
theless, in consequence of this change, the flesh will no longer
be subject to infirmities and sufferings, or the soul be disturbed
by unruly passions and desires.1
" The 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
administer 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?"2 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 the heretics argued from Scripture, they sometimes said
in general that "the language of Scripture is frequently figura
tive, and ought to be so considered in the present instance.3
The resurrection 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.4 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 carne, but in this flesh,
in hdc carne; tacitly referring to their moral resurrection, and
meaning that man must in this life be initiated into their extra
vagant mysteries. Others again, in order to get rid of the
1 C. S7- " lta manebit quidem caro etiam post resurrectionem, eatenus passi-
bilis qua ipsa, qua eadem ; ea tamen impassibilis qua in hoc ipsum manumissa
a Domino, ne ultra pati possit, " etc.
2 Cc. 60, 61, 62, 63. 3 C. 19.
4 Pearson calls this a Socinian notion. Article xi. p. 382. One of King
Edward's Articles, entitled " Resurrectio mortuorum 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 with our author's opinion, to state
that the souls of men will be re-united to their bodies at the last day, in order to
receive the final sentence of God.

Second and Third Centuries. 139
resurrection of the flesh, interpreted the resurrection to mean
the departure of the soul either from this world, which they
called the habitation of the dead, that is, of those who know
not God ; or from the body, in which, as in a sepulchre, they
conceived the soul to be detained. These objections afford
Tertullian an opportunity of making some pertinent observations
upon the marks by which we must determine when the language
of Scripture is to be figuratively understood.1 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.2 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;3
and we trace the same connexion in many passages of St. Paul's
Epistles,4 as well as in the Apocalypse. What, then, becomes
of those figurative interpretations, according to which the resur
rection is already past ? 5 At least, Tertullian adds, the heretics
ought to be consistent with themselves, and not to put a figura
tive construction on all that is said of the body, while they
interpret literally whatever is said of the soul.6 Our author,
however, is not content with proving the figurative interpretation
to be inapplicable in the present instance : he is determined to
fight his adversaries with their own weapons, and produces pas
sages of Scripture, equally or even more inapplicable, in which
he finds the resurrection prefigured and typified.7 He dwells
particularly on the vision of dry bones in Ezekiel, and urges
it in proof of the resurrection of the body.8 By the heretics it
was referred to the captivity of the Jews, and their subsequent
restoration to their native land.9 We learn incidentally 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.10
1 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.
2 C. 21. 3 C. 22. 4 Cc. 23, 24, 23,
s 2 Tim. ii. 18. 6 C. 32.
7 Cc. 26, 27, 28. See, for instance, the interpretation of Isaiah lviii. 8. in c. 27.
8 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.
9 C. 30. Pearson appears to have thought that the vision had no reference to
the resurrection of the body. Article xi. p. 372.
10 C. 31. Compare c. 39.

1 40 The Ecclesiastical History of the
The passages of Scripture on which Tertullian rests his proof
'of the resurrection of the body are such as the following. Christ
said that He came to save what was lost.1 What, then, was lost?
The whole man, both soul and body. The body, therefore,
must be saved as well as the soul ; otherwise the purpose of
Christ's coming will not be accomplished. Christ also, when
He enjoined His hearers to fear Him only who can destroy
both soul and body in hell, evidently assumed the resurrection
of the body ; 2 as well as in His answer to the question of the
Sadducees respecting the woman who had been seven times
married.3 Of the other arguments urged by Tertullian, I will
mention only one, which possesses at least the merit of in
genuity. The Athenians, he observes, would not have sneered
at St. Paul for preaching the doctrine of the resurrection, in
case he had maintained a mere resurrection of the soul, since
that was a doctrine with which they were sufficiently familiar.4
Both parties appealed to the miracle performed by Christ in
raising Lazarus.5 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," the heretics further argued, " speaks of an outward
man that perishes, and of an inward man that is renewed from
day to day, evidently alluding to the body and soul, and intimat
ing that the latter alone will be saved." 6 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 pro
fession of the gospel, and of their daily advancement in faith and
love through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In like manner
when St. Paul distinguished between the old and the new man,
expressions which the heretics also interpreted of the body and
soul, he meant to speak of a difference, not of substance, but of
character.7 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.
1 C. 34. Luke xix. 10. 2 C. 33. Matt. x. 28. 3 C. 36. 4 C. 39.
5 Cc. 39, 53. 6 Cc. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. 2 Cor. iv. 16.
7 Cc. 43, 46, 47. Eph. iv. 22.

Second and Third Centuries. 14 t
So, when the apostle says that they who are in the flesh cannot
please God,1 he condemns not the flesh, but the works of the
flesh ; for he shortly afterwards adds that they who by the Spirit
mortify the deeds of the flesh, shall live.2
But the passage on which the heretics principally relied was
the declaration of St. Paul, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of heaven.3 "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 shows 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.4 " But if," he pro
ceeds, " the expression is understood literally, still it contains no
direct denial of the resurrection of the body.5 We must dis
tinguish between the resurrection of the body and its admission
into the kingdom of heaven. The same body is raised in order
that the whole man may stand before the judgment-seat of God ;
but before he can be received into the kingdom of heaven; he
must be changed 6— must be made partaker of the vivifying in
fluence 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 judg-
1 Rom. viii. 8. 2 Rom. viii. 13.
3 C. 48. 1 Cor. xv. 30. Some in Tertullian's day appear to have interpreted the
expression flesh and blood in this passage, as well as in Gal. i. 16, of Judaism,
c 50.
4 C. 49. Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 10. s Cc. 30, 51, 42.
6 Compare the Apology, c. 48. " Superinduti substantial propria asternitatis. "
The substance of the glorified body will be, according to Tertullian, the same as
that of the angels. De Cultu Faminarum, 1. i. c. 2, sub fine ; ad Uxorem, 1. i.
c. 1 ; ad Martyres, c. 3. de Animd, c. 56. " Ad Angelicas plenitudinis men-
suram temperatum." 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 arid blood,' which are
mortal," c. 59.

142 The Ecclesiastical History of the
ment it will be reunited 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 does not St. Paul say, ' That which thou 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 ?" 1 Tertullian answers,
by no means ; for though there may be a difference of appear
ance, 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 heretics grounded an argument upon another passage in
the same chapter;2 but in order to understand it we must turn
to the original Greek. The words are, o-Tretperai o-<3/m ifrv^iKov,
seminatur corpus animale, which in our version are rendered, it
is sown a natural body? The heretics affirmed o-tSpa i/tu^'kov to
be merely a periphrasis for ij/vxrj, and o-iu/ao. Trvevp-ariKov for 7rve5/ta.
St. Paul, therefore, by omitting all mention of the flesh, evidently
intended to exclude it from all share of the resurrection. In our
account of the treatise de Animd, we stated that our author con
ceived God to have given a soul to Adam, when the breath of life
was breathed into his nostrils. He argues, therefore, that as
(x&pa, \\rv)(iK.ov means a body animated by a soul, o-tS/xa rrvevpo.TiK.bv
means the same body, now become the habitation of the Spirit,
and thus imbued with the principle of immortality. The pas-
1C. 52. 1 Cor. xv. 37. In interpreting St. Paul's words, " There, is one kind of
Jleshofmen, another flesh of beasts, anothlroj fishes, another oj birds," our author
understands men to mean servants of God, beasts the heathen, birds martyrs who
essay to fly up to heaven, fishes the mass of Christians, those who have been bap
tized. So in a subsequent passage, " There is one glory of the sun, and another
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars," thesun means Christ, the moon
the Church, the stars the seed of Abraham, whether Jews or Christians.
2C. 33. 1 Cor. xv. 44. Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 10.
3 Our translators, though they have not rendered the word ^,v%ixov literally, ap
pear correctly to have represented St. Paul's meaning. 'O iistpuzes ^x'-w is, as
Tertullian expresses himself, homo solius carnis et anima, the natural man— as
opposed to • alvOpwr'.; xvvj.u.at'rizo;, the man who has received the Holy Spirit.

Second and Third Centuries. 143
sage, far from subverting, establishes the doctrine of the resur
rection of the body.
We will conclude this analysis of Tertullian's tract with
observing that he alludes to the passage respecting the baptism
for the dead in the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and speaks of it as if St. Paul had referred to a
superstitious practice prevalent in his days, of baptizing a living
person as a proxy for the dead.1 But in the fiftli book against
Marcion, he ridicules this as an idle fancy,2 on which it was unlikely
that St. Paul should found an argument; and interprets the
¦words for the dead to mean for the body, which -is declared to be
dead in baptism.
Passing over for the present the fifth Article of our Church,
for the same reasons which induced us to omit the first and
second, we proceed to the sixth.3 The first question which pre
sents itself for our consideration is, whether Tertullian uniformly
speaks of the Scriptures as containing the whole rule to which
the faith and practice of Christians must be conformed in points
necessary to salvation. To this inquiry his pointed condemna
tion, already quoted,4 of the Valentinian notion that the apostles
had not communicated to mankind, publicly and indifferently,
all the truths imparted to them by their heavenly Master,
appears to furnish a satisfactory answer. So great indeed is the
weight which he is on some occasions disposed to ascribe to the
authority of Scripture, that he goes the length of denying the
lawfulness of any act which is not permitted therein ; 5 and even
of asserting that whatever is not there related, must be supposed
not to have happened.6 We mean not to defend this extravagant
1,1 Si autem et baptizantur quidam pro mortuis (videbimus anratione?) certe
ilia prassumptione hoc eos instituisse contendit, qu& alii etiam carni, ut vicarium
baptisma, profuturum existimarent ad spem resurrectionis, quas nisi corporalis, non
alias hie baptismate corporali obligantur," c. 48.
2 "Quid, ait, facient qui pro -mortuis baptizantur, si mortui non resurgunt f
Viderit institutio ista ; Calendae si forte Februarias respondebunt illi, pro mortuis
petere. Noli ergo Apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem ejus
denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem, quanto illi, qui vani pro
mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc facerent. Habemus ilium alicubi
unius baptismi definitorem. Igitur et pro mortuis tingui pro corporibus est tingui :
mortuum enim corpus ostendimus, " c. 10.
3 P. 262. 4 Chap. iv. p. 250.
5 " Immo prohibetur, quod non ultra permissum est." De Corond, c. 2, sub
fine. Tertullian, however, appears himself to have been conscious of the weakness
of the reasoning. See also ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 2, sub fine.
8 " Negat Scriptura quod non notat." De Monogamid, u. 4. Scripture

1 44 The Ecclesiastical History of the
language, but produce it in order to show what were his opinions
on the subject.
But does Tertullian always speak the same language ? Does
he not on other occasions appeal to tradition? Does he not
even say, in his tract de Prascriptione Hareticorum, that in
arguing with the heretics no appeal ought to be made to the
Scriptures ; and that they can only be confuted by ascertaining
the tradition which has been preserved and handed down in the
Apostolic Churches ? Undoubtedly he does. But in order to
understand the precise meaning of Tertullian's appeal to tradition,
we must consider the object which he had immediately in view.
" In disputing with the heretics," he says, " it is necessary, in the
very outset, to except against all arguments urged by them out of
Scripture.1 For as they do not acknowledge all the books
received by the Church, and have mutilated or corrupted those
which they do acknowledge, and have put their own interpreta
tions upon the passages respecting the genuineness of which both
parties are agreed, the first point to be determined is, which of
the two is in possession of the genuine Scriptures, and of their
true interpretation.2 How, then, is this point to be determined ?
By inquiring what doctrines are held, and what Scriptures
received, by the Apostolic Churches ; for in them is preserved
the truth, as it was originally communicated by Christ to the
apostles, and by the apostles, either orally or by letter, to the
Churches which they founded ; so that whatever doctrines and
Scriptures are so held and received must be deemed orthodox
and genuine." Tertullian's opponents do not appear to have
objected to the correctness of this mode of reasoning, but to
have denied the premises._ They contended either that the
apostles were not themselves fully instructed in the truth, or
that they did not communicate to the Churches all the truths
which had been revealed to them.3
In support of the former assertion they alleged the reproof
given by St. Paul to St. Peter, which they conceived to imply a
defect of knowledge on the part of the latter.4 Tertullian justly
observes in reply, that the controversy between those two
apostles related not to any fundamental article of faith, but to a
mentions the polygamy of Lamech, but of no other individual ; he was therefore,
according to Tertullian, at that period the only polygamist.
1 C. 13. See also c. 37. 2 C. 17.
3 Cc. 19, 20, 21. See also cc, 37, 38. Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 21.
4 C. 22,

Second and Third Centuries. 145
question of practice — whether St. Peter had not been guilty of
inconsistency in his conduct towards the Gentile brethren.
In support of the second assertion, they quoted St. Paul's
exhortations to Timothy : 1 " Keep that which is committed to
thy trust " — " That good thing which was committed to thee,
keep : " interpreting these expressions of certain doctrines which
St. Paul had secretly communicated to Timothy; though, as
Tertullian well remarks, St. Paul's design was merely to caution
Timothy against allowing any new doctrine to creep in, different
from that in which he had been instructed.2
" But may not," the heretics asked, " may not the Churches in
process of time have perverted the doctrine originally delivered
to them by the apostles ? 3 May they not all have wandered
from the truth ? " " Such an inference," our author answers, " is
contrary to all experience. Truth is uniform and consistent;
but it is of the very essence of error to be continually assuming
new shapes. If the Churches had erred, they would have erred
after many different fashions ; whence then arises this surprising
agreement in error ? The single fact, that the same doctrine is
maintained by so many different Churches situated in distant
quarters of the globe, affords a strong presumption of its truth."
I need scarcely observe that the force of this argument was much
greater in Tertullian's time, when all the Churches were inde
pendent, than in after ages when the bishops of Rome assumed
the right of prescribing the rule of faith to the whole Christian
community. In this part of his argument our author clearly
shows his opinion to be, that the promise of the Holy Spirit,
made by Christ to the Church, precludes the possibility of an
universal defection from the true faith.4
The superior antiquity of the doctrine maintained in the
Church furnishes Tertullian with another argument in favour of
its truth.5 As truth necessarily precedes error, which is, as it
were, its image or counterfeit, that must be the true doctrine
which was prior in time ; that which was subsequent, false : and
it may be easily shown that the origin of the heretical sects was
posterior to the foundation of the Apostolic Churches.
1 C. 23. Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 3.
2 Cc. 23, 26 ; 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 14. s Cc. 27, 28.
4 See the commencement of c. 28.
5 Cc. 29, 30, 31, 32. Compare the Apology, o. 47.

146 The Ecclesiastical History of the
The circumstance, however, most to our present purpose is,
that Tertullian, when he comes at last to examine and confute
the heretical doctrines, appeals to the apostolic writings, and
shows that St. Paul had, as it were by anticipation, condemned
many of those doctrines.1 If he had not condemned all, it was
simply because all were not then in existence ; his very silence,
therefore, proves the novelty, and consequently the falsehood
of the heretical opinions which he did not notice. Tertullian
alleges as an instance the heretical notion that the Demiurge
who gave the law was not only a distinct being from the Supreme
God who gave the gospel, but at variance with Him. " If this
opinion existed in the days of St. Paul, how comes it that he
never alludes to it in his Epistles? The questions which he
discusses relate to meats offered to idols, to marriage, to the
introduction of fables and endless genealogies, and to the
resurrection. Much of his labour is employed in proving that
the observance of the Mosaic ritual is no longer obligatory on
the conscience.2 Surely he would not have taken this un
necessary trouble if the heretical doctrine now alluded to had
been then received, since he might at once have put an end to
the controversy by saying that the law and the gospel did not
proceed from the same author."
If, then, we closely attend to the object which Tertullian had
in view, we shall be led to the conclusion that the tract de
Prascriptione Hareticorum, far from lending any sanction, is
directly opposed to the Roman Catholic notion respecting
tradition — to the notion that there are certain doctrines, of which
the belief is necessary to salvation, and which rest on the
authority, not of Scripture, but of unwritten tradition. Tertullian,
it is true, refuses to dispute with the heretics out of the Scriptures;
not, however, because he was not persuaded that the Scriptures
contained the whole rule of faith, but because the heretics
rejected a large portion of the sacred writings, and either
mutilated or put forced and erroneous interpretations upon those
parts which they received. Before, therefore, an appeal could
be made to the Scriptures, it was necessary to determine which
were the genuine Scriptures, and what the true interpretation of
them. The first of these questions was purely historical ; to be
determined by ascertaining what books had from the earliest
1 Cc. 33, 34. See also c. 38, in which Tertullian asserts in the strongest terms
the genuineness and integrity of the Scriptures used in the Church.
2 See adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 2.

Second and Third Centuries. 147
times been generally received by the Apostolic Churches ; and,
with respect to the second, though interpretations which had
received the sanction of the Church were not to be lightly
rejected, yet the practice of Tertullian himself proves that he
believed every Christian to be at liberty to exercise his own
judgment upon them.1 The language of Tertullian corresponds
exactly with that of the Church of England in the twentieth Article.
According to him, the Church is the witness and keeper of Holy
Writ ; but so far is he from thinking that the Church can either
decide anything against Scripture, or prescribe anything not con
tained in it, as necessary to salvation, that he uniformly and
strenuously insists upon the exact agreement between the tradition
preserved in the Church and the doctrine delivered in Scripture.2
1 Respecting the degree of authority ascribed by our Church to tradition, in the
interpretation of Scripture, see some excellent remarks of Bishop Jebb in the
Appendix to his Sermons.
2 See de Prascript. Haretic. c. 38. While the first edition of the present work
was passing through the press, I received a copy of the translation of Dr. Schleier-
macher's Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke. In a learned and ingenious
Introduction, the translator has made some remarks on the superiority ascribed
by Tertullian to tradition over Scripture, with a particular reference to the tract
de Prascriptione Hareticorum?- He admits that " Tertullian's argument is
perfectly consistent with Protestant principles ; " and that "the tradition which is
the subject of controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants is very
different from the Traditio Apostolorum spoken of by Tertullian " {de Prascr.
Haret. c. 21). But he afterwards states "what he conceives to be an incon
testable fact, that the maxims of the Protestant Church with respect to the use of
the Scriptures are as different from those which prevailed in all ages, from the
time of Tertullian down to the Reformation, as from those which now prevail in
the Roman Catholic Church." As I had myself expressed a different opinion, viz.
that Tertullian's language respecting tradition corresponds exactly with that of
the Church of England — one, and certainly not the least important branch of the
Protestant Church — I was induced by the learned translator's remark to reconsider
the subject ; and I must confess that, after having again perused the tract' de
Prascriptione Hareticorum, I discover no reason for coming to a different con
clusion from that which I had before formed.
From the commencement of the treatise it appears that the minds of many
members of the Church were disquieted by the rapid progress of heresy. They
were surprised and scandalized at the divisions which prevailed among those who
called themselves Christians ; and their surprise was increased by observing that
men of high reputation for wisdom and piety from time to time quitted the Church,
and attached themselves to one or other of the heretical sects. Tertullian, there
fore, in the first four chapters of the tract, contends that the existence and pre
valence of heresy ought not to be a matter of surprise, since Christ had predicted
that heresies would arise, and St. Paul had affirmed that the very purpose of their
existence was to prove the faith of Christians.
In the fifth and sixth chapters he appeals to the authority of the same apostle,
in proof of the mischievous nature of heresy ; and in the seventh, traces the tenets
of the different sects to the Grecian philosophy. In the eighth he states that the
heretics gained many converts to their opinions by persuading men that it was the
duty of every Christian to search the Scriptures. " Seek," \\vey said, " and you
1 P. cxxxv. et seq.

148 The Ecclesiastical History of the
If we mistake not the signs of the times, the period is not far
distant when the whole controversy between the English and
shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened unto you, are the injunctions of Christ
Himself. " Tertullian, in reply, first contends that those injunctions were delivered
in the very outset of Christ's ministry, and addressed especially to the Jews, who,
by searching their Scriptures— those of the Old Testament — might have learned
that He was the Messiah predicted by the prophets. "But grant," Tertullian
continues, " that the injunction was addressed indiscriminately to all mankind,
still it is evident that Christ intended to propose some definite object of search ;
and when that was attained, to release His followers from the labour of further
inquiry. He could not mean that they were to go on searching for ever. They
were to inquire what was the doctrine which He had actually delivered ; and when
they had found it, they were to believe. If, after having been once satisfied that
they have found the truth, Christians are to recommence their inquiries as often
as a new opinion is started, their faith can never be settled or stedfast. At least
it must be allowed to be absurd and useless to seek the truth among the heretics,
who differ as widely from each other as they do from the Church ; or among
those who, having believed as we do, have deserted their original faith, and
having been once our friends, are now our enemies." 1
In the thirteenth chapter Tertullian lays down what he calls the rule of faith,
Regula Fidei ; and promises to prove that it was delivered by Christ.2 In the
fourteenth he says that all our inquiries into Scripture should be conducted with
reference and in subordination to that rule. But as the heretics rested their whole
cause upon an appeal to Scripture, asserting that their doctrine was derived from
it, and that the rule of faith could only be found ex litteris fidei, in those books
which are of the faith, Tertullian proceeds, in the fifteenth and following chapters,
to assign the reasons of which we have just given a sketch, why, in arguing with
the heretics, he declined all appeal to the Scriptures.
Now, whatever may be the case with other Protestant Churches, I see nothing
in Tertullian's reasoning at variance with the maxims of the Church of England
respecting the use of the Scriptures. Tertullian, according to the learned trans
lator, appeals to apostolic tradition — to a rule of faith, not originally deduced
from Scripture, but delivered by the apostles orally to the Churches which they
founded, and regularly transmitted from them to his own time. How, I would
ask, is this appeal inconsistent with the principles of the Church of England,
which declares only that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation?
Respecting the source from which the rule of faith was originally deduced, our
Church is silent. The framers of our Articles meant not to deny that the rule of
faith might, independently of the Scriptures, have been faithfully transmitted in
the Apostolic Churches down to Tertullian's time. What they meant to assert
was, that the rule, so transmitted, contained no article which was not either ex
pressed in Scripture, or might not be proved by it ; and that the peculiar doctrines,
in support of which the Roman Catholics appealed to tradition, formed no part of
the apostolic rule.
With respect also to the motives of Tertullian's appeal to apostolic tradition, I
cannot think that the learned translator is warranted in saying that Tertullian
considered it as the only sure foundation of Christian faith, and appealed to it as
an authority paramount to Scripture. To me he appears to have appealed to it
from necessity, because he could not, from the nature of the dispute in which he
was engaged, directly appeal to Scripture. The heretics with whom he was con
tending not only proposed a different rule of faith, but in defence of it produced a
different set of Scriptures. How, then, was Tertullian to confute them ? By show
ing that the faith which he professed, and the Scriptures to which he appealed,
were, and had always been, the faith and Scriptures of those Churches of which
the origin could be traced to the apostles — the first depositaries of the faith. In
1 Cc. 9, 10, 11, 12. 2 He fulfils this promise in cc. 20, 21.

Second and Third Centuries. 149
Romish Churches will be revived, and all the points in dispute
again brought under review. Of those points none is more im
portant than the question respecting tradition ; and it is there
fore most essential that they who stand forth as the defenders of
the Church of England should take a correct and rational view
of the subject — the view, in short, which was taken by our divines
at the Reformation. Nothing was more remote from their inten
tion than indiscriminately to condemn all tradition. They knew
that, in strictness of speech, Scripture is tradition — written
tradition.1 They knew that, as far as external evidence is con
cerned, the tradition preserved in the Church is the only ground
on which the genuineness of the books of Scripture can be
established. For though we are not, upon the authority of the
Church, bound to receive as Scripture any book which contains
internal evidence of its own spuriousness — such as discrepancies,
this case Tertullian had no alternative : he was compelled to appeal to apostolic
tradition. But when he is contending against Praxeas, a heretic who acknow
ledged the Scriptures received by the Church, though he begins with laying down
the rule of faith nearly in the same words as in the tract de Prascriptione Hareti
corum, yet he conducts the controversy by a constant appeal to Scripture. Why,
indeed, did Marcion think it necessary to compile a gospel, if it was not usual for
the contending parties even in his time to allege the authority of the written word
in support of their respective tenets ? Let it be observed also that in Tertullian's
view of the subject the genuine Scriptures evidently formed a part of the apostolic
tradition.1 When, again, the learned translator says that Tertullian dissuades his believing
brother from entering into any scriptural researches, he appears to me not to
make due allowance for the vehemence of Tertullian's temper, and his disposition
always to use the strongest expressions which occurred to him at the moment. In
the place referred to, he is manifestly addressing himself to ordinary Christians —
to those who are unfitted by their talents and acquirements to engage in theological
controversy.2 To them he says, " Adhere closely to the creed in which you have
been instructed. If you read the Scriptures, and meet with difficulties, consult
some doctor of the Church who has made the sacred volume his peculiar study ;
or if you cannot readily have recourse to such a person, be content to be ignorant.
It is faith that saves you, not familiarity with the Scriptures. At any rate, do not
go for a solution of your doubts to the heretics, who confess by their continual
inquiries that they are themselves in doubt." Tertullian's object in this passage
manifestly is to deter the unlearned Christian from curious researches which may
lead him into error ; and, as his custom is, he employs very strong language. But
a writer, whose works teem with scriptural quotations, could not deliberately
intend to disparage scriptural knowledge.
1 Tertullian uses the expression Scripta Traditio. De Corond, c. 3. In the
tract de Carne Christi, c. 2, speaking of the history of our Saviour's life and
actions as delivered in Scripture, he says, "Si tantum Christianus es, crede quod
traditum est ; " and again, ' ' Porro quod traditum erat, id erat verum, ut ab iis
traditum quorum fuit tradere."
1 See adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 3, the whole object of which is to prove by an
appeal to the tradition preserved in the Apostolic Churches, that the Gospel of St.
Luke used by the orthodox was genuine, that of Marcion spurious.
2 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 14.

150 The Ecclesiastical History of the
contradictions of other portions of Scripture, idle fables, or pre
cepts at variance with the great principles of morality — yet no
internal evidence is sufficient to prove a book to be Scripture, of
which the reception, by a portion at least of the Church, cannot
be traced from the earliest period of its history to the present
time. What our reformers opposed was the notion that men
must, upon the mere authority of tradition, receive, as necessary
to salvation, doctrines not contained in Scripture. Against this
notion in general they urged the incredibility of the supposition
that the apostles, when unfolding in their writings the principles
of the gospel, should have entirely omitted any doctrines essential
to man's salvation. The whole tenor, indeed, of those writings,
as well as of our blessed Lord's discourses, runs counter to the
supposition that any truths of fundamental importance would be
suffered long to rest upon so precarious a foundation as that of
oral tradition. With respect to the particular doctrines, in defence
of which the Roman Catholics appeal to tradition, our reformers
contended that some were directly at variance with Scripture ;
and that others, far from being supported by an unbroken chain
of tradition from the apostolic age, were of very recent origin,
and utterly unknown to the early Fathers. Such was the view
of this important question taken by our reformers. In this,
as in other instances, they wisely adopted a middle course ;
they neither bowed submissively to the authority of tradition, nor
yet rejected it altogether. We in the present day must tread in
their footsteps and imitate their moderation, if we intend to com
bat our Roman Catholic adversaries with success. We must be
careful that, in our anxiety to avoid one extreme, we run not into
the other by adopting the extravagant language of those who, not
content with ascribing a paramount authority to the written
word on all points pertaining to eternal salvation, talk as if the
Bible — and that too the Bible in our English translation — were,
independently of all external aids and evidence, sufficient to prove
its own genuineness and inspiration, and to be its own interpreter.
To return to Tertullian. In the passage to which reference
has just been made,1 he speaks both of written and unwritten
tradition ; but the cases in which he lays any stress upon the
authority of the latter are precisely those which our reformers
allowed to be within its province — cases of ceremonies and ritual
observances.2 Of these he enumerates several, for which no
1 In the preceding note, from the tract de Corona Militis, c. 3.
2 It is important to distinguish between traditional doctrines and traditional

Second and Third Centuries. 151
express warrant can be found in Scripture, and which must con
sequently have been derived solely from tradition ; the forms,
for instance, observed in baptism, in the administration of the
Lord's Supper, and in public prayer.1 Even in these cases he
seems to have deemed it essential to the validity of a traditional
observance, that some satisfactory reason should be assigned
for its original institution ; 2 and when different observances have
prevailed in different Churches, it is our duty, he says,3 to in
quire which of the two is more agreeable to the rule of life laid
down by Scripture. In relation to the subject now treated of,
there is only one point in which I discover any difference of
opinion between Tertullian and the framers of our Articles. He
sometimes appears to contend that an uniformity of ceremonies
ought to be maintained in all the particular Churches, of which the
visible Church is composed ; 4 and that any Church which breaks
this uniformity divides the body of Christ. Our Church,5 on the
contrary, though it asserts that every individual member of a
Church is bound to comply with the observances ordained in it
by competent authority, yet, availing itself of that liberty in
things indifferent which the apostle of the Gentiles allows, de
clares that " traditions and ceremonies need not be in all places
one and utterly like, but may be changed according to the diver
sities of countries, times, and men's manners," with this single
proviso, " that nothing be ordained against God's Word." Our
author, however, is not always consistent with himself, for in
another place he speaks as if it were lawful, not merely for every
practices. Our Church receives no traditional doctrines — no doctrines necessary
to salvation, preserved through several ages by oral tradition, and afterwards com
mitted to writing ; but it has a respect for traditional practices : not, however,
such a respect as to preclude it from examining their original reasonableness, and
their suitableness to existing manners and circumstances.
1De Corond, cc. 3, 4.
2 ' ' Rationem traditioni, et consuetudini, et fidei patrocinaturam aut ipse per-
spicies, aut ab aliquo qui perspexerit disces : interim nonnullam esse credes, cui
debeatur obsequium." De Corond, c. 4. "Sed quia eorum quas ex traditione
observantur tanto magis dignam rationem afferre debemus, quanto carent Scrip-
turas auctoritate." De Jejuniis, c. 10. " Non exploratis rationibusTraditionum."
De Baptismo, c 1.
' "Tamen hie, sicut in omnibus varie institutis et dubiis et incertis fieri solet,
adhibenda fuit examinatio, quas magis ex duabus tam diversis consuetudinibus
disciplinas Dei conveniret" De Virginibus velandis, c. 2.
4 " Non possumus respuere consuetudinem, quam damnare non possumus,
utpote non extraneam, quia non extraneorum, cum quibus scilicet communicamus
jus pacis et nomen fraternitatis. Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, idem Christus,
eadem spes, eadem lavacri Sacramenta. Semel dixerim , una Ecclesia sumus. Ita
nostrum est quodcunque nostrorum est. Casterum dividis corpus." De Virginibus
velandis, c. 2.
5 Article 34.

152 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Church, but for every Christian, to appoint observances, if they
are but agreeable to the Word of God, tend to promote a Chris
tian temper and life, and are profitable unto salvation.1 Before
we quit the subject of tradition, we must, in justice to Tertullian,
remark that when, in opposition to the tradition of the Church,
he contended for the reception of the new discipline of Montanus,
he was not chargeable with inconsistency ; since,, conceiving as he
did, that Montanus was divinely inspired, he conceived him to
possess at least equal authority with the apostles themselves.
We will now proceed to inquire what information the writings
of Tertullian supply respecting the canon of Scripture. His
quotations include all the books of the Old Testament, excepting
Ruth, the two Books of Chronicles, the Book of Nehemiah, and
the prophecies of Obadiah and Haggai. Of the apocryphal books
he quotes Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch under the
name of Jeremiah,2 the Song of the Three Children under the
name of Daniel,3 the Stories of Susannah 4 and of Bel and the
Dragon,5 and the first Book of Maccabees. He quotes all the
books of the New Testament,6 excepting the Second Epistle of St.
Peter, the Third of St. John, and perhaps the Epistle of St. James ;7
for we concur in Lardner's opinion that there is sufficient ground
for believing some words to have dropped out towards the con
clusion of the fifth book against Marcion which contained a
reference to the Epistle to Philemon.8 The reader will find in
the fourth book against Marcion some valuable remarks upon
the genuineness and integrity of the Gospels.9 Tertullian states
1 " Annon putas omni fide lilicere concipere et constituere, duntaxat quod Deo
congruat, quod disciphnae conducat, quod saluti proficiat ? dicente Domino, cur
autem non et a vobis ipsis quodjustum estjudicatis f et non de judicio tantum, sed
de omni sententia rerum examinandarum. " De Corond, c. 4. Tertullian in this
passage could scarcely mean to assert that observances appointed by one individual
were obligatory upon others.
2 ' ' Scorpiace, c. 8. The quotation is from the sixth chapter, which is called in
our Bibles the Epistle of Jeremiah.
3 " Cui etiam inanimalia et incorporalia laudes canunt apud Danielem." Adv.
Hermogenem, c. 44.
4 De Corond, c. 4. 5 De Idololatrid, c. 18 ; de Jejuniis, c. 7, sub fine.
6 In the Index locorum ex Scripturis Sacris, annexed to the Paris edition, the
second (or fourth) Book of Esdras and the second Book of Maccabees occur ; but
the supposed quotations are of a very doubtful character. The former is probably
referred to in the first book de Cultu Faminarum, c. 3.
7 See Lardner, Credibility, c. 27, sect. xi.
8 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 27. Rigault thinks that there is an allusion
to the Epistle to Philemon in the following passage from the tract adv. Valentini-
anos, '' Et forsitan parias aliquem Onesimum yEonem," c. 32. St. Paul speaks of
Onesimus as his son, begotten by him, v. 10.
sCc. 2, 3, 4, 5. In c. 5, the Apocalypse is ascribed to St. John.

Second and Third Centuries. 153
St. Luke to have been the author of the Acts of the Apostles.1
The accouflt which Tertullian gives of the Septuagint translation
is, that Ptolemy Philadelphus, at the suggestion of Demetrius
Phalereus, obtained a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures in order to
place it in his library, and afterwards caused it to be translated
by seventy-two interpreters, who were sent to him by the Jews
for that purpose. This Tertullian states on the authority of
/ rist»us or Aristeas ; and adds that the Hebrew copy was pre
served in his own time in the temple of Serapis at Alexandria,2
He evidently supposed that the translators executed their work
under the influence of divine inspiration. It is unnecessary to
detail the reasons which have induced the majority of learned
men to treat the narrative of Aristseus as a fable. We will con
tent ourselves with observing that Tertullian, in quoting the Old
Testament, appears either himself to have translated from the
Greek, or to have used a Latin version made from the Greek,
not from the Hebrew.3
Tertullian quotes, more than once, the prophecy of Enoch.4
In one place he admits that it was not received into the Jewish
canon ; but supposes that the Jews rejected it merely because
they were unable to account for its having survived the deluge.6
He argues, therefore, that Noah might have received it from
his great-grandfather Enoch, and handed it down to his pos
terity ; or if it was actually lost at the deluge, Noah might have
restored it from immediate revelation, as Ezra restored the
whole Jewish Scripture.6 " 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
l''Porro quum in eodem commentario Lucas." De Jejuniis, c. 10. The
allusion is to the second chapter of Acts.
3 Tertullian must have been mistaken in conceiving that the Hebrew copy was
extant in his day, if, as Gibbon tells us, the old library of the Ptolemies was totally
consumed in Caesar's Alexandrian war. Chap, xxviii. note 41.
3 Thus in citing Isaiah v. 18. Tertullian, de Panitentid, c. n, reads, "Vasillis
qui delicta sua velut procero fune nectunt ; " conformably to the Septuagint, oua.1
at \xiffx£}fi,ivti roc; kftaeriecs &s erxw'"? pocxeu. Jerome in agreement with the Hebrew
reads, ' ' Vas qui trahitis iniquitatem in luniculis vanitatis. "
4 De Idololatrid, c. 13 ; de Cultu Faminarum, 1. ii. c. 10.
5 " Scio Scripturam Enoch, quas hunc ordinem Angelis dedit, non recipi
a quibusdam, quia nee in armarium Judaicum admittitur." De Cultu Fami
narum, 1. i. c. 3.
6 We are not certain whether Tertullian borrowed this statement respecting the
restoration of the Hebrew Scriptures from the apocryphal book of Esdras xiv. 21,
or drew an inference from Nehemiah viii.

154 The Ecclesiastical History of the
account of this book we refer the reader to the Dissertation,
prefixed by Dr. Laurence1 to his translation 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 Travis will remember the arch
deacon's interpretation of an expression used by Tertullian,
when speaking of the Apostolic Churches. " Percurre Ecclesias
Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedra? Apostolorum suis
locis praesident, apud quas ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recit-
antur, sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque."2
By the words authentica litera the archdeacon understood Ter
tullian to mean the autographs of the apostles. If, however,
we turn to the tract de Monogamid? we find our author, after
he has given the Latin version of a passage, stating that it was
differently read in Graco authentico ; that is, in the original
Greek, as contradistinguished from a translation. In like
manner he uses the expressions originalia instrumenta 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. Berriman, there
fore, and others, suppose that Tertullian by the words authentica
litera meant only the genuine unadulterated Epistles.5 Lardner
conceives that our author intended to appeal, not to the Epistles
which St. Paul addressed to the particular Churches mentioned
by Tertullian, but to all the Scriptures of the New Testament,
of which the Apostolic Churches were peculiarly the depositaries.6
But Lardner's argument is, in my opinion, founded on a mis
apprehension of Tertullian's immediate object in the passage in
question. He there appeals to the Apostolic Churches as bear-
1 Now Lord A.-chbishop Cashel. The work was published at Oxford in 1821.
2 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 36.
8 C. 11. The passage is 1 Cor. vii. 39. The MSS. now extant lend no counte
nance 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. note 38? See Lardner, Credibility, c. 27, sect. xix. The
following passage in the tract against Praxeas seems to remove all doubts on the
subject : " Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis,
Sermonem dicere in primordio apud Deumfuisse," c. 5.
4 De Came Christi, c. 2. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 19.
5 Tertullian says of Valentinus, "De Ecclesia authentica 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 Dei Patris." He was the true, the original Priest, of whom the priests
under the Mosaic law were only copies. Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 35.
6 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 27.

Second and Third Cenhiries. 155
ing witness, not to the genuineness and integrity of the Scrip
tures, 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 litera authentica may therefore 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 Tertullian attached to the authority of the
Apostolic Churches. To infer from it that the very chairs in
which the apostles sat, or that the very Epistles which they
wrote, then actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.,
would be only to betray a total ignorance of Tertullian's style.
Tertullian expressly ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to
Barnabas : 1 he does not say that it was universally received
in the Church, but that it was more generally received than the
Shepherd of Hermas. He mentions also a work falsely ascribed
to St. Paul,2 but composed by an Asiatic presbyter, who was
impelled, as he himself confessed, to commit the pious fraud by
admiration of the apostle. The work appears to have been
quoted in defence of a custom which had crept in of allowing
females to baptize.
In speaking of the mode in which the canon of the New
Testament was formed, Lardner says that it was not determined
by the authority of councils.3 This may in one sense be true.
Yet it appears from a passage in the tract de Pudicitid, referred
to in a former chapter,4 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
1 De Pudicitid, c. 20. "Extat enim et Barnabas titulus ad Hebrasos : adeo
satis auctoritatis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentias tenore :
aut ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem f Et utique re-
ceptior apud Ecclesias Epistola Barnabas illo apocrypho Pastore moschorum."
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.
s De Baptismo, c. 17, sub fine. Jerome, Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiaslicorum
under St. Luke. He appears to have supposed that the work in question was
entitled the Travels of Paul and Thecla.
3 History of the Apostles and Evangelists, c. 3.
4 Chap. iv. p. 121, note 17. "Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pastoris, quas sola
mcechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi : si non ab omni concilio
Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, " c. 10.

156 The Ecclesiastical Histo7y of the
in support of his rejection of the Shepherd of Hermas. We
have seen that Tertullian appeals to the original Greek text of
the First Epistle to the Corinthians.1 This fact appears to
militate strongly against the theory of the author of a recent
work entitled Palaoromaica, who asserts that the said ¦ Epistle,
as well as the greater part of the New Testament, was originally
written in Latin.
When we contrast the acuteness which the anonymous author
of that work occasionally, and the extensive reading .which he
always displays, with the extraordinary conclusions at which he
arrives, we are strongly tempted to suspect that he is only
playing with his readers, and trying how far intrepid assertion
will go towards inducing men to lend a favourable ear to the
most startling paradoxes. To take a single instance from the
Epistle just mentioned. His solution of the celebrated difficulty
respecting the power which, according to St. Paul,2 a woman
ought to have on her head, is — that in the original Latin the
word was habitus, which the ignorant translator rendered etymo
logically Itjovcria..3 In support of this fancy he quotes the follow
ing words from Tertullian's treatise de Virginibus velandis, c. 3 :
"O sacrilegas manus, quae dicatum Deo habitum (the veil)
detrahere potuerunt!" — meaning his readers to infer that Ter
tullian found habitus in the verse in question, but omitting to
inform them that it is twice quoted by Tertullian in this very
tract, and that in both instances the reading is potestas? That the
omission proceeded, not from inadvertence, but design, is, we
think, rendered certain by the still more extraordinary solution
subjoined by the author, that veslitus 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. The
author contends that the very titles of the existing Greek Gospels,
to evayye\iov Kara Mar^aioj', Kara Aovkov, prove them to be
translations.6 The version of the Septuagint was called Kara
Toy's 'E/JSoyur/Kovra, that of Aquila koto. 'AkvX.o.v. But why does
1 See p. 154, note 3. 2 1 Cor. xi. 10.
3 Supplement to Palaoromaica, p. 61, note 5. The author does not inform us
how the word habitus came to be translated etymologically l^ovo-la. ; does he mean
that the translator confounded s'|/? and lluis-m ?
4 Cc. 7, 17. 5 Supplement to Palaoromaica, p. 3, note 2.

Second and Third Centuries. 157
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, etc., were the trans
lators. 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 eiayyiXiov koto. Mardaiov 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 eiay-
yekiov was employed at a very early period to signify a written
book,1 yet it continued to be used in its primitive meaning;
as by Tertullian, when he calls St. Matthew, fidelissimus Evangelii
commentator, the most faithful expositor of the life and doctrine
of Christ.2 We will take this opportunity of remarking that our
author, in speaking of the Scriptures, sometimes calls them
Instrumentum, sometimes Testamentum;3 but says on one
occasion that the latter term was in more general use.4 He
calls them also Digesta.5
Some learned men have contended that the Epistle, which in
our Bibles is inscribed to the Ephesians, should be entitled to
the Laodiceans.6 Tertullian in one place says that the heretics
alone gave it that title ; 7 in another,8 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, quota
tions purporting to be taken from Scripture, but which cannot be
found in our present copies. Thus in the tract de Idololatrid,
1 See de Res. Carnis, c. 33 : de Carne Christi, <j. 7 : adv. Marcionem, 1. i. u. 1 ;
1. iv. cc. 1, 3 ; 1. v. 1 : Scorpiace, c. 2.
2 De Carne Christi, c. 22. See also de Res. Carnis, c. 33. The word com
mentator is similarly used, adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 2.
3 " Vetus Instrumentum." Apology, c. 47. ' ' Ex instrumento divinarum Scrip-
turarum." Adv. Judaos, c. 1. The two words are joined together, adv. Praxeam,
c. 20. " Instrumentum utriusque testamenti."
4 "Alteram alterius instrumenti, vel (quod magis usui est dicere) testamenti."
Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 1.
5 "Et inde sunt nostra digesta." Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 2. "Si quid in
Sanctis offenderunt digestis." Apology, c. 47.
6 Lardner, History of the Apostles and Evangelists, c. 13.
7 " Prastereo hie et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios perscriptam habemus ;
Hasretici vero ad Laodicenos." Adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 11.
8 " Ecclesias 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, 1. v. c. 17.

158 The Ecclesiastical History of the
c. 20, " Nam sicut scriptum est ecce homo et facta ejus, ita, ex ore
tuo j'ustificaberis."1 The commentators have not been able to trace
the former of the two quotations, and some suppose it to have
been taken from the book of Enoch. On three different occa
sions Tertullian quotes the words Dominus regnavit a ligno as a
portion of the tenth verse of the 95th (or 96th) Psalm;2 from
which, according to Justin Martyr, the words corresponding to a
ligno had been erased by the Jews. In the tract de Carne Christi,
c. 23, we find the following sentence : " Legimus quidem apud
Ezechielem de vacca ilia, qua peperit et non peperit ; " the words
are also quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus,3 but he does not refer
to any particular portion of Scripture. In the tract de Exhorta-
tione Castitatisf Tertullian says, " Cautum in Levitico, Sacerdotes
mei non plus nubent ; " but the prohibition,5 as it stands in our
Bibles, is that a priest shall not marry a widow or divorced
female. Tertullian's writings afford many exemplifications of the
justice of Porson's remarks respecting the want of correctness and
precision observable in the quotations of the Fathers from the
Scriptures. He sometimes refers his readers to one part of
Scripture for passages which belong to another ; and he so mixes
up the quotations with his own words, that it is difficult to dis
tinguish between them.6 The consequence has been that his
inferences and explanations have been mistaken for various
readings,7 and have in some instances found their way into the
text of the sacred volume.8
We proceed to the seventh Article, on which it will be sufficient
to remark that, as the heretical opinions of Marcion were founded
on the notion that the God who created the world and gave the
law was opposed to the Supreme God, he maintained as a
necessary consequence that the Old Testament was contrary
to the New. Our author, therefore, who undertakes to confute
'Matt. xii. 37.
2 Adv. Judaos, cc. 10, 13. Adv. Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 19. See Thirlby's note on
lustin Martyr against Trypho, p. 298 D.
3 Strom. 1. vii. p. 890, ed. Potter. See Porson's Letters to Travis, p.
275- 4 C. 7. Compare de Monogamia, c. 7.
5 Lev. xxi. 7, 13, 14.
6 Thus in the Scorpiace, c. 13, a passage extant in the first chapter of the Epistle
to the Philippians, is quoted as from the Epistles to the Thessalonians.
7 See an instance in Porson's Letters to Travis, p. 273, or in Semler's Disserta
tion, sect. ix.
8 The author might have produced numerous other instances in confirmation of
the statements made in this paragraph, but he was unwilling to swell the bulk of
the volume.

Second and Third Centuries. 159
him, must have held that the two Testaments were not at
variance.1 We have seen that Tertullian,2 when arguing against the
heretics, uniformly represents the rule of faith maintained in the
Apostolic Churches to be the same which the apostles originally
delivered. He does not indeed state that they compiled any
creed or public declaration of belief, to which all the members
of the Church were bound to give their assent. But in the com
mencement of the tract de Virginibus velandis3 he describes
what he calls the one fixed, unchangeable rule of faith, which will
be found to contain nearly all the articles of what is now termed
the Apostles' Creed. Those which are there wanting may be
supplied, either from another summary of faith in the second
chapter of the tract against Praxeas* or from detached passages
of our author's writings. Thus the conception by the Holy
Ghost is stated in the treatise against Praxeas, c. 27 : " Certe enim
de Spiritu Sancto Virgo concepit;" and we have seen in our
remarks on the third Article that Tertullian believed the doctrine
of Christ's descent into hell. Schlitingius indeed contended, on
the authority of the passage just quoted from the tract de Vir
ginibus velandis, that a belief in the Holy Ghost formed no part
of the faith required from a Christian in the time of Tertullian ; 6
but the whole tenor of the tract against Praxeas confutes the
assertion, and proves that the divinity of the Holy Ghost was
then received as one of the doctrines of the Church. With
1 See particularly adv. Marcione?n, 1. iv. c. n, where are some judicious obser
vations respecting the relation in which the Law stands to the Gospel.
2 Chap. iv. p. 114, note 2.
3 ' ' Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis, cre-
dendi scilicet in unicumDeum omnipotentem, mundi conditorem, et Filium ejus
lesum Christum, natum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertio die
resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in coslis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris,
venturum judicare vivos et mortuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem." Compare
de Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 13.
4 "Nos vera, et semper, et nunc magis ut instructiores per Paracletum, deduc-
torem scilicet omnis veritatis, unicum quidem Deum credimus ; sub hac tamen
dispensatione, quam elxovofiixi dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et filius, Sermo ipsius, qui
ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil. Hunc
missum a Patre in Virgmem, et ex ea natum, hominem et Deum, filium hominis
et filium Dei, et cognominatum lesum Christum. Hunc passum, hunc mortuum
et sepultum secundum Scripturas, et resuscitatum a Patre, et in ccelos resumptum,
sedere ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos. Qui exinde
miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a Patre Spiritum Sanctum Paracletum,
Sanctificatorem fidei eorum, qui credunt in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum.
Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse," etc. See also cap. ult. "Si non
exinde Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, tres crediti, unum Deum sistunt."
5 Pearson On the Creed, Article viii. p. 307.

[ 60 The Ecclesiastical History of the
respect to the next clause — the Holy Catholic Church — by which
I understand, with Pearson, a visible Church on earth,1 Tertullian
repeatedly speaks of a Church which was founded by the apostles,2
especially by St. Peter,3 according to the promise made by Christ
to him, and is composed of all the Christian communities through
out the world, which are united by the profession of a common
faith, by the same hope in Christ Jesus, and by the same sacra
ment of baptism.4 To this Church Tertullian applies also the
term Catholica? Of the doctrine contained in the next clause
of the Apostles' Creed — the Communion of Saints — as it is
explained by Pearson, I find no traces in Tertullian's writings ;
and with respect to the remission of sins, we have seen that,
though after he became a Montanist he denied to the Church
the power of forgiving certain sins in this life, he still supposed
that the offender might, through the blood of Christ, upon sincere
repentance, obtain pardon in the life to come.6 The inference,
therefore, to be drawn from a comparison of different passages
scattered through Tertullian's writings is, that the Apostles' Creed
in its present form was not known to him as a summary of faith,
but that the various clauses of which it is composed were gene
rally received as articles of faith by orthodox Christians.. When
we come to speak of the tract against Praxeas, we shall have an
opportunity of ascertaining how far the opinions of our author
coincided with the language employed in the Nicene and
Athanasian Creeds.
We proceed to the ninth Article of our Church — on original
sin — a subject on which we must not expect Tertullian to speak
with the same precision of language which was used by those
who wrote after the Pelagian controversy had arisen. In de
scribing the cause and consequences of Adam's fall, he says that
our first parent, having been seduced into disobedience by
Satan, was delivered over unto death, and transmitted his
1 Article ix. p. 339. Tertullian, however, speaks sometimes of a heavenly or
invisible Church. " Emissa de ccelis, ubi Ecclesia est area figurata." Dc Bap
tismo, c. 8. " Una Ecclesia in calls," c. 15. "Jam tunc de mundo in Ecclesiam,"
Adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. c. 4. Here, however, the expression is ambiguous ; it
may mean the transition from Paganism to Christianity. ' ' Apud Veram et
Catholicam Hierusalem," etc., 1. iii. c. 22.
2 " In Ecclesiam, quamnondum Apostoli struxerant." De Baptismo, c. n.
3 "In ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est, peripsum." Dc Pudicitid, c. 21.
4 ' ' Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, idem Christus, eadem spes, eadem lavacri
Siicramenta. " De Virginibus velandis, c. 2.
J De Prascriptione Hareticorum, cc. 26, 30.
6 Chap. iv. p. 127.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 6 1
condemnation to the whole human race, which was infected
from his seed.1 The effect of this condemnation was to involve
mankind in sin as well as in punishment. In our account
of the treatise de Animd, we stated that our author expressed
his approbation of the Platonic division of the soul into rational
and irrational.2 According to him, the rational was its natural,
original character, as it was created by God ; the irrational was
introduced by Satan, and has since been wrought so completely
into the soul as to have become as it were its natural character.
In the same tract he says also that every soul is numbered in
Adam, until, being born of water and the Spirit, it is numbered
anew in Christ.3 He does not, however, appear to have ad
mitted a total corruption of man's nature. " Besides the evil,"
he says, " which the soul contracts from the intervention of the
wicked spirit, there is an antecedent, and in a certain sense
natural evil, arising from its corrupt origin. For, as we have
already observed, the corruption of our nature is another nature ;
having its proper god and father, namely the author of that
corruption. Still there is a portion of good in the soul ; of that
original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature.
For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than
extinguished. It may be obscured, because it is not God; but'
it cannot be extinguished, because it emanates from God. As, '
therefore, light, when intercepted by an opaque body, still remains,
though it is not seen, so the good in the soul, being weighed
down by the evil, is either not seen at all, or is partially and
occasionally visible. Men differ widely in their moral characters,
yet the souls of all form but one genus : in the worst there is
something good ; in the best there is something bad.4 For God
alone is without sin ; and the only man without sin is Christ,
since Christ is God. Thus the divine nature of the soul bursts
forth in prophetic anticipations, the consequences of its original
good ; and conscious of its origin it bears testimony to God,
1 " Per quem (Satanam) homo a primordio circumventus ut prasceptum Dei
excederet, et propterea in mortem datus, exinde totum genus de suo semine
infectum suas etiam damnationis traducem fecit. " De Testimonio Anima, c. 3.
"Homo damnatur ad mortem ob unius arbusculas delibationem, et exinde pro-
ficiunt delicta cum pcenis, et pereunt jam omnes, qui Paradisi nullum cespitem
norunt." Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 22.
2 C. 16. Compare c. n, where Tertullian speaks of Adam's soul.
3 ' ' Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur, donee in Christo recenseatur, "
c. 40. In the tract de Patientid, c. 3, Tertullian says that the sin of Adam con
sisted in impatience, i.e. under the commandment of God ; but in the tract de
Pudicitid, c. 6, he ascribes the fall to what the apostle terms the lust of the eye .
(i John ii. 16).
4 Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. 0. 23. F

1 62 The Ecclesiastical History of the
its author, in exclamations like these — Deus bonus est, Deus
videt, Deo commendo. As no soul is without sin, neither is any
without the seeds of good. Moreover, when the soul embraces
the true faith, being renewed in its second birth by water and
the power from above, then the veil of its former corruption
being taken away, it beholds the light in all its brightness. As
in its first birth it was received by the unholy, in its second it
is received by the Holy Spirit. The flesh follows the soul now
wedded to the Spirit, as a part of the bridal portion ; no longer
the servant of the soul, but of the Spirit. O happy marriage,
if no violation of the marriage vow takes place ! " 1
The language of the passages now cited appears to differ little
from that of our Article. The original state of Adam was a
f state of righteousness:2 in his nature, as he was created, good
{ was the pervading principle, good immediately derived from
' God and akin to the divine goodness ; or, as Tertullian expresses
himself on another occasion, the original righteousness of Adam
consisted in a participation in the Spirit of God, which he lost
by his transgression.3 The effect of his transgression has been
to make his offspring the heirs of his condemnation^-to entail
f upon them a corruption of nature, from which no man born
I into the world is exempt, and for which there is no other
remedy than to be born again by water and the Holy Spirit.4
Although, therefore, Tertullian denies that the corruption of
man's nature is total, and that the seeds of good are altogether
extinguished in it, yet he expressly states that man cannot by'
his own efforts restore himself to the favour of God, but requires '
that his soul should be renewed by grace from above. Had our
author admitted the total corruption of human nature — had he used '
1 De Animd, c. 41.
2 De Pudicitid, c. 9. Tertullian speaking of the prodigal son says, " Recorda-
tur Patris Dei, satisfacto redit, vestem pristinam recipit, statum scilicet eum quem
Adam transgressus amiserat." Compare de Monogamia, c. 5.
3 "Recipit enim ilium Dei Spiritum, quem tunc de afflatu ejus acceperat, sed
post amiserat per delictum." De Baptismo, c. 3. Tertullian's notion here seems
to be that God made man in His image, that is, in the form which Christ was to
bear during His residence on earth ; this image man retained after the fall.
(Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 8, sub in.) But God also made man after
His likeness, that is, immortal ; this likeness man lost at the fall, but it is
restored to him in baptism through the Holy Spirit. In the second book against
Marcion, c. 2, Tertullian applies to Adam at the time of his transgression the
term homo animalis, that is, without the Spirit of God, as opposed to spiritalis.
4 See de Jejuniis, c. 3, where, speaking of the effects of Adam's fall, Tertullian
says, "In me quoque cum ipso genere transductam. " So in the tract de Exhor-
iatione Castitatis, c. 2, " Semini enim tuo respondeas necesse esse," See also'
de Pudicitid, c. 6,

Second and Third Centuries. 1 63
the language which is sometimes used in our own day, that man
is wholly the offspring of the devil — his adversary Marcion might
have turned round upon him and said, "This is my doctrine,
for I affirm that man was made by a being distinct from the
supreme God and at variance with Him."
It must, however, be admitted that there is, in the tract de
Baptismo, a passage which seems to imply a denial of the
doctrine of original sin.1 Tertullian recommends delay in ad
ministering the rite of baptism, particularly in the case of
children; and asks, "Why should the age of innocence (infancy)
be in haste to obtain the remission of sins ? " 2 Here is an
evident inconsistency. The passages which we have already
cited, prove that our author was strongly impressed with the
conviction that baptism is necessary in order to relieve man
kind from the injurious consequences of Adam's fall.8 We
might therefore reasonably have expected to find him a strenuous
advocate of infant baptism. As we shall have occasion to recur
to this passage when we come to treat of the rites and cere
monies of the Church, we shall say nothing more respecting it
at present.
We will take this opportunity of noticing two strange opinions
of Tertullian. One is, that the prohibition given to Adam in
Paradise contained in it all the precepts of the decalogue ; 4 the
other, that Eve was a virgin when tempted by the serpent 5 — an
assertion which he does not attempt to reconcile with the divine
blessing, " Be fruitful and multiply." It marks, however, his
strong disposition to 'exaggerate the merit of a life of celibacy.
Tertullian's notions on free-will — the subject of the tenth
Article of our Church — may be collected from a passage in his
treatise de Animd? He is arguing against the Valentinians, who
maintained that men were of three kinds — spiritual, animal, and
terrestrial — and that, as this distinction took place at their birth,
it was consequently immutable : as a thorn cannot produce figs,
1 C. 18.
2 The expression innocens atas occurs again in the fourth book against Marcion ,
c. 23. See also de Animd, c. $6, sub fine.
s See particularly the passage quoted on p. 161, note 3.
4 Adv. Judaos, c. 2.
5 De Carne Christi, c. 17. Compare de Monogamid, c. 5^ " Christus innuptus
in totum, quod etiam primus Adam ante exilium."
6 C. 21, partly quoted in chap. iii. note 2, p. 101.

1 64 The Ecclesiastical History of the
or a thistle grapes, an animal man cannot produce the works of
the Spirit ; or the contrary. "If this were so," answers Tertullian,
*' God could neither out of stones raise up sons to Abraham, nor
could the generation of vipers bring forth the fruits of repentance ;
and the apostle was in error when he wrote, Ye ivere once dark
ness, and we also were once by nature the children of wrath, and
ye were of the same number, but now ye have been washed. The
declarations of Scripture are never at variance with each other :
a bad tree will not produce good fruit, unless a graft is made
upon it ; and a good tree will bring forth bad fruit, unless it is
cultivated ; and stones will become the sons of Abraham, if they
are formed into the faith of Abraham ; and the generation of
vipers will bring forth the fruits of repentance, if they cast out
the poison of a malignant nature. Such is the power of divine
grace; being stronger than nature, and having subject to itself
the free power of the will within us, which the Greeks call
avTe^oucriov.1 This power is natural and changeable ; conse
quently in what direction soever it turns, the nature (of man)
turns in that direction with it. For we have already shown that
man possesses by nature freedom of will." On another occasion,
Tertullian is disputing with Marcion, who contended that the fall
of Adam was irreconcilable with the attributes of God ; who
must be deemed deficient either in goodness if He willed, in
prescience if He did not foresee, or in power if He did not
prevent it.2 Our author answers that the cause of Adam's, fall
must be sought, not in the attributes of God, but in the condition
and nature of man. Adam was created free ; for God would not
have given him a law and annexed the . penalty of death to
transgression, unless it had been in his power either to obey or
disobey. Precepts, threats, and exhortations all proceed upon
the assumption that man acts freely and according to his will.
" But did not God foresee that Adam would make an ill use of
his freedom ? how then can we reconcile it to His goodness that
He should have bestowed a gift which He foresaw that Adam
would abuse ? " To this question Tertullian replies in a laboured
argument, the object of which is to prove that God, having
determined to create man after His own image and likeness, and
consequently to make him a free agent, could not consistently
1 Tertullian appears not to have held the notion of a self-determining power of
the will ; for he speaks of it as determined by something extraneous. " Nam et
voluntas poterit necessitas contendi : habens scilicet unde cogatur." De Corond,
c. 11.
2 Adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. cc. 3, 6, 7, 8. Compare cc. 10, 25.

Second and Third Centuries. 165
interpose to prevent him from using his freedom as he pleased.
We must observe that throughout this passage Tertullian is
speaking of the original state of Adam ; not of his state after the
fall, or of the state in which all men are born into the world.
Before man in his present state can repent and do that which is
good, his will must be brought under subjection to the grace of
God. The great object of Tertullian is to vindicate the dealings
of God with man, and to prove that, when men sin, the guilt is/
strictly and properly their own.1 Adam sinned voluntarily ; the
tempter did not impose upon him the inclination to sin, but
afforded him the means of gratifying the inclination which already
existed. We may think Tertullian's reasoning incorrect, and
deny that his solution of the difficulties connected with the
questions of the divine agency and the freedom of man is
satisfactory : where, indeed, are we to look for a satisfactory
solution ? But it is evident that nothing could be more remote
from his intention than so to assert the freedom of man's will as
either to deny the necessity or to detract from the efficacy of
divine grace; from the sole operation of which he conceived
patience and the other moral graces to take their origin.2
What I remarked with respect to the doctrine of original sin is
equally applicable to that of justification, the subject of the
eleventh Article of our Church. No controversy on the subject
existed in Tertullian's time. That which occupied so large a
portion of St. Paul's attention, the dispute respecting the necessity
of observing the Mosaic ritual as a means of justification, appears
to have died away immediately after the expulsion of the Jews
by Adrian. We must not therefore expect in Tertullian's
language, when he speaks on this subject, the precision of con
troversy. He describes, however, the death of Christ as the
whole weight and benefit of the Christian name, and the founda
tion of man's salvation.3 He says in one place that we are
1 Compare de Monogamid, c. 14. "Nee ideo duritia imputabitur Christo de
arbitrii cujuscunque liberi vitio. 'Ecce, inquit, posui ante te bonum et malum.'
Elige quod bonum est ; si non potes, quia non vis (posse enim te, si velis, ostendit,
quia tuo arbitrio utrumque proposuit) discedas oportet ab eo cujus non facis
voluntatem." 2 " Nisi quod bonorum quorundam, sicuti et malorum, intolerabilis magnitudo
est, ut ad capienda et prasstanda ea sola gratia divinas inspirationis operetur.
Nam quod maxime bonum, id maxime penes Deum, nee alius id quam qu
possidet dispensat, ut cuique dignatur." De Patientid, c. 1.
3 ' ' Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi, negatur, quam
tarn impress^ Apostolus demandat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum
Evangelii constituens, et salutis nostras, et prasdicationis suae : Tradidi enim

1 66 The Ecclesiastical History of the
redeemed by the blood of God ; a in another, by the blood of
the Lord and the Lamb.2 He asserts that such is the efficacy of
the blood of Christ, that it not only cleanses men from sin and
brings them out of darkness into light, but preserves them also
in a state of purity if they continue to walk in the light.3 He
speaks of a repentance which is justified by faith, pcenitentiam ex
fide justificatam /* and of justification by faith without the
ordinances of the law.5 If, therefore, on other occasions we find
him dwelling in strong terms on the efficacy of repentance, we
ought in fairness to infer that he did not mean to represent it as
of itself possessing this efficacy, but as deriving its reconciling
virtue from the sacrifice of Christ.6 In the same sense we must
understand other passages, in which he ascribes to bodily morti
fications a certain degree of merit, and the power of appeasing
the divine displeasure.7 The case in which Tertullian's language
approaches most nearly to the Roman Catholic doctrine of merit,
is that of martyrdom. To this undoubtedly he ascribed the
power of washing away guilt ; still, we conceive, under the
restriction under which he ascribes the same power to baptism.8
The efficacy which martyrdom possessed was derived solely from
the death of Christ. This at least is certain, that he positively
denied all superabundance of merit in the martyr. " Let it
suffice,'' he says, speaking of the custom then prevalent of
restoring penitents to the communion of the Church at the
intercession of martyrs, " let it suffice to the martyr to have
inquit, vobis in primis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccalis nostris," etc. Adv.
Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 8. See also 1. ii. c. 26. " Christum — oblatorem animas suae
pro populi salute;" and the Scorpiace, c. 7, "Christus est qui se tradidit pro
delictis nostris." De Idololatrid. "Quum Christus non alia ex causa descenderit,
quam liberandorum peccatorum."
1 " Non sumus nostri, sed pretio empti ; et quali pretio? sanguine Dei." Ad
Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 3.
2 " Itaque si exinde quo statum vertit (caro) et in Christum tincta induit Christum,
et magno redempta est, sanguine scilicet Domini et Agni." De Pudicitid, c. 6.
3 " Hasc est enim vis Dominici Sanguinis, ut quos jam delicto mundarit, et
exinde in lumine constituerit, mundos exinde prasstet, si in lumine incedere
perseveraverint. " De Pudicitid, c. 19.
4 Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 18, sub fine.
s " Ex fide jam justificandos sine ordine legis." Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 33.
6 See de Panitentid, cc. 4, 9.
7 "In primis adflictatio carnis hostia Domino placatoria per humiliationis
sacrificium," etc. De Patientid, c. 13 ; de Res. Carnis, c. 9. " Quo plenius id
quod de Eva trahit (ignominiam, dico, primi delicti et invidiam perditionis
humanas) omni satisfactionis habitu expiaret." De Cultu Faminarum, 1. i. c. 1.
De Jejuniis, cc. 3, 4, 7, et passim.
8 "Ubi accessit, pati exoptat, ut Dei totam gratiam redimat, ut omnem veniam
ab eo compensatione sanguinis sui expediat ? Omnia enim huic operi (martyrio)
delicta donantur." Apology, sub pine.

Second and Third Centuries. 167
washed away his own sins. It is a mark of ingratitude or
presumption in him to scatter profusely upon others that which
he has himself acquired at a great price. For who but the Son
of God can by His own death relieve others from death ? He
indeed delivered the thief at the very moment of His passion ;
for He had come for this very end, that being Himself free from
sin and perfectly holy, He might die for sinners. You then who
imitate Christ in pardoning sins, if you are yourself sinless, suffer
death for me. But if you are yourself a sinner, how can the oil
out of your cruse suffice both for you and me?"1
We have observed nothing in Tertullian's works which bears
upon the twelfth Article of our Church ; but with reference to the
thirteenth — which involves the question respecting the nature
of heathen virtue — he is supposed by his editor Rigault, in a
passage in the tract de Spectaculis? to express a doubt whether
a heathen can be actuated by a really virtuous principle ; liter
ally, whether a heathen has any savour of that which is good.
In the tract ad Martyres? a distinction is made between the
principles in which the fortitude of a Christian and of a heathen
originates. But in neither case is the language of that clear
and express character which will warrant us in building any
decided conclusion upon it. The fair inference, however, from
the general tenor of Tertullian's writings is, that he deemed all
heathen virtue imperfect, and could not therefore ascribe to it
any merit of congruity.4
From the passage which has been just quoted from the tract
de Pudicitid, it is manifest that. Tertullian entirely rejected, with
our fourteenth Article, the notion of works of supererogation ; 5
and in the same passage, the reader would remark that, in
agreement with our fifteenth Article, he declared Christ alone
to be without sin. The same statement is repeated in various
1 De Pudicitid, c. 22.
2 " Quam melius ergo est nescire quum mali puniuntur, ne sciam et quum boni
pereunt, si tamen bonum sapiunt, " c. 19.
3 C. 4, sub fine.
4 ' ' Quia nihil verum in his (fceminis) quas Deum nesciunt Prsesidem et Magis-
tratum veritatis." De Cultu Faminarum, 1. ii. c. 1. " Igitur ignorantes quique
Deum, rem quoque ejus ignorent necesse est." De Panitentid, c. 1. " Philo
sophi quidem qui alicujus sapientias animalis deputantur." De Patientid, c. 1.
"Cui enim Veritas comperta sine Deo? Cui Deus cognitus sine Christo? Cui
Christus exploratus sine Spiritu Sancto?" etc. De Animd, c. 1.
8 C. 22.

1 68 The Ecclesiastical History of the
parts of his writings ; 1 and it is amusing to observe the anxiety
of several of the Romish commentators to limit its application,
and to assure us that the Virgin is not to be included in this
general charge of sinfulness. All the other descendants of
Adam contract guilt ; and that, too, after they have received
marks of the divine favour.2 In proof of this assertion, our author
appeals to the cases of Saul, and David, and Solomon. " These,"
he says, " are they who soil their wedding garment, and provide
no oil in their lamps, and having strayed from the flock must
be sought in the mountains and woods, and be brought back on
the shoulders of the Shepherd."3
With respect to the recovery of those who fall into sin after
baptism — the subject of the sixteenth Article — we have seen that
the opinions of Tertullian underwent a material alteration ; 4 and
that, after he had adopted the notions of Montanus in all their
rigour, he allowed a place of repentance only to those who fell
into venial transgressions ; maintaining that the stain of mortal
sin after baptism could only be washed away by martyrdom, by
the baptism of the sinner in his own blood.5 Of the sin against
the Holy Ghost he makes no express mention. With respect to
perseverance, Tertullian appears to have thought that the true
Christian will either persevere to the end, or will only fall into
those lighter offences from which no man is free.6 He who
does not persevere never was a Christian ; 7 so that if, in order
to accommodate Tertullian's language to the controversies of
later times, we substitute the word elect for Christian, persever
ance, according to him, is the evidence of election ; though he
did not think that Christians can be assured of their final per
severance.8 On comparing, therefore, the later opinions of
Tertullian with the doctrine of the Church of England in its
1 De Oratione, c. 7 ; de Animd, c. 41 ; de Carne Christi, c. 16 ; de Prascriptione
Hareticoi-um, c. 3.
2 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 3.
3 "Prospexerat et has Deus imbecillitates conditionis humanas, adversarii in-
sidias, rerum fallacias, seculi retia, etiam post Lavacrum periclitaturam fidem,
perituros plerosque rursum post salutem : qui vestitum obsoletassent nuptialem,
qui faculis oleum non prasparassent, qui requirendi per montes et saltus, et
humeris essent reportandi." Scorpiace, c. 6.
4 Chap. iv. p. 126.
5 " Posuit igitur secunda solatia et extrema prassidia, dimicationem martyrii, et
lavacrum sanguinis exinde securum." Scorpiace, c. 6.
6 De Pudicitid, c. 19, propefinem.
7 " Nemo autem Christianus, nisi qui adfinem usque perseveraverit. " De Pra
scriptione Hareticorum, c. 3.
8 "Optantes perseverare id in nobis, non tamen prassumentes. " De Cultu
Faminarum, 1. ii. c. 2.

Second and Third Centuries. 169
sixteenth Article, we find that they are directly opposed to
each other. He regards perseverance as the evidence that a
man is a Christian ; or in the language of the Article, that he has
received the Holy Ghost. But when he says that he alone is a
Christian who perseveres to the end, his words seem to imply
that he who does not persevere never was a Christian — had never
received grace ; whereas the express declaration of the Article
is, that a man may receive grace and afterwards fall from it ; and
such indeed is the declaration of our author himself, in the
passage which has been just quoted respecting the defection of
Saul, David, and Solomon.1 This apparent contradiction leads
me to observe, that in reading the works of the Fathers we
should be careful to distinguish between incidental or general
remarks, and remarks made with reference to the particular
controversies then subsisting. In the former they must not be
supposed to speak with the same precision as in the latter.
There was no controversy in Tertullian's day on the subject of
perseverance; we must therefore not construe his expressions
too strictly.
Of Predestination, as the term is defined in our seventeenth
Article, we find no trace in the writings of Tertullian. The
doctrine, as proposed in the Article, is the result of a number
of texts of Scripture, describing the various steps of a true
believer's progress towards salvation. What Tertullian says on
the subject has a closer connexion with the questions agitated
in the schools of philosophy, respecting fate and free-will, than
with the Scriptures. His controversies with the heretics of his
time, who appear to have lost their way in the vain search
after a solution of the difficulties respecting the origin of evil,
frequently oblige him to speak of the purpose or will of God in
the natural and moral government of the world ; and to contend
that this purpose or will is not inconsistent with human liberty.
"Some," he says, "argue that whatever happens, happens by
the will of God ; for if God had not willed, it would not have
happened. But this is to strike at the root of all virtue, and to
offer an apology for every sin. The sophistry, moreover, of the
argument is not less glaring than its pernicious tendency. For
if nothing happens but what God wills, God wills the com
mission of crime ; in other words, He wills what He forbids.
We must not therefore so refer all events to the will of God
as to leave nothing in the power of man. Man has also a will,
1 See p. 168, note 3. Compare de Panitentid, u. 7.

1 70 The Ecclesiastical History of the
which ought always to conspire with the will of God, but is
often at variance with it." a In the chapter which immediately
follows, our author distinguishes between the will by which God
ordains, and the will by which He permits ; calling the former
pura voluntas, the latter invita voluntas. Yet at other times he
seems to have been aware that this in the case of the Almighty
is a verbal, not a real distinction; for in reasoning upon the
apostle's declaration, that "there must be heresies that they
which are approved may be made manifest," 2 he says that the
very purpose of heresies being to try the faith of Christians, they
must necessarily pervert those whose faith is not well grounded
and stedfast. For that which is ordained to be (for instance,
heresies), as it has a cause or purpose on account of which it is
(the trial of the faith of Christians), so it must also possess a
power by which it is, and cannot but be what it is (cannot but
be subversive of the faith of unstable Christians) ; as in the
case of fevers and other mortal diseases, which are ordained as
modes of removing men from this world, and must therefore
possess the power of effecting the end for which they were
ordained — that of killing. Here our author evidently supposes
that the existence of heresy is not merely permitted, but ordained
for a particular end. Still he is careful to add that, if any indi
viduals are perverted, the fault is their own. Had their faith
been of a firmer character, which depended upon themselves,
they would not have fallen away. We may further observe that
Tertullian appears to have considered foreknowledge as the
consequence of predestination ; or that events are foretold be
cause they are pre-ordained. For in assigning the reason why
3 De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 2. Compare adv. Praxeam, c. 10, sub fine,
2 ' ' Conditio prassentium temporum etiam hanc admonitionem provocat nostram,
non oportere nos mirari super Hasreses istas, sive quia sunt: futura enim pra-
nuntiabantur : sive quia fidem quorundam subvertunt ; ad hoc enim sunt, ut
fides, habendo tentationem, habeat etiam probationem. Vane ergo et inconsiderate
plerique hoc ipso scandalizantur, quod tantum Hasreses valeant. Quantum si
non fuissent ? quum quod sortitum est ut omni modo sit, sicut causam accipit ob
quam sit, sic vim consequitur per quam sit, nee esse non possit. " (We have adopted
in part the reading of Semler s edition.) "Febrem denique, inter caeteros morti-
ficos et cruciarios exitus, erogando homini deputatam, neque quia est miramur ;
est enim; neque quia erogat hominem; ad hoc enim est." De Prascriptione
Hareticorum, cc. 1, 2.
Tertullian seems also to have been aware that election implied reprobation
("Praslatio alterius sine alterius contumelia non potest procedere, quia nee
Electio sine Reprobatione," Apology, c. 13. Again, adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 23 :
" Nam sicut ad salutem vocat, quem non recusat vel etiam quem ultra vocat ;
ita in perditionem damnat, quem recusat "), as well as of the futility of the dis
tinction which is attempted to be drawn, when it is said that God does not
positively reprobate, but only does not elect or passes by. Adv. Marcionem,
1. iv. 29.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 7 1
in the prophetic writings future events are frequently spoken of
as if they had already happened, he says that there is no dis
tinction of time in the divine mind.1 God regards that which
He has decreed to do as if it were already done.
We have seen that Tertullian was inclined to ascribe a certain
degree of divine inspiration to the philosophers who had ridiculed
the absurdities of the national polytheism.2 With respect, how
ever, to the Gentile world in general, his opinion was that it was
under the dominion of the powers of darkness, and consequently
in a state of alienation from God.3 The question which is
involved in the eighteenth Article of our Church — whether a
heathen, who framed his life according to the light of nature,
could be saved? — appears never to have presented itself to
Tertullian's mind. Had it been proposed to him, entertaining
the opinions which he did respecting the necessity of baptism to
salvation, he must have replied in the negative.
Having already laid before the reader all the information which
the writings of our author supply respecting the Church and its
authority, and the authority of general councils, the subjects of
our nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first Articles,4 we proceed
to the twenty-second, entitled of Purgatory.
The Roman Catholic commentators, as we might naturally
expect, are extremely anxious to discover their doctrine of Purga
tory in the writings of Tertullian. In our review of his tract
de Animd, we stated his opinion to be, that the souls of ordinary
Christians, immediately after death, are transferred to a place
to which he gives the name of Inferi, and there remain until the
general resurrection, when they will be re-united to their respec
tive bodies — that while they remain there, the souls of the good
1 " Nam et divinitati competit, quascunque decreverit, ut perfecta reputare, quia
non sit apud illam differentia temporis, apud quam uniformem statum temporum
dirigit asternitas ipsa : et divinationi propheticas magis familiare est id quod pro-
spiciat, dum prospicit, jam visum atque ita jam expunctum, id est, omni modo
futurum demonstrare." Adv. Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 5.
1 Ad Nationes, 1. i. c. 10, quoted in chap. iii. note 1, p. 87.
3 See the passages quoted in note 4, p. 167, particularly the commencement of
the tract de Panitentid, and that from the second tract de Cultu Faminarum, in
which Tertullian says that the Gentiles, though they might not be devoid of all
feelings of remorse or of all sense of modesty, yet could not possibly comprehend
the true notion of repentance and chastity. See also ad Nationes, 1. ii. c. 2.
" Quis autem sapiens expers veritatis, qui ipsius sapientias ac veritatis patrem et
dominum Deum ignoret?"
4 Chap. iv. pp. 114-121. Chap. v. pp. 150-135.

172 The Ecclesiastical History of the
enjoy a foretaste of the happiness, and the souls of the wicked of
the misery, which will be their eternal portion — and that, until
the soul is re-united to the body, the work of retribution cannot
be complete.1 We need scarcely observe that this opinion,
which makes the final state of man a continuation only of the
intermediate state just described, is directly opposed to the
doctrine of Purgatory. It must, however, be admitted that there
are in Tertullian's writings passages which seem to imply that, in
the interval between death and the general resurrection, the
souls of those who are destined to eternal happiness undergo a
purification from the stains which even the best men contract
during their lives.2 Though he was, as we have seen,3 fully aware
of the mischief which had arisen from blending the tenets of
philosophy with the doctrines of the gospel, he was unable to
keep himself entirely free from the prevalent contagion; for
there can be no doubt that the notion of a purification, which is
necessary to the soul before it can be admitted to the happiness
of heaven, is of Platonic origin.4
1 Chap. iii. p. 105. "Omnes ergo animas penes Inferos, inquis. Velis ac
nolis, et supplicia jam illic et refrigeria; habes pauperem et divitem  Cur
enim non putes animam et puniri et foveri in Inferis interim sub expectatione
utriusque judicii in quadam usurpatione et Candida ejus? — Delibari putes judicium,
an incipi ? prascipitari, an prasministrari ? Jam vero quam iniquissimum etiam apud
Inferos, si et nocentibus adhuc illic bene est, et innocentibus nondum." De
Animd, cap. ult.
2 Thus, in the very chapter of the tract de Animd to which we have just
referred, " In summa, quum carcerem ilium, quem Evangelium demonstrat" (see
Matt. v. 25 or Luke xii. 58). " Inferos intelligamus, et novissimum quadrantem,
jnodicum quodque delictum mora resurrectionis illic luendum interpretemur,
nemo dubitabit animam aliquid pensare penes Inferos, salv4 resurrectionis pleni-
tudine per carnem quoque." Again, in c. 33: " Et Judex te tradat Angelo
executionis, et ille te in carcerem mandet infernum, unde non dimittaris, nisi
modico quoque delicto mora resurrectionis expense" See also de Res. Carnis,
c. 42: " Ne inferos experiatur, usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos ; " and
de Oratione, c. 7. See Bingham, 1. xv. c. 3, sect. 16. Perhaps the correct
statement of Tertullian's opinion, after he became a Montanist, is, that he con
ceived the souls of the wicked to remain in a state of suffering apud Inferos till
the general judgment ; the souls of the saints to be reunited to their bodies, not
at once, but at different times, according to their different merits, pro meritis
maturius vel tardius resurgentium, in the course of the thousand years during
which the reign of the saints on earth was to last. At the end of those thousand
years the general judgment would take place. The souls of the wicked being
re-united to their bodies, they would be consigned to eternal misery ; while the
bodies of the saints, who had already risen, would undergo the transformation
mentioned in our account of the tract de Res. Carnis. See this chapter, p. 141,
and note 4, p. 181. According to this opinion, the souls even of the saints require
purification, though in different degrees, apud Inferos.
3 Chap. iii. p. 87.
4 Our author, however, refers the origin of the notion to the revelations of the
Paraclete. " Floe etiam Paracletus frequentissime commendavit. " De Animd,
cap. ult.

Second and Third Centuries. 173
Of Pardons, in the sense in which the word is used in our
twenty-second Article, there is no mention in Tertullian's
writings. The same remark applies to image-worship and to the invoca
tion of saints.1 It is, however, impossible to read our author's
animadversions on the Gentile idolatry, without being convinced
that he would have regarded the slightest approach to image-
worship with the utmost abhorrence.
On the other hand, we find more than one allusion to the
practice of praying and offering for the dead,2 and of making
oblations in honour of the martyrs on the anniversary of their
martyrdom.3 We may take this opportunity of observing that Pearson 4 main
tains the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, on the
ground that it has been believed by the Church of God in all
ages. He admits, indeed, that Tertullian had been appealed to
as an assertor of the opposite opinion; and that Jerome,5 instead
of denying the charge, had contented himself with replying that
Tertullian was a separatist from the Church ; — but he thinks,
though he does not state the grounds of his opinion, that Jerome
might have denied the charge. There is, however, a passage in
the tract de Monogamia B which, though not entirely free from
ambiguity, appears to be inconsistent with the notion of the
perpetual virginity.
1 " Ut quem (Deum) ubique audire et videre fideret, ei soli religionem suani
offerret." De Oratione, c. i. This remark would scarcely have been made by
one who allowed the invocation of saints.
2 " Neque enim pristinam (uxorem) poteris odisse, cui etiam religiosiorem reservas
affectionem, ut jam receptee apud Deum, pro cujus Spiritu postulas, pro qua,
oblationes annuas reddis?" De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. n. " Enimvero et
pro anima ejus orat, et refrigerium interim adpostulat ei, et in prima resurrec
tione consortium, et offert annuis diebus dormitionis ejus." De Monogamid, c. 10.
3 "Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis, annua die facimus." De Corond,
c. 3. In one place Bingham speaks as if this practice applied to the dead
generally, b. xv. c. 3, sect. 13 ; in another, as if it had been confined to
martyrs, b. xiii. c. 9, sect. 5.
4 Article iii. p. 173.
5 Adversus Helvidium, Ep. 53. "Et de Tertulliano quidem nihil amplius dico,
quam Ecclesias hominem non fuisse."
6 C. 8. " Et Christum quidem virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum, ut
uterque titulus sanctitatis in Christi censu dispungeretur, per matrem et virginem
et univiram." But Semler instead of post reads ob. See also de Carne Christi^
c. 23 : " Et virgo, quantum a viro ; non virgo, quantum a partu."

1 74 The Ecclesiastical History of the
What has been already stated respecting Tertullian's notion of
the Church sufficiently proves that, in agreement with our
twenty-third Article, he considered no one at liberty to preach
the Word of God without a regular commission.1 The apostles,
he says, were appointed by our Lord to the office of preaching
the gospel throughout the world.2 They appointed persons to
preside in the different Churches which they founded ; and thus
an uninterrupted succession of bishops had been kept up to the
very time at which he wrote. We have seen also that, among
other charges which he brought against the heretics, he parti
cularly • alleged that they made no sufficient inquiry into the
qualifications of the persons whom they ordained, and that they
even enjoined laymen to perform the sacerdotal functions.3
Those passages of his writings in which he appears to claim for
Christians in general the right of administering the sacraments,
on the ground that the priestly character is, if I may use the
term, inherent equally in all Christians, refer only to cases of
necessity.4 The prevalent, perhaps the universal, opinion of the early
Christians was, that baptism was absolutely necessary to salva
tion. This opinion they grounded upon the words of Christ to
Nicodemus — " Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In those days cases
must frequently have occurred in which persons suffering under
severe illness, and expecting the near approach of death, were
anxious to receive baptism, but could not procure the attendance
of a regularly ordained minister. What, then, was to be done ?
The answer of reflecting men at the present day would probably
be, that when a sincere desire exists to receive baptism, as well
as the devout frame of mind necessary to its worthy reception,
the unavoidable omission of the outward act will never constitute,
in the sight of a merciful God, a reason for excluding a believer
from the benefits of the Christian covenant. But Tertullian and
the Christians of his day reasoned otherwise, — they were impressed
with the belief that the external rite was absolutely necessary to
1 Chap. iv. p. 114.
2 " Cum Discipulis autem quibusdam apud Galilseam, Judasas regionem, ad
quadraginta dies egit, docens eos quae docerent : dehinc ordinatis iis ad officium
prasdicandi per orbem, circumfusa nube in ccelum ereptus est." Apology, c. 21,
See also de Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 32, referred to in chap. iv. note 1, p. 114.
3 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 41, quoted in chap. iv. note 2, p. 113.
4 See de Baptismo, c. 17 ; de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7, quoted in chap.
iv. note 1, p. 112; de Monogamia, c. 12, quoted in the same chapter, note 1, p. 113.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 75
salvation. In cases, therefore, such as I have now described,
they thought it better that the rite should be performed by a
layman, than that it should not be performed at all ; and they
justified this deviation from the established discipline of the
Church, by the notion that the priestly character is impressed
upon all Christians indifferently at their baptism. Still our
author's reasoning clearly proves his opinion to have been, that
this latent power, if it may so be termed, was only to be called
into actual exercise in cases of necessity. Laymen who in the
present day take upon themselves to administer the rite of bap
tism in cases in which the attendance of a regularly ordained
minister can be procured, must not appeal to the authority of
Tertullian in defence of their rash assumption of the sacred
office. Were it not for a passage in the tract de Baptismo} in which
the inherent right of the laity to baptize is expressly asserted, we
should have been inclined to regard Tertullian's reasoning as an
argument ad hominem of the following kind :— " It is a favourite
notion with you (laymen) that all Christians are priests, and may
consequently exercise the sacerdotal functions. Be consistent
with yourselves. If you assume the power of the clergy, conform
yourselves to the rule of life prescribed to them. Do not say, the
clergy may not contract a second marriage, but the laity may.
The distinction between the clergy and laity is a distinction of
office, and does not affect the relation in which they stand to the
great rules of morality. These they are both alike bound to
observe ; and what is criminal in the clergy is also criminal in
the laity." Viewed in this light, Tertullian's reasoning is correct,
though it proceeds upon the erroneous assumption that a second
marriage is forbidden to the clergy.
With regard to the twenty-fourth Article, although our author
does not expressly tell us in what language the service of the
Church was performed, the necessary inference from his writings
is, that it was performed in a language with which the whole con
gregation was familiar. In order to remove the distrust with
which the Roman governors regarded the Christian assemblies,
he states, in the Apology, the object of those meetings.2 " We
1 C. 17.
2 " Corpus sumus de conscientia religionis, et disciplinas unitate, et spei fcedere.
Coimus ad Deum; ut quasi manufactd precationibus ambiamus. Hasc vis Deo grata
est. Oramus etiam pro imperatoribus, pro ministris eorum ac potestatibus, pro statu

176 The Ecclesiastical History of the
form," he says, "a body, being joined together by a community
of religion, discipline, and hope. We come together for the
purpose of offering our prayers to God, and as it were extorting
by our numbers and united supplications a compliance with our
desires. Such violence is pleasing to God. We pray also for
the emperors, for their officers, for all who are in authority ; we
pray that the course of this world may be peaceably ordered, and
the consummation of all things be deferred. We come together
for the purpose of reading the Holy Scriptures,- when the circum
stances of the times appear to call for any particular admoni
tions, or for the careful discussion of any particular topics. Of
this at least we are sure, that our faith will be nourished, our
hope elevated, our confidence confirmed, by listening to the
words of Scripture ; and that the Christian rule of life will be
impressed upon us with increased effect, through the inculcation
of holy precepts." It is evident that none of the objects which
Tertullian here enumerates could have been attained if the
prayers had been offered, or the Scriptures read, in a tongue to
which the majority of the persons assembled were strangers.
We now proceed to the twenty-fifth Article — De Sacramentis.
The controversy between the Romish and English Churches
respecting the number of sacraments seems in a great measure
to have arisen from the laxity with which the Latin Fathers used
the word sacramentum? In classical writers sacramentum means
an oath or promise, ratified by a sacred or religious ceremony.
Thus the oath taken by the military was called sacramentum;
and in this sense the word is frequently used by Tertullian.2 In
strict conformity with this its original signification, it is used to
express the promise made by Christians in baptism.3 From the
seculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis. Coimus ad Literarum Divinarum com-
memorationem, si quid prassentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut
recognoscere. Certe fidem Sanctis vocibus pascimus, spem erigimus, fiduciam
figimus, disciplinam prasceptorum nihilominus inculcationibus densamus,"c. 39,
quoted in chap. iv. p. no. The expression quasi manu factd precationibus ambia-
mus, implies that all present joined in prayer. The passage in the second tract
ad Uxorem, c. 6, relates rather to family devotion. " Quae Dei mentio? quas
Christi invocatio ? ubi fomenta fidei de Scripturarum interjectione ? ubi Spiritus ?
ubi refrigerium ? ubi divina benedictio ? "
1 Now that the word sacrament has been strictly defined, the case is very dif
ferent ; and the question between the two Churches respecting the number of
sacraments becomes of great importance.
2 " Nemo in castra hostium transit, nisi projectis armis suis, nisi destitutis signis
et Sacramentis Principis sui. " De Spectaculis, c. 24 ; de Idololatrid, c. 19 ; de
Corond, c. n ; Scorpiace, c. 4 ; de Jejuniis, c. 10 ; ad Martyres, c. 3.
3 " De ipso Sacramento nostra interpretaremur nobis, adversas esse fidei ejus
modi artes. Quomodo enim renuntiamus Diabolo et Angelis ejus, si eos facimus."

Second and Third Centuries. 177
oath the transition was easy to the ceremony by which it was
ratified. Thus sacramentum came to signify any religious ordi
nance,1 and in general to stand for that which in the Greek is
expressed by the word //.-uo-njniov — any emblematical action of a
sacred import ; any external rite having an internal or sacred
meaning. By a similar transition, the word was also used to
express that which the convert promised to observe — the whole
Christian doctrine and rule of life.2
With respect to baptism and the Eucharist, Tertullian calls the
former Sacramentum Aquas,3 Lavacri,4 Fidei ; 5 the latter, Sacra
mentum Eucharistise.6 In the tract de Baptismo we find the expres
sion, sacramentum sanctificationis ; 7 which, though not applied to
the external rite of baptism, conveys the idea contained in the
definition of a sacrament given in our Catechism — " an outward
and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." Notwith
standing the laxity with which Tertullian uses the word, I do not
find it applied to any of the five Romish sacraments, excepting
marriage, and then with a particular reference to Ephesians v. 32,
where he renders the words p.iya. p,v<TTrjpwv, magnum sacramentum?
In the tract against Praxeas9 I find the expression unctionis sacra
mentum ; but Tertullian is there speaking of the anointing of our
Saviour by the Holy Ghost.
Soon after the time of Tertullian, a controversy arose respecting
the validity of heretical baptism. Cyprian contended that it was
invalid, and that all persons so baptized, if they wished after
wards to become members of the Church, must be re-baptized.
De Idololatrid, c. 6. " Semel jam in Sacramenti testatione ejeratas." De Corond,
c. 13.
1 Apology, cc. 7, 47 ; ad Nationes, 1. i. c. 16, sub fine ; de Prascriptione Hareti
corum, c. 26, ' ' Dominus palam edixit, sine ulla significatione alicujus tecti Sacra
menti,'' c. 40, et passim.
2 ' ' Hoc prius capite, et omnem hie Sacramenti nostri ordinem haurite. " Apology,
c. 14, sub fine, compared with c. 16, sub fine. "Quae omnia, conversi jam ad
demonstrationem religionis nostra, repurgavimus." So in c. 19, " In quo
videtur thesaurus collocatus totius Judaici Sacramenti, et inde etiam nostri."
See also de Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 20, sub fine. ' ' Addita est ampliatio
Sacramento." De Baptismo, c. 13, et passim.
3 De Baptismo, cc. 1, 12. 4 De Virginibus velandis, c. ^.
6 De Animd, c. 1. 6 De Corond, c. 3.
7 C. 4. "Igitur omnes aquas de pristina praerogativa Sacramentum sanctifica
tionis consequuntui", invocato Deo." All water acquires from ancient prerogative
(because the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, Gen. i. 2), the
sacramental power of sanctification (" vim sanctificandi," as Tertullian afterwards
expresses himself), through prayer to God.
8 De Jejuniis, c. 3. 8 C. 28, sub initio.

1 78 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, thought otherwise ; and the
Church, though long divided on the subject, appears finally to
have adopted his opinion. All baptism by water performed in
the name of the Holy Trinity, by whomsoever administered, was
deemed to be valid and not to be repeated.1 Had the dispute
existed in our author's time, it is evident, from the general tenor of
his writings, that he would have sided with Cyprian.2 On one occa
sion he denies that heretics are entitled to the name of Christians ;
they could not possibly possess that priestly character which he
supposed all Christians to receive at their baptism.3 It is indeed
probable that in this instance, as in others, Cyprian formed his
opinion from the perusal of his master's works. The case which
was discussed in Cyprian's day differed in one material point
from that contemplated by our twenty-sixth Article. The dis
qualification in the minister, which was supposed to affect the
validity of the sacraments when administered by him, existed ab
initio; he was not a member of the true Church. The case
which our Article has in view is that of a minister regularly
ordained, who after ordination falls into gross immoralities ; and
the question arising out of it is, whether his profligacy vitiates
the sacraments. This question does not appear to have presented
itself to our author, nor could it frequently happen in those days,
when the discipline of the Church was still maintained in its
original purity and vigour. An openly vicious minister would
then have been immediately degraded, and cut off from the
communion of the Church. Standing, therefore, on the footing
of a heathen, he would have been deemed incapable of adminis-'
tering any of the rites of the Church.
We shall defer the consideration of the Articles relating to
baptism and the Lord's Supper until we come to speak of the
rites and ceremonies of the Church. Indeed, we observe
nothing in Tertullian's works which bears upon the twenty-ninth
or thirty-first Article. We proceed therefore to the thirty-second
Article, De Conjugio Sacerdotum. That the clergy in Tertullian's
time were not obliged to lead a life of celibacy, must be admitted
by every person who has perused his writings. Yet the austerity
of his character would certainly have impelled him to impose
1 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, 1. v. sect. 62.
2 See particularly de Baptismo, c. 15. We should, however, bear in mind that
the heretics, whom Tertullian had in view, were the Marcionites, Valentinians,
etc. , who denied that the God of the Old Testament was the Supreme God.
3 "Si enim Hasretici sunt, Christiani esse non possunt." De Prascriptione
Hareticorum, c 37. See also c. 16,

Second and Third Centuries. 179
upon them this restriction, could he have discovered any plausible
pretence for doing it.1 He remarks with evident satisfaction,
that of all the apostles, as far as his researches extended, St.
Peter alone was married,2 — and having admitted in the tract de
Exhortatione Castitatis that the apostles were allowed to carry
about their wives with them,3 he afterwards, in the tract de
Monogamid? gives a different interpretation of the passage, and
asserts that the females there spoken of were not wives, but
women who ministered to the apostles, as Martha and others
had done to Christ. The arguments, however, by which he
endeavours to prove that laymen ought not to contract a second
marriage, show that the clergy were at liberty to marry once ;5 and
his interpretation of the texts in the Epistles to Timothy and
Titus leads to the same conclusion.6 We know also that he was
himself married ; but the Romish commentators attempt to get
rid of this perplexing fact by saying that, when he became a
priest, he ceased to cohabit with his wife.7
In our observations upon the government of the Church,8 we
referred to a passage in the Apology, in which Tertullian says,
that in the assemblies of the Christians censures were pronounced
and offenders cut off from the communion of the Church.9 It
may, however, be inferred from his words, that Excommunication,
the subject of our thirty-third Article, did not then imply an
interruption of all civil intercourse with the offending party, but only
an exclusion from all participation in religious exercises — " a com-
municatione orationis, et conventus, et omnis sancti commercii."
1 ' ' Quanti igitur et quantas in Ecclesiasticis Ordinibus de continentia. censentur,
qui Deo nubere maluerunt, qui carnis suas honorem restituerunt, quique se jam
itlius asvi filios dicaverunt, occidentes in se concupiscentiam libidinis, et totum
illud quod intra Paradisum non potuit admitti." De Exhortatione Castitatis, cap.
ult. sub fine. This passage proves that, although many ecclesiastics led a life of
celibacy, it was not required of all.
2 De Monogamid, c. 8. * C. 8.
4 C. 8, i Cor. ix. 5. This change of opinion seems to confirm the statement
made in chap. i. p. 30, that Tertullian, when he wrote the tract de Exhortatione
Castitatis, had not embraced the tenets of Montanus in all their rigour.
5 See de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7 ; de Monogamid, c. 12, quoted in
chap. iv. note 1, p. 113.
8 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Titus i. 6.
7 The reader will find in the Life of Tertullian, by Pamelius, under the year 201,
the reasons alleged by that commentator in support of the opinion mentioned in
the text ; and in Allix's Dissertation, & 2, reasons for doubting its correctness.
If Tertullian and his wife had separated by mutual consent, it seems scarcely
necessary for him to have cautioned her against contracting a second marriage
after his death.
8 Chap. iv. p. 125. 9 C. 39.

r 80 The Ecclesiastical History of the
The thirty-fourth Article of our Church is entitled De Tradi-
tionibus Ecclesiasticis ; but in our remarks upon the sixth Article
we have already laid before our readers all the information which
the writings of Tertullian supply with respect both to traditional
doctrines and practices.
Passing over the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth Articles,1 we
proceed to the thirty-seventh, De Civilibus Magistratibus. It is
evident, from various passages of Tertullian's works, that he
deemed the exercise of the functions of the magistracy incom
patible with the profession of Christianity, not merely on account
of the danger to which, under a pagan government, a magistrate
was continually exposed of being betrayed into some idolatrous
act,2 but also because the dress and other insignia savoured
of those pomps and vanities, those works of the devil, which
Christians renounce at their baptism.3 He does not expressly
say that capital punishments are prohibited by the gospel;4 but
he certainly thought that Christians ought not to sit as judges in
criminal causes,5 or attend the amphitheatre, or be present at an
execution.6 In the treatise de Corona he enters into a regular discussion
of the question, whether it is allowable for a Christian to engage
in the military profession.7 This question he determines in the
negative, for reasons sufficiently weak and frivolous.8 It might,
he was aware, be objected that neither did John the Baptist
command the soldiers who came to his baptism, nor Christ the
1 De Homiliis, and de Episcoporum et Ministrorum Consecratione.
2 " Et enim nobis ab omni glorias et dignitatis ardore frigentibus nulla est
necessitas costus, nee ulla magis res aliena, quam publica." Apology, c. 38. See
also cc. 31 and 46. "Si de modestia certem, ecce Pythagoras apud Thurios,
Zeno apud Prienenses tyrannidem affectant : Christianus vera nee asdilitatem."
3 De Spectaculis, c. 12. But see particularly de Idololatrid, cc. 17, 18, where
the question is regularly discussed.
4 "Nee isti porro exitus violenti, quos justitia decernit, violentia vindex."
De Animd, c. 56.
5 "Jam vero quas sunt potestatis, neque judicet (Christianus) de capite alicujus
vel pudore (feras enim de pecunia), neque damnet, neque prasdamnet, neminem
vinciat, neminem recludat, aut torqueat." De Idololatrid, c. 17. Tertullian calls
the judicial proceedings of the magistrates justitiam seculi, an expression which
implies an indirect condemnation. De Animd, c. 33. Compare de Spectaculis,
c. 15, "Seculum Dei est, secularia autem diaboli ; " and de Idololatrid, c. 18,
" Nam Dasmonia magistratus sunt seculi."
6 De Spectaculis, c. 19.
7 C. 11. Compare de Idololatrid, c. 19.
8 For instance, that a Christian, who has pledged his allegiance to Christ in
baptism, cannot afterwards take the military oath to a mortal monarch.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 8 1
centurion, to renounce the military life ; but he gets rid of this
objection by drawing a distinction between the case of one who
is actually a soldier when he embraces Christianity, and that of
a Christian who becomes a soldier. In the Apology} however,
where our author's object is to prove that Christians are not
unprofitable to the State, he says that they were to be found in
the Roman armies ; and this fact is necessarily assumed in the
celebrated story of the Thundering Legion.
We find nothing in Tertullian's works from which it can be
inferred that he maintained the doctrine — against which the
thirty-eighth Article is directed — of a community of goods among
Christians, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same,
though he describes them as contributing without reserve from
their own substance towards the relief of their brethren, and
living as if there was no distinction of property among them.2
With respect to oaths — the subject of the thirty-ninth Article —
he appears to have understood our Saviour's injunction, " Swear
not at all," literally, and to have thought that an oath was not
under any circumstances allowable.3
Among King Edward's Articles is one against the millenarians.
In my account of Tertullian I stated that he had adopted the
notion of a millennium,4 and referred to a story in the third
1 ' ' Navigamus et nos vobiscum, et vobiscum militamus, " c. 42.
2 "Itaque qui animo animaque miscemur, nihil de rei;communicatione dubita-
mus ; omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos, praster uxores." Apology, c. 39.
3 " Taceo de perjurio, quando ne jurare quidem liceat." De Idololatrid, c. n.
" Ne juret quidem," c. 17. See also c. 23.
4 Chap. i. p. 9. We will give the passage at full length. Adv. Mar
cionem, 1. iii. c. 24. " De restitutione vera Judasas, quam et ipsi Judasi ita ut
describitur sperant, locorum et regionum nominibus inducti, quomodo allegorica
interpretatio " (compare de Res. Carnis, c. 62) "in Christum et in Ecclesiam et habi-
tum et fructum ejus spiritaliter competat, et longum est persequi, et in alio opere
digestum, quod inscribimus De Spe Fidelium ; et in prassenti vel eo otiosum, quia
non de terrena, sed de ccelesti promissione sit quasstio." (Compare 1. iii. c. 16.)
" Nam et confitemur in lerrd nobis regnum repromissum, sed ante ccelum, sed alio
statu, utpote post resurrectionem, in mille annos, in civitate divini operis, Hieru-
salem, ccelo delata, quam et Apostolus matrem nostram sursum designat, et
toXi'tidhos nostrum, id est, municipatum, in ccelis esse pronuntians, alicui utique
ccelesti civitati eum deputat. Hanc et Ezechiel novit, et Apostolus Ioannes vidit,
et qui apud fidem nostram est Novas Prophetias Sermo testatur, ut etiam efngiem
civitatis ante repraesentationem ejus conspectui futuram in signum prasdicaret.
Denique proxime expunctum est Orientali Expeditione. Constat enim, Ethnicis
quoque testibus, in Judasa per dies quadraginta matutinis momentis civitatem de
pcelo pependisse, omni mosniorum habitu, evanescentem de profectu diei et alias
de proximo nullam. Hanc dicimus excipiendis resurrectione Sanctis et refovendis

1 8 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
book against Marcion of a city which had been seen in Judaea
suspended in the air for forty successive days during the early
part of the morning. This city, according to him, was the image
of the New Jerusalem, destined for the reception of the saints
during their reign of a thousand years on earth, in the course of
which their resurrection will be gradually effected according to
their different degrees of merit, and which is to be followed by
the conflagration of the world and the general judgment. Ter
tullian states, however, that the enjoyments and delights of this
New Jerusalem will be purely, or as Mosheim understands the
passage, chiefly spiritual. In the tract de Pudicitia he connects
the hope of Christians with the restoration of the Jews.1 We may
take this opportunity of observing that he notices and ridicules
the Platonic or Pythagorean notion that, after an interval of a
thousand years had elapsed, the dead are recalled to life, and
again run their course on earth.2
Another of King Edward's Articles was directed against those
who maintained that all men, even the most impious, after
suffering punishment for a certain time, would be finally saved.
Tertullian appears to have coincided in opinion with the ffamers
of this Article. He asserts distinctly that all men will not be
saved,3 and maintains that the punishments of the wicked will
endure for ever.4
In the early ages of the Church,5 a notion was very generally
prevalent among its members that the end of the world was at
hand ; and sceptical writers have insinuated that the apostles
omnium bonorum utique spiritalium copia, in compensationem eorum quas in
seculo vel despeximus vel amisimus, a Deo prospectam. Siquidem et justum et
Deo dignum illic quoque exsultare famulos ejus, ubi sunt et afflicti in nomine
ipsius. Hasc ratio regni terreni : post cujus mille annos, intra quam astatem con-
cluditur Sanctorum resurrectio pro meritis maturius vel tardius resurgentium, tunc
et mundi destructione et judicii conflagratione commissi, demutati in atomo in
angelicam substantiam, scilicet per illud incorruptelas superindumentum, trans-
feremur in cceleste regnum." See Mosheim, " De Rebus Christianis ante Constan-
tinum." Seculum tertium, c. 38.
1 " Christianum enim restitutione Judasi gaudere et non dolere conveniet ;
siquidem tota spes nostra cum reliqua Israelis expectatione conjuncta est," c. 8.
2 De Animd, c. 30, sub fine.
3 " Non enim omnes salvi fiunt." Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 24.
4 De Animd, c. 33, sub fine : Apology, cc. 48, 49.
5 Ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 5, sub fine ; de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 6, from 1 Cor.
vii. 29 ; de Monogamid, c. 16 ; de Fugd in Persecutione, c. 12. " Antichristo jam
instante." In the two passages last cited, Tertullian speaks of the near approach
of the dreadful persecutions which were to follow the appearance of Antichrist,
De Pudicitid, o. 1, sub initio ; de Jejuniis, c. 12, sub initio.

Second and Third Centuries. 183
themselves were not entirely exempt from this erroneous persua
sion. That the notion took its rise from expressions in the
apostolic writings may be admitted ; but that it existed in the
minds of the writers themselves is far from certain, since the
passages may very reasonably be supposed to refer to the capture
of Jerusalem by the Romans, and the total subversion of the
Jewish polity. The general belief, as stated by Tertullian, was
that the end of the world would immediately follow the downfall
of the Roman Empire, which was conceived to be the obstacle
mentioned by St. Paul to the revelation of the man of sin.1 Our
author urges this belief as a reason why the Christians, far from
entertaining hostile designs against the empire, prayed earnestly
for its continuance and prosperity.2 He is not, however, always
consistent with himself; for we have seen that in the tract de
Oratione he condemns those who pray for the longer continuance
of the present world, on the ground that such a petition is at
variance with the clause in the Lord's Prayer, Thy kingdom
come? Having now gone through the Articles of our Church, and laid
before the reader such passages of Tertullian's works as appeared
to throw any light upon the doctrines contained in them, we will
briefly compare the result of our inquiries with the account given
by Mosheim of the doctrines of the Church in the second century.
His first remark is, that in this century the simplicity of the
gospel began to be corrupted and its beauty to be impaired by
the misguided diligence of men, who endeavoured to explain
and define the Christian system by a reference to the tenets of
pagan philosophy.4 We have seen 5 that Tertullian was not insen
sible to the mischief which had arisen from this cause, although,
with respect to the particular instance alleged by Mosheim in
illustration of the above remark, he appears himself to have been
in some degree liable to censure. "Plato," says Mosheim,
1 2 Thess. ii. 6. " Quis ? nisi Romanus status, cujus abscessio in decern reges
dispersa Antichristum superducet." De Res. Carnis, c. 24.
2 " Est et alia major necessitas nobis orandi pro Imperatoribus, etiam pro omni
statu imperii rebusque Romanis, qui vim maximam universo orbi imminentem,
ipsamque clausulam seculi acerbitates horrendas comminantem, Romani imperii
commeatu scimus retardari ; itaque iiolumus experiri, et dum precamur differri,
Romanas diuturnitati favemus." Apology, c. 32. See also c. 39, pro mord finis.
Ad Scapulam, c. 2. " Cum toto Romano imperio, quousque seculum stabit ;
tamdiu enim stabit."
3 C. 3. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 22, sub initio, referred to in chap. i. p. 10,
note 4.
4 Century ii. chap. iii. sect. 2, 3. 5 Chap. iii. p. 86.

184 The Ecclesiastical History of the
"had taught that the souls of heroes, of illustrious men, and
eminent philosophers alone ascended after death into the man
sions of light and felicity ; while those of the generality, weighed
down by their lusts and passions, sunk into the infernal regions,
whence they were not permitted to emerge before they were
purified from their turpitude and corruption. This doctrine was
seized with avidity by the Platonic Christians, and applied as a
commentary upon that of Jesus. Hence a notion prevailed that
the martyrs only entered upon a state of happiness immediately
after death ; and that for the rest a certain obscure region was
assigned, in which they were to be imprisoned until the second
coming of Christ, or at least until they were purified from their
various pollutions." Our author cannot with propriety be deno
minated a Platonic Christian, yet he certainly entertained the
opinion on which Mosheim here animadverts. In this instance,
as in many others, there appears to have been a process of the
following kind. The tenets of the philosophers were first em
ployed in illustration or amplification of the doctrines of the
gospel ; and passages of Scripture were afterwards perverted, in
order to defend the notions which resulted from this mixture of
heathenism and Christianity. The Platonic fancy described by
Mosheim gave rise to the notion that martyrs alone were admitted
to an immediate participation in the happiness of heaven ; and
this notion was confirmed by an appeal to the Book of Revela
tion, in which St. John is represented as having seen the souls
of none but martyrs under the altar.1
Mosheim's second remark relates to the veneration with which
the Scriptures were regarded by the early Christians.2 Tertul
lian's numerous quotations from them afford sufficient evidence
that his mind was deeply impressed with this feeling of reverence:
We shall perhaps recur hereafter to his quotations and exposi
tions of Scripture. For the present, therefore, we shall content
ourselves with observing that, although of a very different school
of divines from that to which Clemens Alexandrinus belonged,
he is by no means exempt from the fault which Mosheim imputes
to the latter author — of dealing in forced and extravagant and
mystical interpretations.
Mosheim remarks thirdly, that no attempts had yet been made
to exhibit the Christian doctrines in a systematic form;3 or,
1 C. 6. v. 9. See de Animd, c. 35.
2 Ubi supra, sect. 4, 5. 3 Sect. 6, 7, 8.

Second and Third Centuries. 185
at least, no such attempts have come to our knowledge. The
latter part of the remark is undoubtedly true ; for the Apologies
which were published from time to time were, as we have seen,
designed rather to repel the calumnious accusations brought
against the Christians, than to give a connected view either of
the evidences or doctrines of the gospel. But we know that
the catechumens passed through a course of instruction before
their admission to the baptismal font ; and this fact seems
almost necessarily to imply that the instruction was communi
cated upon some regular and systematic plan. When we come
to the consideration of Tertullian's controversial writings, we
shall find that his reasonings, on the particular points of doctrine
which he undertook to maintain against the heretics, are neither
deficient in perspicuity nor in force. Mosheim indeed has
spoken in the most contemptuous terms of the reasoning powers
and controversial qualifications of the early Fathers. Two of
his observations may be thought more particularly applicable
to Tertullian. "One," he says, "laying aside the sacred writ
ings, from which all the weapons of religious controversy ought
to be drawn, refers to the decisions of those bishops who ruled
the Apostolic Churches. Another thinks that the antiquity of a
doctrine is a mark of its truth, and pleads prescription against
his adversary, as if he was maintaining his property before a
civil magistrate; than which method of disputing nothing can
be more pernicious to the cause of truth." To the reader who
remembers our remarks upon the subject of tradition, it can
scarcely be necessary to observe that this statement of Mosheim
is a most unfair and erroneous representation of the line of
argument pursued by Tertullian in his tract de Prascriptione
Hareticorum. So far is he from laying aside the sacred writ
ings, that his main charge against the heretics is, that they
had substituted the tenets of the heathen philosophers in the
place of the doctrines of the gospel; and, in order to effect
their purpose, had corrupted the sacred volume, or perverted
its meaning by forced and unnatural interpretations.1 Tertullian
uniformly insists that Christ had delivered one, and only one
rule of faith — the rule which was to be found in the Scriptures.2
But here commenced the difference between himself and his
opponents : they rejected several books of Scripture which he
deemed genuine, and put different interpretations upon those
portions of Scripture which they, as well as he, received. On
both these points Tertullian appealed to the authority of the
1 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, cc. 6, 7. 2 Ibid. ce. 9, 13, 14.

1 86 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Church ; 1 contending that in it as well the genuine Scriptures
as their genuine interpretation had been preserved ; and further
contending that it was useless to seek the true interpretation
among the heretics, since they differed from each other as
widely as they did from the Church.2 When, therefore, Ter
tullian refers to those bishops who ruled the Apostolic Churches,
he does it, not for the purpose of laying aside the sacred
writings, but of establishing their authority ; and it is with
the same view that he urges the plea of prescription. He
contends that the doctrines which had always been maintained,
and the Scriptures which had always been received, in those
Churches which were founded by the apostles, were more likely
to be true and genuine than the doctrines and Scriptures of
the heretics, whose origin was known to be of very recent date.
Wherein, let me ask, consists the fallacy of this mode of reason
ing? or how can it possibly be injurious to the cause of truth?
If I can, through independent channels, trace back a doctrine
to the age of the apostles, and at the same time show that it is
contained in those Scriptures which have always been recognised
as authentic by the Apostolic Churches, I have surely done much,
not only towards proving its truth, but also towards confirming
the genuineness of the Scriptures themselves.
Mosheim places the rise of the ascetics in the second century;3
and says that they were produced by the double doctrine of
certain Christian moralists who laid down two different rules
of life, the ordinary and the extraordinary, — the one adapted
to the general mass of Christians, the other to those only of a
more sublime and exalted character. To the former class of
doctrines they gave the name of precepts, which were obligatory
upon all orders of men ; to the latter, that of counsels, which
were voluntarily obeyed by such Christians as aimed at higher
degrees of virtue. Mosheim traces the origin of this double
doctrine to the Platonic and Pythagorean schools of philosophy,
which taught that the continual aim of him who aspired to the
envied title of the sage or truly wise must be to abstract his mind
1 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 36.
2 C. 10. Another argument urged by Tertullian is founded on the nature ot
faith ; which must, he says, have some ascertained truths for its object : those
truths we must seek, and having found, must acquiesce in them. There must be
a point at which inquiry ceases and faith begins. But with the heretics it is one
interminable search : they never attain to the truth ; and consequently, having
no fixed object of faith, have in reality no faith. Cc. io, 14.
* Ubi supra, sect, n, 12, 13, 14.

Second and Third Centuries. 1 8 7
from the senses, and to raise it above the contagious influence
of the body, which he was in consequence to extenuate by severe
discipline and a spare diet. With the same view he was to
withdraw himself from the world, and to affect a life of solitude
and contemplation. In our account of the tenets of Montanus,
we observed that Clemens Alexandrinus was the earliest Chris
tian writer in whose works this distinction between the ordinary
and the extraordinary rules of life is expressly laid down.1 Ter
tullian drew a distinction of a different kind, between spiritual
and animal Christians — between those who received, and those
who rejected, the prophecies of Montanus. Yet in the second
tract ad Uxorem we find him also distinguishing between pre
cepts and counsels ; 2 or, to use his own language, between fussa
and suasa, and grounding the distinction upon St. Paul's ex
pressions in 1 Cor. vii. Although, however, it is certain that
the discipline of Montanus was of an ascetic character, and that
great stress was laid in it upon fasts and other mortifications, we
discover nothing in the writings of Tertullian from which we
should infer that either the monastic or the eremitical mode of
life was practised in his day. There is in the Apology a passage
which would rather lead to the opposite conclusion.3
The rise of pious frauds is also placed by Mosheim in the
second century, and in like manner ascribed to the pernicious
influence of the Platonic philosophy.4 Tertullian has recorded
a fraud of this kind, practised by a presbyter, who endeavoured
to palm upon the Christian world a spurious work under the
name of St. Paul.5 As he pronounces no severe condemnation
upon the offender, it may be thought that he did not look upon
the offence as of a very heinous character. Yet his writings
appear to us to furnish no ground for affirming that he is himself
1 Chap. i. p. 16.
2 ' ' Quanto autem nubere in Domino perpetrabile est uti nostras potestatis, tanto
culpabilius est non observare quod possis. Eo accedit, quod Apostolus, de
Viduis quidem et Innuptis, ut ita permaneant suadet, quum dicit, Cupio autem
omnes meo exemplo perseverare ; de nubendo vero in Domino quum dicit, tantum
in Domino, jam non suadet, sed exertfe jubet. Igitur in ista maxime specie, nisi
obsequimur, periclitamur. Quia suasum impune quis negligat, quam jussum :
quod illud de consilio veniat et voluntati proponatur, hoc autem de potestate
descendat et necessitati obligetur : illic libertas, hie contumacia delinquere vide-
atur," c. 1.
3 "Sed alio quoque injuriarum titulo postulamur, et infructuosi in negotiis
dicimur. Quo pacto? homines vobiscum degentes, ejusdem victus, habitus,
nstructus, ejusdem ad vitam necessitatis ? neque enim Brachmanas, aut Indorum
Gymnosophistas sumus, silvicolas, et exules vitas," c. 42.
4 Ubi supra,, sect. 15. 6 See p. 153, note 2.

1 88 The Ecclesiastical History of the
justly liable to the charge of practising similar deceptions. We
can perceive in him extreme reluctance to admit any fact which
militates against the cause which he is defending, and equal
readiness to adopt without due examination whatever tends to
promote his immediate purpose. But the same dispositions are
discernible in the controversialists of all ages ; and to make them
the pretence for refusing credit to the Fathers in particular, is
to display a great deficiency either in information or in candour.
In his chapter on the doctrine of the Church,1 Mosheim gives
a short account of what he calls its penitential discipline.
Having already discussed this subject in our account of the
government of the Church, under which head it appeared more
properly to fall, we shall now only remark that we have found in
Tertullian's writings no confirmation of Mosheim's assertion that
the Christian discipline began, even at that early period, to be
modelled upon the forms observed in the heathen mysteries.
In his strictures upon the qualifications of the Fathers of the
second century as moral writers,2 Mosheim alludes to the con
troversy between M. Barbeyrac and the Pere Cellier on that subject.
On no one of the Fathers has M. Barbeyrac animadverted with
greater severity than on our author ; and an examination of his
charges will enable us to form a tolerably accurate estimate of
the degree of deference which ought to be paid to the decisions
of the Fathers in general upon questions of morals.
But before we enter upon this examination, we must in justice
to the early Fathers remark that nothing can be more unfair or
more unreasonable than to require in them that perspicuity of
arrangement, or that precision of language which we find in the
moral writers of modern times. They never studied morality as
a system, nor did they profess to teach it systematically. We
ought also, before we censure them too harshly for their errors,
duly to weigh the circumstances under which they wrote.3
What we observed with respect to the extravagant terms in which
1 Ubi supra, sect. 17. 2 Sect. 10, note.
3 The just and candid mode of estimating the works of the Fathers, when not
directly controversial, is to consider them, not as argumentative treatises, but as
popular discourses, in which the author is less solicitous to reason accurately,
than to say what is striking and calculated to produce an effect upon his readers.
Were we to subject many popular treatises on religion published at the present
day to the same severe scrutiny to which M. Barbeyrac has subjected the works
of Tertullian, the illustrations, I fear, would sometimes be found as impertinent,
the premises as unsound, and the conclusions as illogical.

Second and Third Centuries. 189
they speak Of the merit of martyrdom, is no less applicable to the
present subject.1 They lived at a time when the path of the
professor of Christianity was beset with dangers ; when he might
at any moment be called to suffer privation, pain, or even death,
on account of his faith. It was of the utmost importance to the
cause of the gospel that he should betray no unmanly fear in the
hour of trial — no weak desire to consult his safety by the sacrifice
of his principles. Nor was it less important that his moral
character should be free from stain — that he should prove him
self no less superior to the seductions of pleasure than to the
terrors of persecution. Yet instances of human frailty would
frequently occur, and the Fathers would be compelled to bewail
the apostacy or the immorality of their brethren. Hence, in
their anxiety to avert the evil consequences to the Church, which
must result from the weakness and vices of its members, they
would, especially if, like Tertullian, they were men of austere
tempers, be liable to run into extremes, — to imagine that the
most effectual mode of preventing the convert from indulging in
criminal gratifications was to persuade him that he must debar
himself even of those which are innocent ; and that the most
effectual mode of preparing him for the trials to which his pro
fession might expose him, was to accustom him to a life of
voluntary hardship and mortification.2 Let it not be supposed
that we. mean by these remarks to justify the extravagances of
which the Fathers were guilty ; we offer them only in extenuation.
We proceed to M. Barbeyrac, who grounds his first charge on
the unqualified manner in which our author condemns every art
and profession connected even in the most remote degree with
the heathen idolatry.3 It cannot be denied that in some instances
Tertullian's zeal carries him beyond all reasonable bounds; as
when he involves in the guilt of idolatry the unhappy trader in
frankincense, because it was burned on the altars of the idols.4
1 Chap. ii. p. tj. 2 See the tract de Spectaculis, c. ±.
8 Traiti de la Morale des Pires, c. 6, sect. 5.
4 De Idololatrid, c. 11. See the Apology, c. 42. The trades and occupations
which Tertullian in his treatise de Idololatrid states to be incompatible with the
profession of the gospel, are those of the makers of idols (c. 4-8) ; of those who
build, or in any way adorn their temples or altars (c. 8) ; of astrologers (c. 9) ; of
schoolmasters, among other reasons, because they taught the heathen mythology
(c. 10) ; of merchants, who deal in any article used in the worship of idols, as in
frankincense (c. 11). According to Tertullian, no Christian could, without con
tracting guilt, pay or receive money on the legal days, because they were sacred to
some heathen god (c. 13) ; or suspend lamps or garlands at his door (c. 15). He
was also guilty of idolatry if he either swore or allowed himself to be adjured or
blessed by the name of any heathen god (cc. 20-22).

1 90 The Ecclesiastical History of the
He seems not to have perceived the clear distinction between
the case of the artificer who formed the idols, and of the
merchant who dealt in any of the articles employed in idolatrous
worship. An idol is made in order that it may be worshipped,
that is, for a forbidden purpose ; the very use for which it is
designed is unlawful. But frankincense may be employed, as
our author himself admits, on many occasions not only innocently,
but beneficially.1 To burn it on the altar of an idol is not to
use, but to abuse it ; and the guilt of the abuse must rest with
the purchaser : to make the seller accountable for the purpose to
which the buyer applies it is contrary to every principle of reason
and of justice. That Tertullian should have overlooked this
distinction is the more remarkable, because in the same treatise
he has recourse to one nearly similar. He says 2 that a Christian
may, without incurring guilt, be present, as a spectator, at the
sacrifices with which it was customary to celebrate the assumption
of the toga virilis, a marriage, or the naming of a child ; because
in these cases he is not invited expressly to attend the sacrifice,
but to join in a ceremony which has in it nothing of an idolatrous
character. Before, however, we proceed too severely to censure
Tertullian for the error, which is the subject of M. Barbeyrac's
animadversion, let us endeavour for a moment to put ourselves
in his place. For this purpose we must imagine to ourselves the
feelings with which the primitive Christians regarded the worship
paid to the gods of the nations ; the pious horror which they
felt when they saw the homage, due only to the Creator, trans
ferred to an idol, the work of man's hands.3 They were, more
over, aware of the strong hold which idolatry possessed upon
mankind, through the gratifications which it afforded to their
sensual appetites ; and were, therefore, desirous to place the
convert as far as possible out of the reach of its temptations.
Sometimes, in their anxiety to guard themselves and others from
pollution, they might perplex their minds with unfounded
scruples, or subject themselves to unnecessary restraints.4 But
we shall perhaps be induced to think more favourably even of
their discretion, when we reflect that, had their descendants
persisted in the same stedfast determination to hold no inter-
1 De Corond, c. 10. "Et si me odor alicujus loci offenderit, Arabias aliquid
incendo ; sed non eodem ritu, nee eodem habitu, nee eodem apparatu, quo agitur
apud idola. "
2 De Idololatrid, c. 16. Compare de Spectaculis, c. 8.
3 See ad Martyres, c. 2 ; de Corond, c. 10.
4 On the subject of intercourse with Gentiles and compliance with Gentile
customs, see de Idololatrid, c, 14, and de Cultu Faminarum, 1. ii. c. n.

Second and Third Centuries. 191
course with idolatry, neither would the friends of the gospel have
occasion to lament that, for a long series of years, a gaudy ritual,
calculated only to affect the senses, was substituted almost
universally in the place of its pure and spiritual worship ; nor
would its enemies be enabled to object that the mythology and
superstitious practices of pagan Rome still subsist, changed only
in name, throughout the larger portion of Christendom.
M. Barbeyrac's second charge relates to Tertullian's notions
respecting the incompatibility of a military life with the profession
of Christianity.1 Having in our remarks upon the thirty-seventh
Article of our Church 2 exposed the weakness of the grounds on
which he maintained this opinion, we have now nothing further
to add on the subject.
The treatise de Corond Militis3 furnishes M. Barbeyrac with
matter for another charge against Tertullian. When the Em
perors distributed largesses to the army,4 it was customary for the
soldiers to appear with crowns of laurel on their heads. A
Christian soldier on an occasion of this kind, instead of wearing
the crown upon his head, bore it in his hand. Being questioned
why he was guilty of this breach of discipline, he replied that
his religion would not allow him to wear a crown. Persisting in
his refusal to place it on his head, he was thrown into prison and
sentenced to death. His conduct appears to have been dis
approved by the majority of his Christian brethren. The warm
and vehement temper of Tertullian led him to view it in a very
different light. He regarded the soldier's refusal as an act of
truly Christian heroism and self-devotion, and imputed the
censures which were cast upon it to the lukewarmness and
pusillanimity of the censurers. The reasons by which he justifies
the act are not, it is true, of the most satisfactory nature. He
admits that the Scriptures are silent on the subject, but says
that it was not customary for Christians to wear crowns ; and
urges this fact as a proof that the tradition of the Church was
unfavourable to such a practice.6 He next contends that flowers,
of which crowns were for the most part composed, were intended
to gratify the senses of sight and smell ; consequently, to weave
them into garlands and to wear them on the head is to pervert
them from their natural use, by placing them in a situation in
1 UK supra, sect. 6, et seq. 2 P. 180.
'Ubi supra, sect. 14, et seq. 4 De Corond Militis, c. 1.
' Cc, 2, 3, 4. Compare Apology, c. 42, "Non emo capiti coronam," etc.

192 The Ecclesiastical History of the
which they can neither be seen nor smelt.1 But as this argu
ment would apply only to crowns composed of flowers, he
proceeds to enumerate the different heathen gods to whom the
invention of the different crowns was ascribed.2 Ornaments,
originally suggested by demons, and still consecrated to their
service, could not be fit for the head of a Christian. "We
find," he continues, " no evidence in the Old Testament that
crowns were ever worn by the prophets or priests, or suspended
in the temple, or placed upon the ark or altar, or upon any part
of the furniture of the sacred edifice." 3 He inquires lastly into
the occasions on which crowns were worn, and discovers that
the practice was always connected either with some idolatrous
observance, or some secular art, or profession, or employment,
which was forbidden to Christians.4 The point upon which the
whole question really turned — whether, in the particular case
under consideration, to have worn a crown would have implied
a participation in an idolatrous act — is scarcely touched by
Tertullian. He calls it indeed an idolatrous act, but does not
state wherein the idolatry consisted.5 For further information
on this point, the reader may consult Bingham,6 who says that
it was purely a civil act, performed in honour of the Emperors
on such days as they gave their largesses or donations to the
soldiers. Milner regards it in the same light, and pronounces
an unqualified condemnation of the opinions advanced by Ter
tullian in this treatise.7
Among our author's works is a tract written for the express
purpose of proving that a Christian could not, without incurring
a certain degree of guilt, attend any of the public games. The
principal reason which he assigns is, that all those games —
having been originally instituted, and continuing to be celebrated
in honour of some god — must be regarded as idolatrous cere
monies ; all, therefore, who attended them were necessarily
involved in the guilt of idolatry.8 This, however, is not his
only argument. He reasons also upon the moral effect of the
games, and upon the tumult of passions which they were calcu
lated to excite in the bosom of the spectator; who could
scarcely fail to be transported as it were out of himself, and
i Cc. s, 6. 2 Cc. 7, 8. 3 C. io. 4 C. n, et seq.
5 See c. 12. 6 L. xvi. c. 4, sect. 8. 7 Vol. i. 315.
8 De Spectaculis, c. 4. The strange application of Ps. i. in c. 3 is deserving
of notice, as a specimen of the mode in which the Fathers wrested Scriptures to
their purpose. ¦ Compare the Apology, c. 38, where all the arguments, urged in the
tract de Spectaculis, are comprised in two sentences.

Second and Third Centuries. 193
to give way by turns to hope and fear, to sorrow and resent
ment.1 On two passages of this tract Gibbon has conferred
celebrity by his animadversions. We shall offer a few re
marks upon one of them, as it illustrates an opinion to which
we shall hereafter have occasion to allude. Gibbon says that
Tertullian "is particularly offended at the dress of the actors,
who by the use of the buskin impiously endeavoured to add a
cubit to their stature."2 Now in the passage alluded to, our
author is establishing the point on which his whole argument
turns — the connexion of all the public games, and among the
rest of the theatrical exhibitions, with idolatry. He had pre
viously traced their origin to Satan ; he now proceeds to show
that the author of evil suggested the pomp and circumstance of
the public exhibitions — the chariot race — the various gymnastic
exercises — the dress of the actors, the buskin, the mask, etc. In
all these devices Satan availed himself of the partial discoveries
which he had been able to make, of what Christ would say, and
do, and suffer, on earth ; accommodating his suggestions to those
discoveries — sometimes deceiving mankind by an imitation of
Christian rites — at others betraying them into a violation of the
precepts of the gospel.3 Thus, anticipating as it were Christ's
declaration, that no man can add a cubit to his stature, he
invented the buskin ; in order that, through the medium of the
actors who wore it, he might practically make Christ a liar.4
Gibbon's remark scarcely conveys a correct notion of Tertullian's
object ; which is to caution men against taking part in the
theatrical exhibitions, lest they should unconsciously render
themselves the instruments of the devil. The other passage,
quoted by Gibbon, is from the concluding chapter of the tract,
and is a striking specimen of Tertullian's vehemence and prone-
ness to exaggeration.6
Having already considered,6 what is sufficiently obnoxious to
censure, Tertullian's notion that Christians ought neither to
aspire to, nor to accept any civil office, we shall proceed to his
condemnation of second marriages, which furnishes M. Barbeyrac
with ample matter of animadversion.7 On this subject, as we
1 C. 13.
2 Chap. xv. note 41. See Barbeyrac, Traiti de la Morale des Pires, c. 6, sect. 20.
8 Compare ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 7, sub fine.
* " Sic et tragcedos cothurnis extulit (Diabolus) quia nemo potest adjicere
cubitum unum ad staturam suam. Mendacem facere vult Christum."
6 Chap. xv. p. 474, ed. 4to. 6 P. 180.
' Ubi supra, sect. 30, et seq. G

1 94 The Ecclesiastical History of the
have before observed, we find a gradually increasing severity in
our author's opinions. In our brief notice of the two tracts
ad Uxorem, we stated that in the former Tertullian dissuades
his wife, in case she should survive him, from contracting a
second marriage; in the latter, fearful that she might be un
willing to impose upon herself so great a restraint, he cautions
her at least not to marry a heathen.1 Such a marriage he brands
with the name of adultery ; appealing, in support of this harsh
sentence, to i Cor. vii. 39, where the apostle says that a widow
may marry whom she will, " tantum in Domino" only in the lord,
that is, according to our author's interpretation, only a Christian.2
In the treatise de Exhortatione Castitatis, written after he had
become a Montanist, but probably before he had adopted the
opinions of Montanus in all their rigour, he proceeds a step
further. The name of adultery, which he had before applied to
a marriage contracted with a heathen, he now applies to second
marriages in general ; and that for reasons, some of which, as he
himself admits, are equally applicable to a first marriage.3 The
object of the treatise is to dissuade a Christian brother, who had
lost his wife, from marrying again. " There are," Tertullian
says, " three degrees of holiness : — the first exists in those who
have continued chaste from their birth ; the second in those who
have continued chaste from their second birth, that is, their
baptism — either separated from their wives, if living, by mutual
compact, or remaining single if they have lost their wives ; the
third in those who, having been once married (after baptism), do
not marry again." 4 One of the arguments urged in this treatise
affords a striking example of the fallacious reasoning by which
Tertullian occasionally imposed upon himself. " You have lost
your wife," he says; "it was therefore the will of God that you
should become a widower ; by marrying again you cease to be a
1 Chap. i. p. 24.
2 Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. cc. 2, 3. "Hasc quum ita sint, Fideles Gentilium
matrimonia subeuntes stupri reos esse constat et arcendos ab omni communica-
tione fraternitatis, ex literis Apostoli dicentis, cum ejusmodi nee cibum sumendum. "
Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 7 ; de Monogamid, cc. 7, 11.
3 "Si penitus sensus ejus interpretemur, non aliud dicendum erit secundum
matrimonium, quam species stupri — Ergo, inquis, jam et primas, id est, unas
nuptias destruis ; nee immerito : quoniam et ipsas ex eo constant quo et stuprum,"
c. 9. See also c. 4.
4 C. 1. It is worthy of remark that M. Barbeyrac agrees with Tertullian in
asserting that a person who has once been married has a stronger inducement to
contract a second marriage, than an unmarried person has to marry. Compare
ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 8, and de Vii-gin. vel. c. 10, with the Traite' de la Morale des
Pires, c, 4, sect. 30.

Second and Third Centuries. 195
widower, and thereby strive against the will of God." 1 A con
siderable portion of the tract is occupied by a commentary on the
seventh chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians ; the design
of which is to show that when St. Paul asserted, as a reason for
allowing a second marriage, that "it is better to marry than
burn," he evidently regarded such a marriage merely as the less
of two evils.2 In the course of this commentary, Tertullian
alludes to the distinction made by the apostle between that which
he delivered from himself, and that which he delivered from the
Lord. In the latter case he thinks that St. Paul spoke from the
extraordinary inspiration which was peculiar to him as an apostle ;
in the former, only as an ordinary Christian, possessing the
ordinary gifts of the Spirit. I notice this circumstance because
the late Mr. Rennell, in his Proofs of Inspiration, etc., has referred
to this passage of Tertullian in a manner which may lead his
readers to form a very erroneous notion of its real purport. Mr.
Rennell 3 — whose object is to prove that what St. Paul delivered
as from himself was equally the dictate of divine inspiration with
that which he delivered as from the Lord — says that " the apostle
decided the question concerning virgins, in 1 Cor. vii. 25, not as
an ordinary man, but as one who had obtained mercy to be faith
ful ; by which expression he meant to assert the grace and autho
rity of an inspired minister and apostle." Let us now turn to
Tertullian, who begins his remarks with the following words : —
" In primis autem non videbor irreligiosus, si, quod ipse profitetur,
animadvertam, omnem ilium indulgentiam nuptiarum de suo, id
est, de humano sensu, non de divino prsscripto induxisse." 4 He
then proceeds to comment upon several verses of the chapter,
and concludes with the passage, part of which has been quoted
by Mr. Rennell : — "Sed ecce rursus, mulierem marito defuncto
dicit nubere posse, si cui velit, tantum in Domino. Atenim felicior
erit, inquit, si sic permanserit secundum meum consilium. Puto
autem, et ego Dei Spiritum habeo. Videmus duo consilia, quo
supra nubendi veniam facit, et quo postmodum continentiam
nubendi indicit. Cui ergo, inquis, adsentabimur ? Inspice et
lege. Quum veniam facit, hominis prudentis consilium adlegat.
Quum continentiam indicit, Spirittis Sancti consilium adfirmat.
Sequere admonitionem cui divinitas patrocinatur. Spiritum
quidem Dei etiam fideles habent, sed non omnes fideles Apostoli.
1 C. 2. Compare ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 7 ; de Monogamid, c. 9,
2 C. 3. Compare ad Uxorem, 1. i. c, 3.
3 P. 28, with the note. The part quoted by Mr, Rennell is from "Quum
continentiam indicit " to "fastigium redderet."
4C. 3.

196 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Quum ergo qui se fidelem dixerat, adjicit postea Spiritum Dei se
habere, quod nemo dubitaret etiam de fideli, idcirco id dixit, ut
sibi Apostoli fastigium redderet. Proprie enim Apostoli Spiritum
Sanctum habent in operibus prophetias, et efficacia virtutum,
documentisque linguarum; non ex parte, quod cteteri."1 Now
it must be evident to every person who reads the above extract,
that Tertullian agrees with Mr. Rennell only in one particular —
that in the expression, I think that I have the Spirit of God, St.
Paul meant to assert his own inspiration.2 On two important
points our author is directly opposed to Mr. Rennell.3 In the
first place, Tertullian makes a decided distinction between the
advice given by St. Paul as a prudent or sagacious man, and
that given by him at the suggestion of the Holy Spirit. In the
second, so far was he from thinking that the apostle, when he
spoke of himself as one who had obtained mercy to be faithful,
meant to assert the grace and authority of an inspired minister
and apostle ; that by the word Fideles he understood an ordinary
Christian, as contra-distinguished from an apostle, who was
endowed with extraordinary gifts. Let me here observe that I
am not contending for the accuracy of Tertullian's interpretation :
I am only anxious that his testimony, if urged at all, should be
correctly stated.
But to proceed to the tract de Monogamid, in which Tertullian
pursues nearly the same line of argument as in the tract de
Exhortatione Castitatis, but with greater extravagance both of
sentiment and language, because he was then in a state of
avowed separation from the Church. He affirms, for instance,
that in point of criminality it is immaterial whether a man has
two wives at the same time, or marries a second wife after the
death of the first.4 He urges also the example of Christ, who
1 Does Tertullian here mean to assert that none but the apostle's possessed
miraculous gifts? or that all those gifts were united in the apostles, which other
Christians possessed only in part, with reference to 1 Cor. xii. 4, etc. ?
- Compare de Pudicitid, c. 16 ; de Monogamid, c. 3.
3 There is in the tract de Corond a passage in which Tertullian makes a nearer
approach to Mr. Rennell's opinion. ' ' Dicit et Apostolus, si quid ignoratis, Deus
vobis revelabit, solitus et ipse consilium subministrare, quum prasceptum Domini
non habebat, et quada-m edicere a semetipso, sed et ipse Spiritum Dei habens
deductorem omnis veritatis. Itaque consilium et edictum ejus divini jam prascepti
instar obtinuit, de rationis divinas patrocinio," c. 4. In this passage our author's
object is to place observances, for which no written command could be produced
from Scripture, on the same footing with those for which such command could be
produced, on the ground that they were probably enjoined by the apostles, and
were consequently to be deemed of divine origin. His language varies with the
object which he has in view.
4 ' ' Neque enim refert duas quis uxores singulas habuerit, an pariter singula?

Second and Third Centtiries. 197
was unmarried in the flesh. If, therefore, we aim at His perfection,
we must also remain unmarried ; but if the infirmity of our flesh
will not allow this, we must follow in the flesh the example which
He has set us in the spirit.1 He has one spiritual spouse, the
Church ; we, therefore, must be content with a single marriage.
In our remarks upon the thirty-second Article of our Church, we
noticed the different interpretations of 1 Cor. ix. 5 given by
Tertullian in the tracts de Exhortatione Castitatis and de Mono
gamid. Towards the conclusion, however, of the latter tract, a
suspicion appears to cross his mind that his expositions of St.
Paul are far-fetched, and may not be satisfactory to his readers.
In order, therefore, to silence all gainsayers, he adds that, as
Christ took away the liberty of divorce in which Moses had
indulged the Jews on account of the hardness of their hearts, so
the Paraclete now takes away that liberty of contracting a second
marriage, which St. Paul had allowed the members of the infant
Church of Corinth on account of the infirmity of their flesh.2
The train of reasoning, if it may be so called, which conducted
the early Fathers to these strange conclusions, was, according to
M. Barbeyrac,3 somewhat of the following kind. They observed
that men were impelled to the commission of many irregularities
and crimes by the desire of gratifying certain appetites which
constitute a part of human nature. They could not condemn
the appetites themselves without at the same time condemning
the author of nature ; they hit, therefore, upon another expedient.
They said that those appetites were given us for particular ends ;
the appetite of hunger, for instance, in order to preserve the life
of man ; the sexual appetite, in order to ensure the continuance
of the human species. So long, then, as the acts which originate
in those appetites are performed solely with reference to the ends
for which the appetites were given, all is right But the instant
that we annex the idea of pleasure to the act, and perform it with
a view to the gratification which we shall derive from it, then it
becomes sinful. That this is a correct account of the mode in
which many of the Fathers reasoned may be true, and we may
discern some traces of it in Tertullian's writings. But it is
duas fecerint. Idem numerus conjunctorum et separatorum. Semel tamen vim
passa institutio Dei per Lamech constitit postea in finem usque gentis illius," c. 4.
1 "Quando novissimus Adam, id est Christus, innuptus in totum, quod etiam
primus Adam ante exilium, " c. 5. He applies the name Spado to Christ (see also
c. 3), as well as to St. Paul (ibid.) and to John the Baptist (c. 17), but evidently
not in the literal sense of the word,
2 C. 14. " C. 4, sect. 34, 35.

198 The Ecclesiastical History of the
certain that he also attached a degree of impurity to the act
itself, without any reference to the purpose for which it was
performed, — a certain incompatibility with the perfection of the
Christian character.1 He regards marriage as only allowed
under the gospel, in condescension to human infirmity. " The
union of the sexes was, it is true, in the beginning blessed by
God ; being devised for the purpose of peopling the earth, and
on that account permitted.2 The patriarchs were even allowed
to have a plurality of wives. Then came the law, and afterwards
the gospel, which restrained the licence before given, and con
fined a man to one wife. Lastly, the apostle, as speaking to
those upon whom the ends of the world were come, did not
indeed forbid marriage, lest man should be tempted to sin, but
recommended a life of celibacy, as best suited to the situation of
Christians in seasons of difficulty and persecution." 3 The
inference which our author draws from this historical sketch is,
that the apostle's permission to marry was not willingly given,
but extorted by necessity.
But though Tertullian attached a degree of impurity even to
the married state, and would certainly have enforced a total
abstinence from marriage if the human species could have been
continued without it, as he would have prohibited eating and
drinking if the life of man could have been sustained without
food,4 yet we find occasionally in his writings passages of a
different complexion. In the second tract ad Lfxorem he breaks
out into a glowing description of the blessedness of that marriage,
in the celebration of which none of the forms required by the
Church has been omitted ; 5 and in other places he speaks of
the married state, not only as pure, but even honourable.6 As
1 Speaking of the intercourse between the sexes even in the married state, he
uses the expressions " contumeliam communem," de Virg. vel. c. 10 ; " Dedecoris
voluptuosi," ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 1. He argues also that it unfits the soul for
devotional exercises. De Exhortatione Castitatis, cc. 9, 10. He calls it on one
occasion " permissam voluptatem," de Cultu Faminarum, 1. ii. c. 9.
2 Ad Uxorem, L i. cc. 2, 3. See also c. 4 ; de Exhortatione Castitatis, cc. 5, 6 ;
de Monogamid, c. 3.
3 We have seen that in the tract de Monogamid, cc. 2, 3, 14, Tertullian states
that it was reserved for the Paraclete to prohibit second marriages. During the
ministry of our Blessed Lord, men were not yet able to bear so severe a restraint.
4 "Nos quoque, ut possumus, os cibo excusamus," etc. De Res. Carnis, c. 61.
Compare de Jejuniis, c. 3.
5 " Unde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod Ecclesia
conciliat?" etc., c. 9.
6 ' ' Natura veneranda est, non erubescenda. Concubitum libido, non conditio
fcedavit. Excessus, non status, est impudicus. Siquidem benedictus status apud
Deum ; Cresciteetinmnltitudincmproficite, Excessus vero maledictus — adulteria,

Second and Third Centuries. 199
we remarked with reference to another subject, Tertullian's
language varies with the object which he has in view.1 When
he speaks his genuine sentiments, he exaggerates the merit of
celibacy, and speaks of the married state as rather permitted
than approved by God. But when he is contending against
Marcion and the other heretics, who condemned marriage alto
gether, as an institution of the Demiurge who was opposed to
the Supreme God, he stands forth in its defence, though he still
asserts the superior purity of a life of celibacy.2
We will take this opportunity of introducing two observations
in some measure connected with the subject immediately before
us. The first is, that in Tertullian's time the practice of making
vows of continence had already commenced,3 and had been
found to be productive of evil consequences.4 The females who
made such vows were called Brides of Christ? The second
observation is, that the Roman Catholic notion of the indissolu
bility of marriage was then unknown. Tertullian on all occasions
et stupra, et lupanaria." De Animd, c. 27. " Sanctitas — quas non matrimonium
excludat, sed libidinem — quas vas nostrum in honore matrimonii, tractet." Adv.
Marcionem, 1. v. c. 15.
1 See note 3, p. 196.
2 De Monogamid, sub initio. Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c, 29. " Sine dubio ex
damnatione conjugii ista institutio " (the Marcionite custom of refusing baptism to
married persons) " constabit. Videamus, an just& : non quasi destructuri felicitatem
sanctitatis, ut ahqui Nicolaitas, assertores libidinis atque luxuries ; sed qui sancti-
tatem sine nuptiarum damnatione noverimus, et sectemur, et prasferamus, non ut
malo bonum, sed ut bono melius ; non enim projicimus, sed deponimus nuptias ;
nee prasscribimus, sed suademus sanctitatem ; servantes et bonum et melius pro
viribus cujusque sectando : tunc denique conjugium exerte defendentes, quum
inimice accusatur spurcitias nomine in destructionem' Creatoris, qui proinde con
jugium pro rei honestate benedixit in crementum generis humani, quemadmodum
et universum conditionis in integros et bonos usus. Non ideo autem et cibi
damnabuntur, quia operosius exquisiti in gulam committunt ; ut nee vestitus ideo
accusabuntur, quia pretiosius comparati in ambitionem tumescunt. Sic nee
matrimonii res ideo despuentur, quia, intemperantius diffusas in luxuriam inarde-
scunt. Multum differt inter causam et culpam, inter statum et excessum. Ita
hujusmodi non institutio, sed exorbitatio, reprobanda est, secundum censuram
institutoris ipsius, cujus est tam, Crescite et multiplicamini, quam et, Non
adulterabis, et uxorem proximi tui non concupisces." Here we find an approach
to the mode of reasoning which M. Barbeyrac imputes to the Fathers.
3 " Viderit et ipsum continentias votum." De Virgin, vel. c. lit
4 See de Virgin, vel. c. 14.
6 "Quot Virgines Christo maritatas?" de Res. Carnis, c. 61 ; " Malunt enim
Deo nubere, Deo speciosas, Deo sunt puellas," etc., ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 4.
Generally, however, such expressions as "Christi solius ancillas," de Virgin, vel.c.
3 ; "Dei ancillas," de Cultu Faminarum, 1. i. c. 4, 1. ii. cc. 1, 11 ; " Nuptas Christo,"
de Virgin, vel. c. 16; " Benedictae," de Cultu Faminarum, 1. ii. c. 5; " filiae
sapientias," ibid. c. 6 ; " Fosminas ad Deum pertinentes, " ad Uxorem, 1. i. c. 1,
mean only Christian females, as "ancilla Diaboli," de Cultu Fam. 1. ii. c. n,
means a heathen female, and " Angeli Dei," ibid. c. 3, Christians in general.

200 The Ecclesiastical History of the
affirms that it may be dissolved on account of adultery ; 1 and
though his peculiar tenets would naturally lead him to deny to
either party the liberty of marrying again, yet he admits that
such marriages actually took place in the Church.2
Two charges which M. Barbeyrac brings against Tertullian
remain to be mentioned. One is, that, in opposition to our
Saviour's express injunction, he passes a sentence of condemna
tion upon all who in time of persecution consult their safety by
flight. The other, that he advances opinions so extravagant and
irrational on the subject of Christian patience that, were they
generally adopted, the effect must be to place the honest and
peaceable part of the community at the mercy of the robber and
ruffian. In our remarks upon the External History of the Church
we gave an account of Tertullian's opinions on ' the former of
those points ; 3 and with respect to the latter, it will be sufficient
to observe that his error appears to have arisen partly from too
close an adherence to the letter of our Saviour's injunctions, and
partly from a strange misapprehension of their meaning.4
We will conclude our review of M. Barbeyrac's animadver
sions by observing that he seems to have overlooked a passage
in the fourth book against Marcion ; 5 in which Tertullian argues,
from a passage in Ezekiel, that no interest ought be taken for
the loan of money.
1 Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 2 ; de Monogamid, c. 9. "Tarn repudio matrimonium
dirimente quam morte." De Patientid, c. 12.
2 Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 1. "Quarundam exemplis admonentibus, quas divortio
vel mariti excessu oblata continentias occasione," etc.
3 Chap. ii. p. 74.
4 See the tract de Patientid, cc. 7, 8, 10. In this tract, which is a panegyric
upon patience, Tertullian exhorts his readers to the practice of that virtue, by
setting forth the forbearance which God at all times exerts towards sinful man,
and the patience exhibited by Christ in taking upon Him human flesh, and sub
mitting to every indignity during His residence on earth. There are, however,
some passages not unworthy of attention, as c. 9, in which Tertullian enforces the
duty of patience under the loss of relations and friends.
6 C. 17. There is an ambiguity in Tertullian's expressions, but we believe
that we have given the true meaning.

Second and Third Centuries. , 201
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE CEREMONIES USED IN THE CHURCH.
Mosheim,1 in the beginning of his chapter on the Ceremonies
of the Church in the Second Century, observes that "in this
century many unnecessary ceremonies were added to the Chris
tian worship, the introduction of which was extremely offensive
to wise and good men." In support of this statement, he refers
to a passage in the tract de Oratione, in which Tertullian com
plains that various forms and observances had been introduced
into the Christian worship, of which some bore too close a
resemblance to the customs and practices of the Gentiles. Of
these observances he specifies several, — the practice, for instance,
of washing the hands, or even the whole body, before the com
mencement of prayer, which he calls a superstitious practice,
originally suggested by the act of Pilate when he delivered up
Christ to the Jews, and, consequently, unfit to be adopted by
Christians : 2 and that of putting off the cloke before the com
mencement of prayer, which he disapproves because the
heathens had a similar custom.3 He assigns the same reason
for objecting to the practice of sitting down after the conclusion
of the public prayers ; though he supposes its introduction into
the Church to have arisen from a misapprehension of a passage
in the Shepherd of Hermas.
From the passage just alluded to, and from other passages of
Tertullian's works, it appears that in the act of prayer, the early
Christians raised their hands to heaven, and expanded them in
imitation of the mode in which our Saviour's arms were stretched
upon the cross.4 They usually prayed in a kneeling posture,0
excepting on the Lord's day, and in the interval between Easter
1 Century ii. part ii. chap. iv.
2 De Oratione, c. n. Compare de Baptismo, c. 9, sub fine. "Quum deditur
in crucem, aqua intervenit ; sciunt Pilati manus."
3 C. 12.
4 ' ' Nos vero non attollimus tantum, sed etiam expandimus, a dominica pas-
sione modulantes." De Oratione, c. 11, sub fine. Apology, c. 30, "Manibus
expansis." Ad Marcionem, 1. i. c. 23, sub fine.
5 De Corond, c. 3 ; ad Scapulam, c. 4. " Quando non geniculationibus et
jejunationibus nostris etiam siccitates sunt depukas?" In the second tract
ad Uxorem, c. 9, we find the word volutari applied to the act of prayer.
' ' Simul orant, simul volutantur. " Compare Pseudo-Justinus, Quastiones ad
Orthodoxos, c. 113.

202 The Ecclesiastical History of the
and Whitsunday : they then prayed standing, in commemoration
of the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. The men
prayed with the head uncovered.1 With respect to the women,
different customs appear to have prevailed in different churches :
in some even the virgins were unveiled ; but in the tract de
Virginibus velandis, Tertullian inveighs vehemently against the
indecency and irreverence of this j)ractice.2 It was custom
ary also, in the act of prayer, to turn the face towards the
east3 — a practice borrowed, according to Mosheim, from the
eastern nations, who conceived light to be the essence of the
Supreme, and therefore worshipped the sun as the image of
His glory.4 We have seen that this practice gave rise to a
very general persuasion among the Gentiles that the Christians
worshipped the sun.5 After the prayers were concluded, the
persons present 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.0 Tertullian cen
sures 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 a commentary on the Lord's Prayer.7 After some pre
liminary remarks on the injunctions to pray in secret and not
to use long prayers, by which the Lord's Prayer is introduced
in the gospel, Tertullian observes that this form, concise as it
is, contains an epitome of the whole Christian doctrine. In
commenting upon the different clauses, our author displays an
extensive knowledge of Scripture, but for the most part little
judgment in the application. He concludes with stating that,
although in our devotions we must on no account omit this
1 ' ' Capite nudo. " Apology, c. 30. 2 C. ^. See de Corond, c 4.
3 Apology, c. 16 ; ad Nationes, 1. i. c. 13.
4 Century ii. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 7. There is in the tract against the Valen
tinians, c. 3, the following remark: — " Amat figura Spiritus Sancti (Columba)
Orientem, Christi figuram," referring perhaps to Zechariah iii. 8; / will bring
forth my Servant the Branch. The word corresponding to branch in the Septua
gint is avoLTo\riv.
5 Chap. ii. p. 62.
6 "Alia jam consuetudo invaluit ; jejunantes habita oratione cum fratribus,
subtrahunt osculum pacis, quod est signaculum orationis." De Oratione, c. 14.
"Jam vero alicui fratmm ad osculum convenire." Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c 4. From
the latter quotation we might- infer that the Christian mode of salutation was by a
kiss. 7 There are also some remarks on the Lord's Prayer in the fourth book against
Marcion, c. 26.

Second and Third Centuries. 203
prayer, yet we may add to it such petitions as are suitable to
our particular circumstances ; x remembering always that, in
order to render our prayers acceptable to God, we must ap
proach Him in a right frame of mind — with hearts free from
anger and every other evil passion.2 In addition to these
remarks upon the spirit in which men ought to pray, he offers
some cautions against all extravagance of gesture in putting
up our prayers to the throne of grace.3 Our gesture and
countenance 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, Mosheim gives the
following account of the purposes for which they were held.4
" During the sacred meetings of the Christians, prayers were re
peated, 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 oblations presented by
the faithful was employed in the celebration of the Lord's
Supper and the feast of charity." We need scarcely remind
the reader that this account is merely an epitome of a passage
in the Apology,6 which was given in the chapter on the Govern
ment of the Church.
There is, however, in the Apology, an expression which has
been urged by those who object to the use of set forms of
prayer, in confirmation of their opinion. Tertullian, speaking
of the primitive Christians, says "that they. prayed for the
Emperor without a prompter, because they prayed from the
heart."6 From the words "without a prompter" it has been
1 c. 9. 2 C. 10.
3 C. 13. In Semler'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 kneel
ing 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.
4 Century ii. part ii. chap. iv. sect. 8. 5 C. 39 in chap. iv. p. no.
0 C. 30. "Denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus. " See Bingham,
1. xiii. c. 3, sect. 3.

204 The Ecclesiastical History of the
inferred that their prayers were on all occasions extemporaneous
effusions. But the context clearly shows 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 prompted before
they would cry out in the accustomed form, " De nostris annis
tibi Jupiter augeat annos."1
From incidental notices scattered over Tertullian's works we
collect that 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.2 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
day of rejoicing. Even 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.3 The Saturday before Easter
day was, however, an exception; that was observed as a fast.4
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.5 That men who, like our
author, on all occasions contended that the ritual and cere
monial 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 the festivals of Easter and Whitsun
tide 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
1 Compare c. 35.
2 Tertullian uses both names ; that of Sunday, when addressing the heathens.
Apology, c. 16. ".lEque si diem Solis lastitias indulgemus," etc. Ad Nationes,
1. i. c. 13 ; that of the Lord's Day, when writing to Christians. De Corond, c. 3.
"Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus." De Jejuniis, c. 13; de Idololatrid,
e. 14 ; de Animd, c. 9. " Inter Dominica Solennia." De Fugd in Persecutione,
c. 14. We are not, however, certain that Tertullian uniformly observes this dis
tinction. Bingham thinks that he does. L. xx. c. 2, sect 1.
3 De Jejuniis, c. 15. The Gentiles feasted on a Saturday. Apology, c. 16.
4 De Jejuniis, c. 14. 5 See Bingham, 1. xx. c. 3.

Second and Third Centuries. 205
to His resurrection.1 In like manner the word Pentecost
signified, not merely Whitsunday, but also the fifty days which
intervened between Easter and Whitsunday.2 Tertullian makes
no allusion to the paschal controversy — a controversy which was
carried on with great bitterness towards the middle of the second
century, respecting the" days on which the death and resurrection
of Christ ought to be commemorated. He says only in general
terms that they were always commemorated in the first month of
the year.3
We have already had occasion to allude to the custom of
making offerings at the tombs of the martyrs on the anniversary
of their martyrdom.4 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 commenta
tors fancy that they discover, in a passage in the tract de Corond,
an allusion to the practice of noting down the days on which the
martyrs suffered — in other words, of composing martyrologies ;
but the passage is not of that decided character on which an
inference can be safely built.5
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 described by the founder of the sect.
In order to refute the notion that the season of our Saviour's
Passion was the only season at which Christians were positively
bound to fast, he undertakes to establish the general obligation
of fasting. With this view he goes back to Adam's transgression.6
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 refers also to various instances, both in the Old and New
Testaments, in which punishment had been averted, and spiritual
1 De Corond, c. 3 ; ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 4. " Quis denique solemnibus Paschas
abnoctantem securus sustinebit ? " Bingham supposes that our author here speaks
of the Paschal Vigil or Easter Eve. (L. xiii. c. 9, sect. 4 ; or 1. xxi. c. 1,
sect. 32.) De Baptismo, c. 19 ; ad Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 40.
2 De Corond, c. 3 ; de Idololatrid, c. 14, sub fine ; de Baptismo, u. 19; de
Jejuniis, c. 14.
3 De Jejuniis, c. 14.
4 Chap. v. note 3, p. 173. Compare the Scorpiace, c. 15. " Tunc Paulus civitatis
Romanas consequitur nativitatem, quum illic martyrii renascitur generositate."
5 C. 13. " Habes tuos census, tuos jastos, " * C. 3.

206 The Ecclesiastical History of /he
and temporal blessings obtained, by fasting.1 God, moreover, by
testifying His favourable acceptance of fasts observed in conse
quence of voluntary vows, thereby declared His will, and rendered
such fasts obligatory in future.2 This favourable acceptance
supplied the place of a positive command. Tertullian, however,
is met in the very outset by a perplexing objection.3 " 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 question Tertullian returns an answer, for which few of
his readers could, we think, have been prepared. At first the
liberty respecting food was enlarged, in order that man might
have an opportunity of evincing a greater desire to please God,
by a voluntary abstinence from those kinds of food which he was
permitted to take.4 Afterwards, when the law was given, a
distinction was made between clean and unclean animals, for
the purpose of preparing mankind for the fasts which in due
season they would be required to observe under the gospel.5
One argument 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.6 Another is grounded
on the natural tendency of fasting to render the intellectual and
moral faculties vigorous and active; whereas a full stomach
weighs down the soul, rendering it unfit for contemplation, and
devotional exercises, and intercourse with heaven.7 This remark
our author confirms by the examples of Moses and Elias, who
fasted forty days and forty nights, when they were admitted to
the divine presence.8
From this treatise, and from other parts of Tertullian's writings,
we learn that the fasts observed by the Church in his day were —
(i) The Paschal Fast, which consisted in a total abstinence from
food (jejunium) during the interval between Christ's passion
and resurrection.9 This was considered as obligatory upon all
Christians. (2) Stationary days, Dies Stationarii, Wednesday
and Friday in every week, on which a half-fast (semi-jejunium)
1 Cc. 7, 8. Compare de Patientid, c. 13. 2 C. 11. 3 C. 4.
4 Compare de Cultu Faminarum, 1. ii. c. 10 ; de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 8.
6 C. 5. Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. c. 18. 6 C. 12. 7 C. 6.
8 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 61.
9 " Certe in Evangelio illos dies jejuniis determinatos putant, in quibus ablatus
est sponsus (Matt. ix. 15), et hos esse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum Chris
tianorum, abolitis legalibus et propheticis vetustatibus." De Jejuniis, c. 2. Com
pare c. 13, sub in,, c. 14; de Oratione, c. 14.

Second and Third Centuries. 207
was kept, terminating at three in the afternoon.1 These were
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 crucifixion.2 The reason assigned for terminating the
Statio at the ninth hour was,3 that Peter is said in the Acts of
the Apostles to have gone with John into the temple at that
hour.4 "But whence," asks Tertullian, who contended that the
Statio ought to be prolonged till the evening, " whence does it
appear 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 in another chapter we
are told that he went up to pray at that hour, and became very
hungry, and would have eaten."5 (3) Xerophagise, days on
which it was usual to abstain from flesh and wine, in imitation,
perhaps, of the restraint which Daniel is stated to have imposed
upon himself.6 These fasts were not enjoined by the Church,
but were voluntary exercises of piety on the part of individuals ; '
and some of the orthodox appear to have objected to them
altogether, on the ground that they were borrowed from the
heathen superstitions.8
The difference between the orthodox and Montanists, on the
subject of fasting, appears to have consisted in the following
particulars. With respect to the Jejunium, or total 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
1 " Cur Stationibus quartam et sextam Sabbati dicamus ? " De Jejuniis, c. 14.
" Sic et Apostolos observasse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum et in
commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum ; proinde nee stationum, quas et ipsas
suos quidem dies habeant, quartas ferias et sextas ; passive tamen currant, neque
sub lege prascepti ; neque ultra supremam diei, quando et orationes fere bora 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 Dei sumus."
Tertullian uses the expression ' ' trium hebdomadum statione " in speaking of
Daniel's fast (c. 10). De Animd, c. 48.
2 See de Jejuniis, c. 13, sub in. Bingham, 1. xxi. c. 3, sect. ^, from Augustine,
ep. 86 or 36 ad Casulanum,
3 De Jejuniis, c. 10. 4 C. 3, v. 1. 5 C. 10, v. 9.
6 C. 10, v. 3. 7 De Jejuniis, c. 13.
8 "Xerophagias vero novum affectari officii nomen et proximum Ethnicas super-
stitioni, quales castimonias Apim, Isidem, et Magnam Matrem certorum eduliorum
exceptionepurificant." De Jejuniis, c. 2. See also c. 16.

208 The Ecclesiastical History of the
determine whether they would fast or not. The Montanists, on
the contrary, contended that there were other seasons during
which fasting was obligatory, and that the appointment of those
seasons constituted a part of the revelations of the Paraclete.1
With respect to the Dies Stationarii, the Montanists not only
pronounced the fast obligatory upon all Christians, but prolonged
it until the evening, instead of terminating it, as was the orthodox
custom, at the ninth hour.2 In the observance of the Xero-
phagiae the Montanists abstained — not only from flesh and wine,
like the orthodox — but also from the richer and more juicy
kinds of fruit, and omitted all their customary ablutions.3
Montanus appears to have enjoined only two weeks of Xero-
phagise in the year ; 4 but his followers were animated by a
greater love of fasting than their master, for Jerome says that,
in his day, the Montanists kept three Lents, one of them after
Whitsunday.6 We have already observed that, in Tertullian's time, the
bishops exercised the power of appointing days of fasting, when
ever the circumstances of the Church - seemed to require such
outward marks of sorrow and humiliation ; and 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 confirma-
1 De Jejuniis, cc. i, 13.
2 De Jejuniis, c. 1. " Quod Stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus.''
3 De Jejuniis, c. 1. " Quod etiam Xerophagias observemus, siccantes cibum
ab omni carne, et omni jurulentia, et vividioribus quibusque pomis, ne quid
vinositatis vel edamus vel potemus. Lavacri 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, 1. i. c. 14.
4 " Duas in anno hebdomadas Xerophagiarum, nee totas, exceptis scilicet
Sabbatis et Dominicis, offerimus Deo." De Jejuniis, c. 15.
5 "Illi tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas, quasi tres passi sint Salvatores."
Ad Marcellam, ep. 54. " Et ex hujus occasione testimonii Montanus, Prisca, et
Maximilla, etiam post Pentecosten faciunt quadragesimam, quod, ablato sponso,
filii sponsi debeant jejunare." In Matt. ix. Bingham infers that each of these
Lent fasts continued for two weeks. L. xxi. c. 1, sect. 15.
" Chap. iv. note 5, p. 117. De Jejuniis, c. 13.

Second and Third Centuries. 209
tion of the truth of this remark, we should without hesitation
refer the reader to the subject which we have been now con
sidering. Fasting, as it was originally practised in the Church,
was regarded as a means to a moral end : as a means, peculiarly
fitted both to the circumstances and to the nature of man, of
nourishing in him those feelings of contrition and self-abase
ment, and of enabling him to acquire that mastery over his
sensual appetites which are essential elements in the composi
tion of the Christian character. When, at the season appointed
by the Church for the commemoration of the Passion of Christ,
its members, amongst other external observances — designed to
express their lively sense of their own unworthiness, and of the
deadly nature of sin which could be expiated only by so great a
sacrifice — abstained also from their customary meals and re
creations ; surely the most enlightened reason must approve the
motive of their abstinence, and admit as well its suitableness 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
occasional 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 possessed
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 mental powers ; it deadens our
moral perceptions ; it tends especially to render us selfish and
regardless of the wants and feelings of others. But when ex
perience 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 occasional abstinence —
if used only as a means to an end — to invigorate the moral
principle within us, and to promote humility of temper and
purity of heart. Unhappily, however, for the Church, from the
propensity of the human mind to run into extremes — from an
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 circumstances,
were never designed to be held up as examples, in all points
of their conduct, to ordinary Christians — from the combined

2 10 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 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 intercourse with the
world. Here, then, was a reasonable motive to induce Christians,
wisely anxious for their own salvation, to withdraw themselves,
at stated intervals, from worldly pleasures, and cares, and 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
proportionally 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 principle of his philosophy was, that the
visible things 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

Second and Third Centuries. 211
mind from his senses — entirely to exclude from his observation
those forms of perishable matter which serve only to bewilder
and lead him astray — and to give himself up to the contempla
tion 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 contemplation, and to deem all
intercourse with the world a positive hindrance to the attainment
of that spiritual elevation at which the Christian ought to aim.
Overlooking the clear intimations supplied by the constitution
of their own nature, that man is designed for society — over
looking the express declarations of Scripture and the example of
our Blessed Lord, whose ministry was one continued course of
active benevolence — they took Elias and the Baptist for their
models, without reflecting for a moment either upon the peculiar
circumstances in which those holy men were placed, or the
peculiar objects which they were appointed to accomplish. Thus,
while they passed their hours in a state of indolent abstraction —
discharging no one social duty, and living as if they were alone in
the world — they succeeded in persuading themselves and others
that they were treading the path which leads to Christian perfection,
and pursuing the course most pleasing in the sight of God — that
they were the especial objects of His regard, were holding habitual
intercourse with Him, and enjoying a foretaste of that ineffable
bliss which would be their portion, when removed from this
world of sin and misery to His 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
extravagances which were the natural fruits of the eremitical
and monastic modes of life. Let it suffice to have pointed out
the sources from which they took their rise, and to have exposed
the mischievous consequences of setting up any one mode of
life as pre-eminently pure and holy — as rendering those who
adopt it the peculiar favourites of heaven.
To return to our author. In refuting the calumnious accusa
tions of the pagans, he speaks of the Agape, or feast of chanty.
" Its object," he says, " is evident from its name, which signifies

2 1 2 The Ecclesiastical History of the
love.1 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 martyrs in prison.2 When
we read the above description of the Agape, we cannot but
participate in the regret expressed by Dr. Hey, that Scandal
should have occasioned the discontinuance of an entertainment
so entirely consonant to the benevolent spirit of the gospel.3 If,
however, we may believe Tertullian, the grossest abuses were
introduced into it even in his time ; for we find him, in the
tract de Jejuniis? charging the orthodox with the very same
licentious practices in their feasts of charity which the pagans
were in the habit of imputing — and according to the statement
in the Apology, falsely imputing — to the whole Christian body.
On these contradictory 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 both of public and private vigils ; 5 and says
that it was customary for the Christian 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 instruc
tion and relieving their wants. The Romish commentators have
endeavoured to defend the religious processions of their Church
- Apology, c. 39.
2 " Imo et quas justa sunt caro non amittit per curam Ecclesias, 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 gulas lascivia atque luxuria." Compare
the Apology, cc. 7, 8.
5 " Ita saturantur, ut qui meminerint etiam per noctem adorandum sibi Deum
esse. " Apology, c. 39. " Quis nocturnis convocationibus, si ita oportuerit, a latere
suo adimi libenter feret ? " Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 4. " Quum etiam per noctem
exsurgis oratum," c. 5. " Aquam sanctorum pedibus offerre," c. 4. "Quisautem
sinat conjugem suam, visitandorum fratrum gratia, vicatim aliena et quidem
pauperiora quasque tuguria circumire ? " Ibid.

Second and Third Centuries. 213
by the authority of Tertullian, who uses the word Procedendum
in the passage from which the preceding remarks are taken.1
But if we compare it with another passage in the second tract
de Cultu Faminarum,2 we shall find that the word procedere
means " to go from home ; " which, Tertullian observes, a
Christian female ought never to do, excepting for some religious
or charitable purpose.3
We will now proceed to the rite of baptism, on which Ter
tullian wrote an express treatise in confutation of a female, named
Quintilla, who denied its necessity, affirming that faith alone was
sufficient to salvation. In that treatise, as well as in other parts
of his works, he speaks in strong terms of the efficacy of baptism.
" By it," he says, " we are cleansed from all our sins, and rendered
capable of attaining eternal life." 4 By it we regain that Spirit of
God which Adam received at his creation, and lost by his trans
gression." 5 Tertullian connects regeneration with it ; 6 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 refulgence of its
native light. In the first book against Marcion, he declares the
following spiritual blessings to be consequent upon baptism : —
Remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and
participation in the Holy Spirit.7 He calls it the sacrament of
washing,8the blessed sacramentof water,9the laver of regeneration,10
1 " Si procedendum erit," etc.
2 C. 11. " Ac si necessitas amicitiarum ofiiciorumque gentilium vos vacat, cur
non vestris armis indutas proceditis ? " See also c. 12.
3 " Vobis autem nulla procedendi causa non tetrica ; aut imbecillus aliquis ex
fratribus visitatur, aut sacrificium offertur, aut Dei verbum administratur,"
c. 11.
4 See de .Panitentid, c. 6 ; de Baptismo, cc. 1, 7.
6 De Baptismo, c. 3, sub fine. " Recipit enim ilium Dei Spiritum, quem tunc de
afflatu ejus acceperat, sed post amiserat per delictum." Tertullian usually speaks
as if the soul, that is, the vital and intellectual principles, had been communicated
when God breathed into the nostrils of Adam the breath of life. Here he appears
to confound the soul and spirit. See chap. iii. p. 86 ; chap. v. note 3, p. 162.
"Aqua signat, Sancto Spiritu vestit." De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 36.
6 De Animd, c. 41. See chap. v. p. 162 ; de Res. Carnis, c. 47 ; de Pudicitid,
cc. 6, 9. We find in the tract de Carne Christi, c. 4, the expression " Calestis
Regeneratio," and in the Scorpiace, c. 6, "Secunda Regeneratio ;" but in both
cases the allusion seems to be to the change in the body of man, which will take
place when it puts on incorruption and immortality.
' C. 28.
8 ' ' Eadem. lavacri Sacramenta. '' De Virginibus velandis, c. 2. See chap. v.
p. 162.
9 " Felix Sacramentum aquae nostras." De Baptismo, sub initio.
1" " Per lavacrum regenerationis." De Pudicitid, c. 1.

2 1 4 The Ecclesiastical History of the
the sacrament of faith,1 the sign,2 or seal of our faith.3 There
is an apparent inconsistency in his accounts of the mode in
which the spiritual benefits of baptism are conferred. At one
time he speaks as if the sanctification of the water used in bap
tism was effected by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit,
who descended upon it as soon as the prayer of invocation had
been addressed to God.4 At another time he 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 Baptist was of
Christ, belongs the especial office of preparing the soul of man
for the reception of the Holy Spirit in baptism. We call the
inconsistency of these two statements only an apparent inconsist
ency, 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' on the narrative in St. John's Gospel respecting the
angel who imparted a healing efficacy to the waters of the pool
of Bethesda.6
In the tract de Corond Militis, Tertullian gives a summary
account of the forms used in administering the rite of baptism.7
The candidate having been prepared for its due reception by
frequent prayers, fasts and vigils,8 professed, in the presence of
the congregation,9 and under the hand of the president,10 that he
renounced the devil, his pomp, and angels.11 He was then
1 " Sine Fidei Sacramento." De Animd, c. i.
2 " In signaculo Fidei." De Spectaculis, c. 24 ; Signaculi nostri, c. 4. Speaking
of circumcision, Tertullian uses the expression " Signaculum corporis." Apology,
c. 21.
3 In the tract de Pudicitid, c. 10, Tertullian calls the baptism of John, the wash
ing of repentance.
4 ' ' Igitur omnes aquas de pristina originis prasrogativa Sacramentum- sanctifica-
tionis consequuntur, invocato Deo. Supervenit enim statim Spiritus de ccelis, et
aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificatas vim sanctificandi
combibunt. " De Baptismo, c. 4, quoted in chap. v. note 7, p. 177. See also c. 8.
5 " Igitur medicatis quodammodo aquis per Angeli interventum, 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 prasparamur. Hie quoque figura prascessit. Sic enim
Ioannes ante prascursor Domini fuit, prasparans vias ejus ; ita et Angelus Baptismi
arbiter superventuro Spiritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum." See chap.
iii. note 2, p. 109..
G C 5. 7 C. 3. 8 De Baptismo, c. 20.
9 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 setjms to
mean the place of assembly. " Et ipsum curias nomen Ecclesia est Christi."
1° "Sub Antistitis manu."
11 Compare de Spectaculis, c. 4 ; de Idololatrid,^. 6 ; de Cultu Faminarum, 1. i.e. 2.

Second and Third, Centuries. 215
plunged into the water 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.2 He then tasted
a mixture of milk and honey 3 — was anointed with oil,4 in allusion
to the practice under the Mosaic dispensation of anointing those
who were appointed to the priesthood, since all Christians are in
a certain sense supposed to be priests — and was signed with the
sign of the cross.5 Lastly followed the imposition of hands, the
origin of which ceremony is referred by our author to the bene
diction pronounced by Jacob upon the sons of Joseph.6 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 administration of baptism, and formed a part of the
ceremony. It was usual for the baptized person to abstain, during
the week subsequent to his reception of the rite, from his daily
ablutions.7 Some also contended that baptism ought to be fol
lowed by fasting, because our Lord immediately after His baptism
fasted forty days and forty nights.8 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 particular
reference to certain events which took place under the Mosaic
dispensation. In commenting upon the parable of the Prodigal
Son, Tertullian calls the ring which the father directed to be put
upon his hand, the seal of baptism ; by which the Christian, when
interrogated, seals the covenant of his faith.9 The natural
inference from these words appears to be that a ring used to be
given in baptism ; but I have found no other trace of such a
custom. Tertullian alludes to the custom of having sponsors, who made,
' " Nam nee semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tingimur.''
Adv. Praxeam, c. 26.
2 " In aquam demissus, et inter pauca verba tinctus.'' De Baptismo, c. 2.
3 Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 14.
4 De Baptismo, c. 7 ; de Res. Carnis, c. 26. s De Res. Carnis, c. 8.
0 De Baptismo, c. 8 ; de Res. Carnis, c. 8. 7 De Corond, c. 3.
8 De Baptismo, c. 20. But compare de Jejuniis, c. 8. " Ipse mox Dominus
baptisma suum, et in suo omnium jejuniis dedicavit. " This variation of opinion
affords an additional presumption that the tract de Baptismo was written before
Tertullian became a Monta»ist.
" " Annulum denuo signaculum lavacri." De Pudicitid, c. 9. " Annulum
quoque accepit tunc primum, quo fidei pactionem interrogatus obsignat." Ibid.

2 1 6 The Ecclesiastical History of the
in the name of the children brought to the font, those promises
which they were unable to make for themselves.1
From the passages already referred to, and 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 ; 2 and that the candidate professed his belief in the Three
Persons of the Trinity, who were at once the witnesses of his
profession and the sponsors for his salvation.3 We will take this
opportunity of observing that, whatever might be the case with
the Montanists in after times, the writings of Tertullian afford no
ground for supposing that the founder of the sect introduced a
new form of baptism.
After enforcing the necessity of baptism by water, and describ
ing 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 first considers the question proposed by Christ
to the Pharisees — " The baptism of John, was it from heaven or
of men ? " 4 To this Tertullian replies, that it was of divine com
mandment, because John was sent by God to baptize. So far it
was from heaven. But it conveyed no heavenly gift ; it conferred
neither the remission of sins nor the Holy Spirit. John's was
the baptism of repentance, designed to fit men for the reception
of that baptism, by which, through the efficacy of the death and
resurrection of Christ, they obtain the remission of sins and the
sanctifying influences of the Spirit.5 Until the descent of the
Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, the disciples of Christ bap
tized only with the baptism of John, that is, unto repentance.6
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 sted-
fast ; the baptism with fire to those whose faith is feigned and
unstable, and who are therefore baptized, not to salvation, but to
judgment.7 Our author supposes the Baptist's message to Christ
1 "Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri ? " De Baptismo, c.
18. See also c. 6.
2 De Baptismo, c. 13. i De Baptismo, c. 6. 4 C. 10. Matt. xxi. 25.
5 On the subject of John's mission, see adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 33 ; 1. v. c. 2.
0 C. 11.
7 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.

Second and Third Centuries. 217
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." J
In the passage just alluded to, Tertullian does not merely
assert that the disciples of Christ baptized with the baptism of
John, but assigns his reasons for making the assertion.2 His
words are — " Itaque tingebant Discipuli ejus (Christi) ut ministri,
ut Ioannes ante prsecursor, 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 instruct^ efficacia lavacri per passionem et resur
rectionem." 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, extranese 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 tinguntur. Idque se in regenerationem et impuni-
tatem perjuriorum suorum agere praesumunt — quo agnito, hie
quoque studium Diaboli cognoscimus res Dei Eemulantis, 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. In describing the notions entertained by Tertullian
respecting the nature of demons, we mentioned that their chief
employment and pleasure was to prevent mankind from embrac
ing the worship of the true God, and that they were assisted in
the attainment of this object by the partial knowledge which they
had acquired, during their abode in heaven, of the nature of the
divine dispensations.3 Availing themselves of this knowledge,
they endeavoured to preoccupy the minds of men by inventing
rites, bearing some resemblance to those which were to be
observed under the gospel. Thus, by their suggestion, baptism
1 C. 10. Matt. xi. Compare de Oratione, c. i ; adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 18.
John iii. 30. 2 C. 11. 3 Chap. iii. p. 107.

2 1 8 The Ecclesiastical History of the
was introduced into the Eleusinian mysteries as a mode of
initiation, being, if I may use the expression, 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 in chapter iii. ; 1 and reference made to a passage
in the tract de Prascriptione Hareticorum? 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 marking 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. 1, c. 6, sect. 5. But I must confess that
the learned prelate's arguments appear to me only to prove that,
when our author has once taken up an hypothesis, he will never
be at a loss for reasons wherewith to defend it. Wall's conclu
sion is founded entirely on the assumption that the imitation of
divine rites, which Tertullian ascribed to the devil, was neces
sarily an imitation of rites actually instituted ; whereas he held
that its very purpose was to anticipate their institution. This is
not the proper place for inquiring whether baptism was practised
by the Jews before our Saviour's advent as an initiatory rite, or
only as a mode of purification. Be this as it may, Tertullian's
express declaration, that besides the baptisms of Christ and
John there was no other baptism, renders him but an indifferent
voucher for its use among the Jews as an initiatory rite.
To proceed with the tract de Baptismo. The next question
discussed by our author is, whether the apostles were baptized —
and if not, whether they could be saved, since our Saviour
declared to Nicodemus that, " unless a man is born of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom " — a passage which
1 Note 1, p. 106.
2 C. 40. See also the instances mentioned in the tract de Spectaculis, c. 23,
one of which is referred to in chap. v. p. 192.

Second and Thira Centuries. 219
the ancients uniformly interpreted of baptism.1 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 probable that the
apostles had received John's baptism, which, as the baptism of
Christ was not then instituted, would be sufficient ; our Lord
Himself having said to Peter, " He that is once washed needs
not to be washed again."2 "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
Gennesaret. They who denied the necessity of baptism alleged the example
of Abraham, who pleased God by faith alone, without baptism.3
" 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 argu
ment 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 argument against the necessity of baptism4 was
founded on the statement of St. Paul in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, that " he was sent to preach, not to baptize." 5 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 household of Stephanas.
With respect to the propriety of rebaptizing, Tertullian says
1 C. 12. See chap. i. note 2, p. 43.
2 John xiii. 10. The verse is quoted inaccurately.
3 C. 13. 4 C. 14. » C. i, v. 17.

220 The Ecclesiastical History of the
explicitly that baptism ought not to be repeated; but he con
sidered heretical baptism as utterly null.1 "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, 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.2
We have already seen that Tertullian calls martyrdom a second
baptism.3 He says that martyrdom will both supply the want of
baptism by water, and restore it to those who have lost it by
transgression.4 In our remarks on the twenty-third Article of the Church, we
alluded to a passage in the tract de Baptismo, in which Tertullian
ascribes to the laity an inherent right to administer baptism.5
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, in his second letter to Mr.
Kelsall on lay baptism.6 The passage is as follows : — " Dandi
quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc
presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, prop
ter Ecclesiae 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 vocantur
discentes.7 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 (bap
tism), and next to him the priests and deacons (but not
1 C. 13. " Hasretici autem nullum habent consortium nostras disciplinas, quos
extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis
agnoscere quod mihi est prasceptum, quia nee idem Deus est nobis et illis, nee
unus Christus, id est idem." See also de Pudicitid, c. 19. " Unde et apud nos,
ut Ethnico par, immo et super Ethnicum, Hasreticus etiam per baptisma veritatis
utroque homine purgatus admittitur." But when the tract de Pudicitid was
written, Tertullian had seceded openly from the Church.
2 See chap. v. notes 2 and 3, p. 178.
3 C. 16. See chap. ii. note 2, p. 71.
4 ' ' Hie est baptismus, qui lavacrum et non acceptum reprassentat, et perditum red-
dit." Compare de Pudicitid, c. 13. " Quas exinde jam perieratbaptismateamisso.''
5 C. 17. Chap. v. p. 175. K Waterland's Works, vol. x. p. 108.
7 We believe the true reading to be " vocarentur discentes." Some editions
have " vocantur dicentes," which reading Waterland follows.

Second and Third Centuries. 221
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, or presbyters, or deacons intervene, the
ordinary Christians are called to it." Dr. Waterland subjoins
the following observation : — " I have thrown in two or three
words in the translation, to clear the sense of this passage ; I
have chiefly followed Mr. Bennet, both as to the sense and to the
pointing of them, and refer you to him for their vindication." l
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 preserva
tion 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 dis
centes, i.e. disciples.2 The word of God ought not to be con
cealed by any ; baptism, therefore, which equally (with the
word) proceeds from God, may be 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 the contrary, he
stigmatizes the attempt on their part to baptize as a most
flagrant act of presumption.3 In the passage just cited, Ter
tullian rests the right of the laity to administer baptism on the
assumption that a man has the power of conferring upon another
whatever he has himself received, and on the comprehensive
meaning of the word disciples in John iv. 2. On other occasions,
as we have seen,4 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.
1 Rights of the Clergy, p. 118. Mr. Bennet does not quote the latter part of the
passage. 2 The allusion is to John iv. 2. Though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His dis
ciples. Tertullian frequently uses the word discentes in this sense. Thus in c. n;
" Qui tunc utique a discentibus dari non poterat." Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 22 ;
"Tres de discentibus arbitros futures visionis, et vocis assumit." See de Pra
scriptione Hareticorum, cc. 3, 20, 22, 30, 44.
3 Compare de Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 41.
* Chap. iv. p. 112, note 1.

222 The Ecclesiastical History of the
The next question discussed by Tertullian relates to the
persons who may receive the rite of baptism.1 He says that it
must not be hastily conferred ; and recommends delay in the case
not only of infants, but also of unmarried persons and widows, i
whom he considers peculiarly exposed to temptation. What he
says with respect to the baptism of infants has been already
noticed in our remarks on the ninth Article of the Church : 2 we
then observed that the recommendation of delay in their case
was inconsistent with the conviction, which he manifests on
other occasions, of the absolute necessity of baptism to relieve
mankind from the injurious consequences of Adam's fall. In
the treatise de Animd,3 alluding to what St. Paul says respecting
the holiness of children either of whose parents is a Christian,
he supposes the apostle to affirm that the children 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 water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of heaven, that is, cannot be holy. So that every soul
is numbered in Adam, until it is 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 baptismal
font, in order that they may become partakers of the holiness
for which they are designed at their birth. Some have sup
posed that Tertullian was led to contend for the expediency of
delaying baptism, in consequence of the opinion which he enter
tained concerning the irremissible character of heinous sins
committed after baptism ; and the passage in the tract de Bap
tismo, on which we have been remarking, favours the supposition.4
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-paedobaptists 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
1 C. 18. 2 Chap. v. pp. 160-163.
3 C. 39. 1 Cor. vii. 14. Compare Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, book v. c. 60.
4 Hey's Lectures, book iv, article 27, sect. 14.

Second and Third Centuries. 223
opinion, the general practice of the Church was to baptize
infants. With respect to the season when baptism might be adminis
tered, Tertullian remarks that every day and every hour are alike
suited to the performance of so holy a rite.1 He specifies,
however, the interval between Good Friday and Whitsunday 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.
We now proceed to the other sacrament of our Church,
which is called by Tertullian Eucharistia,2 Eucharistiae Sacra
mentum,3 Convivium Dominicum,4 Convivium Dei,5 Panis et
Calicis Sacramentum.6 The term Sacrificium 7 is also applied
to the Eucharist; but in the same general manner in which
it is applied to other parts of divine worship, and to other
modes of conciliating the divine favour; as to prayer, or
fasting, or bodily mortifications.8 Tertullian says 9 that the
Eucharist, which was instituted by our blessed Lord during a
meal — the institution being accompanied by a command which
applied generally to all present — was in his own day celebrated
in the assemblies which were held before daybreak; and re
ceived only at the hands of the presidents. He notices also
the extreme solicitude of the Christians to prevent any part of
the bread and wine from falling to the ground ; and speaks of
the communicants as standing at the altar of God, when they
received the sacrament.10 It may, however, be doubted whether
1 C. 19. 2 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 36. " Eucharistia pascit."
3 De Corond, c. 3, referred to in chap. v. p. 177, note 6.
4 Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 4.
5 Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 9. " In convivio Dei ; " but Semler reads " In connubio
Dei." * " Proinde panis et calicis Sacramento, jam in Evangelio probavimus corporis et
sanguinis Dominici veritatem, adversus phantasma Marcionis." Adv. Mar
cionem, 1. 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. 176.
7 See the tract de Oratione, c. 14 ; de Cultu Faminarum. 1. ii. c. 11.
8 Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 1 ; de Res. Carnis, c. 8.
" De Corond, c. 3. "Eucharistiae sacramentum, et in tempore victus et omni
bus mandatum a Domino, etiam ante lucanis ccetibus, nee de aliorum manibus
quam prassidentium sumimus. — Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in
terram anxie patimur."
t° " Nonne solennior erit statio tua, si et ad aram Dei steteris?" De
Oratione, c. 14. Bingham (1. viii. a. 6, sect. 12) refers to a passage in the
first tract ad Uxorem, c. 7. " Aram enim Dei nundam proponi oportet : " but it
is evidently nothing to the purpose. He refers also to the tract de Exhortatione

224 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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
celebration of the Eucharist. Our author calls it signaculum
orationis,1 — an expression from which Bingham infers that, in
that age of the Church, it was given after the prayers of conse
cration ; 2 but there appears to be no sufficient reason for under
standing the word oraiionis in that restricted sense. We are
rather disposed to infer that, at the conclusion of all their
meetings for the purposes of devotion, the early Christians
were accustomed to give the kiss of peace, in token of the
brotherly love subsisting amongst them.3
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 corporeal
presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He speaks, indeed, "of
feeding on the fatness of the Lord's body, that is, on the
Eucharist ; " 4 and " of our flesh feeding on the body and blood
of Christ, in order that our soul may be fattened of God."5
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, in com
menting upon the clause in the Lord's Prayer, " Give us this day
our daily bread" he says that we should understand it spiritually.6
"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 word of the
living God which descended from heaven, that is bread. Moreover,
Castitatis, c. 10. " Quomodo audebit orationem ducere ad altare?" but the
reading ad altare is only a conjecture of Rigault.
1 De Oratione, c. 14. 2 L. xv. c. 3, sect. 3.
3 See ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 4, quoted on p. 202, note 6.
4 " Atque ita exinde opimitate Dominici corporis vescitur, Eucharistia scilicet."
De Pudicitid, c. 9, where the words Eucharistid scilicet bear the appearance of a
gloss. See also adv. Marcionem, I. iii. c. 7; adv. Judaos, o. 14. " Dominicas
gratias quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur."
6 "Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur.''
De Res. Carnis, c. 8.
6 " Quanquam panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie spiritaliter potius
intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster est, quia vita Christus, et vita panis.
Ego sum, inquit, panis vita. Et paulo supra : Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui
descendit de calls." (The words are not accurately quoted.) "Turn quod et
corpus ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est corpus meum. " De Oratione, c. 6. Com
pare de Res. Carnis, c. 37.

Second and Third Centuries. 225
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 representation of the body of Christ;1 and the
wine, of His blood.
There is one passage from which Pamelius has so strangely
contrived to extract an argument in favour of transubstantiation,
that we cannot forbear referring the reader to it. It is in the
treatise against Praxeas? where Tertullian is inquiring, " 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 transfiguration is a destruction of that which before existed :
whatever is transfigured into another thing ceases to be what it
was, and begins to be what it was not." This passage, says
Pamelius, makes for 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 nature have arisen from the mixture of the
former two, as the substance called electrum from the mixture of
gold and silver.3 In either case the substance which is trans
figured disappears ; and that into which it is transfigured is alone
1 " Nee panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reprasentat." Adv. Marcionem, 1. i.
c. 14. " Panem corpus suum appellans, ut et hinc jam eum intelligas corporis
smfiguram pani dedisse," 1. iii. c. 19. Adv. Judaos, c. 10. " Acceptum panem
et distributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id
est figura corporis mei — ut autem et sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas,
aderit Esaias." Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 40. See also ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 5 ;
de Animd, c. 17. " Alium postea vini saporem, quod in sanguinis sui memoriam
consecravit. "
2 "Igitur sermo in carne, dum et de hoc quasrendum, quomodo sermo caro sit
factus, utrumne quasi transfiguratus in carne, an indutus carnem? imo indutus.
Casterum Deum immutabilem et informabilem credi necesse est, ut asternum.
Transfiguratio autem interemptio est pristini. Omne enim quodcunque trans-
figuratur in aliud, desinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod non erat. Deus
autem neque desinit esse, neque aliud potest esse," etc., c. 27. The remark of
Pamelius is, " Eacit hie locus pro transubstantione, quam Catholici in Sacramento
Eucharistiae adserunt."
3 " Si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione substantias caro factus est ;
una jam erat substantia Iesus ex duabus, ex carne et Spiritu, mixtura quasdam, ut
electrum ex auro et argento ; et incipit nee aurum esse, id est, Spiritus, neque
argentum, id est caro ; dum alteram altero mutatur, et tertium quid efficitur,"
c. 27. H

226 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 the first book against Marcion, from which an in
ference directly opposed to it may be fairly drawn.1 From what
has been already said, it is evident that the Roman Catholic
custom of withholding the cup from the laity was unknown to
Tertullian, and that both the bread and the wine were in his
day alike offered to the communicants.2
One other rite of the Church still remains to be considered —
that of Marriage. Bingham infers,3 apparently with justice, from
a passage in the tract de Monogamid^ that the parties were bound
in the first instance to make known their intentions to the Church
and obtain the permission of the Ecclesiastical Orders. They
were also bound to obtain the consent of their parents.5 Parties
marrying clandestinely ran the hazard of being regarded in the
light of adulterers or fornicators.6 That marriage was esteemed
by the Christians a strictly religious contract is evident from a
1 " Non putem impudentiorem, quam qui in aliena aqua alii Deo tingitur, ad
alienum ccelum alii Deo expanditur, in aliena terra alii Deo sternitur, super
alfenum panem alii Deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur, de alienis bonis ob alium
Deum nomine eleemosynas et dilectionis operatur," c. 23, sub fine. Tertullian is
here contending that, if the doctrine of the Marcionites was true — that the supreme
God who sent Christ was not the God who created the world — then it would follow
that He had most unjustly appropriated to His own uses the works and productions
of another.
2 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 reseivato, utrumque salvum est." De Oratione, c.
14 ' ' Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustas : et si sciveri^
panem, non ilium credit esse qui dicitur." Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 3. See Bingham,
1. xv. c. 4, sect. 13. This practice, having given occasion to abuses, was for
bidden. See the sixth Rubric after the Communion Service.
3 L. xxii. c. 2, sect. 2.
4 C. 11. " Qualis es id matrimonium postulans, quod iis a quibus postulas non
licet habere — ab Episcopo monogamo, a presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacra
menti, a viduis quarum sectam in te recusasti ? Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et
uxores, quomodo buccellas (Hoc enim est apud illos, Omni petenti te dabis), et
conjungent vos in Ecclesia Virgine, unius Christi unica sponsa."
6 " Na^a nee in terris filii sine consensu patrum rite et jure nubunt." Ad
Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 9.
6 " Ideo penes nos occultas quoque conjunctiones, id est non prius apud ecclesiam
professas, juxta mcechiam et fornicationem judicari periclitantur." De Pudicitid,
c. 4. He applies a similar title to marriages contracted by Christians with
heathens. " Hasc quum ita sint, fideles gentilium matrimonia subeuntes stupri
reos esse constat, et arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis." Ad Uxorem,
1. ii. c. 3, quoted in chap. v. note 2, p. 194.

Second and Third Centuries. 227
passage in the second tract ad Uxorem,1 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 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 earnest
of the future marriage.2 He speaks of it as observed by the
heathens, but in terms which imply that he deemed it perfectly
innocent. In the tract de Virginibus velandis the kiss and the
joining of hands are noticed as parts of the ceremony.3
Tertullian, as we have seen, states that a Christian named
Proculus cured the Emperor Severus of a disorder by anointing
him with oil.4 It may be 'doubted whether we ought to infer
from this statement 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, however, 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 the
tract de Corona, in which Tertullian mentions a variety of customs
resting solely on the authority of tradition.5 Among them is the
practice of making the sign of the cross upon the forehead, 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 pagans appear to have
regarded this practice with suspicion, as a species of magical
superstition.6 1 See chap. v. p. 194. " 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.
2 ' ' Quum aurum nulla norat praster unico digito, quem sponsus oppignerasset
pronubo annulo." Apology, C. 6. See also de Idololatrid, c. 16. ¦
3 " Si autem ad desponsationem velantur, quia et corpore et spiritu masculo
mixtas sunt, per osculum et dexteras," etc., c. 11.
4 Ad Scapulam, c. 4, referred to in chap. i. note 2, p. 27.
5 C. 3. See the Scorpiace, c. 1, quoted in chap. ii. note 1, p. 48, where the practics
is described as a protection or remedy against the bite of poisonous animals. i
6 Ad Uxorem, 1. ii. c. 5,

228 The Ecclesiastical History of the
In 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.1 This
power, according to him, was not confined to the clergy or to
any particular order of men, but was possessed by all Christians
in common.2 Tertullian mentions also the practice of exsuffla-
tion, or of blowing away any smoke or savour which might arise
from the victims on the altar, etc., in order to escape the pollu
tion of idolatry.3
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 the custom of publicly
announcing the third, sixth, and ninth hours.4

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,5 has
observed " that Justin Martyr and Tertullian embarked in a
controversy 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 Hebrews, and wrote with more levity and inaccuracy than
1 Chap. ii. p. 51.
2 Apology, cc. 23, 37, 43 ; de Animd, c. 57 ; de Spectaculis, u. 26 ; de Idolola
trid, c. 11 ; de Corond, c. 11 ; de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10.
3 De Idololatrid, c. 11. "Quo ore Christanus thurarius, si per templa transibit,
spumantes aras despuet, et exsufflabit, quibus ipse prospexit?" Ad Uxorem,
1. ii. c. 5. " Quum aliquid immundum flantis explodis. "
4 De Jejuniis, c. 10. 5 Century ii, part ii. c. 3, sect. 7.

Second and Third Centuries. 229
such a subject would justify." That Tertullian was unacquainted
with the language of the Hebrews may be allowed;1 but
thoroughly conversant as he was with the Septuagint version of
the Old Testament, his knowledge of their history could be little
inferior to that of the Hebrews themselves. Whether, however,
he was well or ill qualified to manage the controversy with them,
it must be at once interesting and instructive to inquire in what
manner the controversy was actually conducted by the early
Christians. Our author begins his tract adversus Judaos with disputing the
claim set up by the Jews to be considered exclusively as the
people of God.2 In support of this claim, they alleged, in the
first place, that they were the descendants of the younger brother
Jacob, of whom it was predicted that he should rule over the
elder Esau ; in the second, that the law was given to them by
Moses. Tertullian contends, on the contrary, that the Christians,
inasmuch as they were posterior in time to the Jews, were in fact
the descendants of the younger brother ; and with respect to the
law, he observes that mankind never were without a law. God
gave Adam a law, in which were contained all the precepts of the
decalogue.3 Moreover, the written law of Moses was nothing
more than a repetition of the natural unwritten law, by obeying
which the patriarchs gained the favour of God, although they
neither kept the Jewish Sabbath nor practised the Jewish rite of
circumcision. Hence, proceeds Tertullian, it is evident that circumcision
does not confer, as the Jews pretend, an exclusive title to the
favour of God.4 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 judg
ments predicted by the prophets are fallen upon them.5 We
may also collect with certainty, from the prophetic writings, that
carnal circumcision was not intended to be of perpetual observ-
1 We have observed that Tertullian sometimes speaks as if he was acquainted
with Hebrew. Chap. i. note 6, p. 33.
2 Cc. 1, 2. See Gen. xxv. 23.
3 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
chap. v. p. 163.
4C. 3.
5 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.

2 30 The Ecclesiastical History of the
ance. Jeremiah speaks of a spiritual circumcision, as well as of
a new covenant which God was to give to His people.1
In like manner the observance of the Sabbath was not designed
to be perpetual.2 The Jews indeed say that God sanctified the
seventh day from the creation of the world, because on that day
He rested from His work. But the sanctification spoken of applies
to an eternal, not a temporal Sabbath. For what evidence can
be produced that either Adam, or Abel, or Enoch, or Noah, or
Abraham, kept the Sabbath ? It is evident, therefore, that the
circumcision, the Sabbath, and the sacrifices appointed under the
Mosaic dispensation were intended to subsist only until a new
lawgiver should arise, who was to introduce a spiritual circum
cision, a spiritual Sabbath, and spiritual sacrifices.3
Having thus shown 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.4 " Now it is certain that Jesus, whom we
affirm to be the promised Lawgiver, has promulgated a new law,
and that the predictions respecting the Messiah have been
accomplished in Him. Compare, for instance, the prophecies of
the Old Testament, which describe the wide extent of the
Messiah's kingdom, with the actual diffusion of Christianity at
the present moment.5 Nations, which the Roman 'arms have
never yet subdued, have submitted themselves to the dominion
of Jesus and received the gospel."
" But," proceeds our author, "there is in the prophet Daniel
an express prediction of the time when the Messiah was to
appear."6 The numerical errors which have crept into Ter
tullian'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 calcu
lation are, that the commencement of the seventy weeks is to be
dated from the first year of Darius, in which Daniel states that
1 C. iv. ver. 3. » C. 4. 3 C. 3. 4 C. 7.
5 The prophecy particularly selected by Tertullian is from Isaiah xlv. 1. But
between his version of the passage and that given in our English Bibles there are
important differences. In our translation it seems to apply exclusively to Cyrus.
6 C. 8.

Second and Third Centuries. 231
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 completed in the first year of Vespasian, when
the Jews were reduced beneath the Roman yoke. I need scarcely
observe that none of the above principles are admitted by the
learned men of modern times, who have endeavoured to elucidate
the prophecy of the seventy weeks.
Tertullian goes on to show that the prophecies of the Old
Testament, which foretold the birth of the Messiah, were accom
plished in Jesus.1 Thus it was predicted by Isaiah that He
should be born of a virgin ; that His name should be called
Emmanuel; and that, before He was able to pronounce the
names of His father and mother, He should take of the riches
of Damascus and of the spoils of Samaria from the King of
Assyria.2 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 conqueror ; whereas the words of the
prophet were accomplished when the Magi brought to the infant
Jesus their offerings of gold, and frankincense, and myrrh — the
peculiar produce of Arabia and the East. Tertullian admits
that, in the Psalms and 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, there-
1 C.9.
2 Tertullian here connects, as Justin Martyr had done before him, Isaiah vii. 14
with viii. 4, and gives a similar explanation of the passage. See the Dialogue
¦with Trypho, part ii. p. 303 A, p. 310 C.

232 The Ecclesiastical History of the
fore, to give any consistent meaning to the prophet's words, we
must suppose him to have alluded to the pregnancy of a virgin.
One of the objections urged by the Jews was, that in no part
of the Old Testament was it predicted that the future deliverer
should bear the name of Jesus. To this Tertullian replies, that
Joshua was the type of Christ ; and that when Moses changed
his name from Oshea to Joshua or Jesus, because he was destined
to conduct the Israelites into the earthly Canaan, it was mani
festly implied that the Messiah, who was to introduce mankind
into the heavenly Canaan, would also be called Jesus. Our
author then shows 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
distinguished, were actually found in Jesus.
But 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.1 It had been expressly declared, in the Mosaic
law, that "he who was hanged on a tree was accursed of God."2
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 Tertullian
replies, that the persons, of whom Moses declared that they
were accursed, were malefactors — men who had committed sins
worthy of death. How then could the declaration be applicable
to Jesus, in whose mouth was no guile, and whose life was one
uninterrupted course of justice and benevolence ? With respect
to the latter part of the objection, Tertullian admits that the
particular mode of the Messiah's death is nowhere expressly
predicted in the Old Testament, but contends that it is in many
places obscurely prefigured — for instance, in the twenty-second
Psalm. He then goes on to produce various passages of Scrip
ture, in which he finds allusions to the form of the cross —
allusions wh'ich 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
1 C. 10. -' Deut. xxi. 22.

Second and Third Centuries. 233
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 crucifixion was
predicted by the prophet Amos.1 " 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
destruction of Jerusalem."2 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 rejec
tion of Him has been followed by a series of the most grievous
calamities that ever befel a nation — your holy temple has been
consumed with fire, and you are forbidden to set foot upon the
territory of your ancestors. 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 1 and are not these predictions accomplished in
the diffusion of the gospel of Jesus through every part of the
known world ? " 3
" We, therefore, do not err when we affirm that the Messiah is
already come.4 The error is yours, who still look for His coming.
The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah, according
to the prophet.5 But at the present moment no one of the stock
of Israel remains at Bethlehem : either, therefore, the prophecy
is already fulfilled, or its fulfilment is impossible." Tertullian
concludes with pointing out the source of the error of the Jews,
who did not perceive that two advents of Christ were announced
in Scripture — the first in humiliation, the second in glory.6
Fixing their thoughts exclusively on the latter, they refused to
acknowledge a meek and suffering Saviour.
Such were the arguments by which Tertullian endeavoured to
show, in opposition to the objections of the Jews, that Jesus of
Nazareth was the promised 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
1 C. viii. 9. 2 C. 11. 8 C. 12 ; Ps. ii. 7 ; Isa. xlii. 6.
4 C. 13. B Micah v. 1. 6 C. 14.

234 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Jews, in order to evade the force of the prophecies which, as
the Christians maintained, had been fulfilled in Jesus. If we
return to Bishop Pearson, we shall find that the course which he
pursues in establishing the truth of the second Article of the
Creed, differs not very materially from that of our author.1 We
notice this resemblance for the purpose of removing, at least in
part, the unfavourable impression which Mosheim's strictures are
calculated to create against this portion of Tertullian's labours.
In judging also of the treatise adversus Judaos, we should bear
in mind that it has come down to us in a corrupt state, some
passages bearing evident marks of interpolation.2 We will con
clude our remarks upon it with observing that Tertullian, when
he charges the Jews with confounding the two advents of Christ,
makes no allusion to the notion of two Messiahs — one suffering,
the other triumphant ; whence we are warranted in concluding
either that he was ignorant of this device, or that it had not
been resorted to in his day.
To return to Mosheim. In his 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.3 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 aban
doned the Jewish ceremonies — so that in the time of Tertullian
.he number of Judaizing Christians had become extremely small.4
We are now speaking of those whom Mosheim calls Nazarenes
— who, though they retained the Mosaic rites, believed all the
fundamental articles of the Christian faith.5 The Ebionites, on
the contrary, who also maintained the necessity of observing the
ceremonial law, rejected many essential doctrines of Christianity.6
They are more than once mentioned by Tertullian, who always
speaks of them as having received their appellation from their
1 See p. 76, where he shows that Joshua was a type of Christ. See also
article iii. "born of the Virgin Mary," and article iv. "was crucified."
2 See c. 5 and c. 14, sub fine. 3 Century ii. part ii. chap. v.
4 See Wilson's Illustration of the Method of Explaining the New Testament, etc. ,
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.
5 The Jews, in Tertullian's time, appear to have called Christians in general by
the name of Nazarenes. Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 8, sub initio. Apud Hebraos
Christianos, 1. iii. c. 12.
6 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33.

Second and Third Centuries. 235
founder Ebion. He did not write any express treatise against
them; but we learn from incidental notices in his works that
they denied the miraculous conception,1 and affirmed that Jesus
was not the Son of God, but a mere man born according to
the ordinary course of nature.2
The next heresies of which Mosheim speaks are those which
he imagines to have arisen from the attempt to explain the doc
trines of Christianity in a manner conformable to the dictates of the
Oriental philosophy concerning the origin of evil. In every age,
both before and since the promulgation of the gospel, this ques
tion has been found to baffle the powers of the human under
standing, 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 combats to the curiosity of vain and presumptuous men
venturing to explore the hidden things of God.3 But though he
so far connects philosophy with heresy as to style the philosophers
the ancestors of the heretics,4 yet neither he nor any other of the
early Fathers appears to have thought that the heretics derived
their notions from the Oriental philosophy.5 On the contrary,
Tertullian repeatedly charges them with borrowing from Pytha
goras and Plato and other Greek philosophers.6 In like manner
Irenasus affirms that Valentinus was indebted for his succession
of ^ons to the Theogonies of the Greek poets.7 It will be said,
perhaps, that the authority of the early Fathers can be of little
weight in the determination of this question, on account of their
ignorance of the Eastern languages ; and that it matters little
whether the heretics derived their opinions directly from the East,
or indirectly through the medium of Pythagoras and Plato, the
germ of whose philosophy is known to have been formed during
1 " Quam utique virginem constat fuisse, licet Ebion resistat." De Virginibus
velandis, c. 6.
2 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33 ; de Carne Christi, cc. 14, 18, 24.
3 " Unde malum, et quare ? et unde homo, et quomodo ? et quod proxime Val
entinus proposuit, unde Deus?" De Prascriptione Haereticorum, c. 7.
4 " Haereticorum Patriarchas Philosophi." Adv. Hermogenem, c. 8 ; de Animd,
cc. 3, 23. " Ipsi illi sapientias professores, de quorum ingeniis omnis hasresis ani-
matur." Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 13. See also 1. v. c. 19.
5 Mosheim refers to Clemens Alexandrinus, 1. 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.
6 ' ' Ubi tunc Marcion, Ponticus, Nauclerus, Stoicas studiosus ? ubi Valentinus,
Platonicae Sectator?" De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 30.
' L. ii. c. 19.

236 The Ecclesiastical History of the
their residence in Egypt. The present is not a fit opportunity
for inquiring into the reality of this alleged connexion between
the Oriental and Platonic philosophies. Our object in the above
observations is merely to show 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 Satur-
ninus, whom he also mentions as a leader of the Asiatic branch,
the name occurs but once in our author's writings.1 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 follow
ing 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 helplessness and inability to stand upright,
until the Supreme Being mercifully animated him with the spark
of life, and raised him from the earth — and that at his death this
spark will bring him back to the original source of his existence.
Of Cerdo, whom Mosheim also numbers among the leaders of
the Asiatic sect, Tertullian only states that Marcion borrowed
many notions from him.2 But against Marcion himself our
author expressly composed five books, in which he has entered
into an elaborate examination and confutation of that heretic's
errors. From various notices scattered over Tertullian's writings we
may collect that Marcion was a native of Pontus 3 — that he
flourished during the reign of Antoninus Pius and the pontifi
cate 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 unsettled the faith of
1 De Animd, c. 23.
2 Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. cc. 2, 22, sub fine ; 1. iii. c. 21 ; 1. iv. c. 17.
3 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 30 ; adv. Marcionem, 1. i, cc. 1. 19, Ter
tullian frequently calls Marcion Ponticus Nauclerus, because his countrymen, the
natives of Pontus, were chiefly occupied in nautical pursuits, 1. i. c. 18, sub fine ;
iii, c. 6.

Second and Third Centuries. 237
the weaker brethren, and was in consequence more than once
ejected from the congregation — 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.1
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 letter of Marcion, the genuineness of which
appears to have been questioned by his followers.2 Marcion,
like many other heretics, was betrayed into his errors and extra
vagances 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.3 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 refutation of
Marcion's doctrines. The first was a hurried composition, the
defects of which he intended to supply by a second or more
perfect treatise.4 Of the latter a copy was obtained by a person
who, having afterwards embraced the opinions of Marcion, pub
lished it in a very inaccurate form. Our author was in conse
quence obliged in self-defence to compose the five books, of
which we shall now proceed to give an account.
After an exordium5 — in which he abuses not only Marcion
but also the Pontus Euxinus, because that heretic happened to
be born upon its shores — -Tertullian proceeds to say that Marcion
1 Adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 19 ; 1. 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.
2 ' ' Sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola : et tui non negant, et nostri pro-
bant." De Carne Chrisi, c. 2. But in the fourth book against Marcion, c. 4, we
find the following sentence : — " Quid nunc si negaverint Marcionites primam
apud nos fidem ejus, adversus epistolam quoque ipsius? quid si nee epistolam
agnoverint?" 3 " Languens enim (quod et nunc multi, et maxime hasretici) circa mali quaes-
tionem, Unde malum ? " Adv. Marcionem, 1, i. c. 2.
4 " Primum opusculum, quasi properatum, pleniore postea compositione resci-
deram. Hanc quoque nondum exemplariis suffectam fraude tunc fratris, dehinc
apostatae, amisi, qui forte descripserat quasdam mendosissime, et exhibuit fre-
quentias. Emendationis necessitas facta est," etc., 1. i. c. 1.
5C. 1.

238 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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 unknown to mankind until revealed by Christ.1 In con
futation of this doctrine, Tertullian first observes that in the
definition of God are comprised the ideas of supreme power,
eternal duration, and self-existence.2 "The unity of the Deity
is a necessary consequence from this definition, since the sup
position of two supreme beings involves a contradiction in
terms. Nor can this conclusion be evaded by a reference to
worldly monarchs, who are as numerous as the kingdoms into
which the earth is divided, each being supreme in his own
dominions.3 We cannot thus argue from man to God. Two
deities, in every respect equal, are in fact only one deity : —
nor, if you introduce two, can any satisfactory reason be assigned
why you may not, with Valentinus, introduce thirty.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.5 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 a subordinate sense, in which we find it occasionally
used in Scripture."
" How absurd," proceeds Tertullian, addressing the Marcionites,
" is the notion that, during the whole interval between the crea
tion and the coming of Christ, the Supreme Being should have
remained utterly unknown ; while the inferior deity, the Demi
urge, received the undivided homage of mankind ! 5 It would
surely be more reasonable to assign the superiority to that Being
who had manifested His power in the works of creation, than to
him who had not even afforded any evidence of his existence.6
But, in order to evade the force of this argument, you affect to
despise the world in which you live ; 7 and notwithstanding the
innumerable instances of skill and contrivance which it exhibits
1 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 Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 7.
2 C. 3. " Quantum humana conditio de Deo definire potest, id definio quod et
omnium conscientia agnoscet, Deum summum esse magnum, in asternitate
constitutum, innatum, infectum, sine initio, sine fine."
3 C. 4. Tertullian ought rather to have contended that the illustration strength
ened 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.
4 C. 5. 5 Cc. 6, 7. 6 Cc. 9, 10, 11, 12. 7 Cc. 13, 14.

Second and Third Centuries. 239
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
sacraments which He has instituted — of water, and oil, and milk,
and honey in baptism, and of bread in the Eucharist. Nay, you
yourselves also, with unaccountable inconsistency, have recourse
to them for sustenance and enjoyment. How, moreover, do
you account for the fact that, notwithstanding two hundred
years have elapsed since the birth of Christ, 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 ? " 1 Tertullian here states incidentally that, according to
Marcion, the world was created by the Demiurge out of pre-
existent matter.2
In answer to our author's last question, the Marcionites appear
to have affirmed that, as the Supreme Being was invisible, so
also were His works ; and that the deliverance of man from the
dominion of the Demiurge was an incontestable manifestation of
His power.3 "Why, then," rejoins Tertullian, "was the deliver
ance so long delayed?4 Why was man left, during the whole
interval between the creation and Christ's advent, under the
power of a malignant deity ? And in what manner was the
Supreme Deity at last revealed?5 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 will there
fore answer that He was made known by express revelation ;
'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Christ Jesus,
a Spirit of health (Spiritus salutaris), condescended to come
down from heaven.'6 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 till the reign of Antoninus
Pius,7 when Marcion first began to teach that the God revealed
1 C. 13.
2 "Sed ex materia et ille fuisse debebit, eadem ratione occurrente illi quoque
Deo, quae opponeretur Creatori, ut aeque Deo." Compare 1. v. c. 19.
3 C. 16. 4 C. 17. 6 C. 18. 6 c. 19. ...
7 Tertullian places an interval of 113 years and 6£ months between Tiberius and
Antoninus Pius.

240 The Ecclesiastical History of the
by Christ was a different God from the Creator ; and that the
Law and the Gospel were at variance with each other ? "
Marcion appears to have appealed, in confirmation of his
opinions, to the dispute between St. Paul and St. Peter, respect
ing 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.1
To this argument Tertullian answers that the inference is
incorrect, since in the Old Testament, which, according to
Marcion, was a revelation from the Demiurge, the cessation of
the ceremonial law, and the introduction of a more spiritual
system, are clearly predicted. "But," he adds, "if St. Paul
had known that Christ came for the 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 became
necessary to explain why observances, which God had Himself
enjoined under the former, were no longer to be deemed
obligatory under the latter." 2 Our author then urges the agree
ment 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.3
Tertullian 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.4 " 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 neither reasonable nor just in Marcion's
Supreme God to invade as it were the territory of the Creator,
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 in
dividual, fully and completely; since, according to Marcion, the
1 C. 20." 2 C. 21. See chap. v. p. 146.
3 See chap. v. p. 145. 4 C. 22, adfinem.

Second and Third Centuries. 241
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 good
ness 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 the Marcionites profess to believe that evil-doers
will finally be punished." 1 While, however, Tertullian asserts
that the doctrines of Marcion lead by necessary consequence to
the encouragement of vice, he does not appear to charge the
Marcionites with actual immorality.
The foregoing sketch of the first book against Marcion will
give the reader an insight into the nature of the controversy, and
the mode in which Tertullian conducted it. With respect to the
remaining four books, we shall content ourselves with merely
stating the subjects discussed in each. We have seen that the
object of the first book was to expose the absurdity of maintain
ing 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 show, in the second book, that the
appearances of evil in the world are not inconsistent with the
1 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? judi-
catur enim abjiciendus, et utique judicio damnationis ; nisi in salutem abjiciatur
' peccator, ut et hoc Deo optimo competat," c. 27. Again, in c. 28, " Exitus
autem illi abjecto quis? abigne, inquiunt, Creatoris deprehendetur."

242 The Ecclesiastical History of the
perfect goodness of its Author. He expatiates upon the folly and
presumption of which a blind, imperfect being, like man, is
guilty, in venturing to canvass the divine dispensations.1 He
appeals to the proofs of the divine goodness exhibited in the
material world, in the creation of man, and in the law which was
given to Adam ; the 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.2
To the common argument, that the fall of Adam implied a defect
either in the goodness, power, or prescience of God, Tertullian
replies that, possessing as we do, clear and decisive evidences
of the exercise of those attributes, we must not allow our faith
to be shaken by any speculative reasoning.3 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. " But
why," rejoined Marcion, "endow him with a gift which God
must have foreseen that he would abuse ? " 4 " Because," Ter
tullian answered, " his likeness to his Maker consisted partly in
the freedom of his will." Without entering into any further
detail of the arguments either of Marcion or Tertullian, we may
remark that our author is, as might be expected, far more successful
in exposing the errors and inconsistencies of his opponent, than
in solving the difficulties in which the question itself is involved.5
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 inquiry, which must ever baffle the powers of human reason.
Having once established that the fall of Adam was the conse
quence 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
continues to exist, is in no way derogatory from the goodness of
God. Marcion appears to have contended that the denuncia
tion and infliction of punishment were inconsistent with perfect
goodness. Tertullian, on the contrary, argues that justice is
1 C. 2. 2 Cc. 3, 4.
3 C. 5. See the observations on the tenth Article of our Church, in chap. v.
p. 164. Compare also 1. iv. c. 41.
4 Cc. 6, 7, 8.
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. note 4, p. 93.

Second and Third Centuries. 243
inseparable from goodness, and that the punishment of vice is
nothing but an exercise of justice.1 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.2 Nor must we,
when we read in Scripture of the anger, or indignation, or
jealousy of God, suppose that those passions exist in Him as
they do in man ; unless we are also prepared to assert that He
has human hands, and eyes, and feet, because those members
are ascribed to Him in the sacred writings. " Even the precepts
and institutions," Tertullian continues, " which Marcion pro
duces 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.3 Thus the Lex Talionis
was a law adapted to the character of the Jewish people, and
instituted for the purpose of repressing violence and injustice.4
The prohibition of certain kinds of food was designed to in
culcate self-restraint, and 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.5 This Marcion termed a fraudulent command, and
denounced it as inconsistent with every idea of goodness. The
mode in which Tertullian accounts for it is, that the Egyptians
were greatly indebted to the Israelites, and that the gold and
silver which the latter obtained, constituted a very inadequate
compensation for the toil and labour of the many years during
1 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 excel
lences which constitute a perfect moral character ; whereas Marcion rather used
the word to express kindness or benevolence, as opposed to severity, malice, etc.
See c. 12.
2 C. 19. Compare de Pudicitid, u. -^.
3 Cc. 17, 18, 19. ¦* Compare 1. iv. c. 16.
5 C. 20. Comparel.iv. c. 24. Philo Judaus de Mose, tom.ii. p. 103, ed. Mangey.

244 The Ecclesiastical History of the
which they had been detained in servitude. The Marcionites
also objected to certain contradictions which they pretended to
discover in Scripture : 1 for example, between the general com
mand not to perform any manner of work on the Sabbath, and
the particular command to bear the ark round the walls of
Jericho for seven successive days, one of which must neces
sarily have been a Sabbath — between the general command not
to make any graven image, and the particular command to make
the brazen serpent, etc.2 In like manner, they objected to
those passages in which God is said to repent — for instance, of
having made Saul king — on the ground that repentance neces
sarily implies previous error, either of judgment or conduct.3
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 dis
pensations 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 conceptions, and
the imperfection of human language, furnish us with no better
modes of expressing ourselves. Our author notices various other
inconsistencies which the Marcionites professed to find in the
Scripture ; 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 word was the Supreme God, applied
with equal force to their own imaginary deity.4
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 show that the
former were exactly accomplished in the latter. The neces
sary 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
1C.2i. Tertullian's words are, " Jubentis arcam circumferri per dies octo."
Compare 1. iv. c. 12, where Rigault, however, reads septem diebus; and we find
the same reading in the tract adv. Judaos, c. 4.
2Cc. 22, 23. 3 C. 24. 4 C. 23, ad finem.

Second and Third Centuries. 245
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 investigation of particular prophecies, he makes some
general observations which are not unworthy of notice. He
"contends, for instance, that unless the coming of Christ had
been predicted, the evidence of His divine mission would have
been incomplete.1 The 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. 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.2
His next remark is, that the Marcionites, although in one
respect they made common cause with the Jews — namely, by
denying that the prophecies of the Old Testament were accom
plished in Jesus of Nazareth — were on all other points directly
opposed to them.3 For the Jews alleged the supposed disagree
ment between the prophecies respecting the Messiah and the
history of Jesus as a reason for rejecting 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. Tertullian then proceeds, almost in
the sanie words which he has used in his treatise against the
Jews, to show 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.4
He dwells 6 at some length on the absurd consequences which
1 L. iii. cc. 2, 3. Lardner (torn. iv. ed. 4to, p. 604), in speaking of this part
of Tertullian's work, accuses him of rashness in weakening a very strong, if not
the strongest, argument for the truth of the Christian religion ; but Lardner's
representation scarcely does justice to our author's reasoning on the subject. See
chap. ii. note 1, p. 67.
2 C. 5. 3 C. 6. 4 C. 7. ° Cc. 8, 9, 10.

246 The Ecclesiastical History of the
necessarily flow from the notion of the Marcionites, that the
body of Christ was a mere phantasm, and says that the title of
Antichrist 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. We learn incidentally
that the Marcionites denied the reality of Christ's flesh, because
they felt that if they admitted it, they should also be compelled
to admit the reality of His birth, and consequently His connexion
with the Demiurge, the author of the human body or flesh.1
The remainder of the third book consists principally of references
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 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.2
Marcion 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 Testa
ments, intending his readers to infer, from the apparent disagree
ment between them, that the law and the gospel did not proceed
from the same author.3 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 difference had been clearly pointed out by the prophets, and
was therefore an argument that the Creator, who inspired the
prophets and gave the law, gave the gospel also. As the genuine
Gospels did not suit Marcion's purpose, he compiled a gospel for
himself, out of that of St. Luke;4 which he appears to have
1 C. 11. Compare 1. iv. c. 19. De Carne Christi, cc. i, *, 3, 3.
2 Chap. i. p. 43.
3 L. iv. c. 1. This work seems to have been placed by Marcion in the hands of
his followers, for the purpose of instructing them in the principles of his system.
Compare 1. i. c. 19 ; 1. ii. cc. 28, 29 ; 1. iv. cc. 4, 6.
4 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, 1. v. c. 6. See de Carne Christi, c. 7. In
speaking of Marcion's gospel, Tertullian calls it Evangelium vestrum, 1. iii. cap.
ult. ; Evangelium ejus, 1. iv. w. j.. See also 1. iv. c. 3 ; 1. v. c. 16, sub fine.

Second and Third Centuries. 247
selected because that evangelist was supposed 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 circum
stance was that, in order to discover the genuine doctrines of
Christianity, recourse must be had to St. Paul, in preference to
the other apostles. This conclusion our author overthrows by
observing that St. Paul appears, from the Epistle to the Galatians,
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 the apostles,"
continues Tertullian, " were equally commissioned by Christ to
preach the gospel ; all, therefore, preached the genuine doctrine.
Instead of setting the authority 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."1 With respect to the Gospel of St. Luke, Marcion
contended that it had been adulterated by those Judaizing Chris
tians who were anxious to establish a connexion between the
law and the gospel, and that he had restored it to its original
integrity.2 Tertullian here enters into that discussion, respecting
the mode of ascertaining the genuineness of the sacred Scrip
tures, to which we referred in our observations on the sixth
Article of our Church.3
He next proceeds to state the point actually in controversy,
between the orthodox and the Marcionites, respecting Christ.4
According to the latter, the Christ predicted in the Old Testa
ment had not yet appeared, but was to come at some future
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 Testament, 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 character or in the
transactions of their lives, between the Christ of the Old and the
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. 1 C. 3. 2 Cc. 4, 5. 3 See chap. v. p. 34.
4 Compare 1. iii. c. 21. " Nam etsi putes Creatoris quidem terrenas promis-
siones fuisse, Christi vero ccelestes," 1. iv. c. 14, c. 35, sub fine ; 1 iii. c. 24, sub
initio, quoted in chap. v. note 4, p. 130 ; whence it appears that, according to
Marcion, the Jews were after death to pass to a state of enjoyment in the bosom of
Abraham, 1. iv. c. 34, quoted in chap. v. note 7, p. 131.

248 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Christ of the New Testament. How then happens it that the
latter has carried on the dispensations of the God of the Old
Testament — has fulfilled His prophecies — has realized 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 quota
tions 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 contradic
tions which Marcion pretended to discover between the Old and
New Testaments, and of the mode in which Tertullian accounted
for them.
Marcion contended, for instance, that the Lex Talionis,
established by Moses, was directly at variance with our Saviour's
precept, that we should offer our left cheek to him who smites us
on the right.1 Tertullian replies that, although the Lex Talionis
was suited to the temper and moral condition 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 prohibition 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 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.2 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 in
sinuating that, if he were to interfere, He should probably meet
with the same ungrateful treatment which Moses experienced
from his countryman.
A third instance of contradiction urged by Marcion was that,
whereas Moses permitted divorce, Christ prohibited it in every
case, excepting that of adultery.3 Tertullian answers that Christ
had Himself furnished a solution of this apparent contradiction
1 C. 16. See p. 243. 2 C. 28. 3 C. 34.

Second and Third Centuries. 249
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, naturally
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 shown 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 contro
versy the fact that their inspiration and His mission originated
with the same God — the Creator of the world.
We have observed that Marcion compiled his gospel princi
pally from that of St. Luke, because that evangelist had been the
companion of St. Paul.1 The reason of the preference thus given
to the Apostle of the Gentiles was his constant and strenuous
opposition to the Judaizing Christians, who wished to re-impose
the yoke of the Jewish ceremonies on the necks of their brethren.
This opposition the Marcionites wiihed to construe into a direct
denial of the authority of the Mosaic law. They contended also
from St. Paul's assertion — that he received his appointment to
the apostolic office, not from man, but from Christ — that he
alone delivered the genuine doctrines of the gospel. The object,
therefore, of Tertullian in the fifth book is to prove, with respect
to St. Paul's Epistles, what he had proved in the fourth with
respect to St. Luke's Gospel, that, far from being at variance,
they were in perfect unison with the writings of the Old Testa
ment He begins with the Epistle to the Galatians, which was
written for the express purpose of confuting the error of those
who thought the observance of the Mosaic ritual necessary to
salvation.2 Here he urges an argument to which we have more
than once alluded, that the labour bestowed by the apostle was
wholly superfluous, in case, as the Marcionites supposed, he had
been commissioned to teach that Christ was not sent by the God
who gave the Mosaic law.3 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 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
1 P. 247. - C. *. 3 Chap. v. pp. 146, 240.

250 The Ecclesiastical History of the
manner the two Epistles to the Corinthians,1 that to the Romans,2
which he states to have been grievously mutilated by the Mar
cionites, the two to the Thessalonians,3 and those to the Ephe-
sians,4 Colossians,5 and Philippians.6 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 proportioned to the time which it would necessarily
occupy. When we examine the opinions of Marcion, whether upon
points of faith or practice, we find that they all flowed by natural
consequence from the leading article of his creed — that the world
was created by a deity 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 assertion that Christ was neither born of the Virgin
Mary,7 nor passed through the customary stages of infancy and
boyhood, but descended at once from heaven a full-grown man,8
in appearance only, not in reality 9 — hence the opprobrious terms
in which they spoke of the body,10 and their denial of its resur
rection n — hence their aversion to marriage,12 which they carried
to such a length that they refused to administer the rite of baptism
to a married man, or to admit him to the sacrament of the
Eucharist, until he had repudiated his wife.13 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 Mosheim ascribes to Marcion.14 Lardner thinks that
the distinction which Marcion made between his two deities
was, that the one was good, the other just ;15 but in the second
chapter of the first book Tertullian expressly says that Marcion
conceived the Creator of the world to be the author of evil, and
that he was led into that error by misinterpreting certain passages
1 Cc. 5-13. 2 Cc. 13, 14. 3 Cc. 13, 16. 4 C. 17.
5 C. 19. 6 C. 20. 7 L. iv. c. 10, sub fine.
8 L. iv. c. 7, sub in., c. 21. De Carne Christi, cc. 1, 7.
9 L. i. cc. 11, 22, sub in,., 24 ; 1. ii. c. 28 ; 1. iii. cc. 8, 9, 10 ; 1. iv. cc. 8, 42.
De Res. Carnis, c. 2 ; de Carne Christi, cc. 4, 6 ; de Animd, c. 17 ; de Prascrip
tione Hareticorum, c. 33.
10 L. iii. c. 11. De Came Christi, c. 4.
11 L. i. c. 24 ; 1. iv. c. 37 : 1. v. c. 10.
12 L. i. cc. 1, 24, 29 ; 1. iv. c. 11 ; 1. v. c. 7. Ad Uxorem, L 1, c. 3.
13 L. iv. c. 34. 14 Cent. ii. par. ii. chap. v. sect. 7.
15 History of Heretics, chap. x. sect. 12.

Second and Third Centuries. 2 5 1
of Scripture. The other charges brought against him by our
author are, that he denied the freedom of the will;1 and that he
rejected some, and mutilated and corrupted other portions of
Scripture.2 His followers were charged with being addicted to
astrology.3 Like other heretical leaders, he appears to have been
attended by females, who pretended to great sanctity — a practice
probably adopted in imitation of the apostles.4
Mosheim speaks of Lucan, Severus, Blastus, and Apelles, as
followers of Marcion, who deviated in some respects from the
tenets of their master. Lucan is once mentioned by Tertullian
as holding the opinion that neither the soul nor the body would
rise again, but a sort of third substance — an opinion which our
author supposes him to have borrowed from Aristotle.5 The
name of Apelles occurs frequently in Tertullian's writings.6
He is described as a disciple of Marcion, who endeavoured to
improve upon his master's doctrine ; and the account given of
him is that, being unable to comply with Marcion's strict notions
on the subject of continence, he left that heretic and went to
Alexandria, where he met with a female named Philumena,
who performed various magical illusions by the assistance of an
evil spirit.7 To this woman he attached himself, and under
her instruction composed a work called </>av<rpwo-eis, or Revela
tions. Like his master, he denied the resurrection of the body,8
and at first prohibited marriage.9 He affirmed that the souls
of men were tempted to come down from the super-celestial
regions — the regions above the heavens which invest this earth —
by the allurements offered to them by the fiery angel,10 the God
1 De Animd, c. 21.
3 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 38 ; adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 1. Marcion
necessarily rejected the whole of the Old Testament, as proceeding from the
Demiurge. De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 30. Tertullian mentions also his
rejection of St. Matthew's Gospel, 1. iv. c. 34 ; of St. John's Gospel, de Carne
Christi, c. 3 ; of the Acts of the Apostles, 1. v. c. 2 ; de Prascriptione Hareti
corum, c. 22 ; of the Apocalypse, 1. v. c. 5 ; of the two Epistles to Timothy and
of that to Titus, L v. cap. ult. ; but he appears to have recognised the Epistle to
Philemon. 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. 33, etc.
3 L. i. c. 18. 4 L. v. c. 8, sub fine. 5 Dc Res. Carnis, c. 2, sub fine.
8 " Hoc meminisse debuerat Apelles, Marcionis de discipulo emendator. " Adv.
Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 17; de Carne Christi, c. 6, sub in.
7 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, 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.
8 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33. ° Ibid.
10 De Animd, c. 23 ; de Cai-ne Christi, c. 8 ; de Res. Carnis, c. 5.

252 The Ecclesiastical History of the
both of the Israelites and of the Gentiles,1 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.2 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.3 His notion
appears to have been that the flesh of Christ was not given by
the fiery angel or god of evil, who clothed the souls which he
seduced into these lower regions with sinful flesh,4 but was a
substance brought down originally from the stars by a certain
eminent angel, who formed the world, though he afterwards
mixed up repentance with his work.5 Christ's flesh, therefore,
was real, but different from human flesh. In the third book
against Marcion, our author alludes to certain heretics who
maintained that the flesh which the angels assumed who are
stated in Scripture to have appeared in human shapes, was not
human flesh.6 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
latter we have already spoken.7
1 Tertullian's expression is, "Ab igneo Angelo, Deo Israelis et nostro." By
the word nostro, I suppose Tertullian to mean that the fiery angel was not merely
the God of the Jews, as some of the heretics supposed with respect to their
inferior deity, but also of the Gentiles. But in the tract de Prascriptione Hare
ticorum, c. 34, Tertullian speaks as if the fiery angel was the God of Israel only :
"Apelles Creatorem, Angelum nescio quem 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.
2 De Animd, c. 36.
3 ' ' Aut admissa carne nativitatem negate, ut Apelles discipulus et postea
desertor ipsius." De Carne Christi, c. 1.
4 " Nam et Philumena ilia magis persuasit Apelli casterisque desertoribus
Marcionis, ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse carnem, nullius tamen nativi-
tatis, utpote de elementis eam mutuatum." Adv. Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 11. See
de Res. Carnis, c. 2 ; de Carne Christi, c. 8.
5 Tertullian's words are, "Angelum quendam inclytum nominant, qui mundum
hunc instituerit, et instituto eo pcenitentiam admiscuerit" 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. 6 C. 9. Pamelius refers to the tract de Carne Christi, c. 6.
7 Chap. iv. p. 129.

Second and Third Centuries. 253
From the Oriental, Mosheim proceeds to what he terms the
Egyptian branch of the Gnostics. In this branch he assigns the
first place to Basilides, who is mentioned once, and only once,
by our author, in the tract de Resurrectione Carnis. He is there
stated to have agreed with Marcion in denying the reality of
Christ's flesh. Mosheim, however, contends that this opinion
is unjustly ascribed to him,1 though probably held by some of
his followers.
We come next to Carpocrates, who is twice mentioned by
Tertullian, in the treatise de Animd. In one 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.2
He conceived, therefore, both himself and them to be entirely
on a level with Christ and the apostles. In the other place,
he is accused of holding the doctrine of the metempsychosis ; 3
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 shalt not depart thence, until thou hast paid the
uttermost farthing. Tertullian remarks incidentally that Carpo
crates believed nothing to be evil in itself; good and evil
depending entirely on opinion.
Tertullian wrote a treatise expressly against the Valentinians.
He speaks of them as a very numerous sect,4 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 says that their founder, Valentinus, was a man
of ability and eloquence, and flourished in the reign of Anto
ninus Pius.5 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 this system, Tertullian's treatise is a concise account ; 6 taken,
as he admits, from the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenaeus,
1 C. 2. Lardner also thinks that there is reason for doubting whether Basilides
denied the reality of Christ's flesh. History of Heretics, chap. ii. sect. 6.
2 C. 23.
3 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.
4 Adv. Valentinianos , c. 1.
5 C. 4. Compare de Prascriptione Hareticorum, cc. 29, 30. 8 Cc, 5, 6,

254 The Ecclesiastical History of the
and Proculus, whom he calls contemporaries of the heresiarchs.
It is in fact little more than a translation of the first book of the
work of Irenaeus 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 to place before the reader
all the information supplied by our author's writings respecting
the history of the Church in his day.
Valentinus, then, supposed a God, self-existent, infinite, in
visible, eternal, who dwelt in the very highest regions, living in
a state of imperturbable tranquillity, like the gods of Epicurus.1
To this God he gave the names of ali>v rcAeios, Trpoap^r/,
dpxrj, and with somewhat of inconsistency, /3v0o's. This
Deity, however, was not alone, but had with him, or rather
within him, another Being • to whom the names of Ivvoia,
Xopt-% o-iyri were assigned. From the latter, who appears to
have been considered as a female, and to have been impreg
nated by the Sovereign Deity, sprang vovs,2 who was in every
respect like and equal to his Father, and alone capable of
comprehending his Father's greatness. He was regarded as
the beginning or origin of all things, and even distinguished
by the appellation of Father. He was also called p,ovoyevr]^,
or only-begotten ; notwithstanding that at the same time with
him was born a female y£on, called aXfj6e.ia, or truth.3 The
above four /Jv#os, o-iyr), vo2s, and ak-qOua, constituted the first
Tetras or Quaternion, from which the remaining ^Eons were
derived. For from vovs sprang Aoyos and £w^, the word and
life ; and from them again avdpunro^ and t/cKA-r/o-ia, man and
the Church. The last four, added to the first-mentioned four,
constituted the oySods. Again, from Aoyos and £o>r] were de
rived ten : — /3v#os (a second of the name, unless we ought
rather to read PvOto'i) and /tu'£is, dy-i^pa-ros and Ivwcris, avrocfivrj's
and r/Sovrj, aKtv^Tos and o-vyKpacris, povoyevrjs (a second of the
name) and paKapCa? From avOpwiros and eKKXycria. were derived
twelve : — irapa.KkrjTos and 7tio"tis, 7ra.TpiKos and iX-irls, p-TOTpiKO1!
and ayairq, alvos 5 and o"uv€0"is, eK/cA^o-iaon/cos and p,a.K.api6T7]<s,
1 C. 7. See adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 5.
2 In the tract de Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33, Tertullian translates the
word r«vs by the Latin sensus.
3 Tertullian says that he should rather have been called xpairiyiv-K, or first-
begotten. Compare de Animd, c. 12.
4 C. 8. Compare Irenaeus, 1. i. c. i. In the Scorpiace, c. 10, we find the name
Itfixirxotyros among the ^Eons of Valentinus. 5 Irenaeus has is/vouj.

Second and Third Centuries. 255
OcXrp-os1 and o-o<p(a. In forming these pairs of ^Eons, it was
evidently the intention of Valentinus to couple together a male
and a female JEon ; a masculine being regularly joined to a
feminine noun. Tertullian, therefore, retains the Greek nouns,
lest, in translating them into Latin, the distinction should
disappear.2 We have now reached the number of thirty yEons,
which constituted what Valentinus called the irXrjpupa, the ful
ness of the celestial body.
To vovs alone, among the derived ^Eons, was imparted the full
knowledge of the Supreme God.3 He would have communicated
it to the rest, but his mother, o-ty-r), interposed to prevent the
communication. 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 o-o<pia, the youngest of the
family of the ^Eons, 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 opos, who
was sent forth from the Father for this very purpose, at the
request of voCs. The various emotions, however, by which a-o^ia
was agitated during the continuance of her desire, gave rise to
new existences ; for to them is to be traced the origin of matter,
of ignorance, of fear, of grief. The desire itself — called iv8vprjcris,
which the translator of Irenaeus interprets concupiscentia cum
passione- — was separated by opos from its parent o-o<pia., and
driven out of the Pleroma. To opos, on account of the part
which he had acted in restoring <ro<pia. to the Pleroma, were given
the names of peraywyevs, bpo6eT-q<s, crTovpos (or rather, perhaps,
o-Taupamjs, because he had crucified the desire which preyed
upon crocj>ia), Avrpoirr/s or redeemer, and /capirto-T^s or restorer to
liberty. Having thus described the error of <rocpia, the last-born .^Eon,
and her recovery from it, Valentinus proceeded to say that vovs
sent forth another couple of .-Eons, Christ and the Holy Spirit.4
The office of Christ was to instruct the ^Eons in the nature of
the union which subsisted between the different pairs in the
Pleroma, and in the mode of arriving at the comprehension of
the Supreme Father. The office of the Holy Spirit was to render
them, after their instruction by Christ, grateful to the Father,
1 In several instances we find tfixwrfo instead of SiXy,ris, probably by the mistake
of the transcriber.
2 C. 6. 3 Cc. 9, 10. 4 C. 11.

256 The Ecclesiastical History of the
and contented with the degree of knowledge which they pos
sessed. Calm and tranquillity being thus restored to the Pleroma
by the exertions of Christ and the Holy Spirit, all the ^ons, in
honour of the Father, contributed, as it were into a common
stock, each his most excellent gift.1 Out of these contributions
was formed the brightest star and most perfect fruit of the
Pleroma, Jesus ; who was also called o-a>Tr)p, xpioros, Ao'yos, and
¦komto., because All had contributed to His formation. Angels
also were created to be His attendants ; but Tertullian says that
he could not ascertain whether they were supposed to be of the
same substance or essence with their Lord.
So much for the interior of the Pleroma. With respect to
what was without it,2 we have seen that the intense desire which
agitated crocpla — and which Valentinus called sometimes ivOvprjo-is,
sometimes Achamoth 3 — 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 opos, 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 readmitted to the regions of light, but
was prevented by opos. In consequence of her disappointment,
she was assailed by those evils which before afflicted her parent,
o-o<pLa. — 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 all the substances in this
material world.4 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 her smile, which was caused by
the recollection of having seen Christ, light. In the extremity
of her distress she at length bad recourse to prayer to Christ,
who sent to her the Saviour Jesus, with His train of attendant
angels.5 The ecstasy into which she was thrown by their appear-
1 C. 12. 2 C. 14.
3 Tertullianus, c. 14, "hoc nomen ininterpretabile vocat, et mox addit, Acha
moth unde, adhuc quaritur. Feuardentius vero recte deducit a nDStl Sapientia."
Irenasus, ed. Grabe, p. 19, note 3.
4 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 corresponds to the formation of matter within the Pleroma,
mentioned in cc. 9, 10. See c. 23.
5 C. 16.

Second and Third Centuries. 257
ance caused her to produce three different kinds of existences —
material, animal, and spiritual.1 Out of the animal she formed the
Demiurge, called also by the Valentinians p.ijTpo7raT<bp, and king.2
The name of Father, which is included in //.-nTpoiraTuip, 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.3 To the devil Valentinus gave the name of Koo-p.oKpaTu>p or
Munditenens, and appeared in some respects to place him above
the Demiurge, because the latter was only animal, the former
spiritual.4 The Demiurge created man, not out of the dust of the earth,
but out of some peculiar matter which he animated with his
breath ; so that man was both material and animal.5 The
Demiurge afterwards drew over him a covering of flesh.6 More
over, at the time when the breath of life was breathed into him
a portion of the spiritual seed which Achamoth retained was also
communicated. To this spiritual seed was given the appellation
of eK/cAr/o-ia., in allusion to the ^Eon so named within the
Pleroma. Corresponding 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.7 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. 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.8 One
of the consequences which the Valentinians derived from this
triple division was, that no credit can be due to the testimony of
1 C. 17. De Animd, c. 21.
2 C. 18. See de Prascriptione Hareticorum, cc. 7, 34. The name fi.yiTecxtx.rii.
was applied to him because he was merely the agent of his mother in creating the
visible world.
3 C. 20. 4 C. 22. 5 C. 24. s C. 25. Compare de Animd, cc. 11, 23.
7 c. 26. " Cc. 29, 30.
I

258 The Eooccjiu-zct-cuc msiory oj cne
the senses, as they are to be referred to the animal part of man's
nature.1 With 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 ^Eons in the Pleroma, descended
upon him in the shape of a dove, but quitted him when he was
examined before Pilate — and thus that only the carnal and
animal Christ was crucified.2 It does not exactly appear whence
the Christ of the Demiurge obtained His flesh, which Valentinus
supposed to be different from human flesh.3 We may here
observe that, in agreement with this supposition, the Valentinians
denied the resurrection of the body.
At the final consummation of all things, Achamoth — who
occupied the middle space in the universe, immediately below
the Pleroma and above this world — will be received into the
Pleroma, and become the bride of the Saviour.4 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 him
self thoroughly comprehended the system which he undertook
to describe. Mosheim says that some of the moderns have
endeavoured to reconcile the Valentinian doctrines with reason
— a more arduous or unpromising undertaking cannot well be
1 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.
2 c. 27. 3 De Carne Christi, cc. 1, 15 ; de Res. Carnis, c. -z,
4 Cc. 31, 32. 33-

Second and Third Centuries. 259
conceived.1 The design of the heresiarch doubtless was to
account for the origin of evil; but in' executing this design he
appears to have surrendered himself entirely to the guidance of
his fancy. His followers, using the same liberty, changed and
added to their master's notions at their own discretion ; so that,
in Tertullian's day, Axionicus of Antioch alone adhered strictly
to the doctrines of Valentinus.2 Ptolemy,3 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, Colarbasus,4 if the reading is
correct ; Heracleon ;5 Secundus ;6 Marcus,7 to whom our author
gives trie appellation of Magus ; Theotimus,8 who appears to
have employed himself in proposing allegorical or figurative
expositions of the law ; and Alexander,9 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 mentions certain psalms or hymns of Valentinus.10
He says also that Valentinus did not, like Marcion, mutilate the
Scriptures, but was content to pervert their meaning.11 In our
account of the Scorpiace, we stated the grounds on which the
Valentinians denied that Christians were under any obligation to
encounter martyrdom.12 One of them, named Prodicus, appears
to have taken the lead in asserting this doctrine.13
Of the more obscure Gnostic sects enumerated by Mosheim
— the Adamites, Cainites, Abelites, Sethites, Florinians, Ophites
— Tertullian mentions only the Cainites, who, according to him,
were Nicolaitans under another name.14 It has been already
remarked that the female, against whom the tract de Baptismo
was composed, was said to belong to this sect.15
1 Century ii. part ii. chap. v. sect. 16, note.
2 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 Prasci'iptione Hareticorum, c. 42.
' 3 Cc. 4, 33. 4 C. 4. 5 C. 4.
6 C. 4 and c. 38, where the system of Secundus is stated.
' C. 4. In the tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 3, Marcus is said to have
maintained that the human body was the workmanship of angels.
8 C. 4. " Multum circa imagines Legis Theotimus operatus est."
9 De Carne Christi, c. 16. See chap. v. note 9, p. 133.
10 De Carne Christi, cc. 17, 20. n De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 38.
12 Chap. i. p. 29 ; chap. ii. p. 75.
13 Scorpiace, cap. ult. Prodicus is mentioned again in the tract against Praxeas,
c. 3, sub fine.
14 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33. 15 Chap. i. note 2, p. 9.

260 The Ecclesiastical History of the
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
Christian 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 Theodotus 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 men
tioned. The reader will remember that the consideration of
them was deferred till we arrived at this division of our work ;
and their paramount importance must be our excuse for enter
ing 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 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 recall 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.1 This circum
stance doubtless contributed, as much as the heretical tenets of
Praxeas, to excite our author's indignation against him. When,
however, those tenets found their way to Carthage, they were
successfully combated and to all appearance extirpated by
Tertullian himself; the person who originally taught them having
delivered to the Church a written recantation. But after a time
the heresy again displayed itself, and called forth, from the pen
of Tertullian, the treatise which we are now to consider.
The error of Praxeas appears to have originated in anxiety to
maintain the unity of God,2 which, he thought, could only be
done by saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one
and the same.3 He contended, therefore, according to Ter
tullian, that the Father Himself descended into the Virgin, was
1 C. i. " Ipsa novellitas Praxeas hesterni," c. 2.
2 " Unicum dominum vindicat, omnipotentem, mundi conditorem, ut de unico
Hasresim faciat," c. 1.
3 " 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 contendunt, adversus elxmiftlw Monarchies adulantes,"
c. 9.

Second and Third Centuries. 261
born of her, suffered, and was in a word Jesus Christ.1 Praxeas,
however, does not appear to have admitted the correctness of
this account of his doctrine, but to have declared his opinion to
be — that the Father did not suffer in the Son, but sympathized
(compassus est) with the Son.2
Tertullian enters upon the refutation of the doctrines of
Praxeas by setting forth his own creed.3 " We believe," he says,
" in one God, but under the following dispensation or economy
— that there is also a Son of God, His Word, who proceeded
from Him ; 4 by whom all things were made, and without whom
nothing was made ; who was sent by Him into the Virgin, and
was born of her ; being both man and God, the Son of man and
the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ; who suffered, died,
and was buried, according to the Scriptures ; and was raised
again by the Father ; 5 and was taken up into heaven, there to sit
at the right hand of the Father, and thence to come to judge
the quick and the dead ; who sent from heaven, from His
Father, according to His promise, the Holy Ghost, the Com
forter, 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 preach
ing 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
1 " Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum
passum ; denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum," c. I.
2 " Ergo nee compassus est Pater Filio ; sic enim, directam blasphemiam in
Patrem veriti, diminui eam 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 Ter
tullian was mistaken in his view of that heretic's doctrines. According to
Lardner, who follows Beausobre, Praxeas distinguished between the Word and
the. Son of God ; deeming the former only an attribute or faculty of the divine
nature, the communication of which to the man Jesus Christ, through His con
ception 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 Illustra
tion, etc., pp. 312, 413, 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 per
sonality. Wilson compares Praxeas and his followers with the Swedenborgians.
3 C. 2. This passage is quoted in chap. v. note 4, p. 159.
4 " Qui ex ipso processerit. " In c. 6 Tertullian, speaking of the generation of
the Son, uses the word protulit. See also c. 7; " Hasc est nativitas perfecta
Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit. " And c. 19 : "In quo principio prolatus a
Patre est."
5 Here, as in the Epistle to the Galatians i. 1, the raising of Christ is attributed
to the Father. See Pearson, article v. p. 236.
6 In c. 4 the Holy Ghost is said to be from the Father, through the Son.

262 The Ecclesiastical History of the
three, not in condition, but in degree;1 not in substance, but in
form ; not in power, but in species ; being of one substance, one
condition, and one power, because there is one God, from whom
those degrees, forms, and species, in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are derived."
"The simple, indeed," Tertullian proceeds, "not to call
them unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the majority
of believers, are startled at the doctrine of the Trinity, thinking
that it divides the Unity.2 We, they say, maintain the monarchy,
or sole government of God. But what is the meaning of the
word monarchy ? Sole empire ; — and is it not perfectly con
sistent with singleness of rule that the ruler should have a son,
or that he should administer the government through the agency
1 " Tres autem, non statu, sed gradu ; nee substantia, sed formi ; 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 reddidimus
qui Dii non duo dicantur, nee Domini, sed qua Pater et Filius, duo : et hoc non
ex separatione substantive, sed ex dispositione, quum individuum et inseparatum
Filium a Patre pronuntiamus ; nee statu, sed gradu alium ; qui etsi Deus dicatur
quando nominator singularis, non ideo duos Deos faciat, sed unum ; hoc ipso
quod et Deus ex unitate Patris vocari habeat." See also cc. 9, 21.
2 Tertullian's words are: " Simplices enim quique, ne di\erim imprudentes et
idiotse, quae major semper credendum pars est," etc. In his controversy with
Dr. Priestley, Bishop Horsley translated the word idiots 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 Evangelist is," by idiot Evangelists, had occurred
to his recollection. Remarks on Free-thinking, c. 33. — Wilson, p. 444, thus
translates the passage : " For all tlie men of simplicity " (alluding probably to their
affectation of simplicity of doctrine, as well as to their ignorance), ' ' not to call them
unwise and unlearned, who always form the majority of Christians.5' 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.
fudesos, c. 9, "Vel convertere simplices quosque gestitis." Sco?piacc, c. 1,
" Nam quod sciunt multos simplices ac rudes," where the word manifestly means,
simple-minded, uninstructed. But that Wilson has rightly translated the word
idiotce will appear from the comparison of the following passages : ' ' Male accepit
idiotes quisque," c. 9. "Nee tantus ego sum ut vos alloquar ; veruntamen et
gladiatores perfectissimos non tantum magistri et prsepositi sui, sed etiam idiotse
et supervacue quique abhortantur de longinquo, ut ssepe de ipso populo dictata
suggesta profuerint." Ad Martyres, c. 1. " Sed est hoc solenne perversis et
idiotis (et Rigault) hsereticis, jam et Psychicis universis." De Pudicitid, c. 16,
sub fine. " Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello." De
Testimonio Animce, c. 1. The word imperilus is used in nearly the same
sense : ' ' Secundum majorem vim imperitorum — apud gloriosissimam scilicet multi-
tudinem Psychiorum." De Jejuniis, c. 11.

Second and Third Centuries. 263
of whom he will?1 When a father associates his son with
himself in the empire, is the unity of the imperial power thereby
destroyed? The Valentinians, it is true, destroy the monarchy
of God, because they introduce other deities, who are wholly at
variance with Him. The Son is of the substance of the Father ¦?
He does nothing but by the will of the Father ; He derives all
His power from the Father, and will finally, as we learn from
St. Paul, restore it to the Father.3 How then can the doc
trine 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 circum
stance, 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 expressions sometimes fall
from him which seem at first sight to imply that the distinction
only subsists for the purpose of carrying on the divine adminis
tration under the gospel.4
Having removed this popular objection to the doctrine of the
Trinity, Tertullian turns to the immediate question between him
self and Praxeas, and says that his object will be to inquire
whether there is a Son, who He is, and how He exists.5 In fol
lowing Tertullian through his investigation of the first of these
points, we must bear in mind the double sense of the word Ao'yos
— 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. Yet even then He was not alone, for He had with
Him, within Himself, His Reason, called by the Greeks Xoyos,
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.6 Not that this distinction is of great
1 "Facilius de Filio quam de Patre hsesitabatur. " De Prascriptione Hare
ticorum, c. 34. Semler insinuates that this part of Tertullian's reasoning verges
towards Arianism.
2 C. 4. 3 1 Cor. xv. 28.
4 " Videmus, igitur, non obesse monarchise Filium, etsi hodie apud Filium est ;
quia et in suo statu est apud Filium, et cum suo statu restituetur Patri a Filio ; ita
eam nemo hoc nomine destruet, si Filium admittat, cui et traditam eam a Patre,
et a quo quandoque restituendam Patri constat," c. 4. Compare cc. 13, 16.
5 C 5.
' Tertullian's words are : " Caeterum ne tunc quidem solus ; habebat enim

264 The Ecclesiastical History of the
moment. For as God reasoned with Himself, and arranged the
plan of creation, He may be accurately said, by so doing, to have
made His Reason His Word. Thought, as we know from our
own experience, is a species of internal conversation. This
power and disposition of the divine intelligence (Divini senses)
is called also in Scripture cro<pia., or Wisdom ; for what can be
better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason and Word
of God ? 1 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 sent forth His Word 2 — who had also in
Himself reason and wisdom inseparably united to Him — to the
end that all things might be made by Him by whom they had
been originally devised and planned — nay, had been actually
made, as far as the divine intelligence was concerned (quantum
in Dei sensu) — nothing more being wanting to them than that
they should be known, and as it were fixed in their respective
substances and forms. Such is the perfect nativity of the Word,
as He proceeds from God : formed by Him first, to devise, under
the name of wisdom ; then begotten, for the purpose of carrying
into effect what had been devised." 3 The reader will in this
passage recognise a distinction, with which the early Fathers were
familiar, between the Ad-yos eVSta^eros and the Xoyos trpocpopiKos.
Tertullian'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
secum, quam habebat in semetipso, Rationem suam scilicet. Rationalis enim
Deus, et Ratio in ipso prius ; et ita ab ipso omnia ; quas Ratio sensus ipsius est."
Compare the conclusion of c. 15. Sensus in this passage, according to Bull,
Defensio Fidei Nicana, sect. 3, c. 10, p. 238, corresponds to the Greek word iriua,.
In the tract de Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33, as was observed in note 2, p. 254,
Tertullian uses it as synonymous with vtue. 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 conclusion of c. 5 an expression on which Bull animadverts
severely : " Possum itaque non temere praestruxisse, et tunc Deum, ante univer-
sitatis constitutionem, solum non fuisse, habentem in semetipso proinde Rationem,
et in ratione Sermonem, quem secundum a se faceret agitando intra se," p. 236.
1 C. 6. Tertullian refers to Prov. 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.
2 Semler infers that, previously to this prolation, the Word had no distinct per
sonality. 3 C. 7. "Hasc est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit : conditus
ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine Sophia? — dehinc genera tus ad effectum."

Second and Third Centuries. 265
from that period. It is, however, certain that our author intended
to assert the distinct personality of the Ao'yos IvSiadtros.
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 meta
phorical 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 hear
ing?"1 To this objection Tertullian answers, that the expres
sions 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 supposi
tion that they are metaphorical. Can the Word, of whom it is
said that without Him nothing was made that was made, be sup
posed to be a mere empty sound ? Can that which is without
substance, create substances ? " Whatever, then," concludes Ter
tullian, " 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." 2 Thus our
author determines the first question which he proposed to dis
cuss — whether there is a Son ?
We have seen that Tertullian, in speaking of the generation of
the Son, uses the words protulit and procedit? He thinks it
therefore necessary to refute by anticipation the charge of intro
ducing the Valentinian irpofioXr], prolation of ^Eons.4 "Their
prolation," he says, "implies an entire separation of the sub
stance emitted — mine does not prevent its most intimate union
with that from which it proceeds." In order to explain his mean
ing, he borrows illustrations from natural objects. The three
persons in the Trinity stand to each other in the relation of the
root, the shrub, and the fruit ; of the fountain, the river, and the
cut from the river; of the sun, the ray, and the terminating
1 C. 7. "Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse Sermonem, Spiritu et
Sophias traditione constructam ? Plane." And again: "Quid est enim, dices,
sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut Grammatici tradunt, aer offensus, intelligi-
bilis auditu ? casterum vacuum nescio quid et inane et incorporale ? "
2 "Quascunque ergo substantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico personam, et illi nomen
Filii vindico ; et dum Filium agnosco, secundum a Patre defendo. " The expres
sion, "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 (viii.) will be convinced that such was not Tertullian's notion.
3 Note 4, p. 261. 4 C. 8.

266 The Ecclesiastical History of the
point of the ray.1 For these illustrations he professes himself
indebted to the revelations of the Paraclete. In later times,
divines have occasionally resorted to similar illustrations, for the
purpose of 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, however, the intimate union which subsists
between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, we must be careful,"
Tertullian continues, "to distinguish between their Persons."2
In his representations of this distinction, he sometimes uses
expressions which in after times, when controversy had intro
duced greater precision of language, were studiously avoided by
the orthodox. Thus he calls the Father the whole substance ;
the Son a derivation from or portion of the whole.3 In proving
the distinction of Persons he lays particular stress on John xiv. 16.4
He 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.5 Consequently
the doctrine of Praxeas, which confounds the Father and Son,
must be erroneous. To this argument Praxeas replied, that
nothing is impossible with God — that He, who could make a
barren woman and even a virgin bear, could make Himself at
once both Father and Son.6 In support of this assertion he
quoted the first verse of Genesis, in which he appears to have
read, In principio Deus fecit sibi filium? Tertullian rejoins, that
1 " Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam Paracletus docet, sicut
radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et Sol radium ; " quoted in note i, p. 10 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 comprehend, Tertullian's notions.
2 C. 9.
3 "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 trans
lation of etrippoia, a word which he states to have been rightly rejected by Irenseus and
others. See c. 14, " Pro modulo derivationis," and c. 26. Bull, sect. 2, c. 7, p. 95.
4 "I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter — even the
Spirit of Truth." » c. 10.
6 It appears from this passage that Praxeas admitted the miraculous conception.
. 7 C. 5. "Aiunt quidem et Genesin in Hebraico ita incipere, In principio Deus
fecit sibi filium." Semler doubts the truth of Tertullian's assertion. His note is,
' ' Mirum est sic quosdam finxisse."

Second and Third Centuries. 267
our business is to inquire 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,
therefore, He wills not to do, that in one sense He cannot do.
Tertullian 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.1
Our author then alleges various passages, many of them from the
Old Testament,2 and 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." 3
"But how," asked Praxeas, "do you clear yourself of the
charge of polytheism — of teaching a plurality of gods ? " i
Having first shown by copious quotations from Scripture that
the names Deus and Dominus are applied to Christ, and conse
quently that the sacred writers may with equal justice be accused
of inculcating polytheism,5 Tertullian answers, that "the orthodox
never speak of two Gods or two Lords, though they affirm that
each Person in the Trinity is God and Lord.6 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 acknow
ledge 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 St. Paul, and call the Father, God ; the Son, Lord.7
When to mention the Son alone, we again imitate St. Paul, and call
Him God." 8 " If," adds Tertullian, " you require additional proof
1 C. rr. Tertullian here uses an expression which Semler conceives to savour
of Arianism. ' ' Probare autem tarn aperte debebis ex Scripturis, quam nos pro
bamus ilium sibi Filium fecisse Sermonem suum." But Tertullian had before said,
in speaking of the Reason and Word of God, " Cum ratione enim sua. cogitans
atque disponens Sermonem eam efficiebat, quam Sermone tractabat," c. 5. See
also adv. Marcionem, L ii. c. 27. "Sermonem ejus, quem ex semetipso pro-
ferendo filium fecit." 2 Isa. xlii. i, lxi. 1 ; Ps. ex. 1.
3 C. 12. " Cum quibus enim faciebat hominem, et quibus faciebat similem?
Cum Filio quidem, qui erat induturus hominem ; Spiritu vero, qui erat sanctifica-
turus hominem ; quasi cum ministris et arbitras, ex unitate Trinitatis, loquebatur."
The Jews supposed the Almighty in this verse to speak to the angels.
4 C. 15.
0 For instance, Tertullian refers to Ps. xlv. 7, 8, ex. 1 ; Isa. xlv. 14, liii. 1 ;
Gen. xix. 14 ; John i. 1.
6 Compare c. 19. ' Rom. i. 4. 8 Rom. ix. 5.

268 The Ecclesiastical History of the
of our abhorrence of polytheism, you may find it in our refusal
to acknowledge two Gods and two Lords, although by making
the acknowledgment we might escape the pains of martyrdom."
Tertullian proceeds to argue that a distinction of Persons in
the Godhead affords the only means of reconciling some apparent
inconsistencies in the sacred writings.1 At one time God says to
Moses that no man can see His face and live ; 2 at another we
read that God appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and the prophets.
These apparent contradictions can only be reconciled by suppos
ing that it was the Son who appeared.3 " 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 trans
figuration ; for in that event was accomplished the promise made
by God to speak with Moses face to face.* The New Testament
confirms this distinction between the Father, who was never
seen, and the Son, who appeared in early times in visions, but
afterwards in the flesh.5 The Son not only made all things, but
has from the beginning conducted the government of this world.6
To Him all power was given. He it was who executed judgment
upon mankind, by causing the deluge, and by destroying Sodom
and Gomorrah. He it was who descended to converse with
man, appearing to Abraham, the patriarchs, and the prophets in
visions, and thus as it were preparing Himself for His future
residence on earth, when He was to assume the form and sub
stance of man, and to become subject to human infirmities.7
Praxeas, on the contrary, ignorantly imputes all these acts to the
Father, and supposes the Omnipotent, Invisible God, who dwells
1 C. 14. 2 Ex. xxxiii. 13, 18, 20.
3 Compare adv. fudaos, c. 9 ; adv. Marcionem, 1. iii. cc. 6, 9 ; 1. iv. cc. 10, 13 ;
1. v. c. 19 : de Carne Christi, c. 6.
4 Num. xii. 2.
s C. 15. We have seen, chap. i. note 2, p. 12, 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, 1. iii.
c. 6 ; adv. Praxeam, c. 24.
6 C. 16. 7 Compare c. 12.

Second and Third Centuries. 269
in light inaccessible, to have been seen by man and to have
suffered thirst and hunger. He makes this supposition, because
the attributes and titles of God are ascribed in Scripture to Him
who appeared to man, forgetting that those attributes and titles
equally belong to the Son, though not precisely in the same
manner as to the Father." x
Our author next enters upon the consideration of those
passages of Scripture which were urged by Praxeas in proof of
the identity of the Father and Son.2 When it is said, for
instance, that there is one God the Father, and besides Him there is
no other, Tertullian affirms that the existence of the Son is not
denied, who is indeed one God with the Father.3 "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 attention to those
passages which favour his own opinion, and overlooking those
which clearly bespeak a distinction of Persons, without however
violating the unity of the Godhead." Praxeas appears to
have insisted particularly on the following texts in St. John's
Gospel : — / and my Father are one. He who has seen me has
seen the Father also. I in my Father, and my Father in me?
" To these few texts," observes Tertullian, " he wishes to make
the whole of the Old and New Testaments bend ; whereas, had
he been really desirous of discovering the truth, he would have
sought for such an interpretation of them as would have
reconciled them to the rest of Scripture." Our author then
proceeds to show, by a minute analysis of St. John's Gospel,
that the Father and Son are constantly spoken of as distinct
Persons.5 With respect to the first of the texts alleged by
Praxeas — / and my Father are one, or as it stood in his Latin
version, Ego et Pater unum sumus — he 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 persons.6
" If," he continues, " the masculine noun unus had been used
instead of the neuter unum, the passage might have afforded
some countenance to the doctrine of Praxeas, — since unus might
1 C. 17. 2 Cc. 18, 19. 3 c. 20. Isa. lxv. 5.
4 C. 10, ver. 30, 38, and c. 14, ver. io.- 5 Cc. 21, 23, 24.
* C. 22. Tertullian's interpretation of the second text will be found in c. 24,

2 Jo The Ecclesiastical History of the
mean one with reference to number, whereas unum can only
imply unity of substance." With respect to the third text, I in
my Father, and my Father in me, Tertullian'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 last to those passages relating to the
mission of the Paraclete,1 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 quoted in support of his opinion,
Ego et Pater unum sumus? Tertullian replied, " That verse is
directly against you ; for though it declares a unity of sub
stance in the Father and Son, it also declares a duality, if we
may coin a word, of Persons." Having established his point
with respect to the first and second Persons in the Trinity,
Tertullian proceeds to the third. "We have seen," he says,
"that the Son promised that, when He had ascended to the
Father, He would ask the Father to send another Comforter ;
and we have seen in what sense He was called another Com
forter.3 Of this Comforter the Son says, He shall take of mine,
as the Son Himself had taken of the Father's.4 Thus the
connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the
Paraclete, makes three coherent Persons, one in the other;
i C. 25. See p. 266, note 4. 2 C. 22. 3 C. 9.
* " Casterum de meo sumei, inquit, sicut ipse de patris. Ita connexus Patris in
Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohasrentes, alteram ex altero ; qui tres
unum sunt, non unus ; quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad sub
stantive unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. "

Second and Third Centuries. 2 7 1
which three are one in substance, unum ; not one in number,
unus ; in the same manner in which it was said, I 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 could not mean
a distinct Person, but merely a voice — a sound proceeding from
the mouth."1 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. A considerable
portion of his tract is occupied in arguing that the Word (Sermo,
not Filius) is a distinct Person from the Father ; 2 and in proof
of this position he 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 Person 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 that through
out this tract, when speaking of the Word, he uses Sermo,4 and
not Verbum.
1 C. 7. 8 See cc. 5, 7.
3 C. 11. " Aut exhibe probationem, quam expostulo, mese similem ; id est, sic
Scripturas eundem Filium et Patrem ostendere, quemadmodum apud nos distincte
Pater et Filius demonstrantur ; 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 Sermonem optimum ; ut ipse sit et
qui eructavit et quod eructavit ; et ipse qui protulerit et qui prolatus sit, si ipse
est et Sermo et Deus." This argument, in favour of the distinct personality of
the Word, is lost in our version, My heart is inditing of a good matter. See
Porson to Travis, p. 260.
4 A great outcry was raised against Erasmus for translating xiyis, Sermo, in his
version of the New Testament. See his Apology de In principio erat Sermo.
Opera, torn. ix. p. 111, ed. Lugd. Bat. 1706, and his note on John i. 1.

272 The Ecclesiastical History of the
To return to Tertullian's argument against Praxeas : — after
briefly referring to different passages in the Gospels of St.
Matthew and St. Luke, which prove the existence of the Son
as a distinct Person from the Father,1 he proceeds to the two
remaining questions which he proposed to discuss — Who the
Son is, and how He exists. In order to get rid of our author's
conclusion respecting the distinction of Persons,2 Praxeas con
tended that, in the passages on which it was founded, the Son
meant the flesh, that is man, that is Jesus ; 3 the Father meant
the Spirit, that is God, that is Christ. "Thus," observes Ter
tullian, "he contradicts himself; for if Jesus and Christ are
different Persons, the Son and Father are different— since the
Son is Jesus and the Father Christ. Nor is this all ; for he
also divides the Person of Christ." Here our author under
takes to explain in what manner the Word was made flesh.4
He was not transfigured into flesh, but put on flesh. Trans
figuration implies the destruction of that which before existed.
Neither must we suppose that the Word was so confounded
with the flesh as to produce a third substance, in the same
manner in which gold mixed with silver produces what is called
electrum. Christ was both God and man : s — the Word and the
flesh, that is, the divine and human natures were united in His
Person, but were not confounded. Each displayed itself in its
peculiar operations : in the former He worked miracles ; 6 in the
latter He hungered, thirsted, wept, was sorrowful even unto death,
and died. " If," adds Tertullian, "we attend only to the meaning
of the word Christus, we shall perceive the absurdity of suppos
ing that the Father and Christ are one Person.7 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 con
stituted the great difference between the faith of a Jew and a
Christian.8 Praxeas, therefore, by confounding the Son and
1 C. 26. * C. 27.
3 From this statement Lardner argues that Praxeas was not a Patripassian,
since he believed that the Son alone suffered. History of Heretics, c. 20 sect
7,8. 4 See the passage quoted in chap. vi. p. 225, note 2.
5 "Sed haec vox carnis et animse, id est hominis, non Sermonis nee Spiritus, id
est non Dei, propterea emissa est ut impassibilem 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 Carne Christi, cc. 5, 17.
6 Compare c. 16. Apology, c. 21. "Ostendens se esse \iyn Dei," etc
7 C. 28. » C. 31.

Second and Third Centuries. 273
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 main
tained a real Trinity ; or, in the words of our first Article, that " in
the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance,
power, and eternity." Semler, in one of his notes, affirms that
Tertullian was the earliest writer who used the words Trinitas
and Persona, in speaking of the Persons in the Godhead.1 He
also asserts that Tertullian borrowed them from the Valentinians ;
but this assertion is unsupported by proof. There is undoubtedly
a passage in the treatise de Animd 2 in which he uses the word
Trinitas to express the Valentinian distinction of men into three
different species — spiritual, animal, and material ; but it does
not therefore follow that he borrowed the word from the
Valentinians; for he has in the very same tract applied it to
the Platonic division of the soul into XoyiKov, 6vp.iK.hv, and
im6vp,r]TiK6v? We find also in the tract de Resurrectione Carnis,
the expression " Trina Virtus Dei ; " 4 but it is employed to
denote the triple exercise of God's power, in rendering the devil
subject to man, in raising the body of man from the grave,
and in calling him to judgment hereafter.
Our analysis of the treatise against Praxeas further proves that
the opinions of Tertullian respecting the Son and the Holy
Ghost essentially coincided with the doctrines of our Church.
According to him, " the Son, which is the Word of the Father,5
begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God,
of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb
of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance ; 6 so that two whole and
1 C. 8. The word Trinitas occurs also in cc. 2, 11.
2 C. 21. " Ut adhuc Trinitas Valentiniana csedatur." See also de Prascrip
tione Hareticorum, c. 7. "Trinitas hominis apud Valentinum."
3 C. 16. "Ecceenim tota hasc Trinitas et in Domino: rationale — indigna-
tivum — et concupiscentivum. " See chap, iii. p. 99.
4 C. 28. There is a singular representation of the Trinity in the tract de Pudi
citid, c. 21, sub fine. "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. " We have already on more
than one occasion referred to the notion, adopted by Tertullian after he became
a Montanist, that three persons constitute a Church.
5 Adv. Praxeam, c. 5.
6 Apology, c. 21. " Necesse est igitur pauca de Christo, ut Deo. — Hunc (™»
Xiyn) ex Deo prolatum dicimus, et prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filium Dei et
Deum dictum ex unitate substantias : nam et Deus Spiritus. Et quum radius ex

274 The Ecclesiastical History of the
perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and manhood, were joined
together in one Person,1 never to be divided,2 whereof is one
Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was dead
and buried." 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." 3 Lastly, according to him, " The Holy
Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one sub
stance, majesty, and glory with the Father, very and eternal
God."4 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 respecting the Trinity had intro
duced greater precision of language. Pamelius has thought it
necessary to put the reader on his guard against certain of these
expressions ; and Semler has noticed with a sort of ill-natured
industry every passage in the tract against Praxeas in which
there is any appearance of contradiction, or which will bear a
sole porrigitur, portio ex summa, sed sol exit in radio, quia solis est radius : nee
separatur substantia, sed extenditur. Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus, ut
lumen de lumine accensum — Iste igitur Dei radius, ut retro semper prasdicabatur,
delapsus in Virginem quandam, et in utero ejus caro figuratus, nascitur homo
Deo mistus. Caro Spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, affatur, docet, operatur,
et Christus est." Tertullian then proceeds to describe Christ's crucifixion, His
resurrection on the third day, and ascension. Compare adv. Marcionem, 1. 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 Came Christi, c. 5.
2 1 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 apparebit, qui est resuscitatus ; et vide-
bunt, et agnoscent, qui eum confixerunt ; utique ipsam carnem in quam saevierunt ;
sine qua nee ipse esse poterit, nee agnosci." See particularly deRes. Carnis, c. 51.
4 "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 ; nihil
tamen a matrice alienatur, a qua proprietates 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.

Second and Third CenUvries. 275
construction favourable to the Arian tenets.1 Bull, also, who
conceives the language of Tertullian to be explicit and correct
on the subject of the pre-existence and the consubstantiality,
admits that he occasionally uses expressions at variance with the
co-eternity of Christ. For instance, in the tract against Hermo
genes we find the following passage : 2 — " 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 Hermo
genes will enable us to account for this assertion. That heretic
affirmed, as we shall shortly have occasion to show more in detail,
that matter was eternal, and argued thus : " God was always
God and always Lord ; but the word Lord implies the existence
of something over which He was Lord ; unless, therefore, we
suppose the eternity of something distinct from God, it is not
true that He was always Lord." 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 tract against Praxeas, that there was
ever a time when the Adyos, or Ratio, or Sermo internus, did not
exist.3 But with respect to Wisdom and the Son, Sophia and
Filius, the case is different. Tertullian assigns to both a begin-
1 We call it an ill-natured industry, because the true mode of ascertaining a
writer's opinions is, not to fix upon particular expressions, but to take the general
tenor of his language. If anything 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 Ser-
mone de Patris voluntate natus est," makes the following remark : "Sic, i.e. de
Patris voluntate, Ariani, non i| ouir/«. "
2 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 cpndita, ex quo in sensu Dei
ad opera mundi disponenda ccepit agitari ; multo magis non capit sine initio
quicquam fuisse, quod extra Dominum fuerit."
3 With respect to the Sermo externus, Tertullian speaks of a time antecedent
to his emission. " Nam etsi Deus nondum Sermonem suum miserat." Adv.
Praxeam, c. 5.

276 • The Ecclesiastical History of the
ning of existence. Sophia was created or formed in order to
devise the plan of the universe ; and the Son was begotten in
order t'o carry that plan into effect.1 Bull appears to have
given an accurate representation of the matter when he says that,
according to our author, the Reason and Spirit of God, being the
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.2 Without, 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 Petavius, Quod ad aterniiatem
attinet Verbi, palam esse, Tertullianum minime^ illam agnovisse?
Mihi sane, atque, ut arbitror, post tot apertissima testimonia a
me adducta, lectori etiam meo prorsus contrarium constat ; nisi
verb, quod non credo, luserit Petavius in vocabulo verbi. Nam
Filium Dei, docet quidem Tertullianus Verbum sive Sermonem
factum ac denominatum fuisse ab aliquo initio : nempe turn,
quando ex Deo Patre exivit cum voce, Fiat Lux, ad exornandum
universa.4 Atqui ipsam illam hypostasin, quae sermo sive verbum
et Filius Dei dicitur, aeternam credidisse Tertullianum, puto me
abunde demonstrasse."
In speaking also of the Holy Ghost, TertuHian occasionally
uses terms of a very ambiguous and equivocal character. He
says, for instance, that in Genesis i. 26 God addressed the Son,
1 C. 7. " Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit : conditus
ab eo primum ad cogit atum in nomine Sophise — dehinc generaius ad effectum."
2 Defensio Fidei Nicana, sect. iii. c. 10, p. 242. Bull refers to the follow
ing 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, Ego in Patre ; et apud Deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et Sermo
erat apud Deum." Adv. Praxeam, c. 8. " Nos etiam Sermoni atque rationi,
itemque virtuti, per quae omnia molitum Deum ediximus, propriam substantiam
Spiritum inscribimus. " Apology, c. 21. " Qusecunque 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 eam
ut substantiam suam ostendat." Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. " Virtute et ratione comi-
tatum, et Spiritu fultum." Apology, c. 21. " Hie Spiritus Dei idem erit Sermo ;
sicut enim, loanne dicente, Sermo caro factus est, Spiritum quoque intelligimus in
nomine Sermonis ; ita et hie Sermonem quoque agnoscimus in nomine Spiritus.
Nam et Spiritus substantia est Sermonis, et Sermo operatio Spiritus : et duo
unum sunt." Adv. Praxeam, c. 26. See, however, adv. Hermogenem, c. 45.
" Non apparentis solummodo, nee adpropinquantis, sed adhibentis tantos animi
sui nisus, Sophiam, valentiam, sensum, sermonem, Spiritum, virtutem."
3 Sect. 3, c. 10, p. 246. 4 Adv. Praxeam, c. 7, sub in.

Second and Third Centuries. 277
His Word, the second Person in the Trinity, and the third
Person, the Spirit in the Word.1 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 the distinct
personality of the Holy Ghost formed an article of Tertullian's
creed.2 The occasional ambiguity of his language respecting the
Holy Ghost is perhaps in part to be traced to the variety of
senses in which the word Spiritus is used. It is applied generally
to God, for God is a Spirit ; 3 and for the same reason to the
Son, who is frequently called the Spirit of God,4 the Spirit of the
Creator.6 Bull also, following Grotius, has shown that the word
Spiritus is employed by the Fathers to express the divine nature
in Christ.6
In our remarks upon the eighth Article of our Church, we
stated that, in treating of the tract against Praxeas, an oppor
tunity would present itself of ascertaining how far the opinions of
Tertullian coincided with the language employed in the Nicene
and Athanasian Creeds.7 That the general doctrine of those
creeds is contained in Tertullian's writings cannot, we think, be
doubted by any one who has carefully perused them. With
respect to particular expresssions, we find that he calls the Son —
God of God and Light of Light.8 In referring to that verse in
the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corin
thians in which it is said that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, Tertullian 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
1 Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. "Imo, quia jam adhserebat illi nlius, secunda Persona,
Sermo ipsius ; et tertia, Spiritus in Sermone. "
2 See for instance ad Martyres, c. 3. "Bonum agonem subituri estis, in quo
agonothetes Deus vivus est ; xystarches Spiritus Sanctus ; corona asternitas ;
brabium Angelica? substantias politia in ccelis, gloria in secula seculorum. Itaque
epistates vester Christus Iesus. "
3 Adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. c. 9, sub in.
4 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, 1. v. c. 8.
5 Adv. Marcionem, 1. iii. c. 6. "Nam quoniam in EsaiH jam tunc Christus,
Sermo scilicet et Spiritus Creatoris, Ioannem praedicarat, " 1. iv. c. 33, sub fine.
6 Defensio Fidei Nicana, sect. 1, c. 2, p. 18. 7 Chap. v. p. 160.
8 See the passage from the Apology quoted in note 6, p. 273 of this chapter,
and adv. Praxeam, c. 15, "Nam etsi Deus Sermo, sed apud Deum, quia ex
Deo Deus."

278 The Ecclesiastical History of the
declaration that the Son of God had been made subject to
death.1 With respect to the expressions in the Athanasian
Creed, we find Tertullian, 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.2 We find also, in the
tract against Hermogenes,3 an expression which, although there
used without any reference to the Trinity, bears a strong resem
blance 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. Tertullian speaks of the Christian
verity as proclaiming the unity.4 On the subject of the Incar
nation, the reader who compares the 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 expres
sions immediately in his view.5
There is, however, a passage in the tract de Carne Christi,
which appears at first sight to be at variance with the following
clause of the creed, One, not by conversion of the Godhead into
flesh? The heretics against whom Tertullian was contending
argued that " God could not possibly be converted into man, so as
to be born and to be embodied in the flesh ; because that which is
1 " 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.
2 " Alium autem quomodo accipere debeas, jam professus sum ; personae, non
substantia? nomine ; ad distinctionem, non ad divisionem." Adv. Praxeam, c. 12.
3 Tertullian is arguing upon the consequences which he conceived to flow from
the doctrines of Hermogenes respecting the eternity of matter. " That doctrine,"
he says, "places matter on a perfect equality with God." " Neutrum dicimus
altero esse minorem, sive majorem ; neutrum altero humiliorem, sive superiorem,"
c. 7.
4 " Sed Veritas Christiana districts pronuntiavit, Deus si non unus est, non est."
Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 3.
5 "Sed enim invenimus ilium direct6, et Deum et hominem expositum — certe
usquequaque Filium Dei et Filium hominis, quum Deum et hominem, sine dubio
secundum utramque substantiam, in suii proprietate distantem ; quia neque Sermo
aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo — Videmus duplicem statum ; non
confusum, sed conjunctum in una Persona, Deum et hominem lesum." Adv.
Praxeam, c. 27. See also the passage from c. 30, quoted in note 5, p. 272, 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 note 6, p. 272.
6 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,

Second and Third Centuries. 2 79
eternal must necessarily be inconvertible. Conversion into a differ
ent state is the termination of the former state. If the Godhead was
converted into manhood, it was entirely lost." To this argument
Tertullian replied, that " although it might be right with respect
to all other natures, it was not so with reference to the divine
nature. We read in Scripture that at different times angels were
converted into the human shape, and yet did not cease to be
angels. Much more then might God assume the nature of man,
and yet continue to be God." Here Tertullian appears to admit
that in the mystery of the Incarnation there was a conversion of
the Godhead into flesh, though he disallows the inference drawn
by the heretics from it. If, however, we compare this passage
with another in the tract against Praxeas, we shall find our
author's opinion, when accurately stated, to have been, that God
took upon Himself manhood.1
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 Persona? Dei ; the former
derived from Psalm iv. 6,2 which stands thus in the Septuagint
version, io~r]peia>$it] i<f> ripas to <p<3s tov rrpocrunrov <rov, Kvpic ; the
latter from an erroneous reading of Lamentations iv. 20, Trvefyia
irpoaunrov f/p-wv, Xptoros Ktjptos, where avTov appears to have been
substituted for fjp.(Sv?
One of the questions on which theological ingenuity has
etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est. Converti enim in aliud finis est pristini. Non
competit ergo conversio cui non competit finis.' Plane natura convertibilium ei
lege est, ne permaneant in eo quod convertitur in iis ; et (ut) ita non permanendo
pereant ; dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt. Sed nihil Deo par est ; natura
ejus ab 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 casteris rebus, nisi ut contrarium obtineat ; id est, ut Deus et in omnia
converti possit, et qualis est perseverare ? "
1 " Quod ergo Angelis inferioribus licuit, uti conversi in corpulentiam humanam
Angeli nihilominus permanerent ; hoc tu potentiori Deo auferas ? quasi non
valuerit Christus, vere hominem indutus, Deus perseverare?" Compare adv.
Praxeam, c. 27, quoted also in chap. vi. note 2, p. 225. '* Igitur Sermo in came ;
dum et de hoc quaerendum quomodo Sermo caro sit factus ? utrumne quasi trans-
figuratus in carne, an indutus carnem f imo, indutus. "
2 "Cui respondet Spiritus in Psalmo ex providentia, futuri: Significatum est,
inquit, super nos lumen persona tua, Domine. Persona autem Dei, Christus
Dominus." Adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 11.
3 "Nam et Scriptura quid dicit? Spiritus persona ejus, Christus Dominus.
Ergo Christus personae paternce Spiritus est," etc. Adv. Praxeam, c. 14, sub
fine. But in the third book against Marcion, c. 6, we find ' ' Personam Spirit-As
nostri, Christum Dominum." Rigault, however, in this passage, reads " Spiritus
personae ejus, Christus Dominus." See Jerome's comment on the verse.

280 The Ecclesiastical History of the
exercised itself is, whether the flesh of Christ was corruptible or
incorruptible. We have seen that Valentinus asserted a differ
ence between Christ's flesh and human flesh. In replying to
this assertion, Tertullian observes, that Christ would not have
been perfect man had not His flesh been human, and conse
quently corruptible.1 Tertullian ascribes ubiquity to Christ as
God, but not as the conductor of the gospel economy.2 We
find also in his writings a notion, derived from Isaiah liii. 3,
which was very common among the early Fathers, that the
personal appearance of Christ was mean and ignoble.3
The next heretic in Mosheim's catalogue is Hermogenes. He
was a painter by profession, and contemporary with our author,
from whose language it might be inferred that he actually
apostatised from Christianity to paganism ; 4 but I believe
Tertullian's meaning to be, that he adopted the notions of the
pagan philosophers, the Stoics especially, respecting matter,
which he conceived to be self-existent, and consequently eternal.
From this matter, according to him, God made all things. His
mode of arguing was, " Either God made all things from Him
self, or from something, or from nothing.5 He could not make
them from Himself, because they would then be parts of Himself;
but this, the divine nature, which is indivisible and always the
same, does not allow.6 He could not make them from nothing,
because, being infinitely good, He would not in that case have
allowed evil to exist : but evil does exist ; it must consequently
have existed independently of God, that is, in matter." Hermo
genes urged another argument of a very subtle character, to
which we have already had occasion to allude.7 " There never
was a time when the title of Dominus or Lord was not applicable
to God ; but that title is relative — it implies the existence of
something over which God was Lord : that something was
1 De Carne Christi, c. 15.
2 Adv. Praxeam, c. 23. " Habes Filium in terris, babes Patrem in ccelis. Non
est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina. Caeterum scimus, Deum etiam intra
abyssos esse, et ubique consistere, sed vi et potestate, Filium quoque, ut indivi-
duum cum ipso, ubique. Tamen in ipsa. eIxovop.lit, Pater voluit Filium in terris
haberi, se vero in ccelis." See Bull, Defensio Fidei, sect. 4, c. 3, p. 271.
3 De Idololatrid, c. 18 ; de Carne Christi, cc. 9, 15 ; adv. Marcionem, 1. iii.
c. 7, sub in., c. 17, sub in. ; adv. Judaos, c. 14.
4 Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1. " Hermogenis autem doctrina tam novella est;
denique ad hodiernum homo in seculo." Compare de Prascriptione Hareticorum,
c. 30. " Caeterum et Nigidius nescio quis et Hermogenes, et multi alii qui adhuc
ambulant, pervertentes vias Dei." See also adv. Valentinianos, c. 16 ; de Mono
gamid, c. 16.
5 C. 2. 6 Compare c. 39. ' C. 3. See p. 275.

Second and Third Centuries. 281
matter." To this argument Tertullian answers without hesitation
that there was a time when the title was not applicable, that is,
before the creation — as there was a time when God was neither
Father rior Judge ; which are also relative terms, implying the
existence of a Son, and of sinners to be judged. " If we turn,"
he adds, " to Scripture, we shall find that, while the work of
creation was carrying on, the language is always God said, God
saw, not the Lord said, the Lord saw ; but when it was com
pleted, the title of Lord is introduced, the Lord God took -man
whom. He had made."
Tertullian objects, in the first place, to the opinion of Hermo
genes respecting the eternity of matter, that its effect is to
introduce two Gods.1 " You ascribe," he says, " eternity to
matter, and thereby invest it with the attributes of the Deity.
You join matter with God in the work of creation ; for though
you may pretend that eternity is the only attribute ascribed to
matter, and that the supremacy is still reserved to- God, — inas
much as He is active and matter passive, and He it is who gives
a form to matter — yet this is a mere evasion, since the very
foundation of your doctrine is, that matter existed independently
of God, and consequently out of the range of His power. Nay
more, you make matter superior to God.a He' who grants
assistance is surely superior, in that respect at least, to him to
whom it is granted. But God, according to your doctrine, could
not have made the universe without the assistance of matter.
Had God possessed any dominion over matter, He would, before
He employed it in the work of creation, have purged it of the
evil which He knew to exist in it. You are at least in this
dilemma : you must either deny the Omnipotence of God, or
admit that God was the Author of evil by voluntarily using
matter in the creation of the world. Yet you adopted this
notion respecting the eternity of matter, under the idea that you
thereby removed from God the imputation of being the Author
of evil. Like the other heretics, you were blind to the defects
of your own reasoning, and did not perceive that it really
furnished no solution of the difficulty."
Tertullian proceeds to inquire whether the reasons for which
1 Cc. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 42. Compare de Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33. It is
evident that Tertullian here draws consequences from the opinions of Hermogenes,
which that heretic himself disavowed. Compare c. 5 with adv. Marcionem, 1. i,
c. 3. s Cc. 8, 9, 10.

282 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Hermogenes imputed evil to matter, might not afford as good
ground for imputing it to God Himself.1 Among other argu
ments he urges the following : — " If matter is eternal, it is
unchangeable in its nature ; and that nature, according to
Hermogenes, is evil.2 How then could God create that which
is good out. of evil matter?3 Hermogenes ought rather to have
said that matter was of a mixed character, both good and evil."
"At least," Tertullian continues, "it is more honourable to God
to make Him the free and voluntary Author of evil than to make
Him as it were the slave of matter, and compelled to use it,
although He knew it to be evil, in the work of creation." i We
find incidental mention of an opinion entertained by some,
that the existence of evil was necessary in order to illustrate
good by contrast ; but Tertullian states that it was not enter
tained by Hermogenes.5 Tertullian further argued that by
making matter self-existent and eternal, Hermogenes placed it
above the Word or Wisdom, who, as begotten of God, had both
an Author and beginning of His being.6 We have already seen
in what sense Tertullian ascribed a commencement of existence
to the Word or Wisdom.7
Hermogenes endeavoured to support his opinions by appealing
to Scripture. ' He began with the very first words of the Book of
Genesis, asserting that, by the expression, In the beginning, or as
it is in the Latin, In principio, was meant some principle or
substance out of which the heaven and earth were created : as it
might be said that the clay is the principle of the vessel which
is made from it.8 Tertullian replies that the words were only
designed to mark the commencement of this visible frame of
things. But not content with this sound explanation,- he has
recourse to others of a very different character : he supposes, for
instance, that the word principium may refer to the Wisdom of
God,9 of whom it is said in the Book of Proverbs, " Dominus
condidit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua." 10 If, however,
this argument is weak, the praise of subtlety at least must be
allowed to that which I am about to subjoin. " In every work,
for example, in making a table, there must be a combination of
i C. n.
8 Cc. 12, 13. Hermogenes appears sometimes to have contended that matter
was neither good nor evil, c. 37.
3 The reference is to Gen. i. 21. 4 C. 14. 5 C. 15.
6 Cc. 17, 18. 7 P. 275. 8 C. 19. 9 Cc. 20, 21, 22.
10 C. 8, ver. 22. The words of the English version are, The Lord possessed me
in the beginning of His way.

Second and Third Centuries. 283
three things— of him who makes — of that which is made — and
of that out of which it is made.1 But in the account of the
creation only two of these are mentioned — God the Creator,
and the heavens and earth the thing created; we are not told
out of what they were created ; therefore they were created out
of nothing." Is there not here some confusion between what
Johnson has called the positive and negative' meanings of
nothing ?
The next passage on which Hermogenes relied was also taken
from the first chapter of Genesis : the earth was without form
and void? The earth here spoken of was, according to him,
the matter out of which the present earth and all other things
were made. But we will not weary the reader's patience by
detailing Tertullian's observations upon this and upon other
portions of Scripture alleged by his opponent. Both are justly
liable to the charge of drawing inferences which were never
intended by the sacred writer.
Having proved to his satisfaction that the universe was not
created out of pre-existent matter, Tertullian proceeds to notice
the inconsistencies of which Hermogenes was guilty with respect
to his supposed matter ; 3 saying at one time that it was neither
corporeal nor incorporeal — " as if," observes Tertullian, " every
thing in the universe must not fall under one or other of the two
descriptions;"4 saying at another that it was partly corporeal
and partly incorporeal 5 — corporeal, because bodies are formed
out of it ; incorporeal, because it moves, and motion is incor-
1 Tertullian urges an argument of a similar nature in c. 34. " It appears," he
says, "from the Scriptures, that in the final consummation of all things the
universe will be reduced to nothing ; we may therefore presume that it was
created out of nothing." Hermogenes appears to have interpreted the dissolution
of the universe spiritually.
2 C. 23. Tertullian's Latin is, " Terra autem erat invisibilis et incomposita."
4 " 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 sit rei cujusque." This passage was quoted in note 3, p. 96 of
chap. iii. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicana, sect. 3, c. 10, p. 236, observes, "Sed
Tertulliano solenne est Deo corporales affectiones intrepide adscribere. Unde
viri quidam docti existimarunt, revera sensisse Tertullianum, corporeae esse naturae
Deum ; a quibus tamen ego quidem dissentio."
6 C. 36. The motion ascribed by Hermogenes to matter was of an irregular,
turbulent kind, like the bubbling of boiling water in a pot. "Sic enim et ollae
undique ebullientis similitudinem opponis," c. 41. " Materiam vero materiarum,
non sibi subditam, non statu diversam, non motu inquietam, non habitu in-
formem," c. 18- See also cc. 28, 42.

284 The Ecclesiastical History of the
poreal. " But in what sense," asks Tertullian, " can motion be
made a part of matter ? Man moves ; but we do not say he is
partly corporeal and partly incorporeal, because he has both
body and motion. His actions, passions, duties, appetites are
incorporeal ; but we do not call them parts or portions of his
substance. Motion is not a substance, but a particular state of
a substance. With equal inconsistency and absurdity Hermo
genes sometimes says that matter is neither good, nor evil.1
Moreover, he assigns it a place below God ; 2 forgetting that, by
assigning it a place, he assigns it limits, and thus admits that it
is not infinite — an admission at variance with all his previous
reasoning." Tertullian next alludes to a notion of Hermogenes, that God
did not use the whole, but only a portion of this pre-existent matter
in the creation of the universe ; and notices various absurd
consequences which, in his opinion, proceed from the doctrine
of Hermogenes : such as that good and evil are substances.3
He ridicules also the notion that God, in the work of creation,
performed no other act than that of merely appearing and draw
ing near to matter ; " as if," he observes, " there ever was a
time when God did not appear or draw near to matter.4 On
this supposition not only matter, but the universe also, is
eternal." " Noli," continues Tertullian, "ita Deo adulari, ut velis
ilium solo visu et solo accessu tot ac tantas protulisse substantias
et non propriis viribus instituisse " — a sentiment for which he is
severely reprehended by Bull, who says that he seems to have
cared little what he said, if he did but contradict his adversary.5
Such were the speculations of Hermogenes on the eternity of
1 c. 37-
3 Cc. 38, 39, 40. Hermogenes seems to have contended that matter was
infinite only in duration; that is, eternal, not infinite in extent.
3 C. 41:
4 C: 44.: Hermogenes illustrated his meaning by saying that God brought order
out of confused and indigested matter by merely appearing or drawing near to it ;
as beauty affects the mind of the spectator by its mere appearance, and the magnet
attracts iron by mere approximation. "At tu non inquis, pertransiens illam
(materiam) facit (Deus) mundum, sed solummodo appropinquans ei, sicut facit
quis decor solummodo apparens, et magnes lapis solummodo appropinquans.
Quid simile Deus fabricans mundum, et decor vulnerans animum, aut magnes
adtrahens ferrum? "
6 Defensio Fidei Nicana, sect. 3, c. 10, p. 236. Tertullian afterwards says on
the same subject, "Non apparentis (Dei) solummodo, nee adpropinquantis ; sed
adhibentis tantos animi sui nisus, Sophiam ; valentiam, sensum, sermonem,
Spiritum, virtutem," c. 43. Compare Warburton, Sermon 2, vol. ix. P- 39. But
¦what shall we say, etc. He appears rather to lean to Tertullian's opinion.

Second and Third Centuries. 285
matter, arid such the arguments by which our author answered
him. In one part of his reasoning he must be allowed to have
been successful — in showing that the theory of his opponent
removed none of the difficulties in which the question respecting
the origin of evil is involved. He has also given no slight proof
of discretion — a quality for which he is not generally remarkable
— in not attempting himself to advance any counter-theory upon
that inexplicable subject.
In conformity with the opinions already detailed, Hermogenes
maintained that the human soul was made out of matter. This
notion Tertullian confuted in an express treatise, entitled de
Censu Animd, Concerning the Origin of the Soul, which is not now
extant.1 In our account of Marcion we stated that Tertullian
charged that heretic with denying the freedom of the will. We
founded this statement on the following passage, in the tract
de Animd, in which the name of Hermogenes is coupled with
that of Marcion.2 " Inesse autem nobis to avr^ova-iov naturahter
jam et Marcioni ostendimus et Hermogeni." On this passage
Lardner observes, " Tertullian asserted human liberty ; and I
think he does not deny it to have been held by Marcion and
Hermogenes."3 He appears to have forgotten that he had
before referred to this very passage as furnishing proof that the
Marcionites did not allow the freedom of human actions, but
were believers in a kind of necessity.4 The zeal of Tertullian
against Hermogenes was doubtless quickened by the boldness
with which that heretic asserted the lawfulness of second mar
riages.5 In one place Hermogenes is connected with Nigidius,
of whom nothing more is known.6
Besides the heretics enumerated by Mosheim in his history of
the second century, Tertullian mentions some who belonged to
the first. He speaks of Simon Magus ; 7 and repeats the story,
which had been handed down by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,
that a statue had been erected to Simon at Rome, bearing an
inscription in which his divinity was recognised.8 In the tracts
1 " De solo censu animae congressus Hermogeni, quatenus et istum ex materiae
potius suggestu, quam ex Dei flatu constitisse praesumpsit." De Animd, c. I.
See also cc. 3, 11, and de Monogamid, c. 16.
2 c. 21. 3 History of Heretics, c. 18, sect. 9.
4 History of Heretics, c. 10, sect. 15.
5 Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1 ; de Monogamid, c. 16;
6 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 30.
' De Prascriptione Hareticorum, cc. 10, 33. 8 Apology, c. 13.

286 The Ecclesiastical History of the
de Idololatrid 1 and de Prozscriptione Hcereticorum? allusions are
found to his practice of magic. His disciples pretended that
by their magical arts they could call up the souls of the deceased
prophets.3 In the treatise de Animd? it is said that Simon,
indignant at the reproof which he received from St. Peter,
determined in revenge to oppose the progress of the gospel, and
associated with himself in the undertaking a Tyrian prostitute
named Helena. He called himself the Supreme Father ; Helena
his first conception, through whom he formed the design of
creating the angels and archangels. She, however, becoming
acquainted with the design, went out from the Father into the
lower parts of the universe ; and there, anticipating his intention,
created the angelic powers, who were ignorant of the Father,
and were the artificers of this world.5 They detained her with
them through envy ; lest, if she went away, they should be
deemed the offspring of another — that is, as I interpret the
words, not self-existent. Not content with detaining her, they
subjected her to every species of indignity, in order that the
consciousness of her humiliation might extinguish even the wish
to quit them. Thus she was compelled to take the human
form ; to be confined, as it were, in the bonds of the flesh, and
to pass through different female bodies ; among the rest through
that of the Spartan Helen, until at length she appeared as the
Helena of Simon. She was the lost sheep mentioned in the
parable, whom Simon descended to recover and restore to
heaven. Having effected his purpose, he determined in revenge
to deliver mankind from the dominion of the angelic powers ;
and in order to elude their vigilance, he pretended to assume
the human form, appearing as the Son in Judaea, as the Father
in Samaria. On this strange account it will be sufficient to
remark that it is taken almost verbatim from Irenaeus.
Tertullian mentions Menander, the Samaritan, as the disciple of
Simon Magus and the master of Saturninus.6 One of his asser
tions was that he was sent by the Supreme and Secret Power to
make all who received his baptism, immortal and incorruptible ; in
other words, his baptism was itself the resurrection, and delivered
all who partook of it from liability to death.7 Another of his
1 C. 9. 2 C. 33. 3 De Animd, c. 57. 4 C. 34.
6 Instead of artificis, we must read artifices, as is evident from the corresponding
passage in Irenaeus, 1. i. c. 20.
6 De Animd, c. 23.
' De Animd, c. 50, from which passage we also learn that Menander dissuaded
his followers from encountering martyrdom.

Second and Third Centuries. 287
opinions was that the human body was created by angels.1
Tertullian mentions the Nicolaitans ; 2 but says nothing respecting
them which may not be immediately inferred from the Book of
Revelation.3 There is a passage in the tract de Resurrectione Carnis, in
which, if the reading is correct, Tertullian speaks of heretics who
asserted the mortality of the soul.4
In the tract de Jejuniis our author mentions another heretic of
his own day (" apud Jovem, hodiemum de Pythagora haereticum"),
who borrowed his tenets from the Pythagorean philosophy.5
To this account of the particular heresies mentioned by Ter
tullian, we will subjoin a few observations collected from his
works, which apply generally to them all. We have seen that
he traces their origin to the Grecian philosophy,6 and conceives
that their existence was ordained or permitted by God in order
to prove the faith of Christians.7 In the tract de Prascriptione
Hareticorum he draws a very unfavourable picture of the heretics in
general, and of their modes of proceeding.8 He says that their
practice, like their faith, was without gravity, authority, or dis
cipline — that all was confusion amongst them — that they received
indiscriminately every person who came to them, however different
his opinions from their own ; the mere fact that he joined in
opposing the truth being a sufficient recommendation to their
favour — that they were puffed up with the conceit of their own
knowledge, all being in their own estimation competent to
instruct others, and even their women exercising the ministerial
functions — that they conferred orders without previous inquiry
into the qualifications of the candidates. Passing from their
practice to their doctrine, he says that their object was to destroy,
not to build up ; to unsettle, not to instruct ; to pervert the
1 De Res. Carnis, c. 5.
2 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 33; adv. Marcionem, 1: i. c. 29; de
Pudicitid, c. 19.
3 C. 2, vv. 15, 20.
4 "Quanquam in hac materia admittamus interdum mortalitatem animae assig-
nari ab Haereticis," c. 18.
6 C. 15.
6 P. 235. Tertullian supposed that the founders of the different heresies were
led astray by the suggestion of the devil and his evil spirits. De Prascriptione
Hareticorum, c. 40 ; Apology, c. 47.
7 Chap. v. p. 171 ; de Prascriptione Hareticorum, cc. 2, 3, 5, 39.
8 Cc. 41, 42.

288 The Ecclesiastical History of the
orthodox, not to convert the Gentiles : — that there was no agree
ment among them, each following his own fancies and despising
his superiors — that many of them were even without assemblies
for public worship. Another charge which he brings against
them on the subject of doctrine is that, from consciousness of
the weakness of their cause, they purposely argued in an
inverted and perplexed manner.1 With respect to their morals,
he accuses them of holding intercourse with fortune-tellers and
astrologers, and of acting as if they were released from all moral
obligation.2 He charges those heretics in particular, who denied
the resurrection of the body, with leading sensual and vicious
lives.3 That many of the accusations brought by him against
the heretics were true, cannot, we think, be reasonably doubted ;
but there seems to be as little doubt that some rested on no
solid foundation, and that others were grossly exaggerated.
"We should not," to borrow Jortin's words,4 "trust too much
to the representations which Christians after the apostolic age
have given of the heretics of their times. Proper abatements
must be made for credulity, zeal, resentment, mistake, and
exaggeration." It appears that the heretics were in the habit
of appealing, in confirmation of the truth of their tenets, to the
miraculous powers exerted by the founders of their respective
sects.5 We shall conclude the present chapter by a remark which the
subject naturally suggests. The Roman Catholics are in the
habit of urging the division among Protestants as an argument
against Protestantism ; and their own pretended freedom from
dissensions as a proof that they compose the true Church. If
this is a valid argument against Protestantism, the long catalogue
of heresies which have been just enumerated must furnish an
equally valid argument against Christianity itself. But the
divisions which arose, both among the early proselytes to the
gospel and the early Reformers, were the natural consequences
1 De Res. Carnis, c. 2 ; adv. Praxeam, c. 20 ; de Pudicitid, cc. 8, 16, sub fine.
In the tract against Hermogenes, cc. 19, 27, Tertullian accuses the heretics of
torturing the words of Scripture, and obscuring the plainest passages by their
subtleties and refinements.
2 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 43.
3 De Res. Carnis, c. n. In the tract de Panitentid, c. Si Tertullian mentions
certain persons (he does not call them heretics) who held that God was to be
worshipped with the heart and mind, not by outward acts ; and under this per
suasion thought that they might sin with impunity.
4 Discourses concerning the Truth of the Christian Religion, p. 72, 3rd ed,
5 De Prascriptione Hareticorum, c. 44.

Second and Third Centuries. 289
of the change effected in the condition of mankind by the
new light which had burst upon their minds. Their former
trains of thinking were interrupted — their former principles to
a certain extent unsettled — they were to enter upon a new and
enlarged field of speculation and of action. When, therefore,
we consider how many sources of disagreement existed in their
passions and prejudices — in the variety of their tempers and
the opposition of their interests — it cannot be matter of surprise
that all did not consent to walk in the same path, or that truth
was occasionally sacrificed to the ambition of founding a sect.

It was originally the author's intention to add some observa
tions upon the quotations and interpretations of Scripture in
Tertullian's works ; but the present volume has already, exceeded
the limits within which he purposed to confine it, and he must
consequently defer those observations to a future opportunity.

K

ADDENDA, Etc.

1'AGE 32, note 2. Dr. Neander observes that the tract de Spe Fidelium is
mentioned by Jerome in Ezechielem, c. 36.
65, note 2, add, compare de Cultu Fceminarum, 1. ii. c. 1 1 : " Ac si
necessitas amicitiarum officiorumque gentilium vos vocat,"
etc. ; from which it appears that the Christians did not think
themselves called upon to interrupt their former friendships,
much less to break off all intercourse with the heathen.
66, third line, for charity read chastity.
117, line 13, add, in the tract <afe fejuniis,c.iy,we find an allusion to the
practice of allotting a double portion to the presidents in the
feasts of charity, founded on a misapplication of 1 Tim.
v. 17. "Ad elogium gulae tuae pertinet, quod duplex apud te
Praesidentibus honor binis partibus deputatur ; quum Apos
tolus duplicem honorem dederit, ut et fratribus et praepositis."
126, note 4, add, "Et tamen ejusmodi neque congregant neque par
ticipant nobiscum, facti per delicta denuo vestri : quando ne
illis quidem misceamur, quos vestra vis atque saevitia ad
negandum subegit." Ad Nationes, 1. i. c. 5.
133, note 9. With respect to the reading of Rom. viii. 3, Dr. Neander
has pointed out two passages, de Res. Carnis, c. 46, and de
Pudicitid, c. 17, in which Tertullian has " damnavit or dam-
naverit delinquentiam in carne."
137, note 5, add, compare de Monogamid, c. 10, where Tertullian's
reasoning proceeds on the supposition that we shall recognise
our relations and friends in a future state.
160, Lord King, in his Critical History of the Apostles'1 Creed,
infers from a passage in the tract de Baptismo, c. 6,
that a recognition of the Holy Catholic Church formed a
part of the profession of faith made by the candidates
for baptism. " Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et
sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesia
mentio : quoniam ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus
Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quas trium corpus est." The same
noble writer considers the Communion of Saints as merely
an appendix to the preceding clause, the Holy Catholic
Church, and understands by the expression, the mutual
290

Addenda, Etc. 291

society and fellowship which subsisted between particular
Churches and between their members. To this fellowship,
Tertullian's writings contain frequent allusions ; and the
external marks of this fellowship are expressed in the follow
ing passage from the tract de Prascriptione Hareticorum,
c. 20: — " Communicatio pacis, et appellatio fraternitatis, et
contesseratio hospitalitatis ; quae jura non alia ratio regit,
quam ejusdem sacramenti una traditio ; " where, in the ex
pression contesseratio hospitalitatis, Tertullian refers to the
commendatory letters, on the production of which members
of one Christian community, when travelling abroad, were
hospitably received, and allowed to communicate by the
members of other communities.
167, note 4, add, " Ethnici, quos penes nulla est veritatis plenitudo,
quia nee doctor veritatis Deus," etc. De Spectaculis, c. 21.
181, note 4. The reference to de Res. Carnis, c. 26 (not c. 62), is
misplaced ; it should have followed the word copid in the
first line, p. 182.
204, note 2, add, In further proof that in Tertullian's time the Lord's
Day was deemed a day of rejoicing, see the tract de Corond,
c. 11. "Jam stationes aut ulli magis faciet quam Christo?
aut et dominico die, quando nee Christo ? "
205. I have said that Tertullian makes no allusion to the Paschal
controversy. The passage in the work entitled Pradestinatus
(c. 26) escaped me, in which the author quotes Tertullian as
affirming, in his reply to Soter, Bishop of Rome, and to
Apollonius, that the Montanists kept Easter according to
the Roman custom. Dr. Neander refers, in confirmation of
this statement, to the tract adversus Judaos, 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 vari
ance with the Asiatic mode of celebrating Easter.
223, note 8, add, Apology, c. 30 ; ad Scapulam, c. 2.
268, note 7, add, Adv. Marcionem, 1. ii. c. 27.

MORRISON AND GIBB, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.

2 M — D — 12/93.

! HI' M
HI s®
i ii iii i1 1 mi 11 1 ®o
3 9002 00528 2190 S3