66 progressive development of Christian moral doctrine, is, indeed, very similar to his Montanist disquisitions, but yet contains nothing which could have been said only by a Montanist. "The primordial law given to Adam and Eve, in Paradise," he says, was the origin of all the precepts of God. The law of Moses was the work of the same God who had before begun to train the righteous. What wonder is it, if he who had made regulations, should increase the discipline? if he who had begun, should go on to complete?" In pointing out the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies, he says, "In whom besides have all nations believed, except in Christ, who has already appeared?" Then after enumerating many nations (where we find some extravagant expressions, as for instance, "places in Britain inaccessible to the Romans have been subdued to Christ," although Tertullian, in what had already transpired down to his own times, had witnessed the capability existing in the character of the Gospel to reach all nations without distinction,)" In all these places, the name of Christ who has already appeared rules; before him all gates are open, before him the iron bolts are broken, and the folding-doors of brass are open. Although these things are to be spiritually understood, inasmuch as the hearts of men are blocked up by the devil, but unbarred by faith in Christ. Who can reign over all nations, excepting Jesus the Son of God, of whom it is declared that he shall reign over all nations for ever? . . . . . . The reign and name of Christ is extended everywhere; everywhere he is believed in; he is reverenced by all the nations above-mentioned; everywhere he reigns; everywhere he is adored. To all men everywhere he is equally imparted; a king receives from him not greater favour, nor any barbarian less joy. . . to all he is equal; king to all, judge to all, God and Lord to all." When Tertullian applies the passage so often used by the anti-Montanists-"the law and the prophets were until John"-to the fact that with the appearance of God the whole prophetic order had ceased, it might be regarded as rather un-Montanist. But all he means to say is, that the Jewish prophetic order, whose office it was to point to the future Messiah, had come to an end; which even a Montanist "Nec adimamus hanc Dei potestatem, pro temporum conditione legis præcepta reformantem in hominis salutem." To this principle the Montanists appealed in vindication of the new laws which, their r prophets wished to prescribe. might say, since he believed that from the baptism of Christ all the gifts of the Spirit were transferred to him. Jerome' quotes a work written by Tertullian in vindication of Montanism, which treats of Ecstasy, in seven books, of which the seventh is directed against Apollonius. According to the account of the author of Prædestinatus, lib. i. Hær. 26, this last book was equally directed against Apollonius and the Roman bishop Soter. The supposition that the Roman bishop, Soter, had already declared himself against Montanism, is certainly not impossible, if it could be ascertained that Eleutherus was that contemporary of Praxeas who by him had been induced to alter his opinion of the Montanists. But the compiler of that catalogue of sects is confessedly a writer not to be depended upon, as appears in his representing John as writing against Tertullian. Yet what he quotes from that work is too precise to allow of our regarding it as absolutely false. According to that account he had in that book vindicated the Montanists against false accusations, and sought to diminish the points in dispute, appealing to the fact, that the Montanists kept Easter with the Roman church, as well as the same sacraments; the only points of difference were, second marriages, and the recognition of the Montanist prophecies respecting the last times. As to the first, it would appear that the Montanists, in fixing the celebration of Easter, had withdrawn from the custom of the churches in Lesser Asia; and certainly this is confirmed by what we have quoted, p. 415, respecting the celebration of Easter. If the first part of the treatise Adversus Judæos proceeded from Tertullian, and was written by him as a Montanist, it would follow that the Montanists did not regard Christ's last Passover as strictly a Passover, but reckoned it as taking place on the 13th of the month Nisan, and the 14th as the day of the crucifixion.3 This opinion, which agrees with John's Gospel, might be referred to Lesser Asia. As to the second point, if Tertullian regarded these as the only remaining points of difference, we should infer that the Montanist tendency had, in the course of time, become not more rigid, but milder, and this might allow us to ascribe a treatise like that on Prayer to the later 1 De Vir. Illustr. cap. liii. 2 See Neander's General History of the Church, vol. ii. p. 221. Stand. Lib. ed.-TB. Adv. Judæos, cap. viii. "Die prima azymorum, quo agnum ut occiderent ad vesperam a Moyse fuerat præceptum." times of Tertullian, when he was more moderate. Yet wo must never forget the uncertainty of the source from which we derive our information. It is certainly conceivable, that as there were many grada+ions between the most violent opponents of Montanism, the Alogi, and the decided adherents of Montanism, Tertullian, who, from a mental tendency only akin to Montanism, had passed over to the most decided Montanism, after his tone of thinking had become more moderate, might adopt less extreme views, though still retaining many things from the influence of Montanism; and this would agree with the accounts already quoted. It might serve as a confirmation of this, that a small congregation of Tertullianists existed at Carthage, who united themselves neither to the Montanist party nor to the Catholic church, till the time of Augustin, who saw it gradually dwindle away.' But we cannot regard this as a certain proof. Augustin De Hæres. H. 86. "Postmodum (Tertullianus) etiam ab 'psis (Cataphrygis) divisus, sua conventicula propagavit." APPENDIX. OBSERVATIONS ON THE LATTER PART OF TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE "ADVERSUS JUDÆOS. SEMLER bas already brought under notice the suspicious character of this work (see the 5th vol. of his edition of Tertullian, pp. 221-245), and it lies in any person's power to convince himself of the spuriousness of the latter part, by comparing it with the passages borrowed from the third book of the treatise against Marcion. In order to exhibit the relation of the two, let us compare some passages which are found in both works, according to the connexion in which they are respectively placed. Tertullian, at the beginning of the ninth chapter Adv. Jud., wishes to prove that the birth of Christ was foretold by the prophets, and first of all he quotes the passage from Isaiah vii. word for word. With this citation, Tertullian's work, left incomplete by some accident, appears to have closed. But as Tertullian in his third book against Marcion endeavoured to prove that the Messiah announced by the prophets, the Messiah of the Demiurgus according to Marcion, was no other than Jesus Christ, some one thought that he might very well make use of this argumentation to complete that fragment. Lib. iii. c. Marcion, at the end of cap. xi. "Itaque," &c.-Then the challenge to Marcion, cap. xii. init. to carry out his antithesis between the Messiah of the Demiurgus and Christ in that passage of Isaiah-" Provoca, nunc, ut soles, ad hanc Esaiæ comparationem Christi." His premises, "Primo . . . inquis. dehinc." The conclusion, "Porro, inquis." The interpolator, who had this before his eyes, begins with, "Itaque dicunt Judæi; provocemus.”.. and closes with, " Porro inquiunt." For Marcion, who hardly knew any thing of Hebrew, the argument that Jesus was not called Immanuel, might suit very well, and it was necessary for Tertullian to remind him of the idea contained in the word Immanuel. But it is by no means suitable when the unskilful interpolator puts this objection into the mouth of a Jew. And yet in the preceding context he had spoken not merely of proselytes from the heathen, who might easily have learned the meaning of that name from their Jewish teachers, but of Jews generally. Then again, it is very proper, when Tertullian, alluding to the savage habits of the people dwelling in the region of Pontus, says t Marcion," Aliud est, si penes Ponticos, barbarica gentis infantes;" but these words are not so suitable when applied to the Jews in the treatise Adv. Judæos; "Aliud est si penes vos." Marcion charged the Demiurgus with promising an impossibility,—the birth by a virgin; Sed et virginem, inquit, natura parere non patitur, et tamen creditur 66 ... ... 66 66 ropheta." Tertullian answers: "Et merito." But how could such an bjection, which brings in question the credibility of the prophet, befit he lips of a Jew? "Sed et virginem, inquiunt, parere natura non patiur, et tamen credendum est prophetæ." The Jews would rather from he first have attacked the correctness of the translation. In the book against Marcion, the following is quite proper: Denique et Judæi." Where he means to say, Lastly, the Jews may be refuted in their erroneous exposition of the passage by the same argument which repels your attack on the authority of the prophet. But in the treatise Adv. Judæos, where Tertullian must go on to say to the same persons, Demque si"... these words are inapplicable. Tertullian in his book Adv. Marc. thus argues in reference to the passage in Isaiah: "But something wonderful like a child born of a virgin;" which suits the connexion, for thus the way is cleared and the attention excited to what follows, how such extraordinary things could be foretold of a child,— namely, that it was only of a child born in so wonderful a manner. "In signum ergo disposita virgo et mater merito creditur, infans vero bellator non æque" (this would not be very wonderful if it were rightly understood, not literally, but in a spiritual sense). "Nec hoc utique in signum est malitiæ non assentaturi" (the holy innocence of the child) "et hoc enim infantiæ est, sed accepturi virtutem Damasci," &c., namely, that in this manner it might be predicted of such a child of whom it could be said it would, in the spiritual sense afterwards investigated, &c. The interpolator of the treatise Adv. Jud. seems here not to have understood Tertullian's obscure expressions. In the "accepturum virtutes Damasci," which rightly understood according to Tertullian, must point to something extraordinary, but yet to no such miracle, no "novitas monstruosa" as a child born of a virgin; he thought, even in opposition to what was natural, that he must find a "mirabile signum" in the innocence of the child. Where Tertullian has connected the genitive "accepturi" (scil. infantis) with the preceding, the interpolator turns it into "acceptorum," and concludes, "hoc est mirabile signum." Tertullian applies the passage in Isaiah to the coming of the three magi, "This was the homage of Damascus, for Damascus belonged to Arabia, the homage of the kings of Arabia; for the magi were, or symbolically represented, kings (nam et magos reges fere habuit oriens)." Hence Tertullian says to Marcion, he should only restore its original form to the gospel of truth, since he avowedly rejected the history of Christ's childhood, and let the narrative of the magi retain its place— then he would find all fulfilled. "Redde evangelio veritatis, quæ posterior detraxisti. Maneant orientales illi magi," i. e. they should be allowed to remain and not be struck out. But the interpolator in a most absurd manner has admitted into his compilation words that only suited Marcion, without altering them to suit their different reference, and thus no suitable meaning can be extracted from them. What can this mean? "Immo reddite veritati" (veritas surely refers only to the gospel history) quæ credere non vultis." Then-" Maneant orientales illi magi." Where should they remain? Pamelius thought that "maneant" here stands for "expectant;" but even this makes no good sense; and generally, on comparing these two passages, every attempt at explanation must fail. In the treatise Adv. Judæos, cap. x. it was said 66 |