PL 1 · cols. 85–179

Lumper and Noesselt, Dissertatio de vera aetate ac doctrina scriptorum Tertulliani

Editors' preface

PL 1:85

Dissertatio

A Dissertation

DE VERA AETATE AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM QUAE SUPERSUNT Q. SEPT. TERTULLIANI.

ON THE TRUE AGE AND DOCTRINE OF THE WRITINGS OF Q. SEPT. TERTULLIAN THAT SURVIVE.

CONSPECTUS DISSERTATIONIS.

SYNOPSIS OF THE DISSERTATION.

ARTICULUS I.

ARTICLE I.

De Tertulliani ingenio, stylo et existimatione. 89

On Tertullian's genius, style and reputation. 89

ARTICULUS II.

ARTICLE II.

De libris Tertulliani, quorum et aetas, et orthodoxia

On those books of Tertullian of which both the age and the orthodoxy are

Editors' notes and page, col. 85

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: SEPT. TERTULLIANI› · call in col 85

Auctore P. Gottefrido Lumper, monacho benedictino imperialis monasterii ad S. Georgium Hercyniae Silvae, p. t. Villingae priore. Haec dissertatio accipitur ex tom. VI, operis cui titulus: Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis atque doctrina sanctorum patrum, aliorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum trium priorum saeculorum ex virorum doctissimorum literariis monumentis collecta

By Father Gottfried Lumper, Benedictine monk of the imperial monastery of St George in the Black Forest, at present prior at Villingen. This dissertation is taken from volume VI of the work entitled: A Theological and Critical History of the Life, Writings and Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and of the Other Ecclesiastical Writers of the First Three Centuries, collected from the literary monuments of the most learned men

(printed under page 65)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Q. SEPT. TERTULLIANI› · call in col 86

Auctore P. Gottefrido Lumper, monacho benedictino imperialis monasterii ad S. Georgium Hercyniae Silvae, p. t. Villingae priore. Haec dissertatio accipitur ex tom. VI, operis cui titulus : Historia theologico-critica de vita, scriptis atque doctrina sanctorum patrum, aliorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum trium priorum saeculorum ex virorum doctissimorum literariis monumentis collecta

By Fr. Gottfried Lumper, Benedictine monk of the imperial monastery of St. George in the Black Forest, at present prior at Villingen. This dissertation is taken from volume VI of the work entitled: A theologico-critical history of the life, writings and doctrine of the holy Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries, collected from the literary monuments of the most learned men

(printed under page 65)

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO DE ÆTATE AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 86
marginal letters: A miles fecisset testamentum (neighbouring unit); B natus fuerit (neighbouring unit); C castra concedente (neighbouring unit); D constant.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Upper part of col. 86 (Digest fragments from "miles fecisset testamentum" to "quod admittendum est.") belongs to the neighbouring unit: pointer only. The right half of the full-width title and "CONSPECTUS DISSERTATIONIS." are set once in col. 85.

PL 1:87

§ 5. — Prima classis librorum, qui sunt tempore prioris vexationis christianorum sub Severo Augusto scripti. 101

§ 5. — The first class of books, those written at the time of the earlier harassment of the Christians under Severus Augustus. 101

§ 6. — De ipsa hac vexatione disputatur, ita ut demonstretur, talem extitisse ante Severi edictum, quam in rem propositis Moshemii argumentis alia nova adjiciuntur, et initium coepisse A. P. C. N. CXCVII. Ibid.

§ 6. — This harassment itself is discussed, so as to show that such a harassment existed before the edict of Severus (to which end, after Mosheim's arguments have been set out, other new ones are added), and that it began in the year after the birth of Christ CXCVII. Ibid.

§ 7. — Quae caussae hujus prioris vexationis. 104

§ 7. — What were the causes of this earlier harassment. 104

§ 8. — Initium vexationis christian. ex an. quo periit Albinus demonstratur; hunc vero an. CXCVII. interfectum esse probatur primo ex ordine belli quod Severus cum Pescennio Nigro gessit. Obiter quaedam notae in nummis Severi explicantur, et Moshemii rationes emendantur. 105

§ 8. — The beginning of the harassment of the Christians is shown from the year in which Albinus perished; and that he was slain in the year CXCVII is proved, first, from the order of the war which Severus waged with Pescennius Niger. In passing, certain marks on the coins of Severus are explained, and Mosheim's reckonings are corrected. 105

§ 9. — Albinum anno CXCVII. interfectum fuisse probatur secundo a tempore expugnati Byzantii. 108

§ 9. — That Albinus was slain in the year CXCVII is proved, secondly, from the time when Byzantium was stormed. 108

§ 10. — Probatur tertio, ex anno, quo Caracallus Caesaris dignitatem e SCto accepit. 109

§ 10. — It is proved, thirdly, from the year in which Caracallus received the dignity of Caesar by decree of the Senate. 109

§ 11. — E loco quodam Tertulliani ad Scapulam, qui cum alio Spartiani confertur, ostenditur anno CXCVII. initium cepisse priorem hanc vexationem christianorum. Ibid.

§ 11. — From a certain passage of Tertullian's To Scapula, which is compared with another of Spartianus, it is shown that this earlier harassment of the Christians began in the year CXCVII. Ibid.

§ 12. — Idem demonstratur ulterius ex aetate Apologetici Tertulliani, caeterorumque librorum qui eum antecesserunt. 110

§ 12. — The same is further shown from the date of Tertullian's Apologeticus, and of the other books which preceded it. 110

§ 13. — Aetas ipsa librorum hujus generis definitur, ita ut liber ad Martyres an. CXCVII. sit exaratus; Hoffmanni conjecturae exploduntur. 111

§ 13. — The actual date of the books of this kind is determined, so that the book To the Martyrs was written in the year CXCVII; Hoffmann's conjectures are rejected. 111

§ 14. — Liber de Spectaculis an. CXCVIII. conscriptus. Dubitationes Tillemontii, Hoffmanni et Dupinii solvuntur. 113

§ 14. — The book On the Shows was composed in the year CXCVIII. The doubts of Tillemont, Hoffmann and Dupin are resolved. 113

§ 15. — Liber de Idololatria eidem anno asseritur. Tillemontii et Hoffmanni conjecturae dispelluntur. 115

§ 15. — The book On Idolatry is assigned to the same year. The conjectures of Tillemont and Hoffmann are dispelled. 115

§ 16. — Apologeticus an. CXCIX. compositus demonstratur. 117

§ 16. — The Apologeticus is shown to have been composed in the year CXCIX. 117

§ 17. — Libri duo ad nationes anno CXCIX. scripti. 120

§ 17. — The two books To the Nations were written in the year CXCIX. 120

§ 18. — Liber de testimonio animae eidem anno asseritur. 121

§ 18. — The book On the Testimony of the Soul is assigned to the same year. 121

ARTICULUS III.

ARTICLE III.

De libris Tertulliani quorum et aetas et Montanismus constat. 122

On those books of Tertullian of which both the age and the Montanism are established. 122

§ 1. — Liber de Corona an. CCI. docetur conscriptus. Ibid.

§ 1. — The book On the Crown is shown to have been composed in the year CCI. Ibid.

§ 2. — Secus sentientium opiniones examinantur, et imprimis Hoffmanni et Orsii, qui illum anno CXCVIII. tribuerunt, et Pagii, qui eum assignaverat an. CCII. 126

§ 2. — The opinions of those who think otherwise are examined, and above all those of Hoffmann and Orsi, who attributed it to the year CXCVIII, and of Pagi, who had assigned it to the year CCII. 126

§ 3. — Baronii argumenta convelluntur pro anno CXCIX. 129

§ 3. — Baronius's arguments for the year CXCIX are overturned. 129

§ 4. — Denique Pamelii et Allixii, qui librum hunc conjecerant in annum CCIX. decreta exploduntur. 130

§ 4. — Lastly, the rulings of Pamelius and Allix, who had placed this book in the year CCIX, are rejected. 130

Editors' notes and page, col. 87

Page

running head: [DISSERTA]TIO DE VERA ÆTATE 88
marginal letters: A § 5. — Liber uterque; B esse docetur. 136; C De libris Tertulliani ... doctrina; D ARTICULUS V.
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "Marcio-nem" (§ 8) has a damaged hyphen at the line end; joined. The first entry under Art. IV is printed "1. —" without §; set as printed. § 12 page number read as 139 through blurred type.

PL 1:89

ARTICULUS VI.

ARTICLE VI.

Quinta classis, librorum quorum nec aetas, nec doctrina certa est. 168

The fifth class: books of which neither the age nor the doctrine is certain. 168

§ 1. — Liber de Poenitentia. Ibid.

§ 1. — The book On Penitence. Ibid.

§ 2. — Liber adversus Judaeos. 170

§ 2. — The book against the Jews. 170

§ 3. — De Actis Perpetuae et Felicitatis, horumque Montanismo. 171

§ 3. — On the Acts of Perpetua and Felicity, and their Montanism. 171

ARTICULUS I.

ARTICLE I.

De Tertulliani ingenio, stylo, et existimatione.

On Tertullian's genius, style, and reputation.

Multum valuisse Tertullianum litteris, earumque scientia, commentationes, quas edidit, luculenter declarant. Judice Dupinio, « acris et acuti erat ingenii, et non satis accurati et recti. Plus splendoris saepe ejus inest ratiociniis quam solidi. Afficit, et perstringit potius novis et inusitatis elocutionibus, quam vi rationum convincit. Res affectatae sunt, et interdum aliquanto inflatae. Lepore quidem grandi, at parum genuino eas exprimit. Praeter modum saepe loquitur: in omnibus fere effervescit et effertur. Figuris et hyperbolis scatet. Multa scientia et eruditione repletus erat, qua apposite admodum utebatur. In Satyra excellebat: ejus urbani sales, et mordaces erant. Adversarios dextre impugnabat, et eos rationum inter se cohaerentium multitudine obruebat. Denique ni ratiociniis persuadet, consensum saltem extorquet splendida ratione dicendi. Ejus oratio laconica, dictiones validae, et in ejus scriptis totidem verba, totidem fere sententiae. Non immerito tamen in iis tria carpit Lactantius vitia non contemnenda. Tertullianus, inquit, plurima erat litteratura peritus, verum in loquendo parum facilis, parum comptus, et multum obscurus (Lactant. lib. V. Institut. Divinar., cap. I.). Tria haec quidem styli vitia apud plerosque Auctores Africanos occurrunt, exceptis tamen Minutio, Cypriano et Lactantio, qui ab Africanorum stylo recesserant: Cypriano tamen adhuc aliquid est reliqui. Verum summo gradu apud Tertullianum; et nullius Scriptoris stylus illius auctoris stylo durior est, minus comptus, et obscurior. Singula ejus opera illis laborant vitiis, alia plus, alia minus. Clarior et liquidior est, sed minus elegans in libris Polemicis, obscurior et durior in locis communibus, ut in libro de Pallio, quod unum est ex antiquitatis operibus obscurissimis. Liber de Poenitentia omnium est elegantissimus. Ejus opera pulcherrima et utilissima sunt Apologeticus, Praescriptiones, libri de Poenitentia, Baptismo, Oratione, et Hortationes ad Patientiam, et Martyrium. » Haec Dupinius (Ell. Dupin. Biblioth. des Auteurs, tom. I. p. 165. vers. latin. Coloniae, 1703.). Sed audiendus quoque Joan. Caveus, qui cum praedicta Lactantii verba recitasset, mox sua hanc in sententiam subdit: Habet tamen Tertulliani stylus majestatem quamdam sibi propriam, et grandem eloquentiam, sale et acumine plurimum conditam, quae simul legentis ingenium exercet, et

That Tertullian was very strong in letters and in their learning, the treatises he published plainly declare. In Dupin's judgement, « he was of a keen and sharp genius, and not sufficiently exact and correct. There is often more brilliance in his reasonings than solidity. He strikes and dazzles by new and unusual expressions rather than convincing by the force of reasons. His matter is affected, and at times somewhat inflated. He expresses it with a great charm indeed, but one hardly natural. He often speaks beyond measure: in almost everything he boils over and is carried away. He teems with figures and hyperboles. He was filled with much knowledge and learning, which he used very aptly. He excelled in satire: his witticisms were urbane, and biting. He attacked his adversaries skilfully, and overwhelmed them with a multitude of reasons that hang together. In short, if he does not persuade by his reasonings, he at least wrings out assent by the splendid manner of his speaking. His speech is laconic, his expressions forceful, and in his writings there are almost as many sentences as words. Not undeservedly, however, Lactantius censures in them three faults not to be despised. Tertullian, he says, was skilled in very much literature, but in speaking hardly fluent, hardly polished, and very obscure (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, book V, chapter I). These three faults of style are indeed met in most African authors, except, however, Minucius, Cyprian and Lactantius, who had departed from the African style: yet in Cyprian something of it still remains. But in Tertullian they are in the highest degree; and no writer's style is harsher than that author's, less polished, and more obscure. Each of his works labours under these faults, some more, some less. He is clearer and more fluent, but less elegant, in his polemical books; more obscure and harsher in his commonplaces, as in the book On the Cloak, which is one of the most obscure works of antiquity. The book On Penitence is the most elegant of all. His finest and most useful works are the Apologeticus, the Prescriptions, the books On Penitence, On Baptism, On Prayer, and the Exhortations to Patience and to Martyrdom. » So Dupin (Ellies Dupin, Bibliothèque des Auteurs, volume I, p. 165, Latin version, Cologne, 1703). But John Cave too must be heard, who, after quoting the aforesaid words of Lactantius, presently adds his own to this effect: Yet Tertullian's style has a certain majesty of its own, and a grand eloquence, seasoned for the most part with wit and sharpness, which at once exercises the reader's mind and

Editors' notes and page, col. 89

Page

running head: 89 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM [running head across the page]
marginal letters: A ARTICULUS VI.; B Multum valuisse Tertullianum; C ciniis persuadet ... splendida; D plus, alia minus. Clarior
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: The conspectus ends with Art. VI § 3 above a full-width rule; the body of Art. I begins below it. "Minutio" set as printed (for Minucius). "eas exprimit" read through blurred type (could be read cas). Guillemets as printed. The column ends mid-sentence ("et").

PL 1:90

§ 4. — De Montanistis Artotyritis. 174

§ 4. — On the Montanist Artotyrites. 174

§ 5. — Whistoni argumenta pro Tertulliano Auctore horum actorum expenduntur. 176

§ 5. — Whiston's arguments for Tertullian as the author of these Acts are weighed. 176

§ 6. — Usus universae hujus Disputationis exemplis ex Historia christiana ductis demonstratur. 177

§ 6. — The use of this whole Disputation is demonstrated by examples drawn from Christian history. 177

animum suaviter delectat (Cave, Hist. litterar., tom. I. pag. 92. edit. Basileensis).

sweetly delights the mind (Cave, Historia litteraria, volume I, page 92, Basel edition).

Ex supra dictis (prosequitur Dupinius) non est difficile judicare, quis fuerit Tertulliani Character. Verum aeque non est facile asserere, utrum laude, quam vituperio sit dignior; nam primo si de eo judicatur, prout Ecclesiae inserviit, difficile dictu est, an ei magis nocuerit, quam profuerit. Inde enim ejus doctrinam contra plures haereticos fortiter propugnavit, in quibusdam operibus capita non levia ejus disciplinae tuitus est, et denique mores pulchre passim docuit; at hinc praeterquam quod semper multis infectus fuit erroribus, Ecclesiae disciplinam diserte impugnavit, postquam ab ea descivit. Si deinde de eo judicatur ex ejus ingenio, tanto pollet et bono et malo, ut quod praevaleat, difficile dictu sit. Tandem si ex ejus stylo, nescitur an laudandus grandiloquio et stupendus, aut vitiis vituperandus. Ita sententiis semper dissiderunt, et etiamnum non mediocriter Viri variant in judiciis, quae de hoc Auctore ferunt: quo ad credendum inducor in eo, quod bonum est, laudare satius esse, et quod malum fuit, vituperare, quam de eo absolutum ferre judicium, quod nunquam non mille disceptationibus esset obnoxium.

From what has been said above (Dupin goes on) it is not difficult to judge what Tertullian's character was. But it is equally not easy to assert whether he is more worthy of praise or of blame; for, first, if he is judged according to how he served the Church, it is hard to say whether he did her more harm or more good. For on the one hand he championed her doctrine bravely against many heretics, in certain works defended no slight heads of her discipline, and in short taught morals finely throughout; but on the other, besides having always been tainted with many errors, he expressly attacked the Church's discipline after he fell away from her. If, next, he is judged by his genius, he is so strong both in good and in bad that it is hard to say which prevails. Lastly, if by his style, one does not know whether he is to be praised and wondered at for his grandeur of speech, or blamed for his faults. So men have always differed in their opinions, and even now vary not a little in the judgements they pass on this author: whence I am led to believe that it is better to praise in him what is good, and to blame what was bad, than to pass on him an absolute judgement, which would always be exposed to a thousand disputes.

En tibi quaedam tum Antiquorum, tum Recentiorum de Tertulliano judicia. Cyprianus, Auctore Hieronymo, qui id acceperat a Presbytero quodam, qui id a Cypriani scriba didicerat, nonnihil ejus operum quotidie legere solitus erat, et ejus rogando librum, aiebat: Date mihi Praeceptorem meum (Hieronym., de Scriptor. Eccles., cap. 53.). Revera enim eum imitatus est, et ab eo non pauca desumpsit. Pleraque etiam suorum operum eodem, quo Tertullianus instituto composuit, ut suum de Idololatria librum ad instar Apologetici: Libros de Disciplina, et Habitu muliebri, de Zelo, et Livore, de Oratione Dominica, de Opere et Eleemosynis, ad imitationem Tertulliani. Eusebius tradit de Tertulliano, eum unum ex eruditissimis latinis Scriptoribus fuisse, et in singulis Ecclesiis clarissimum (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., l. II. c. 2.). De eo judicium fert Lactantius a nobis allatum, quod ejus non admodum cedit honori. Hilarius in suo in Matthaeum commentario scribit, errorem in quem lapsus est, ejus librorum auctoritatem elevasse, qui erant aliqua approbatione digni. De eo nonnunquam honorifice loquitur Hieronymus, ut in Catalogo, ubi loci eum dicit acris et vehementis ingenii Virum; et in sua ad Magnum Epistola, tradit eruditione et subtilitate omnes ei auctores inferiores esse; sed alibi ejus errores increpat, et vitia. In sua contra Ruffinum Apologia,

Here for you are certain judgements on Tertullian, of the ancients as well as of more recent writers. Cyprian, on the authority of Jerome, who had received it from a certain presbyter, who had learned it from Cyprian's secretary, was accustomed to read something of his works every day, and when asking for his book used to say: Give me my master (Jerome, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 53). For in fact he imitated him, and took not a little from him. Most of his own works, too, he composed on the same plan as Tertullian, as his book On Idolatry after the pattern of the Apologeticus; the books On Discipline and the Dress of Women, On Jealousy and Envy, On the Lord's Prayer, On Works and Almsgiving, in imitation of Tertullian. Eusebius relates of Tertullian that he was one of the most learned Latin writers, and most renowned in every Church (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book II, chapter 2). Lactantius passes on him the judgement we have quoted, which does not much redound to his honour. Hilary in his commentary on Matthew writes that the error into which he fell lessened the authority of his books, which were worthy of some approval. Jerome sometimes speaks of him honourably, as in the Catalogue, where he calls him a man of keen and vehement genius; and in his letter to Magnus he states that all authors are inferior to him in learning and subtlety; but elsewhere he rebukes his errors and faults. In his Apology against Ruffinus

Editors' notes and page, col. 90

Page

running head: SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 90
marginal letters: A § 4. — De Montanistis Artotyritis; B vituperio sit dignior; C ducor in eo; D de Zelo, et Livore
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: The column ends on "Apo-" hyphenated across the column break; the word is set whole here as "Apologia," (the tail at the top of col 91 not seen in this check; the comma after it is unverified). "Ruffinum", "Eleemosynis", "dissiderunt" set as printed. The conspectus (Art. VI §§ 4–6) ends above a full-width rule.

PL 1:91

ait: Ejus ingenium laudo, haereses damno: et contra Helvidium, respondet Haeretico Tertulliani auctoritatem apponenti: De Tertulliano dico, Ecclesiae hominem non esse. Tertulliani stylum laudat Augustinus, et ejus ubique damnat errores, in libro de Genesi ad litteram tradit Tertullianum acri ingenio nonnunquam veritatem perspexisse, nec potuisse quin eam aliquando vel contra mentem suam poneret. Tertullianum ita suis pingit coloribus Vincentius Lirinensis: Tertulliani quoque, inquit, eadem est ratio; nam sicut ille (nempe Origenes) apud Graecos, ita hic apud Latinos, nostrorum omnium facile princeps judicandus est. Quid enim hoc viro doctius? quid in divinis, atque humanis rebus exercitatius? nempe omnem philosophiam, et cunctas philosophorum sectas, auctores, adversatoresque sectarum, omnesque eorum disciplinas, omnem historiarum, et studiorum varietatem, mira quadam mentis capacitate complexus est. Ingenio vero nonne tam gravi, ac vehementi excelluit, ut nihil sibi pene ad expugnandum proposuerit, quod non acumine irruperit, aut pondere eliserit? Jam porro orationis suae laudes, qui exequi valeat? quae tanta, nescio qua rationum necessitate conferta est, ut ad consensum sui, quos suadere non potuerit, impellat; cujus quot pene verba, tot sententiae sunt, quot sensus, tot victoriae. Sciunt haec Marciones, Apelles, Praxeae, Hermogenes, Judaei, Gentiles, Gnostici, caeterique; quorum ille blasphemias multis, ac magnis voluminum suorum molibus, velut quibusdam fulminibus evertit. Et tamen hic quoque post haec omnia, hic inquam Tertullianus, Catholici dogmatis, id est, universalis ac vetustae fidei parum tenax, ac disertior multo, quam felicior, mutata deinceps sententia, fecit ad extremum quod de eo beatus confessor Hilarius quodam loco scribit: Sequenti, inquit, errore detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem. Trithemii, Rhenani, Politiani, Pamelii, Rigaltii, et caeterorum recentiorum judicia silentio praetermitto, qui a singulis consuli possunt, et duorum Nostratium Gallorum auctorum judicio finem facio, qui uterque Tertullianum, sed varie pinxit. Prior est clarus Balzacius in Epistola ad Rigaltium 2. lib. 5. Tertullianum, inquit, expecto, quem in lucem emittis, ut me patientiam, quam tradit, edoceat..... Cum eo auctore in gratiam redissem tua praefatione, si eum fuissem odio prosecutus, et si ejus dictione dura, et ejus saeculi vitiis ab eo legendo fuissem deterritus. Verum jam diu est, quod eum magni facio, et quamvis spinis sit obsitus et tristis, mihi non videtur injucundus. In ejus scriptis nigrum illud, de quo vetus poeta canit, mihi occurrit lumen, et ejus aeque me juvat obscuritas, ac nitentis ebeni et fabrefacti. Ita semper sensi, ut Africanae formae, licet a nostris abludant, tamen sua non carent amabilitate, et ut non paucas Italas obscuravit Sophonisbe, sic ejusdem regionis ingenia cum sua extera placent eloquentia, et huic plures Ciceronis imitatores postponam. Delicatissimis fateamur, et quidem stylum esse ferreum, at nobis quoque fateantur, ex hoc ferro eximia eum arma cudisse,

he says: I praise his genius, I condemn his heresies; and against Helvidius he answers the heretic who set Tertullian's authority against him: Of Tertullian I say that he is not a man of the Church. Augustine praises Tertullian's style, and everywhere condemns his errors; in the book On Genesis according to the Letter he relates that Tertullian with his keen genius sometimes saw the truth clearly, and could not help setting it down at times even against his own mind. Vincent of Lérins paints Tertullian in his own colours thus: Of Tertullian too, he says, the case is the same; for as he (that is, Origen) among the Greeks, so this man among the Latins is easily to be judged the foremost of all our writers. For who was more learned than this man? Who more practised in things divine and human? Indeed he embraced, with a wonderful capacity of mind, all philosophy, and all the sects of the philosophers, the founders and the opponents of the sects, and all their teachings, all the variety of histories and of studies. And did he not excel in a genius so weighty and vehement that there was hardly anything he set himself to storm which he did not either break into by his sharpness or crush by his weight? Further, who could set forth the praises of his speech? It is packed with such, I know not what, necessity of reasons that those whom it could not persuade it drives to assent; in it there are almost as many sentences as words, as many victories as thoughts. This the Marcions know, the Apelleses, the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Gentiles, the Gnostics and the rest, whose blasphemies he overturned with the many and great masses of his volumes as though with thunderbolts. And yet this man too, after all this, this Tertullian, I say, holding too loosely to the Catholic dogma, that is, to the universal and ancient faith, and far more eloquent than fortunate, changed his opinion afterwards and at last did what the blessed confessor Hilary writes of him in a certain place: By his later error, he says, he took away authority from his commendable writings. The judgements of Trithemius, Rhenanus, Politian, Pamelius, Rigault and the other more recent writers I pass over in silence, since they can be consulted by anyone, and I make an end with the judgement of two authors of our own country, Frenchmen, each of whom painted Tertullian, but differently. The first is the famous Balzac, in his second letter to Rigault, book 5. I await, he says, the Tertullian you are bringing to light, that he may teach me the patience which he hands down..... I should have been reconciled with that author by your preface, if I had pursued him with hatred, and if I had been deterred from reading him by his harsh diction and by the faults of his age. But it is long now that I have thought highly of him, and though he is overgrown with thorns and gloomy, he does not seem to me unpleasant. In his writings I meet that black light of which the old poet sings, and his obscurity delights me as much as that of polished and finely wrought ebony. I have always felt that, as African beauties, though they differ from ours, are yet not without their own loveliness, and as Sophonisba outshone not a few Italian women, so the talents of that same region please with their foreign eloquence, and I would set many imitators of Cicero after this one. Let us grant to the most fastidious that his style is indeed of iron, but let them grant to us too that from this iron he forged excellent arms,

Editors' notes and page, col. 91

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: probabilibus auctoritatem› · call in col 91

Vincent Lirinens. Commonitor., cap. XVIII.

Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, chapter 18.

(printed under page 68)

Page

running head: 91 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [running head across the page]
marginal letters: A logia, ait; B resque sectarum; C haec omnia ... Catholici dogma-; D et si ejus dictione dura
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:92

ac Christianae Religionis cum honorem, tum innocentiam propugnasse: Valentinianos acriter persecutum fuisse, et Marcionem penitus confodisse. Posterior est P. Malebranchius Investigationis veritatis auctor Lib. II. cap. 3. Tertullianus, inquit, procul dubio, vir omni doctrina excultus erat, at plus memoria, quam judicio pollebat. Acri magis et vasto ingenio, quam acri et vasta mente. Denique dubitari nequit, quin fanaticus fuerit eo sensu quo supra explicui, et quin omnia propemodum fanaticis propria ei fuerint. Eo quod Montani ejusque vatum visiones veneratus fuerit, evincitur quod debili judicio fuerit. Acies illa ingenii, impetus de levibus afflatus, mentem effraenatam non obscure denotant; quot in ejus hyperbolis et figuris motus abnormes? quot rationes splendidae ac magnificae, quae suo duntaxat splendore probant, et persuadent solum mentem stupefaciendo atque perstringendo. Deinde demonstrare conatur hanc veram illius esse imaginem, quaedam exscribendo ex libro de Pallio, quo existimavit opere id apposite evinci posse.

and that he defended both the honour and the innocence of the Christian religion: that he pursued the Valentinians sharply, and ran Marcion clean through. The second is Fr Malebranche, the author of the Search after Truth, book II, chapter 3. Tertullian, he says, was beyond doubt a man trained in all learning, but he was stronger in memory than in judgement. He was of a keen and vast genius rather than of a keen and vast mind. In short, it cannot be doubted that he was a visionary in the sense I have explained above, and that almost everything proper to visionaries was found in him. From the fact that he revered the visions of Montanus and his prophets it is proved that he was of weak judgement. That sharpness of genius, that impetuosity stirred by trifles, plainly mark an unbridled mind; how many abnormal movements in his hyperboles and figures! How many splendid and magnificent reasons, which prove only by their splendour, and persuade only by stupefying and dazzling the mind. Then he tries to show that this is his true image, by copying out certain things from the book On the Cloak, a work by which he thought this could fittingly be proved.

Si hanc, quam ex Viris doctis dedimus, Tertulliani imaginem spectemus, quaeri cum nonnullis potest, plus ne profuerit nocueritne Religioni et Ecclesiae? majorane damna intulerit Ecclesiae, an vero commoda? plusne vituperio, an laude dignus sit censendus Tertullianus? Ut varia hac de re doctorum judicia sunt, ita quidpiam determinare oppido difficile est, ac delicatum. Judice tamen elegantissimo Schroeckhio, si ejus (Tertulliani scilicet) scripta interrogemus, in ejus fere favorem licet respondere. Montani enim errores, quorum Patronum agebat, non admodum Ecclesiam oppugnabant, multo minus Christianae religionis fundamenta evertebant, sed ex fervore potius quodam pietatis nimio, rationis discussionem plerumque abjiciente, oriebantur; imo et in his defendendis a Fide catholica, symboloque Apostolico nihil, aut certe non multum discedebat. Quid ergo Montanistae appellatio plus illius famae noceat, quam alia veterum Patrum errata auctoribus suis? Inter Sectarios meliorem quidem Vitae suae partem egit, non habet tamen Ecclesia ea aetate Virum, quem huic eruditione, et meritis comparet. Imo non parum profuisse catholicis Tertullianum etiam Montanistam arbitror, non solum quod suis invectivis eorum in agendo prudentiam acueret, sed quod eos commendatis tanto ardore severioris Ethices principiis ab lusibus allegoricis in exponenda Scriptura sacra, et ingeniosis circa Fidem quaestionibus inter eos hinc inde agitatis ad res longe utiliores avocaret. Nec vero quae scriptoris hujus sunt vitia (haec enim non potuit non prodere, qui in alienis detegendis refutandisque tanta fuit inclementia versatus) Virtutes ejus adeo conspicuas obscurant. Scripta ejus plena indiciis fervidi profundique animi, suo se genio distinguentis; modo animus vehementer assurgit, modo quadam velut aegritudine demittitur, et anxie serpit, propriis inventis et cogitatibus abundans, raro sedatus, in

If we look at this image of Tertullian which we have given from learned men, it may be asked with some whether he did more good or more harm to religion and the Church? Whether he brought the Church greater losses or rather advantages? Whether Tertullian is to be reckoned more worthy of blame or of praise? As the judgements of the learned on this matter vary, so to determine anything is exceedingly difficult and delicate. Yet in the judgement of the most elegant Schroeckh, if we question his (that is, Tertullian's) writings, we may answer for the most part in his favour. For the errors of Montanus, whose patron he made himself, did not much attack the Church, much less overturn the foundations of the Christian religion, but arose rather from a certain excessive fervour of piety, which for the most part cast aside the examination of reason; nay, even in defending them he departed nothing, or certainly not much, from the Catholic faith and the Apostles' Creed. Why then should the name of Montanist harm his fame more than other errors of the ancient Fathers harm their authors? He spent indeed the better part of his life among the sectaries, yet the Church of that age has no man to compare with him in learning and merits. Nay, I judge that Tertullian, even as a Montanist, was of no small profit to the Catholics, not only because by his invectives he sharpened their prudence in action, but because, by commending with such ardour the principles of a severer ethics, he called them away from allegorical play in expounding sacred Scripture, and from ingenious questions about the faith tossed about among them this way and that, to things far more useful. Nor do this writer's faults (for these he could not help betraying, who in uncovering and refuting those of others was occupied with such harshness) so obscure his virtues, conspicuous as they are. His writings are full of the marks of a fervid and profound mind, distinguishing itself by its own genius; now the mind rises vehemently, now it is cast down as if by a kind of sickness and creeps anxiously, abounding in its own inventions and thoughts, rarely calm, in

Editors' notes and page, col. 92

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: tamen elegantissimo Schroeckhio› · call in col 92

Jo. Math. Schroeckh. Hist. Eccles. Theotisce script., tom. III. p. mihi 521

Johann Matthias Schröckh, Church History, written in German, vol. III, p. 521 in my copy

(printed under page 68)

Page

running head: [DISSERT]ATIO DE VERA ÆTATE 92
marginal letters: A ac Christianae Religionis; B splendore probant; C ejus fere favorem; D agendo prudentiam
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:93

exultando quoque subtristis. Apparatus eruditionis, quam ubertim, apteque suis inspersit locis, multiplex non sine legentium sapore atque emolumento imaginandi vis, ampla atque prognata inde ingenii ubertas se undique per exquisitas cogitationes, acutas sententias, imagines vivacissimas, per festivos sales, et mordaces cavillationes, omneque dictionis genus diffundunt; his facultatibus raptim et turbate multoties agitatis judicium non semel cespitat; unde ejus argumenta splendoris ac speciosi multum, ponderis vero et solidi saepe parum habent. In rebus etiam minimis exardescit. Praeter facilitatem quibusque narratiunculis assentiendi, haud infrequenter res veritate majores contemplatur aut fingit, lectorem potius ipse abreptus secum rapit, quam ratione in suas partes invitat. Saepius quam res nude docenda aut probanda postulat, calamistris et cincinnis delectatur Multa etiam durius et significantius, quam intelligi voluerit, dicit. Graecam philosophiam apprime callebat; ab ejus tamen usu non tantum odio, quo velut haeresum matrem inter Christianos condemnabat, sed et indole animi, tardam et ab adamatis evagationibus liberam cogitationem abhorrentis, abstinuit, unde et minus frequenter, minusque feliciter, quam ejus capacitas ferebat, philosophabatur. His tamen haud impeditus fuit, quo minus Christiani nominis et Religionis eximius adversus Gentes Apologeta evaderet. In suis scriptis, si paucas quasdam sibi peculiares sententias, neque gravioris momenti, ac praesertim decantata Montani dogmata excipias, puram passim cum gravitate Fidem Catholicam, absque artificiosis explicationibus, et comparandi formulis, quas nonnulli Doctorum hucusque adhibere conati fuere, proponit. In morum doctrina, ubi tam frequenter in rigorem deflectit, quanto severior, tanto saepe praestantior. Suo namque Religionis promovendae ardore legentium animos succendit, et generosos in actus inflammat. Quaestiones autem, et assertiones Morales tanta vi ac gratia pertractat ut erranti facile ignoscas, frequens in sacrarum litterarum usu, nec indoctus earumdem interpres, sed parum ingenuus, suarum utpote opinionum ex iisdem eliciendarum plus aequo studiosus. In falsis doctoribus et Christianae doctrinae corruptoribus reprimendis acerrimus Athleta, qui eosdem innato animi impetu, capitali odio, dicteriis et opprobriis homine liberali parum dignis, persecutus est. Ad eos fortiter atque omni ex parte debellandos, insuetis utitur argumentandi telis, quae tamen pleraque non incassum emissa, graviter vulnerant. Stylus ejus duritiem plusquam Africanam, et si accurate velis dicere, Tertullianeam redolet. In verbis amplitudini et vi cogitatuum respondentibus ubique Auctoris singulare studium apparet. Ideae ideis, vocabula vocabulis condensantur, ut e dictionis obscuritate non nisi raro perspicuitas, et duntaxat velut fulgur e tenebris resplendeat. Voces obsoletae, aut nove confictae, aut affectatae, constructiones verborum asperae, abusiones variae, stylus inaequaliter fluens, condensa brevitas, audaces metaphorae, frigidae sententiae, et antitheses

even when exulting somewhat gloomy. A store of learning, which he has scattered abundantly and aptly through his pages, and a manifold power of imagining, not without relish and profit for his readers, and an ample richness of genius born from it, pour themselves out on every side through choice thoughts, sharp sentences, most lively images, through merry jests and biting raillery, and every kind of diction; with these faculties so often stirred hastily and confusedly, his judgement stumbles more than once; whence his arguments have much of splendour and show, but often little of weight and solidity. Even in the smallest matters he blazes up. Besides his readiness to assent to any little tales, not infrequently he contemplates or imagines things greater than the truth, and, himself carried away, sweeps the reader along with him rather than inviting him to his side by reason. More often than the matter, to be plainly taught or proved, requires, he delights in curling-irons and ringlets. He also says many things more harshly and more expressively than he meant them to be understood. He was thoroughly versed in Greek philosophy; yet he refrained from using it, not only from the hatred with which he condemned it among Christians as the mother, so to speak, of heresies, but also from the cast of his mind, which shrank from slow thinking free of the digressions it loved; whence he philosophized both less often and less happily than his capacity allowed. By these things, however, he was not hindered from becoming an outstanding apologist of the Christian name and religion against the Gentiles. In his writings, if you except a few particular opinions of his own, and those not of graver moment, and above all the much-repeated dogmas of Montanus, he everywhere sets forth with gravity the pure Catholic faith, without the artificial explanations and formulas of comparison which some of the doctors have tried to apply up to now. In moral doctrine, where he so often turns aside into rigour, the more severe he is, the more excellent he often is. For by his ardour for promoting religion he kindles the minds of his readers and inflames them to generous deeds. Moral questions and assertions he handles with such force and grace that you readily pardon him when he errs; he is frequent in the use of the sacred Scriptures, and no unlearned interpreter of them, but hardly candid, as being more eager than is fair to draw his own opinions out of them. In repressing false teachers and corrupters of Christian doctrine he is a most keen athlete, who pursued them with an inborn impetuosity of mind, with deadly hatred, with gibes and insults hardly worthy of a gentleman. To defeat them bravely and on every side he uses unaccustomed weapons of argument, which, however, for the most part not thrown in vain, wound gravely. His style smacks of a harshness more than African and, if you wish to speak accurately, Tertullianic. Everywhere there appears the author's singular care for words that answer to the breadth and force of his thoughts. Ideas are packed upon ideas, words upon words, so that out of the obscurity of the diction clarity shines forth only seldom, and only like lightning out of darkness. Obsolete words, or words newly coined, or affected ones, harsh constructions of words, various misuses, a style that flows unevenly, a dense brevity, bold metaphors, frigid sentences, and antitheses

Editors' notes and page, col. 93

Page

running head: 93 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM T[ERTULLIANI] [running head across the page]
marginal letters: A exultando quoque subtristis; B invitat. Saepius quam res; C tate Fidem Catholicam; D briis homine liberali
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "prognata" read through heavy blurred type (UNSURE; could be another participle). "delectatur Multa" printed without a full stop; set as printed. "cespitat", "nove confictae" as printed. Head numeral blurred.

PL 1:94

ac lusus verborum inanes Tertullianum ubique produnt. Quae sedeat sententia in mente Tertulliani, verbis quidem exprimit, sed obscuris adeo, ut conjectando potius, quam probe perspiciendo eruatur: rarius dubiae, quas ad se manifestandum selegit, phrases plene penetrantur; non immerito in hoc carpendus, quod studiose cogitatus suos tenebris ac verborum involucris contexe⟨rit⟩. Verum Oedipi labores haud sane inanes erunt, qui †solertius styli hujus aenigmata pervestigarit. Dubiam, quam suis scriptis aspergit Auctor, lucem compensat copia et ubertate veritatum quas sollicito scrutatori detegit. O quam jucundus erit conatus antiquitatis studioso haec scripta meditanti, ex cumulo verborum operose coacto ad penitiorem rerum cognitionem pertingere, et non raro in unico prope verbulo acutius investigato praeclaras veritates retegere! Quantopere abludit Tertullianus a Scriptoribus non paucis, qui turgida sua dicendi methodo, verborum nonnisi profluvia fundunt, et caecas nuces lectoribus ad fastidium usque porrigunt. Quot interea Auctor noster difficultatibus scatet, cultoribusque suis lectionem reddit impeditam, tot amoenitatibus e contra sunt ejusdem libri referti, et varietate ac selectu sententiarum ac veritatum utiles magis atque jucundi. Praeter enim Eruditionis reconditioris thesauros, invenies in ejus scriptis Fidei Christianae, disciplinae Ecclesiasticae, caeremoniarum in cultu divino usitatarum, impetuumque a sectis haereticis in doctrinam catholicam factorum, ac haereticorum sui aevi opinionum enarrationem adeo ingenuam, perspicuam, et jucundam, qualem frustra illa aetate ab aliis expectaveris. Nec est, quod confusionem Montanismi (propriae suae opinionis) et Catholicismi, ut ita dicam, metuas, qui multorum est scrupulus, nam illum in paucis, rebusque levioribus professus est, nec suos opiniones a communi sententia discernendi media nos deficiunt. Parum accuratam esse aiunt nonnulli ejus de Gnosticorum erroribus ob Orientalis Philosophiae ignorantiam recensionem; sed id non satis ingenue creditur. Is, qui tanta diligentia et acumine in horum scriptis erat versatus; is, quo nemo uberius illorum errores discusserat, is horum ignorasse originem credatur? Atqui absurda illorum opinamenta ex Philosophia Graecanica unice derivat, concedendum ergo potius, hunc fontem non fuisse duntaxat philosophiam Orientalem. Praeterea Tertullianus latinitatis Ecclesiasticae seu sermonis in publicis Ecclesiae negotiis usitati auctor fuit, in quo cum veteris Latii vocabulis et sententiis novae et a Christianis dogmatibus, Personis, et Consuetudinibus desumptae notiones junguntur, licet ab orthodoxis suae communioni non fuerit annumeratus, ejus tamen ingenium, stylumque passim commendabant, quemque inter Occidentales illi aequarent, habebant neminem. Non multo post Cyprianus, inter Episcopos celeberrimus, se suamque orationem penitus ad hujus dictionem effinxit, quod et caeteri minus aperte tentarunt. Montani autem factione paulatim deficiente, periculum quoque ex illius lectione sensim evanescere

and empty plays on words betray Tertullian everywhere. The opinion seated in Tertullian's mind he does express in words, but in words so obscure that it is dug out by conjecture rather than by seeing it properly through: only rarely are the doubtful phrases he chose to make it plain fully penetrated; and not undeservedly is he to be censured for this, that he deliberately wove his thoughts in darkness and in wrappings of words. But the labours of an Oedipus will surely not be vain for whoever investigates more shrewdly the riddles of this style. The doubtful light which the author sprinkles over his writings is made up for by the abundance and richness of the truths he uncovers to the careful searcher. O how pleasant will be the effort for a student of antiquity meditating these writings, to reach from a heap of words laboriously packed together a deeper knowledge of things, and not seldom to uncover splendid truths in almost a single little word investigated more keenly! How greatly Tertullian differs from not a few writers who, with their turgid manner of speaking, pour out nothing but floods of words and hand their readers hollow nuts to the point of disgust. As many as are the difficulties with which our author teems, making reading hard for those who cultivate him, so many on the other hand are the delights with which his books are crammed, and by the variety and choice of their sentences and truths they are the more useful and pleasant. For besides treasures of more recondite learning, you will find in his writings an account of the Christian faith, of ecclesiastical discipline, of the ceremonies used in divine worship, of the assaults made by the heretical sects on Catholic doctrine, and of the opinions of the heretics of his age, so candid, clear and pleasant as you would look for in vain from others in that age. Nor is there reason to fear a confusion, so to speak, of Montanism (his own peculiar opinion) and Catholicism, which is the scruple of many; for he professed it in few and lighter matters, nor do we lack the means of distinguishing his opinions from the common teaching. Some say that his review of the errors of the Gnostics is inaccurate through ignorance of Oriental philosophy; but this is believed without sufficient candour. Is he who was versed with such diligence and acumen in their writings; he than whom no one had examined their errors more fully; is he to be believed ignorant of their origin? Yet he derives their absurd notions solely from Greek philosophy; it must rather be granted, then, that this source was not Oriental philosophy alone. Moreover, Tertullian was the author of ecclesiastical Latinity, that is, of the language used in the public business of the Church, in which new notions, taken from Christian dogmas, persons and customs, are joined with the words and sentences of old Latium; though the orthodox did not reckon him in their communion, they nevertheless commended his genius and style throughout, and had no one among the Westerners whom they could make his equal. Not long after, Cyprian, most celebrated among the bishops, shaped himself and his speech entirely after his diction, which the others too attempted less openly. And as the faction of Montanus gradually failed, the danger from reading him also gradually [began] to vanish

Editors' notes and page, col. 94

Page

running head: SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 94
marginal letters: A ac lusus verborum inanes; B raro in unico prope verbulo; C reticorum sui aevi; D derivat, concedendum ergo
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "contexe⟨rit⟩": the end of the word is damaged in the type. "†solertius": the printed letters are blurred (seletius/selertius), UNSURE. "caecas nuces" read through blurred type (cassas, the usual idiom for empty nuts, is possible); translated "hollow nuts". The column ends mid-sentence ("evanescere"), so a verb such as "began" is supplied in the English only to carry the sense across the break.

PL 1:95

coepit, maxime ob commoda quae inde hauriri poterant plane singularia. Commentationes et interpretationes ejus in sacras litteras illustria sunt monumenta ad historiam Theologiae Biblicae, Exegesinque sacram; sed non sine difficultate dirimitur quaestio, quantum ille usus sit interpretatione latina illo tempore jam existente. Numerus et varietas operum Tertulliani sane postulat, ut illa certum in ordinem aut classes redacta perpendantur; sic relate ad res quas continent, seu ratione argumenti quod pertractant, illius scripta in tres classes distingui possunt. Prima complectitur ea, quae adversus Ethnicos et Judaeos, juratos Religionis hostes, scripta fuere, qualia sunt, e. c., Apologeticus, libri II. ad Nationes, liber de animae Testimonio, ad Scapulam, et adversus Judaeos. Secunda quae contra Haereticos, puta liber de Praescriptione Haereticorum, adversus Praxeam, Hermogenem, Valentinianos, Marcionem, de Carne Christi contra Apellem, Marcionem et Valentinum, de carnis Resurrectione contra Sadducaeos et Haereticos Resurrectionem negantes. Scorpiace contra Gnosticos, liber de Anima contra Philosophorum et Haereticorum sententias. Tertia vero, quae cum disciplinam, tum mores spectant; in hac classe primus locus debetur libro de Baptismo, cujus pars prior dogma adversus Gajanitas de Baptismi necessitate ac efficacia demonstrat; posterior disciplinam describit. Liber de Poenitentia primus est eorum qui mere ad Ecclesiasticam disciplinam spectant. Liber de Oratione partim de moribus, partim de disciplina agit. Huc spectant etiam Tractatus de Idololatria, de Corona, de Fuga, de Pallio, de Spectaculis, de Cultu et habitu Feminarum, de Velandis Virginibus, de Patientia, ad Martyras, ad Uxorem. Habita vero ratione ad Criticem ac Chronologiam quinque Operum classes statuendas esse capite sequenti docebimus. Notanda denique etiam veniunt Tertulliani opera contra Ecclesiam scripta pro Montanistis, hujus generis numero quatuor habentur, nimirum liber de Pudicitia, de Monogamia, Exhortatio ad castitatem, et Tractatus de jejuniis.

began, chiefly on account of the quite singular advantages that could be drawn from it. His commentaries and interpretations of the sacred letters are illustrious monuments for the history of biblical theology and of sacred exegesis; but it is not without difficulty that the question is settled how far he made use of a Latin version already existing at that time. The number and variety of Tertullian's works certainly require that they be weighed after being reduced to a definite order or classes; thus, with regard to the matters they contain, or by reason of the argument they treat, his writings can be divided into three classes. The first comprises those which were written against the heathen and the Jews, the sworn enemies of religion, such as, for example, the Apologeticus, the two books To the Nations, the book On the Testimony of the Soul, To Scapula, and Against the Jews. The second, those against the heretics, namely the book On the Prescription of Heretics, Against Praxeas, Hermogenes, the Valentinians, Marcion, On the Flesh of Christ against Apelles, Marcion and Valentinus, On the Resurrection of the Flesh against the Sadducees and the heretics who deny the resurrection, the Scorpiace against the Gnostics, and the book On the Soul against the opinions of the philosophers and heretics. The third, those which concern both discipline and morals; in this class the first place is due to the book On Baptism, of which the former part demonstrates the doctrine of the necessity and efficacy of baptism against the Cainites, while the latter part describes the discipline. The book On Penitence is the first of those which concern purely ecclesiastical discipline. The book On Prayer treats partly of morals, partly of discipline. To this class belong also the treatises On Idolatry, On the Crown, On Flight, On the Pallium, On the Shows, On the Dress and Adornment of Women, On the Veiling of Virgins, On Patience, To the Martyrs, To his Wife. But with regard to criticism and chronology we shall show in the following chapter that five classes of the works are to be established. Finally, there also deserve note the works of Tertullian written against the Church on behalf of the Montanists; of this kind four are counted, namely the book On Modesty, On Monogamy, the Exhortation to Chastity, and the treatise On Fasting.

De tempore atque ordine, quo in exarandis commentationibus suis usus est Tertullianus, multa ab Eruditissimis Viris disputantur; nec licet litem hanc ita decidere, ut omnia fiant plana atque accurata. Praeter alios, operas suas ad id contulerunt, ut librorum, quos Tertullianus composuit, et reliquit, aetates indagarent, ex Protestantibus Samuel Basnagius (Sam. Basnag., Annal. politico Ecclesiast., tom. II. p. 215.) et Petrus Allixius (Petr. Alix., Dissertat. de Vita et Scriptis Tertulliani, cap. IV, seqq., pag. 28.), cujus Chronologiam proxime ad veritatem accedere judicat Guil. Caveus (Guil. Cave., Hist. litterar., tom. I. p. 92.) et ipse ordinem, ab eo designatum, in enumerandis his libris praecipue sequitur, ita tamen, ut in nonnullis ab illo dissentiat. Ex Catholicis Sebastianus le Nain, Tillemontius (Tillemont, Mémoires, tom. III. p. 300. et suiv., édit. de Bruxell., 1732.), Ellies Dupinus (Ell. Dupin, Bibliothèque des auteurs, tom. I.) et Remi Ceillier (Remi Ceillier, Hist. gén. des Auteurs,

On the time and order which Tertullian followed in composing his treatises, many things are disputed by most learned men; nor is it possible to decide this dispute in such a way that everything becomes plain and exact. Among others, those who have devoted their labours to tracing the dates of the books which Tertullian composed and left behind are, of the Protestants, Samuel Basnage (Sam. Basnage, Annales politico-ecclesiastici, vol. II, p. 215) and Pierre Allix (Pierre Allix, Dissertatio de vita et scriptis Tertulliani, ch. IV ff., p. 28), whose chronology William Cave judges to come nearest the truth (Wm. Cave, Historia litteraria, vol. I, p. 92), and who himself chiefly follows the order laid down by him in listing these books, yet so as to dissent from him in some points. Of the Catholics, Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont (Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. III, p. 300 ff., Brussels edition, 1732), Ellies Dupin (Ell. Dupin, Bibliothèque des auteurs, vol. I) and Remi Ceillier (Remi Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs,

Editors' notes and page, col. 95

Page

running head: 95 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [rest of the head is on the facing column, cut by the crop]
marginal letters: A ‹coepit, maxime ob commoda›; B ‹Secunda quae contra Haereticos›; C ‹partim de disciplina agit. Huc spectant›; D ‹Praeter alios, operas suas›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "Gajanitas" set as printed (the Cainites); "Basnag." and "gén." read through slightly damaged type; the column ends inside the Ceillier parenthesis, which continues in column 96. Whole column is the editors' dissertation (this unit's text).

PL 1:96

tom. II. chap. 28.) ad investigandam ejus librorum aetatem vires suas et studium impenderunt. Sed nemo felicius, indice Cl. Jo. Matth. Schroeckhio, hoc munere functus est, quam Cl. Jo. Augustus Noesselt Theologiae Doctor et Professor publicus Ordinarius in Academia Halensi edita disputatione anno 1757. De vera aetate ac doctrina scriptorum quae supersunt Q. Septimii Tertulliani, atque emendatius reimpressa Halae Magdeburgicae anno 1768. quam tum ob suam praestantiam, tum ob raritatem (integro enim fere anno Bibliopolas passim litteris pro ea mihi comparanda, adhortatus, tandem multa industria exemplar nactus sum) litteratorum haud ingratiis hic subjiciendam statuit.

vol. II, ch. 28) have spent their strength and study on investigating the date of his books. But no one, on the testimony of the celebrated Johann Matthias Schröckh, has discharged this task more successfully than the celebrated Johann August Noesselt, Doctor of Theology and Public Ordinary Professor in the University of Halle, in the disputation published in the year 1757, On the True Date and Doctrine of the Surviving Writings of Q. Septimius Tertullianus, and reprinted in a more correct form at Halle in Magdeburg in the year 1768; which, both for its excellence and for its rarity (for after urging booksellers everywhere by letter for almost a whole year to procure it for me, I at last obtained a copy with much effort), it has been resolved to subjoin here, not without the goodwill of the learned.

ARTICULUS II.

ARTICLE II.

De libris Tertulliani, quorum et aetas et Orthodoxia constant.

On the books of Tertullian whose date and orthodoxy are both established.

§ 1. — Ratio instituti.

§ 1. — The plan of the undertaking.

Postquam, depulsis superioris barbariei tenebris, bonis artibus atque disciplinis pristina elegantia restituta fuit, coeperuntque prodeuntibus annis omnia litterarum genera majori lumine collustrari: non defuerunt magno et excellenti ingenio viri, qui nec arte longa, nec maximis difficultatibus deterriti, quidquid industriae poterat impendi, ad illustrandam coetus Christiani historiam contulerunt. Namque hi, ut erant in ea sententia, absque veterum scriptorum severa lectione, neque litterarum elegantiae, neque arti bene accurateque sentiendi, neque ipsis sanctioribus disciplinis satis posse consuli; ita maxime excutiendos credebant eos, quorum lectione perspexerant ipsius doctrinae disciplinaeque Christianorum intelligentiam plurimum adjuvari posse. Sed, ut ipsorum temporum, ita etiam opinionum est quaedam vicissitudo: haec ex antiquitate sapiendi ratio paulatim apud nos adduci coepit in contemptum, maxime cum extiterint, qui proptere⟨a⟩ quod solo sensu communi, a patribus velut haereditate relicto, virum doctum credebant effici, modo is esset adstrictus subtilitatis geometricae legibus, instituerunt Theologiae tirocinia ipsa pro Theologia habere, et, contenti scientia sua tam parva, contemnere eos, quorum studia aut nullam habent novitatis formam, aut acerrimam ingenii contentionem laboremque requirunt operosum. Unde factum est, ut hodie plerisque sordeat omne id, quod habet aliquam notam antiquitatis, et quae ad sacrarum litterarum, veterum familiae Christianae doctorum et historiae Christianae intelligentiam pertinent, ea doctoribus umbraticis, quam sagacioribus videantur digniora.

After the darkness of the former barbarism had been driven off, and the liberal arts and disciplines had been restored to their pristine elegance, and as the years went on all kinds of letters began to be lit up with a greater light, there was no lack of men of great and excellent genius who, deterred neither by the length of the art nor by the greatest difficulties, devoted whatever industry could be spent to illustrating the history of the Christian community. For these men, holding as they did the opinion that without a strict reading of the ancient writers neither the elegance of letters, nor the art of thinking well and exactly, nor the holier disciplines themselves could be sufficiently served, believed that those writers above all must be examined by the reading of whom, as they had perceived, the understanding of the very doctrine and discipline of the Christians could be very greatly assisted. But as there is a certain vicissitude of the times themselves, so also of opinions: this way of gaining wisdom from antiquity has gradually begun among us to be brought into contempt, especially since there have arisen men who, because they believed that a man is made learned by common sense alone, left as it were as an inheritance by our fathers, provided he were bound by the laws of geometrical subtlety, have taken to regarding the mere rudiments of theology as theology itself, and, content with their own so slender knowledge, to despising those whose studies either have no appearance of novelty or require the keenest effort of mind and laborious toil. Hence it has come about that today everything which bears any mark of antiquity is held cheap by most, and the things that pertain to the understanding of the sacred letters, of the ancient doctors of the Christian family and of Christian history seem more worthy of cloistered doctors than of the more sagacious.

Haec saepius mente agitantibus nobis, dolentibusque cum iis, qui bonam mentem amant, temporum nostrorum infelicitatem, visum est, horum aemulari diligentiam potius, quam caeterorum obscuram sapientiam. Ex quo igitur coepimus cogitare de eo, quo possemus consequi, ut aliquid consecremus ad aliorum utilitatem; religioni nobis duximus, viam sequi popularem,

As we turned these things over in mind again and again, and lamented with those who love a sound mind the unhappiness of our times, it seemed good to emulate the diligence of the former rather than the obscure wisdom of the rest. From the time, therefore, when we began to consider by what means we might succeed in dedicating something to the benefit of others, we made it a matter of conscience to follow the popular way,

Editors' notes and page, col. 96

Page

running head: [cut by the crop: …]ATIO DE VERA AETATE 96
marginal letters: A ‹tom. II. chap. 28.) ad investigandam›; B ‹ARTICULUS II.›; C ‹severa lectione, neque litterarum›; D ‹habent novitatis formam, aut acerrimam›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the first paragraph is the editor's (Lumper's) introduction to Noesselt's dissertation, which begins at ARTICULUS II.; both are this unit's text and are set. "proptere⟨a⟩": last letter damaged. Column ends on "popu-", hyphenated across the break; per the house rule the word is set whole ("popularem,") at the end of this column (the tail at the top of col. 97 was not seen in the Q4a re-read).

PL 1:97

quae sensim ducet nostros homines ad barbariem pristinam, repetendaque putavimus antiquitatis studia, quae cum opera, in divinis litteris diligentius colendis a nobis collocata, majorem aliquam habeant conjunctionem. Propterea, cum, quoad licebat, etiam ad antiquiorum Ecclesiae Doctorum libros assidue tractandos animum adjunxissem meum: dignus mihi in primis Tertullianus videbatur, cujus scripta accurata lectione persequerer. Namque dubito fere, an quis in antiquitate universa sit eorum, e quibus doctrina moresque veterum Christianorum possunt intelligi, qui cum maximo ingenio majorem conjunxerit rerum divinarum humanarumque scientiam, majoremque in commentando subtilitatem. Sed ejus quidem scriptoris usum in veterum Christianorum institutis cognoscendis maxime impedit dubitatio, sitne quis ejus liber tum scriptus, cum in Montanistarum partes discessisset, vel ante hanc defectionem a puriori Ecclesia? quae quidem quaestio vehementer exercuit doctorum hominum ingenia, movitque eos ad intelligendam librorum ejus aetatem, ut haberemus certam viam e Tertulliano intelligendi, quid veteres Christiani senserint, quidne minus? Sed dolendum est sane, horum alios, eosque praestantissimos viros, non nisi unum alterumve libellum sumpsisse sibi, alios leviter opus susceptum tractasse, alios praejudicatis opinionibus a vero aberrasse, quod credo consecuturos fuisse, si nudam veritatem nudi expeditique fuissent secuti. Quare cum legissem istius scriptoris libros atque relegissem, et observarem, esse adhuc in iis, quae, ad librorum aetatem scriptorisque doctrinam pertinentia, disputari utiliter possent, ab aliis non commemorata, ac plerorumque librorum aetatem accuratius posse constitui: consilium cepi benevolo doctorum virorum judicio subjiciendi ea quae sumpta e libris Tertulliani ipsis, cum scriptorum veterum libris aliisque antiquitatum monumentis collata ad demonstrandam eam facere posse videbantur. Quam quidem disputationem ita instituemus, ut, praemissis quibusdam, quae universe dicenda sunt, primum commentemur de libris iis, quorum et aetas constat et scriptoris doctrina, deinde in eos inquiramus, qui quidem non habent certas aetatis notas, sed Montanismi tamen convinci possunt, vel ab ista suspicione liberari; denique eos, quorum aetas non majorem habet claritatem, quam indoles doctrinae, candide diligenterque excutiamus.

which will gradually lead our people back to the old barbarism, and we thought that the studies of antiquity should be taken up again, which have a rather close connection with the labour we have spent on cultivating the divine letters more diligently. Therefore, since, so far as was permitted, I had also applied my mind to the assiduous handling of the books of the more ancient doctors of the Church, Tertullian seemed to me worthy above all of my following his writings with careful reading. For I almost doubt whether there is anyone in all antiquity, among those from whom the doctrine and morals of the ancient Christians can be understood, who joined to the greatest genius a greater knowledge of things divine and human, and a greater subtlety in commenting. But the use of this writer for learning the institutions of the ancient Christians is greatly hindered by the doubt whether any book of his was written at the time when he had gone over to the party of the Montanists, or before this defection from the purer Church. This question has vehemently exercised the minds of learned men, and has moved them to the understanding of the date of his books, so that we might have a sure way of learning from Tertullian what the ancient Christians held and what not. But it is truly to be lamented that some of these, and those most excellent men, took up no more than one or two little books, that others handled the work they had undertaken lightly, and that others strayed from the truth through preconceived opinions, the truth which I believe they would have attained if, stripped and unencumbered, they had followed the naked truth. Wherefore, when I had read and reread the books of this writer, and observed that there were still things in them pertaining to the date of the books and the writer's doctrine which might usefully be discussed and had not been mentioned by others, and that the date of most of the books could be fixed more exactly, I formed the plan of submitting to the kindly judgement of learned men those things which, taken from the books of Tertullian themselves and compared with the books of ancient writers and other monuments of antiquity, seemed able to serve to demonstrate it. We shall arrange this disputation thus: that, after setting out certain things which are to be said in general, we first comment on those books of which both the date and the writer's doctrine are established; next inquire into those which have indeed no certain marks of date but can nevertheless be convicted of Montanism or freed from that suspicion; and finally examine candidly and diligently those whose date has no greater clarity than the character of their doctrine.

§ 2. — Quaestiones quaedam universe proponuntur.

§ 2. — Certain questions are proposed in general.

Haec vero disputatio universa ut occupatur duabus rebus, aetate librorum ac Montanismo: sic duplicem habet difficultatem non parvam, propterea, quod nec ubivis doctrinae modus certa quadam via ac ratione

As this whole disputation is occupied with two matters, the date of the books and Montanism, so it has a twofold difficulty, and no small one, because neither is the manner of the doctrine everywhere by some sure way and method

Editors' notes and page, col. 97

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: in commentando subtilitatem› · call in col 97

Ne quid forte videamur dedisse partium studio, unius Jo. Dallaei testimonium adjicimus, quod propter nimiam hujus viri in doctores antiquioris Ecclesiae acerbitatem, hic non potest esse suspectum. Is vero Tertullianum vocat scriptorem ad miraculum eruditum, acutum, diligentem, copiosum, testem denique rerum sui aevi Ecclesiasticarum locupletissimum (de cultibus religiosis latinorum, lib. I, cap. XI. p. 50.

Lest we perhaps seem to have yielded to partisanship, we add the testimony of one man, Jean Daillé, which cannot be suspect here, given this man's excessive harshness towards the doctors of the more ancient Church. He calls Tertullian a writer of marvellous learning, sharp, diligent, copious, and in short a most abundant witness to the ecclesiastical affairs of his age (On the religious worship of the Latins, book I, chapter 11, p. 50).

(printed under page 71)

Page

running head: 97 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM [rest of the head on the facing column, cut by the crop]
marginal letters: A ‹larem, quae sensim ducet›; B ‹institutis cognoscendis maxime impedit›; C ‹adhuc in iis, quae, ad librorum›; D ‹majorem habet claritatem›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:98

reperiri potest, nec sunt ubique aetatis librorum certissima indicia. Nam si disputatur de eo, utrum sit aliquis Tertulliani libellus ante scriptus, quam defecerit ad Montanistarum familiam, an postea: ea res duobus modis intelligitur: vel ex ipsa libri aetate, vel ex iis, quae in quovis libro continentur, Montanistarum doctrinis. Sed ista superior ratio triplicem habet dubitationem. Nam horum librorum alii tam non ostendunt quaedam hujus rei vestigia, ut aetas eorum plane sit desperanda; alii nil nobis relinquunt, nisi ut descendamus ad rationem conjecturalem, denique alii dant quidem suspicionem certam ejus libri aetatem intelligendi, sed hoc nimirum est dubium, utrum ista tempestate jam Tertullianus fecerit ab Ecclesia secessionem, aut eodem, unde discesserat, redierit. Contra altera aetatem definiendi ratio, praeterea quod non occurrit ubivis, dubitantes relinquit lectores, sitne jam facta Tertulliani disjunctio ita, ut se receperit ad disciplinam Montani, an minus, sed in uno alterove cum ea communiter erraverit, nec tamen jam tum miserit orthodoxae Ecclesiae nuntium? Enimvero, sicut in ejusmodi loco, ubi vel nulla est vel dubia ejus aetatis suspicio, alias, indicata ratione dubitandi, veterum illud: Non liquet, interponemus, alias conjecturarum nostrarum rationem reddemus probabilem: sic, ut de locis reliquis singulis universe dicamus, tria attingemus brevissime. Primum disputabimus de anno, quo ad Montanistas Tertullianus defecerit (erit enim hoc, unde constitui possit aetas eorum librorum, quorum non doctrina quidem, sed aetas patet); deinde videbimus, utrum Tertullianus nunquam ad saniorem mentem redierit, sed manserit partibus Montani perpetuo addictus: postremo admonitiones quasdam universas proponemus, e quibus quis intelligere possit, an sint e Tertulliani libris nonnulli Tertulliano orthodoxo quidem, sed ad Montanismum inclinanti, aut isti omnes, qui eorum errorum dant suspicionem, Tertulliano jam plane alienato adjudicandi.

be found, nor are there everywhere most certain indications of the date of the books. For if it is disputed whether some little book of Tertullian was written before he defected to the family of the Montanists, or afterwards, the matter is understood in two ways: either from the date of the book itself, or from the doctrines of the Montanists that are contained in any given book. But the former method involves a threefold doubt. For some of these books show so few traces of this matter that their date must be wholly despaired of; others leave us nothing but to descend to conjecture; and finally others do indeed give a sure suspicion of the date of the book, but this, of course, is doubtful: whether at that time Tertullian had already made his secession from the Church, or had returned to the place from which he had departed. On the other hand the second method of determining the date, besides the fact that it does not occur everywhere, leaves readers in doubt whether Tertullian's separation had already taken place in such a way that he had betaken himself to the discipline of Montanus, or not, but had merely erred in common with it on one or another point, and had nevertheless not yet sent his notice of departure to the orthodox Church. Indeed, just as in a passage of this kind, where there is either no suspicion of its date or a doubtful one, we shall sometimes, after indicating the reason for doubt, interpose that saying of the ancients, "It is not clear," and sometimes render the reasoning of our conjectures probable, so, in order to speak in general about the remaining individual passages, we shall touch very briefly on three things. First we shall discuss the year in which Tertullian defected to the Montanists (for this will be the means by which the date can be fixed of those books whose date, though not their doctrine, is evident); next we shall see whether Tertullian never returned to a sounder mind but remained perpetually devoted to the party of Montanus; finally we shall propose certain general admonitions, from which one may understand whether there are some of Tertullian's books which belong to Tertullian while still orthodox but inclining to Montanism, or whether all those which give suspicion of those errors are to be assigned to Tertullian when already wholly estranged.

§ 3. — Quonam anno Tertullianus ad Montanistas defecerit? Utrum, his relictis, se denuo ad orthodoxos receperit.

§ 3. — In what year did Tertullian defect to the Montanists? Whether, having left them, he betook himself again to the orthodox.

Quonam vero anno contigisse dicamus istam Tertulliani defectionem? Hoc quidem nec potest ex ipsius nec ex alius cujusdam scriptoris testimonio percipi; neque Hieronymus eo quod dicit (In libro de Viris illustribus, cap. 53. in Jo. Alb. Fabricii Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, p. 125.) Tertullianum usque ad mediam aetatem, Ecclesiae Presbyterum mansisse, justam dat viam ejus rei inveniendae, quoniam, quando natus mortuusve sit Tertullianus, quamve aetatem attigerit, non satis constat. Sed est aliqua hujus rei reperiendae ratio sita in libris iis, quorum, qui se excipiunt temporis ordine, alii nulla habent Montanismi vestigia, alii haud pauca. Atqui nos ostendemus suo loco, nullos esse eorum, qui librum de Corona militis antecesserunt, in quibus iste de animae testimonio ultimus est, e quibus quaedam Montanismi significatio eluceat,

But in what year shall we say that this defection of Tertullian took place? This indeed cannot be learned either from his own testimony or from that of any other writer; nor does Jerome, by saying (in the book On Illustrious Men, ch. LIII, in Jo. Alb. Fabricius's Bibliotheca ecclesiastica, p. 125) that Tertullian remained a presbyter of the Church up to middle age, give a proper way of finding this out, since when Tertullian was born or died, or what age he reached, is not sufficiently established. But there is a certain way of discovering this matter, lying in those books of which, as they follow one another in order of time, some have no traces of Montanism, others not a few. Now we shall show in its place that there are none of those which preceded the book On the Soldier's Crown, among which the book On the Testimony of the Soul is the last, from which any sign of Montanism shines out,

Editors' notes and page, col. 98

Page

running head: [cut by the crop: …] SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 98
marginal letters: A ‹reperiri potest, nec sunt›; B ‹Contra altera aetatem definiendi›; C ‹aetas patet ); deinde videbimus›; D ‹sius nec ex alius cujusdam›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "ultimus" read through damaged type (the m is blurred). "alius" (genitive) set as printed.

PL 1:99

sed ejus rei prima esse vestigia in libello de Corona militis. Porro planum faciemus, hunc A. CCI. mandatum fuisse litteris, cum liber de Testimonio animae sit fere versus finem A. CXCIX. compositus; unde haud difficile erit intellectu, Tertullianum anno fere P. C. N. CC. se Montanistarum partibus adjunxisse. At majori sane difficultati obnoxia est altera quaestio: utrum, susceptis semel Montanistarum erroribus, nunquam Tertullianus se ad pristinum coetum receperit? Cujus tamen quaestionis affirmandae nulla est idonea ratio. Nam ea erat isti homini austero et supra modum rigido insita animi imbecillitas, ut, quo severiora essent, quae ad vitam moresque pertinerent, eo magis ista adamaret, crederetque tanto magis probata fore Deo et consentientia cum christianorum perfectione. Atque, ut solent ii, qui atra bile vexantur, tenaciores esse eorum omnium, quae nutrimento sunt tristitiae, eorumque opiniones cum annis nova capere incrementa: ita est parum credibile, Tertullianum istas opiniones deposuisse, istamque reliquisse palaestram, in qua videbat operam se posse omnibus ejus generis exercitationibus dare. Accedit ad hoc non omnium modo, qui de rebus ad eum pertinentibus commentati sunt, silentium de eo, quod ad religionem pristinam redierit, sed ipsa etiam Augustini professio (De haeresibus, cap. 86.) omniumque consensus, qui ejus auctoritatem in doctrinis probandis admittere noluerunt, quoniam ad perverse sentientium partes se contulisset. Neque cum sententia nostra pugnant libri ii, quos eum ultimo fere loco scripsisse ostendemus, qui pene omnes aliquas habent maculas errorum Montanisticorum aspersas. Sit igitur haec ea in re praeceptio, ut omnes isti libri existimentur ab ipso post discessionem suam elaborati, quos apparet post alios fuisse compositos, qui istorum errorum possunt haud dubie convinci.

but that the first traces of this matter are in the little book On the Soldier's Crown. Further, we shall make it plain that this was committed to writing in A.D. 201, whereas the book On the Testimony of the Soul was composed towards about the end of A.D. 199; whence it will not be difficult to understand that Tertullian joined the party of the Montanists in about the year 200 after the birth of Christ. But the other question is subject to far greater difficulty: whether, having once taken up the errors of the Montanists, Tertullian never betook himself back to his former community? Yet there is no adequate reason for affirming this question. For there was ingrained in that austere and immoderately rigid man such a weakness of mind that the more severe were the things pertaining to life and morals, the more he loved them, and believed that they would be so much the more approved by God and in accord with Christian perfection. And as those who are troubled by black bile are wont to cling more tenaciously to all the things that are the nourishment of melancholy, and their opinions are wont to grow fresh with the years, so it is scarcely credible that Tertullian laid aside those opinions and left that wrestling-school in which he saw he could devote his effort to all exercises of that kind. To this is added not only the silence of all who have written on matters concerning him about his having returned to his former religion, but also Augustine's own statement (On Heresies, ch. LXXXVI) and the agreement of all who refused to admit his authority in proving doctrines because he had gone over to the party of those who thought perversely. Nor do those books conflict with our opinion which we shall show that he wrote almost last, almost all of which have some stains of Montanist errors sprinkled on them. Let this, then, be the rule in this matter: that all those books be considered to have been worked out by him after his departure which are evidently composed after others which can without doubt be convicted of those errors.

§ 4. — Quomodo Tertullianus Montanizans a Montanista discerni possit? Et hujus discriminis vindiciae adversus Hoffmannum.

§ 4. — How may Tertullian the Montanizer be distinguished from Tertullian the Montanist? And a defence of this distinction against Hoffmann.

At sunt permulti e Tertulliani libris, quorum aetas cum curiosorum acumen subterfugiat, nulla habent, nisi quaedam errorum Montanisticorum vestigia sibi impressa, e quibus vix tamen potest judicari, quosnam libros ante, quosnam post defectionem suam ad Montanistas conscripserit. Unde factum est, ut, qui ista subtilius quaerunt, Tertullianum Montanistam a Montanizante distinguendum esse haud inepte dicerent. Sed aliter visum est Jo. Guil. Hoffmanno, doctissimo olim in Academia Vitebergensi Historiae doctori, qui, cum in ea esset sententia, ut crederet omnia Tertulliani, quae supersunt, in Montanismo scripta fuisse, hoc sibi demonstrandum dissertatione singulari sumpserat (Vitebergae 1739.). Is quidem pulchre perspiciens, si ista subtilitas admitteretur, demonstrationem suam aliquid esse detrimenti capturam, negavit hoc admitti discrimen posse. « Carere enim hoc, ait, (§ IV. p. 17.) finibus certis, nec minus ambiguum esse vultum Montanizantis et Montanistae, quam ejus, qui aegrotare incipit, et aegrotanti

But there are very many of Tertullian's books which, since their date escapes the acumen of the curious, have nothing impressed on them but certain traces of Montanist errors, from which, however, it can scarcely be judged which books he wrote before, and which after, his defection to the Montanists. Hence it has come about that those who inquire into these things more subtly have said, not ineptly, that Tertullian the Montanist must be distinguished from Tertullian the Montanizer. But Johann Wilhelm Hoffmann, formerly a most learned doctor of history in the University of Wittenberg, thought otherwise; holding the opinion that all the surviving works of Tertullian were written in his Montanism, he had undertaken to demonstrate this in a dissertation of its own (Wittenberg, 1739). He, seeing clearly that if this subtlety were admitted his demonstration would suffer some damage, denied that this distinction could be admitted. "For it lacks," he says (§ IV, p. 17), "fixed boundaries, and the face of the Montanizer and of the Montanist is no less ambiguous than that of one who is beginning to fall ill and of one who is ill

Editors' notes and page, col. 99

Page

running head: 99 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [rest of the head on the facing column, cut by the crop]
marginal letters: A ‹sed ejus rei prima esse vestigia›; B ‹perfectione. Atque, ut solent›; C ‹tentia nostra pugnant libri›; D ‹Montanistas conscripserit. Unde›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the column ends "aegro-"; the next column's first line, visible in the crop overlap, begins "tanti", so the word is set whole here as "aegrotanti" and column 100 begins after it. The quotation from Hoffmann is printed with « at the start of each line; set once at its opening; it continues into column 100.

PL 1:100

Editors' notes and page, col. 100

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: exquisitissimis argumentis explosit› · call in col 102

In Commentatione de aetate Apologetici Tertulliani et initio persecutionis Christianorum sub Severo, quae inserta est vol. I. Dissertationum ejus ad historiam eccles. pertinentium, pag. 1. seqq. Daturum etiam se promiserat vitam Tertulliani librorumque ejus Chronologiam accuratiorem ea, quam tradidit Allixius (v. Thesaurum Epistolicum Lacrozianum, tom. I. p. 281.); sed id consilium postea ipsi eripuerunt graviores sanctioris muneris curae, ut fatetur in addendis ad vol. I. Diss. Hist. Eccl., p. 752.

In the Commentatio on the date of Tertullian's Apologeticum and the beginning of the persecution of the Christians under Severus, which is inserted in vol. I of his Dissertations bearing on church history, p. 1 ff. He had also promised to give a life of Tertullian and a chronology of his books more accurate than the one Allix provided (see the Thesaurus Epistolicus Lacrozianus, vol. I, p. 281); but the weightier cares of a holier office afterwards took that plan from him, as he admits in the addenda to vol. I of the Dissertations on Church History, p. 752.

(printed under page 73)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L02 blocked after writing 95-99 (2026-10-04). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 1:105

cum nondum Severi, sed antiquis legibus judicium fieret. Eo enim adducebantur multi Christianorum, qui opibus vitaeque suae timebant, ut, quod alia declinare via non poterant, periculum, oblata pecunia averruncarent. Quas saevitiae Praesidum vulgique causas si mente complectimur; erit sane, ut sciamus tempus, quo orta est haec prior tempestas, quando, quo anno haec speciosa Christianos laedendi occasio extiterit, demonstravimus.

when judgement was given not yet by the laws of Severus but by the old laws. For many of the Christians who feared for their wealth and their lives were brought to this: that a danger which they could not avoid by any other way they warded off by offering money. If we grasp in mind these causes of the cruelty of the governors and of the mob, it will surely follow that we know the time at which this earlier storm arose, when we have shown in what year this specious occasion for harming the Christians came about.

§ 8. — Initium vexationis Christian. ex anno quo periit Albinus demonstratur, hunc vero a. CXCVII. interfectum esse probatur primo ex ordine belli, quod Severus cum Pescennio Nigro gessit. Obiter quaedam notae in nummis Severi explicantur, et Moshemii rationes emendantur.

§ 8. — The beginning of the harassment of the Christians is shown from the year in which Albinus perished; and that he was killed in the year CXCVII is proved first from the course of the war which Severus waged with Pescennius Niger. In passing, certain marks on the coins of Severus are explained, and Mosheim's reckonings are corrected.

Ad hunc vero investigandum primum ipsis utamur his, quas enumeravimus, calamitatum caussis. Illud enim, quod quasi ansas vulgo dabat ad impugnandam Christianorum familiam, erat Severi studium conquirendi omnes eos, quos cum Nigro aut Albino adversus se stetisse compererat. Quod quoniam factum est, cum, Albino exstincto, Romam victor rediisset (tum enim gravissima in eos supplicia constituit [V. Dionem, l. LXXV. c. 7. p. 1262. D. Herodianum, l. III. c. 8. et Spartianum, in Severo, c. 12. 13.]) operae pretium est videre, quonam anno Albinus cum vita imperium deposuerit. Atque in isto definiendo tantum operae curaeque jam positum esse videmus a Moshemio (in diss. laudata § XX. seqq.), ut pene isti labori possemus supersedere, nisi quaedam essent in promptu, quae dici posse contra viderentur. Itaque cum hic se offerat occasio in dubitationem vocandi opinionem quamdam popularem, atque ipsa res postulet, ut paulo aliter rationes subducantur: servato ipso argumentorum genere, quod adhibitum est a summo viro, candide disputabimus quae consentanea sunt veritati ipsi, et quanam in re sentiamus diversa, salva pietate in tantum virum, cujus nomen nobis etiam est post mortem venerabile, adjecta dissentiendi ratione infra notabimus. Cum ad imperium venisset Severus, videretque Pescennium Nigrum in Syria copias parare, quibus se sibi opponeret, primum, ne ex utraque parte premeretur, Albinum Britannici exercitus ducem fecit, eique et nummos decrevit, et alia honoris monumenta. Posthac, lecto per Italiam milite et classe exornata, elapso fere mense Junio A. CXCIII. contra Nigrum profectus

To investigate this, let us first make use of those very causes of the calamities which we have enumerated. For what gave the mob, as it were, a handle for attacking the Christian household was Severus's zeal in hunting out all those whom he had found to have stood against him with Niger or Albinus. Since this happened when, Albinus having been destroyed, he had returned to Rome as victor (for it was then that he decreed the heaviest punishments against them [see Dio, book LXXV, ch. 7, p. 1262 D; Herodian, book III, ch. 8; and Spartianus, in the Severus, chs. 12, 13]), it is worth the trouble to see in what year Albinus laid down his rule together with his life. And we see that so much labour and care has already been spent on settling this by Mosheim (in the dissertation cited, § XX and following) that we could almost dispense with this labour, were there not certain things ready to hand which seemed able to be said against it. Therefore, since an occasion here offers itself for calling into doubt a certain popular opinion, and the matter itself demands that the reckoning be cast a little differently, we shall, keeping the very kind of arguments that was employed by that eminent man, discuss candidly what agrees with the truth itself, and in what matter we think differently we shall note below, adding the reason for our dissent, without loss of reverence towards so great a man, whose name is venerable to us even after his death. When Severus had come to the empire and saw Pescennius Niger in Syria preparing forces with which to oppose himself to him, first, so as not to be pressed from both sides, he made Albinus commander of the army of Britain, and decreed him both coins and other memorials of honour. After this, having levied soldiers throughout Italy and fitted out a fleet, when the month of June of the year CXCIII had almost passed, he set out against Niger

Editors' notes and page, col. 105

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: judicium fieret› · call in col 105

Nempe hic liber scriptus est eo tempore, quo graviores calamitates Christianis expectandae erant a Deorum cultoribus (Coll. cap. 1.) h. e. ut postea dicetur, cum edictum Severi in lucem prodiisset, timerentque Christiani de securitate sua. Sed istum libellum cum Tertullianus componeret, jam trucidatus erat Rutilius, qui primum aliquoties salutem petierat fuga, postea nummis sibi pacem comparaverat, sed denuo captus ad supplicium rediit. Quod ergo necesse est factum esse ante iniquam Severi legem, et novum dat argumentum ejus quod diximus, Christianos sub Severo ante eam capitis damnatos fuisse.

That is, this book was written at the time when graver calamities were to be expected by the Christians from the worshippers of the gods (compare chapter 1), that is, as will be said later, when Severus's edict had come to light and the Christians were afraid for their safety. But when Tertullian was composing this little book, Rutilius had already been put to death, who had at first several times sought safety in flight, then had bought himself peace with money, but, taken again, went back to execution. This, then, must have happened before Severus's unjust law, and it gives a new argument for what we have said, that Christians were condemned to death under Severus before that law.

(printed under page 75)

(2) ‹anchor: mense Junio› · call in col 105

Namque incipiente Junio A. CXCIII. Romam Severus venit; quod patet tum, cum dies LXVI. quos imperio Didii Juliani Dio (lib. LXXIII. c. ult., p. 1210.), aut II. menses ac 5. dies, quos ei Spartianus (in Juliano, c. 9.) tribuit, numeremus, incipiendo a V. Kalend. aprilis, h. e. XXVIII. Martii, quo die interfectum esse Pertinacem Julius Capitolinus (in vita Pertinacis, c. 15.) refert. Apparet, inde non minus, Severum fere die Junii 2. summi Imperii clavum sumpsisse, ex quo die deducendos simul esse Tribunitiae potestatis terminos non demonstrabo pluribus, quoniam id quidem facere memini C. G. Schwarzium, elegantissimum virum, in diss. de numeranda tribunitia potestate Augustorum Caesarumque Rom. Obs. IV. Quae cum ita sint, haud obscurum est tempus, quo Severus Roma profectus est, si quidem recte commemoravit Spartianus (in vita Severi, c. 8.) eum Romam intra XXX. dies, quam eo venerat, reliquisse.

For Severus came to Rome at the beginning of June, A.D. 193; this is plain when we count the 66 days that Dio (book LXXIII, last chapter, p. 1210) assigns to the reign of Didius Julianus, or the 2 months and 5 days that Spartianus (in the Julianus, ch. 9) gives him, beginning from the fifth day before the Kalends of April, that is, 28 March, the day on which Julius Capitolinus (in the Life of Pertinax, ch. 15) reports that Pertinax was killed. It appears no less from this that Severus took the helm of supreme power about 2 June, and that the terms of his tribunician power must likewise be reckoned from that day I shall not demonstrate at more length, since I recall that C. G. Schwarz, a most elegant man, has done so in his dissertation on reckoning the tribunician power of the Roman Augusti and Caesars, Observation IV. This being so, the time when Severus set out from Rome is not obscure, if indeed Spartianus (in the Life of Severus, ch. 8) rightly records that he left Rome within 30 days of coming there.

(printed under page 75)

Page

running head: 105 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM T[ERTULLIANI] (head cut at the crop; continues over the right column)
marginal letters: A cum nondum Severi; B Ad hunc vero investigandum; C quae dici posse contra viderentur; D decrevit, et alia honoris monumenta
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:106

est. Hic cum Severi duces A. CXCIV. manum cum Nigri militibus conseruissent, apud Cyzicum superiores fuerunt. Eadem fortuna usi sunt anno sequenti, cum pugnatum esset in Nicaeae ac Cii angustiis. Postremo, anno fere CXCVI. cum Severiani, casu Castello in Tauro occupato, in Ciliciam irrupissent, vincitur Nigri exercitus apud Portas Cilicias, neque ita multo post ipse Pescennius interficitur. Sed hic ego quosdam miraturos suspicor, quid sit, quod me commoverit, ut calculos hic plane diversos ab aliis ponerem, cum sint, qui ultimam hanc pugnam A. P. C. N. CXCIV. factam existiment, universi. Quam ob rem mea referre puto, ut recta argumenta producantur, quibus evinci possit, rationes a nobis rectissime fuisse subductas. Primum igitur vellem observari cognomen Imperatoris III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. quod datum esse Severo in nummis perspicitur. Hoc eum exornatum necesse est intra tempus, quod ab exordio imperii ejus effluxit ad illud, quo superavit Albinum, quia eum legimus, cum imperium susciperet, in nummis Imperatorem II. (Vide Vaillantii numismata Impp. Rom. Tom. II. Ed. 3. Paris. p. 238.), victo autem Albino, Imperatorem IX. appellatum. (Apud Mediobarbum in Impp. Rom. numism. ad a. 197. Ed. Mediol. 1730. p. 271.) Enimvero, cum nomine Imperatoris, quod numeris distinctum in nummis reperitur, tum Romanorum Augusti exornati fuerint, cum quid in bello eo nomine dignum gessissent (de ea re V. Dionis Cassii Rom. Hist., lib. XL. c. 44. p. 372.): age! videamus, quo referendum sit hoc intra illud tempus sexies repetitum cognomen Imperatoris. Nempe in isto temporis spatio ter legimus Severum a Nigri militibus victoriam reportasse, tresque gentes Osroenorum, Adiabenorum et Arabum subjecisse Romanorum potestati. Igitur cum hos, jam devicto Pescennio, subegerit, referamus cognomen Imperatoris VI. VII. VIII. ad victos hos populos, ac nomen Imperatoris III. propter praelium Cyzicenum, IV. ob pugnam in Nicaeae ac Cii angustiis, V. denique ob Nigrum apud Portas Cilicias prostratum, Severo decretum esse dicamus. Jam dispiciamus, cui tandem numero Trib. Pot. adjiciantur singulae nominis Imperatorii notae: nam, si eum cognoverimus, sponte se offeret is annus, cui quaevis pugna assignanda est. Atqui cognomen Imp.

was. When the generals of Severus had joined battle with the soldiers of Niger in the year CXCIV, they prevailed at Cyzicus. They enjoyed the same fortune in the following year, when there was fighting in the narrows of Nicaea and Cius. Finally, in about the year CXCVI, when the Severans, having by chance seized a fort in the Taurus, had burst into Cilicia, the army of Niger was defeated at the Cilician Gates, and not very long after Pescennius himself was killed. But here I suspect that some will wonder what it is that moved me to set down here reckonings quite different from those of others, since there are those, indeed all, who think that this last battle was fought in the year after the birth of Christ CXCIV. For this reason I think it my concern that sound arguments be brought forward by which it may be proved that the reckoning has been cast by us most correctly. First, then, I would wish attention paid to the title of Imperator III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, which is seen to have been given to Severus on the coins. He must have been adorned with this within the time that elapsed from the beginning of his reign to the time when he overcame Albinus, because we read that when he took up the empire he was called on the coins Imperator II (see Vaillant's coins of the Roman emperors, vol. II, 3rd edition, Paris, p. 238), but after Albinus was conquered, Imperator IX (in Mediobarba on the coins of the Roman emperors, at the year 197, Milan edition 1730, p. 271). Now, since the Augusti of the Romans were adorned with the name of Imperator, which is found on the coins distinguished by numbers, whenever they had achieved in war something worthy of that name (on this matter see Dio Cassius, Roman History, book XL, ch. 44, p. 372): come, let us see to what this title of Imperator, repeated six times within that time, is to be referred. In that space of time, namely, we read three times that Severus carried off victory over the soldiers of Niger, and that he subjected three nations, the Osroenians, the Adiabenians and the Arabs, to the power of the Romans. Since, then, he subdued these when Pescennius had already been defeated, let us refer the title of Imperator VI, VII, VIII to these conquered peoples, and let us say that the name of Imperator III was decreed to Severus on account of the battle of Cyzicus, IV on account of the fight in the narrows of Nicaea and Cius, and V, finally, on account of Niger's overthrow at the Cilician Gates. Now let us make out to which number of the tribunician power the several marks of the imperatorial name are attached: for if we know this, the year to which each battle is to be assigned will present itself of its own accord. But the title Imp.

Editors' notes and page, col. 106

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: hos populos› · call in col 106

In numnis a Mediobarbo ad a. 196. excitatis, p. 270. Cognomen Imp. VI. et VII. conjungitur cum Tr. Pot. III. et nomine Parth. Arab. Parth. Adiab. aliisque signis victoriae. Pariter Imp. VIII. p. 271. cum victoria Parthica et Tr. P. IV. ac cum iisdem, tituloque Arabici, Adiabenici, in inscriptione apud Muratorium, in novo thesauro vet. inscript., tom. I. p. 244. legitur.

On the coins cited by Mediobarbus under the year 196, p. 270, the title Imperator VI and VII is joined with Tribunician Power III and the name Parthicus Arabicus, Parthicus Adiabenicus, and other signs of victory. Likewise Imperator VIII, p. 271, is read with a Parthian victory and Tribunician Power IV, and with the same, and the title Arabicus, Adiabenicus, in an inscription in Muratori, New Thesaurus of Ancient Inscriptions, vol. I, p. 244.

(printed under page 75)

(2) ‹anchor: assignanda est› · call in col 106

Sed forsitan quispiam dixerit, hos nummos non eo excusos fuisse tempore, quo Severus victor ex pugnis cum Nigro rediit, sed postea demum, ipsumque Spartianum in (continues)

But perhaps someone will say that these coins were not struck at the time when Severus returned victorious from the battles with Niger, but only afterwards, and that Spartianus himself in (continues)

(printed under page 75)

Page

running head: [AC DOCTRINA] SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 106 (cut at the crop on the left)
marginal letters: A est. Hic cum Severi duces; B observari cognomen Imperatoris; C hoc intra illud tempus; D quaevis pugna assignanda est
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:107

III. quod diximus signum esse victoriae Cyzicensis, conjunctum reperimus cum Trib. Pot. II. (In Laur. Bergeri continuatione thesauri Brandenburgici, p. 690. Vaillantii numism. Impp. Rom. T. I. p. 221. 22. et Mediobarbo ad a. 194. p. 269.), haec vero numeranda est ab altero die Junii A. CXCIV. ad eumdem diem anni sequentis (Coll. not. y. hujus sectionis Schvarzii diss. laud. obs. 11.); consequens igitur est, hoc praelium primum ad posteriorem partem A. CXCIV. aut priorem A. CXCV. esse referendum. Porro nummus apud Vaillantium Severum Imp. IV. Tribunitiamque potestatem III. sustinentem exhibet, et sunt ejus generis nummi plures apud Mediobarbum; ergo incidit altera pugna in Nicaeae Ciique angustiis in A. CXCV. posteriorem, aut sequentis anni superiorem partem. Quapropter cognomen imp. V. et ultima victoria a Nigro reportata, non videtur fere alii anno posse vindicari, nisi huic, quem diximus, A. CXCVI. cum igitur Pescennium initio fere ejus anni prostravisset Severus, pergit in Mesopotamiam, indeque contra Osroenos, Adiabenos et Arabes exercitum ducit (Dio, Libr. LXXV. init.). Facta haec omnia esse oportet sex fere mensibus (nisi mavelis ultimam partem anni praecedentis Nigro mortem attulisse), cum, hoc anno vertente jam contra Albinum profectum esse Severum, ratio ipsa temporis suadeat, ut suo loco apparebit. At quo fieri pacto potuit, ut mensibus tam paucis tot tantasque bellicosissimas gentes subegerit? At istud quidem potest animo pulchre concipi; nam ipse Dio c. 2. libro cit. harum gentium urbes a tribus Severi ducibus, non a Severo ipso, captas esse ait; quod factum forsitan est, cum jam Albino obviam Severus ivisset; nam, eo discesso, Laetus se his adversariis opposuit, ut videtur ex eodem Dione, c. 9. aut jam aliquantum eo tempore, quo Nigrum Severus persequebatur; plurima enim tum fecit per duces suos: aut fuit Severus qualicumque barbarorum suppressione contentus. Ac videtur certe Severus noluisse has sibi gentes prorsus subjicere, nec jam tum subjecisse, cum, ducibus contra hostes emissis, aliena Nisibi ageret, ipseque demum post victum Albinum has provincias summo impetu adoriretur; quod ipso confirmari posset Herodiani silentio, qui de his gentibus isto tempore victis nihil habet omnino. Itaque haec prima lex sanciatur: ante finem A. CXCVI. Severum contra Albinum non fuisse profectum.

The title Imp. III, which we have said is the sign of the victory at Cyzicus, we find joined with Trib. Pot. II (in Lorenz Beger's continuation of the Brandenburg Thesaurus, p. 690; Vaillant's coins of the Roman emperors, vol. I, p. 221, 22; and Mediobarba at the year 194, p. 269); but this is to be counted from the second day of June of the year CXCIV to the same day of the following year (compare note y of this section, and Schwarz's dissertation cited, observation 11); it follows, therefore, that this first battle is to be referred to the later part of the year CXCIV or the earlier part of CXCV. Further, a coin in Vaillant shows Severus as Imp. IV and holding the tribunician power III, and there are several coins of that kind in Mediobarba; therefore the second battle, in the narrows of Nicaea and Cius, falls in the later part of the year CXCV or the earlier part of the following year. Wherefore the title imp. V and the last victory won over Niger can hardly, it seems, be claimed for any other year than this one which we have named, CXCVI. When, then, Severus had laid Pescennius low at about the beginning of that year, he went on into Mesopotamia, and from there led his army against the Osroenians, the Adiabenians and the Arabs (Dio, book LXXV, beginning). All these things must have been done in about six months (unless you prefer that the last part of the preceding year brought Niger his death), since the very reckoning of the time suggests that Severus had already set out against Albinus as this year was turning, as will appear in its place. But how could it have come about that in so few months he subdued so many and such great and most warlike nations? Yet this can indeed be well conceived in the mind; for Dio himself, in ch. 2 of the book cited, says that the cities of these nations were taken by three of Severus's generals, not by Severus himself; which perhaps was done when Severus had already gone to meet Albinus; for when he had departed, Laetus set himself against these adversaries, as appears from the same Dio, ch. 9; or else it was done to some extent already at the time when Severus was pursuing Niger, for he did a great many things then through his generals: or Severus was content with some sort of suppression of the barbarians. And certainly Severus seems not to have wished to subject these nations to himself entirely, nor to have subjected them already at the time when, having sent out his generals against the enemy, he was occupied with other matters at Nisibis, and only after the defeat of Albinus attacked these provinces with the utmost force; which could be confirmed by the very silence of Herodian, who has nothing at all about these nations being conquered at that time. Let this, therefore, be laid down as the first rule: Severus did not set out against Albinus before the end of the year CXCVI.

Editors' notes and page, col. 107

Footnotes

(2) (continued) · call on the previous page

(continued) vita Severi, c. 9. significare, quod Severus non nisi post alterum praelium in angustiis Cii et Nicaeae ad senatum hac de re scripserit. Sed praeterea, quod Spartianus discrepat aliquantum in narranda hac re a caeteris, iisque primariis scriptoribus, nec nisi de prima alteraque pugna loquitur in isto loco; negari vix potest, quoniam cognomen Imp. III. IV. V. cum diverso plane Trib. Pot. numero conjungitur, hoc Trib. Pot. signo indicari annos eos, quibus ipsam ab hostibus victoriam ter reportavit.

(printed under page 76)

(1) ‹anchor: non fuisse profectum› · call in col 107

Atque hic nos non audemus plura ex ordine rerum gestarum, quas commemoravimus, deducere, sed postea dabimus. Judicari autem ex dictis potest de eo, quod placuit Moshemio τῷ μακαρίτῃ (in laud., diss. § 21.) A. CXCIV. periisse Nigrum A. CXCV.; legatos in Galliam ad interficiendum Albinum a Severo missos, et hoc anno prope exeunte insidias eorum deprehensas fuisse; quo facto A. CXCVI. citissime in Galliam Severus venisset. Vix crediderim (nam de tempore praeliorum jam dixi, quid sit sentiendum) Legatos istos integro fere anno acquievisse, antequam litteras Albino tradidissent, et, cum A. CXCV. prope exeunte demum detectae hae fuissent insidiae, Severum, qui currenti similior quam proficiscenti recte dicitur a Moshemio, vel integrum fere annum CXCVI. otio transegisse, vel Albino tantum concessisse temporis, ut vires colligeret; cum ad veritatem sit multo propensius, si quis dicat, quod A. CXCVI. prope vertente Severus profectus sit adversus Albinum, neque multum temporis praetermiserit, quo bello dimicare cum Albino potuisset.

And here we dare not draw more from the order of the events we have recounted, but we shall give it later. From what has been said, however, one may judge the view of the late Mosheim (in the dissertation cited, § 21): that Niger perished in 195 [the year 194 is also printed]; that envoys were sent by Severus into Gaul to kill Albinus, and that their plot was discovered near the end of this year; whereupon Severus would have come into Gaul with all speed in 196. I could scarcely believe (for I have already said what is to be thought of the date of the battles) that those envoys stayed quiet for almost a whole year before delivering the letters to Albinus, and that, when this plot was discovered only near the end of 195, Severus, who is rightly said by Mosheim to have been more like one running than one marching, either spent almost the whole year 196 in idleness or granted Albinus so much time that he could gather his forces; since it comes much nearer the truth if one says that Severus set out against Albinus towards the turn of 196, and did not let slip much of the time in which he could have fought the war with Albinus.

(printed under page 76)

Page

running head: 107 DISSERTATIO DE VER[A AETATE] (cut at the crop on the right)
marginal letters: A III. quod diximus signum; B Quapropter cognomen imp.; C ducibus, non a Severo ipso; D prima lex sanciatur
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:108

§ 9. — Albinum A. CXCVII. interfectum fuisse, probatur secundo a tempore expugnati Byzantii.

§ 9. — That Albinus was killed in the year CXCVII is proved, secondly, from the time when Byzantium was taken by storm.

Alterum nec mediocre telum ad hanc rem exequendam existimari debet tempus, quo expugnatum Byzantium est. Namque hoc Dio ait L. LXXIV. c. 14. p. 1254. occupatum esse a Severi militibus, cum is in Mesopotamia commoraretur, h. e. postquam Nigrum superaverat, ac prius quam pergeret adversus Albinum. Atqui Byzantinos fame demum in deditionem redactos esse, cum tres integros annos fuissent in obsidione, idem Dio memoriae prodidit Lib. cit. c. 11. p. 1252.; quare cognoscemus annum, quo Severus in Mesopotamia versatus est, cum viderimus, quando ista obsidio exordium sumpserit. Sed ejus initium conjunctum arbitror cum initio ipsius expeditionis Severi contra Pescennium A. CXCIII. quod intelligi potest ex eo, quod vix est credibile, Severum, cum Nigro occurreret, a tergo relicturum fuisse fortissimam urbem, quam ipsi Nigri milites tenebant, et quo adversis rebus se recepturi fuissent; idemque cum re ipsa optime consentit. Fac scilicet mense fere Septembri A. CXCIII. Severum hujus oppugnationis initium per milites fecisse (Roma enim, Junio pene praeterlapso, discesserat § VIII. n. y.); incidet sane expugnatio ipsa, si post triennium integrum facta est, in Septembrem A. CXCVI., quo tempore Severum in Mesopotamia fuisse apparet ex iis, quae in superioribus dicta sunt. Quam ob rem non est necesse, ut a nativa potestate verborum Ἐπὶ ὅλον, τριετῆ χρόνον recedamus, quo se a Tillemontio adduci passus est Moshemius ὁ μακαρίτης, cujus interpretatio, ni fallor, vi quidem verborum non facit satis. Itaque cum mense fere Septembri in Mesopotamia versatus fuerit Severus, nisi A. CXCVI. jam in finem inclinato in Galliam venire non potuit. Neque vero postea quam in Mesopotamia Severus fuerat, usquam legimus eum contra Osroenos, Adiabenos, Arabesque fuisse profectum; hos enim, teste Dione l. LXXV. c. 3. p. 1257. cum Nisibi, in urbe Mesopotamiae, Severus otium sibi daret, Laternus Candidus atque Laetus, Severi duces, subegerunt. Unde efficitur, famam de seditione Albini ad Severum in Mesopotamiam fuisse allatam. Enimvero non abhorret, Severum, qui celeritate consilii imprimis utebatur, statim devicto Nigro misisse, qui Albino, occasione allatarum litterarum, insidias facerent, et hae quidem repente detectae sunt: quocirca magis apparet, fere Anno CXCVI. vertente Severum in Galliam concessisse.

Another and no mean weapon for carrying this matter through must be considered the time at which Byzantium was taken. For Dio says, book LXXIV, ch. 14, p. 1254, that it was seized by the soldiers of Severus while he was staying in Mesopotamia, that is, after he had overcome Niger and before he proceeded against Albinus. But the same Dio has recorded, in the book cited, ch. 11, p. 1252, that the Byzantines were at last brought to surrender by hunger when they had been under siege for three whole years; therefore we shall know the year in which Severus was in Mesopotamia when we have seen when that siege took its beginning. But I judge that its beginning was joined with the beginning of Severus's expedition itself against Pescennius in the year CXCIII; which can be understood from this, that it is hardly credible that Severus, when he went to meet Niger, would have left behind him a very strong city which Niger's soldiers themselves held, and to which they would have retreated in adversity; and the same agrees excellently with the facts themselves. Suppose, namely, that Severus made the beginning of this siege through his soldiers in about the month of September of the year CXCIII (for he had left Rome when June had almost gone by, § VIII, n. y); the capture itself, if it took place after three whole years, will surely fall in September of the year CXCVI, at which time it appears from what has been said above that Severus was in Mesopotamia. For this reason it is not necessary for us to depart from the native force of the words "for a whole period of three years", as the late Mosheim allowed himself to be led to do by Tillemont, whose interpretation, unless I am mistaken, does not do justice to the force of the words. Since, therefore, Severus was in Mesopotamia in about the month of September, he could not have come into Gaul except when the year CXCVI was already drawing to its end. Nor, indeed, do we read anywhere that after Severus had been in Mesopotamia he set out against the Osroenians, Adiabenians and Arabs; for these, as Dio testifies, book LXXV, ch. 3, p. 1257, were subdued by Laternus Candidus and Laetus, generals of Severus, while Severus was taking his ease at Nisibis, a city of Mesopotamia. From which it follows that the report of Albinus's revolt was brought to Severus in Mesopotamia. Indeed it is not unlikely that Severus, who above all made use of speed in counsel, immediately upon Niger's defeat sent men to lay a trap for Albinus under cover of delivering letters, and that this was suddenly detected: wherefore it appears all the more that Severus withdrew into Gaul at about the turn of the year CXCVI.

Editors' notes and page, col. 108

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: in Galliam concessisse› · call in col 108

Aliam viam ingressus est Moshemius, § 22. Namque A. CXCVI. inquit expugnatam esse Byzantinorum urbem; hanc vero, Herodiano teste lib. III. c. 6. nondum fuisse in potestatem Imperatoris redactam, cum Albino occurreret; igitur eum esse contra Albinum anno CXCVI. profectum. Quod argumentum, haud nego, esse majorem (continues)

Mosheim took another road, § 22. For, he says, the city of the Byzantines was stormed in 196; but, on the testimony of Herodian, book III, ch. 6, it had not yet been brought into the emperor's power when he went to meet Albinus; therefore he set out against Albinus in 196. This argument, I do not deny, is of greater (continues)

(printed under page 76)

Page

running head: [DISSER]TATIO DE VERA AETATE 108 (cut at the crop on the left)
marginal letters: A § 9. — Albinum A. CXCVII.; B junctum arbitror cum initio; C se a Tillemontio adduci; D rarum; insidias facerent
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:109

§ 10. — Probatur tertio, ex anno, quo Caracallus Caesaris dignitatem e SCto accepit.

§ 10. — It is proved, thirdly, from the year in which Caracallus received the dignity of Caesar by decree of the Senate.

Sed ista quidem ut nondum dant certam viam accurate cognoscendi annum Albino fatalem, propterea quod nondum apparet quandiu ista de summa imperii dimicatio duraverit, magis, opinor, nobis scrupulum eximet tempus dignitatis Caesareae Caracallo collatae, ex quo efficietur, Albinum A. CXCVII. periisse. Sunt enim antiquitatis monumenta quaedam, qualia Pagius (In critica Annalium Eccles. Caesaris Card. Baronii. Sec. II. ad a. c. CXCVII. num. 2. Edit. Paris. 1689. p. 88.), exque Gutherio Moshemius attulit in diss. laud. § XXIII. in quibus Laterano et Rufino Coss. Caracallus Caesar ex SC. Destinatus vocatur. At illo cognomine quamvis jam Caracallus a patre tum exornatus fuisset, cum Severus adversus Albinum proficisceretur (V. Spartianum in Severo. c. 10.); istud tamen nusquam reperimus a senatu confirmatum esse prius, quam victor Severus Romam, prostrato Albino, rediisset; tum enim Severum legimus Caesarem Bassianum filium suum Antoninum appellari jussisse (ap. Spart. L. c. 14.). At enim Lateranum et Rufinum consules fuisse A. p. N. C. CXCVII. docent fasti universi; itaque sit hoc, Albinum eodem anno (et XI. quidem Calend. Mart. quemadmodum habet Spartianus. L. c. c. 11.) cum vita imperium amisisse. Quae cum ita sint, patet quod efficiendum promisimus, ex hac occasione plebi ad christianos vexandos post Albini interitum nata, istas priores Christianorum calamitates A. CXCVII. initium cepisse.

But although these things do not yet give a sure way of knowing accurately the year fatal to Albinus, because it does not yet appear how long that struggle for the supreme power lasted, the time of the dignity of Caesar conferred on Caracallus will, I think, rather remove our doubt, and from it it will be established that Albinus perished in the year CXCVII. For there are certain monuments of antiquity, such as Pagi brought forward (in his Critica of the Ecclesiastical Annals of Cardinal Caesar Baronius, century II, at the year CXCVII, num. 2, Paris edition 1689, p. 88), and Mosheim from Gutherius in the dissertation cited, § XXIII, in which, in the consulship of Lateranus and Rufinus, Caracallus is called "Caesar Designate by decree of the Senate". But although Caracallus had already been adorned with that title by his father when Severus set out against Albinus (see Spartianus in the Severus, ch. 10), yet we nowhere find this confirmed by the Senate before Severus had returned to Rome as victor after Albinus had been laid low; for it was then, we read, that Severus ordered his son Bassianus Caesar to be called Antoninus (in Spartianus, place cited, ch. 14). Now all the Fasti teach that Lateranus and Rufinus were consuls in the year after the birth of Christ CXCVII; let this, then, stand: that Albinus lost his rule together with his life in that same year (and indeed on the eleventh day before the Kalends of March, as Spartianus has it, place cited, ch. 11). This being so, what we promised to establish is plain: that these earlier calamities of the Christians, arising from this occasion given to the mob for harassing the Christians after the death of Albinus, took their beginning in the year CXCVII.

§ 11. — E loco quodam Tertulliani ad Scapulam, qui cum alio Spartiani confertur, ostenditur a. CXCVII. initium cepisse priorem hanc vexationem Christianorum.

§ 11. — From a certain passage of Tertullian's To Scapula, compared with another of Spartianus, it is shown that this earlier harassment of the Christians took its beginning in the year CXCVII.

Accedimus ad alterum argumentum, ex quo initium istius tumultus a plebe excitati definire volebamus, locum istum quidem superius § 6. productum e libro Tertulliani ad Scapulam, in quo Severus dicitur, « Clarissimas feminas clarissimosque viros sectae christianae non modo non laesisse, verum et exornasse testimonio, populoque in christianos furenti restitisse. » Quod cum Severus non fecerit eo tempore, quo jam edictum opposuerat religioni christianorum, quemadmodum ibi disputavimus; assignandus est ei rei annus, quo Severus nondum hac lege

We come to the second argument from which we wished to define the beginning of that tumult stirred up by the mob, namely the passage brought forward above in § 6 from Tertullian's book To Scapula, in which Severus is said "not only not to have harmed most illustrious women and most illustrious men of the Christian sect, but even to have honoured them with his testimony, and to have withstood the people raging against the Christians." Since Severus did not do this at the time when he had already set his edict against the religion of the Christians, as we argued there, the year must be assigned to this matter in which Severus had not yet by this law

Editors' notes and page, col. 109

Footnotes

(1) (continued) · call on the previous page

(continued) vim meo habiturum, nisi Herodiani verba pugnarent cum iis, quae tradita sunt a Dione Cassio, qui Severum ait nuntium de capto Byzantio in Mesopotamia accepisse. Atque is merito audiendus est, et repudianda Herodiani auctoritas, quod jam egregie monuit V. C. H. S. Reimarus in not. ad Dion. Cass., p. 1252. § 70. et 1256. § 1.

(printed under page 77)

(1) ‹anchor: A. CXCVII. periisse› · call in col 109

Usi sumus ad hanc rem efficiendam dignitate Caracalli Caesarea, cum Moshemius maluerit ad eam rem dignitatem Augusti Caracallo collatam adhibere. Sed istius Clarissimi Viri partes deserere hic satius est visum. Nam, p. 66. Caracalla, inquit, Augusti dignitate ornatus est eo anno, qui praelium Lugdunense est consecutus. Itaque cum constet, eum hanc A. CXCVIII. accepisse, Albinus A. CXCVII. occubuit. Hujus argumenti, dubito fere, an superior propositio ex omnibus, quos habemus, scriptoribus sit manifesta, nisi eadem esse censeatur cum altera de ejus dignitate Augusti A. CXCVIII. suscepta, quae consentit cum omnibus ejus rei significandae monumentis.

To establish this point we have used Caracalla's rank as Caesar, whereas Mosheim preferred to use for it the rank of Augustus conferred on Caracalla. But it seemed better here to leave that most distinguished man's side. For, he says on p. 66, Caracalla was invested with the rank of Augustus in the year that followed the battle of Lugdunum; therefore, since it is established that he received it in 198, Albinus fell in 197. Of this argument I rather doubt whether the first premise is evident from all the writers we have, unless it be thought the same as the other, about his taking the rank of Augustus in 198, which agrees with all the records that indicate the matter.

(printed under page 77)

Page

running head: 109 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM [TERTULLIANI] (cut at the crop on the right)
marginal letters: A § 10. — Probatur tertio; B natus fuisset, cum Severus adversus Albinum proficis-; C § 11. — E loco quodam (C stands between the end of § 10 and the § 11 caption); D norum, quemadmodum ibi disputavimus
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:110

molestus fuerat. Neque is tali modo clarissimis quibusdam hujus familiae hominibus tum videtur gratificari voluisse, cum, victo Albino, bellum Parthis aliisque Orientis gentibus intulisset, a quo perfecto non rediit prius, quam hoc idem edictum adversus christianos promulgasset. Namque tum quidem tot erat bellis cum fortissimis nationibus implicatus, ut credi vix possit, eum de istiusmodi rebus cogitasse. Sed verba etiam Tertulliani sunt ea, ut facile appareat, Severum non has quidem, sed alias tamen feminas, virosque clarissimos eo tempore laesisse, a quibus is christianos cupiebat discerni. Atque ego non video, ad quale tempus possit vis istis illata referri, nisi ad id, quo interfectos Spartianus refert (in Sev. c. 12.) innumeros Albini partium viros, inter quos multi principes civitatis, multae feminae illustres fuerunt: propterea, quod ista in re inter hos scriptores est vel in verbis quaedam similitudo. Ego vero vix dubito, quin Severus horum christianorum quasi tutelam susceperit, eosque ornaverit testimonio tali, quo doceret, eos non esse ex amicis Albini, ne populus, caussam Imperatoris praetendens, hos christianae religioni addictos insequeretur, raperetque in judicium, quibus, nisi quod christiani essent, aliud nihil vitio verti poterat. Verum igitur sit illud, statim post mortem Albini et ante Severi profectionem contra Parthos, i. e. A. CXCVII. populum christianos vi aggressum fuisse.

had been troublesome. Nor does he seem to have wished to show favour in such a way to certain most illustrious persons of this household at the time when, Albinus having been conquered, he had made war on the Parthians and other nations of the East; from which, when it was finished, he did not return before he had promulgated this same edict against the Christians. For at that time he was entangled in so many wars with most valiant nations that it can scarcely be believed that he gave thought to matters of this sort. But the words of Tertullian too are such that it readily appears that Severus at that time harmed, not indeed these, but yet other most illustrious women and men, from whom he wished the Christians to be distinguished. And I do not see to what time the violence done to these can be referred, except to that at which Spartianus reports (in the Severus, ch. 12) that "countless men of Albinus's party were killed, among whom were many leading men of the state and many illustrious women": because in this matter there is between these writers a certain likeness even in the words. I for my part hardly doubt that Severus took these Christians, as it were, under his protection, and honoured them with such testimony as would show that they were not among the friends of Albinus, lest the people, making the Emperor's cause their pretext, should pursue these adherents of the Christian religion and drag into court those who could be charged with nothing at fault except that they were Christians. Let this, then, stand as true: that immediately after the death of Albinus and before Severus's departure against the Parthians, that is, in the year CXCVII, the people attacked the Christians with violence.

§ 12. — Idem demonstratur ulterius ex aetate Apologetici Tertulliani, caeterorumque librorum, qui eum antecesserunt.

§ 12. — The same is further demonstrated from the date of Tertullian's Apologeticum and of the other books which preceded it.

Denique et hoc non leve est argumentum nostrae sententiae, quod appareat, Apologeticum Tertulliani non posse litteris mandatum esse, nisi ante illas leges Severi; de qua re nemo dubitare potest, qui cogitate hunc libellum tractavit. Sed poterit ex iis, quae postea disputabimus, nullo negotio intelligi, istam defensionem veterum christianorum aetate inferiorem esse libris ejus ad martyres, de spectaculis, atque de idololatria. Vicissimque me spero ita effecturum, quod istae religionis christianae vindiciae scriptae sint sub initium A. CXCVIII., ut nemo vel mediocri in his judicio praeditus de ista re dubitare possit. Quare tum apparebit, libros de Spectaculis atque de idololatria nulli alii anno posse assignari, nisi A. CXCVIII. Enimvero Tertullianus martyres proprio libello ad constantiam concordiamque hortatus est prius, quam se accingeret ad scribendos hos duos, quos diximus, libros. Itaque necesse est dicere, librum ad martyres fere A. CXCVII. in lucem editum fuisse. Quae una res nostram sententiam de anno, quo haec superior vexatio christianorum incepit, ponit extra omnem dubitationem. Namque hi, quibus librum obtulit, jam fuerunt propter religionem christianam in vincula conjecti, martyresque isti designati argumento sunt, tum Deorum cultores vim christianis intulisse. Sed obiter haec fere; nunc plura de libris his ipsis dabimus.

Finally, this too is no light argument for our view: that it appears that Tertullian's Apologeticum cannot have been committed to writing except before those laws of Severus; about which no one can doubt who has handled this little book thoughtfully. But it will be possible to understand without any trouble, from what we shall argue later, that this defence of the ancient Christians is later in date than his books To the Martyrs, On the Shows, and On Idolatry. And in turn I hope so to bring it about that this vindication of the Christian religion was written about the beginning of the year CXCVIII, that no one endowed with even moderate judgement in these things can doubt the matter. Then it will appear that the books On the Shows and On Idolatry can be assigned to no other year than CXCVIII. For Tertullian exhorted the martyrs to constancy and concord in a book of their own before he girded himself to write these two books which we have named. It must therefore be said that the book To the Martyrs was published in about the year CXCVII. This one thing puts our view about the year in which this earlier harassment of the Christians began beyond all doubt. For those to whom he offered the book had already been thrown into chains on account of the Christian religion, and these martyrs designate are proof that the worshippers of the gods then used violence against the Christians. But this much in passing; now we shall give more about these books themselves.

Editors' notes and page, col. 110

Page

running head: [AC DOCTRINA] SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 110 (cut at the crop on the left)
marginal letters: A molestus fuerat. Neque is; B cipes civitatis, multae feminae; C Apologetici Tertulliani (beside the § 12 caption); D possit. Quare tum apparebit
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:111

§ 13. — Aetas ipsa librorum hujus generis definitur ita, ut liber ad Martyres A. CXCVII. sit exaratus. Hoffmanni conjecturae exploduntur.

§ 13. — The very date of the books of this kind is determined in such a way that the book To the Martyrs was written in the year CXCVII. Hoffmann's conjectures are rejected.

Est igitur inter hujus generis libros is primus, quem Tertullianus ad Martyres perscripsit. Cujus libri argumentum ipsum jam tum susceptas adversus christianos inimicitias demonstrat; est enim designatis Martyribus dicatum (coll. c. I.); modo constituendum est id, fuerintne isti ante, an post Severi edictum in carcerem conjecti; atque illud mihi magis placet pluribus de causis. Primum, quoniam christianos non Imperatoris, sed Proconsulis judicia sustinere dicit c. 2. Quod quidem, haud nego, dici etiam a Tertulliano potuisse, si Praesides adhibiti fuerint ab Imperatore legibus contra christianos dimicante, propterea quod Praesides eas exequebantur in provinciis: sed tamen ex eo primum oritur haud inepta suspicio, ipsa hac violentia eo tempore Praesides magis usos fuisse, quam ipsum Augustum. At si istud argumentandi genus videatur in utramque partem posse disputari, hanc controversiam dirimit haud dubie id, quod est ad calcem nostri libelli, ubi: ad hoc quidem, inquit, (patiendum in causa Dei) vel praesentia nobis tempora documenta sint, quantae qualesque personae inopinatos natalibus et dignitatibus et corporibus et aetatibus suis exitus referunt, hominis caussa; aut ab ipso, si contra eum fecerint, aut ab adversariis ejus, si pro eo steterint; quod pertinere ad tempus, quo ab aemulis imperii Severus tutum redderet orbem Romanum, nullo modo dubitari potest. Nam cum sublatus e medio esset Albinus, tum maxime Severum animadvertisse in hos, qui steterant a Nigri Albinive partibus, tantum ignorant ii, qui loca superius adducta haud intellexere. Ex quo non minus licet cognoscere, quo modo potuerit Tertullianus dicere (c. 2.) hos designatos martyres, quibus, nostrum libellum componendo, aliquod afferre allevamentum voluit, non participare solemnes nationum dies, neque caedi spectaculorum clamoribus. Quanquam enim me non prorsus praeterit, ludos etiam editos fuisse eo tempore, quo superior Severus a Parthis caeterisque barbaris rediisset; facit tamen hoc ipsum argumentum, quod ad erigendos martyrum animos petit a viris clarissimis, qui idem experti erant fatum, ut ludos intelligamus eos, quos editos novimus propter victoriam a Nigro, magis etiam ab Albino reportatam. Caeterum ego non dubito primum locum nostro libello vindicare inter eos, quorum aetas certa quadam ratione cernitur, propterea quod Tertullianus non modo commemorat mutuam candidatorum Imperii adversus partis contrariae socios violentiam, quam rem dici non potest extitisse, nisi eodem anno quo periit Albinus, h. e. A. CXCVII.; sed etiam mentionem injicit calamitatum, quas subiere christiani, tanquam earum, quae nunc quidem initium ceperint; caeterique omnes libri, quibus scribendis occasionem haec temporum perturbatio dedit, christianos

Among the books of this kind, then, the first is the one which Tertullian wrote To the Martyrs. The very subject of this book shows that hostility had already then been taken up against the Christians; for it is dedicated to martyrs designate (compare ch. I); it only remains to determine whether these had been thrown into prison before or after the edict of Severus; and the former pleases me more, for several reasons. First, because he says in ch. 2 that the Christians are undergoing the judgements not of the Emperor but of the Proconsul. This, I do not deny, could also have been said by Tertullian if the governors had been employed by an Emperor fighting against the Christians with laws, because the governors carried those laws out in the provinces: but yet from this there first arises a not unreasonable suspicion that at that time it was the governors rather than the Augustus himself who used this very violence. But if this kind of argument should seem capable of being argued either way, the controversy is settled beyond doubt by what is at the end of our little book, where he says: "for this indeed (suffering in the cause of God) let even the present times be proofs to us, how great and what manner of persons meet with deaths unlooked-for in view of their birth and dignities and bodies and ages, for the sake of a man; either at his own hands, if they have acted against him, or at the hands of his adversaries, if they have stood for him"; and that this pertains to the time when Severus was making the Roman world safe from the rivals to his rule can in no way be doubted. For that it was then above all, when Albinus had been removed from the scene, that Severus punished those who had stood on the side of Niger or Albinus, only those are unaware who have not understood the passages adduced above. From this one may no less recognize how Tertullian could say (ch. 2) that these martyrs designate, to whom he wished to bring some relief by composing our little book, "do not share in the solemn days of the nations, nor are they struck by the clamours of the shows". For although it does not altogether escape me that games were also given at the time when Severus had returned victorious from the Parthians and the other barbarians, yet this very argument, which he takes from most illustrious men who had experienced the same fate in order to raise up the spirits of the martyrs, makes us understand those games which we know were given on account of the victory won over Niger, and still more over Albinus. For the rest, I do not hesitate to claim the first place for our little book among those whose date is discerned by some sure reasoning, because Tertullian not only mentions the mutual violence of the candidates for the Empire against the associates of the opposing party, a thing which cannot be said to have occurred except in the same year in which Albinus perished, that is, in the year CXCVII; but he also makes mention of the calamities which the Christians underwent as of such as had only now taken their beginning; and all the other books, to the writing of which this disturbance of the times gave occasion, Christians

Editors' notes and page, col. 111

Page

running head: 111 DISSERTATIO DE VER[A AETATE] (cut at the crop on the right)
marginal letters: A § 13. — Aetas ipsa librorum; B biti fuerint ab Imperatore; C quod pertinere ad tempus; D quod ad erigendos martyrum animos
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:112

ostendunt jam multis cruciatibus tormentisque exagitatos. Neque ego nunc vereor, ne hunc libellum in numerum eorum referant nonnulli, quos Tertullianus composuit, cum ab amicitia orthodoxae Ecclesiae se removisset; ipsa enim libelli aetas id quidem non permittit, si verum est id quod diximus alias, § 3, Tertullianum huic ante A. CC. bellum non intulisse. Qua in re videmus Hoffmannum a nobis, ut solet, dissentientem, sed ad opinionem suam confirmandam usum argumento tali, ex quo magis appareat id quod nos contra volebamus (diss. cit. § 10.), videlicet martyres istos, ad quos est oratio Tertulliani directa, existimat partim orthodoxos fuisse, partim Montanistas; idque effecisse, ut dissensio nata sit inter eos, quam ex animis tollere conatur Tertullianus sub libri initium. Sed ad uniendos eos opus erat hortatore, inquit Hoffmannus, qui utrique parti bene cuperet, qualis erat Tertullianus Montanista, et in catholicos quidem saepe peracerbus, neque tamen eos ita ut haereticos perosus. Audio. Sed ut utraque pars inimicitias deponat, certe non requiritur ut is qui pacem conciliare studet, utrique dissentientium faveat. Illud nimirum necesse est potius, ut dissidentes inter se, cum eo qui pacem conciliat concordent. Planius dicam. Constat ex scriptore nescio quo, cujus verba habet Eusebius H. E. V. c. 16. p. 232. edit. Cantabrig. Readingii, eos, qui puriori Ecclesiae addicti erant, adeo contempsisse Montanistas, ut, si casu conjecti cum ipsis fuerint in vincula, semper a Montanistis dissenserint, atque detrectaverint eorum societatem. Idem vero non potest de Montanistis dici, cum ejus rei nec ulla exstent vestigia, quin potius ipse Tertullianus, etiam in libris iis quos popularis Ecclesiae doctrinis opposuit, Psychicos ab haereticis subtiliter distinguat; nec ad ullam rem, quae credendorum a christianis regulam attingerent, discordes esse Montanistas et orthodoxos confirmet. Fac igitur, tum jam Tertullianum secessionem fecisse ab orthodoxorum decretis, cum librum conscriberet; potuitne bona cum spe tentare pacem inter dissidentes captivos restaurandam? Non admodum puto. Abhorruisset enim fere a consuetudine eorum inter captivos qui orthodoxae Ecclesiae se socios dicebant, sequi praecepta hominis cujus sectam detestabantur vehementius. Contra ea, si tanquam civis purioris Ecclesiae haec scripsisse dicitur Tertullianus; istud certe odium dici non potest impedimento fuisse, quominus et Montanistae ea, quibus moniti essent, amico accepturi fuissent. Imo vix mihi persuadeo, Tertullianum ad pacem martyribus commendandam usurum fuisse hoc argumento Cap. I, quod, si paci cum aliis studerent, possent forte aliquando et aliis pacem conferre; cum sciant omnes, qui ejus librum de pudicitia legerint (c. 22), quam acerbe de isto more dandi pacis libellos judicaverit. Denique exemplo hominis auctorati, quod est in nostro libello c. 5. non minus, quam in primo ad nationes libro c. 18., non est, quod diu immoremur. Sit sane

show to have already been harried with many tortures and torments. Nor am I now afraid that some may count this little book among those which Tertullian composed after he had withdrawn from friendship with the orthodox Church; for the very date of the little book does not permit it, if what we have said elsewhere, § 3, is true, that Tertullian did not make war on her before the year CC. In this matter we see Hoffmann dissenting from us, as he usually does, but using to confirm his opinion such an argument as makes all the more evident what we on the contrary maintained (dissertation cited, § 10): namely, he thinks that those martyrs to whom Tertullian's address is directed were partly orthodox and partly Montanists, and that this brought it about that a dissension arose among them, which Tertullian tries to remove from their minds at the beginning of the book. "But to unite them," says Hoffmann, "there was need of an exhorter who wished well to both parties, such as was Tertullian the Montanist, often very bitter indeed against the Catholics, yet not hating them as heretics." I hear it. But for both parties to lay aside their enmities it is certainly not required that he who is eager to bring about peace should favour both of the dissenting parties. What is rather necessary is that those who are at odds among themselves should be in accord with the one who brings about the peace. I shall speak more plainly. It is established from some writer or other, whose words Eusebius gives (H. E. V, ch. 16, p. 232, Cambridge edition of Reading), that those who were attached to the purer Church so despised the Montanists that, if by chance they had been thrown into chains together with them, they always kept apart from the Montanists and refused their fellowship. The same, however, cannot be said of the Montanists, since there exist no traces whatever of such a thing; rather, Tertullian himself, even in those books which he set against the doctrines of the popular Church, carefully distinguishes the Psychics from the heretics, and does not affirm that the Montanists and the orthodox were at variance on any matter touching the rule of what is to be believed by Christians. Suppose, then, that Tertullian had already made his secession from the decrees of the orthodox when he wrote the book: could he with good hope have attempted to restore peace among the captives at variance? I hardly think so. For those among the captives who called themselves associates of the orthodox Church would have shrunk, more or less, from following the precepts of a man whose sect they detested most vehemently. On the other hand, if Tertullian is said to have written these things as a citizen of the purer Church, that hatred certainly cannot be said to have been a hindrance to the Montanists also receiving in a friendly [spirit] the things of which they had been admonished. Nay, I can hardly persuade myself that Tertullian, in commending peace to the martyrs, would have used this argument in Chapter I, that if they strove for peace with one another they might perhaps some time also confer peace on others; since all who have read his book On Modesty (ch. 22) know how bitterly he judged of that custom of giving letters of peace. Finally, there is no reason for us to dwell long on the example of the hired man, which is in our little book, ch. 5, no less than in the first book To the Nations, ch. 18. Granted, indeed,

Editors' notes and page, col. 112

Page

running head: [DISSER]TATIO DE VERA AETATE 112 (cut at the crop on the left)
marginal letters: A tianos ostendunt jam multis; B conatur Tertullianus sub libri initium; C vincula, semper a Montanistis; D sectam detestabantur vehementius
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:113

librum nostrum recentiorem esse illo, quis dicet ea de caussa nostrum esse Montanismi suspectum, nisi jam certo constet id, quod falsitatis postea convincemus, libros ad nationes fuisse a Tertulliano confectos, postquam cum Montanistis familiaritatem contraxerat? Praeterea si Hoffmannus sibi licere putavit, ut nostrum libellum posteriorem esse istis libris diceret; nobis pari jure licet, hos posteriores existimare nostro; idque eo magis, quo certius est, hunc sub vexationis initium, illos in ipso quasi perturbationis aestu prodiisse.

that our book is more recent than that one: who will say that ours is for that reason suspect of Montanism, unless it is already certainly established, as we shall later convict of falsehood, that the books To the Nations were composed by Tertullian after he had formed a close association with the Montanists? Moreover, if Hoffmann thought himself permitted to say that our little book was later than those books, we by equal right are permitted to judge these later than ours; and that all the more, as it is the more certain that this one came out about the beginning of the harassment, those in the very heat, as it were, of the turmoil.

§ 14. — Liber de Spectaculis A. CXCVIII. conscriptus. Dubitationes Tillemontii, Hoffmanni et Dupinii solvuntur.

§ 14. — The book On the Shows was written in the year CXCVIII. The doubts of Tillemont, Hoffmann and Du Pin are resolved.

Eadem tempestate, dubium non est, quin Tertullianus librum de Spectaculis ediderit. Ad quod efficiendum nisi uteremur alio argumento, quam hoc, quod illum librum excitaverit in eo quem de idololatria scripsit cap. 13, perfacile esset intelligere, hunc ut minimum A. CXCVIII. luci publicae expositum fuisse, cum Tertullianus illum eodem fere anno cum christianis communicaverit. Sed docet ipsum ejus in hoc libro conscribendo consilium evertendi istam opinionem, quod christianis liceret interesse Spectaculis, maxime tum edita Spectacula fuisse, quae contempta a christianis tanquam expedito morti genere, Deorum cultores dicebant (de Spect. c. I). Quae quidem valde dubito, an de aliis capi Spectaculis possint, quam de iis, quae propter Severi reditum victoriamque ab Albino reportatam, non Romae solum, sed per provincias etiam (coll. c. 7.) edita esse leguntur; qualia isto tempore habet Spartianus in Severo c. 14. Namque si Tertullianum ludos commemorare videmus (c. 16.) de natalibus et solemnibus regum et publicis prosperitatibus, eumque dicere, nullos a cultu Deorum immunes esse, sub quocumque demum nomine et titulo ederentur; id nempe quod diximus suspicamur, maxime inducti eo quod praesides dicat (c. 30.) persecutores dominici nominis, saevioribus, quam ipsi contra christianos saevierint, flammis insultantibus olim liquescentes; et alio quodam loco (c. 26.) quod in christianos quotidiani leones expostulentur, ac decernantur persecutiones. Igitur jam tum Praesides vexabant Christi cultores; quibus pertinaciam in rejicienda Spectaculorum voluptate objici usu venerat (c. 1.). Enimvero diximus § 7. in caussis violandi christianos eam fuisse habitam, quod hi sibi religioni ducerent venire ad ludos, ipsamque hanc saevitiam adversus eos jam A. CXCVII. extitisse: quam ob rem ullum fore dubitamus, qui alio quam hoc aut sequenti anno scriptum esse de Spectaculis librum judicet. Atque ego non ignoro multos fuisse in ea opinione, quasi Tertullianus nostro in libello respexisset potius ludos saeculares, quorum memoriam tot nummis novimus celebratam, et ipse ad hanc sententiam inclinavit Tillemontius, accuratissimus, si a ratione chronologica discesseris, harum rerum interpres (Mémoires pour

At the same season, there is no doubt that Tertullian published the book On the Shows. To establish this, even if we used no other argument than this, that he called that book to mind in the one he wrote On Idolatry, ch. 13, it would be very easy to understand that it was put before the public in the year CXCVIII at the least, since Tertullian shared that one with the Christians in about the same year. But his very purpose in writing this book, of overturning the opinion that it was lawful for Christians to attend the shows, teaches that shows had been given then above all which, being despised by the Christians, the worshippers of the gods called a ready kind of death for them (On the Shows, ch. I). I greatly doubt whether these can be understood of any other shows than those which we read were given, not at Rome only but also throughout the provinces (compare ch. 7), on account of Severus's return and the victory won over Albinus; such as Spartianus records at that time, in the Severus, ch. 14. For when we see Tertullian mention games (ch. 16) "for the birthdays and solemnities of kings and for public prosperities", and say that none are free from the worship of the gods, "under whatever name and title they may be given", we suspect precisely what we have said, induced above all by his saying (ch. 30) that the governors, "persecutors of the Lord's name, will one day melt in fiercer flames than those with which they themselves raged against the Christians, flames insulting over them"; and in another place (ch. 26) that "lions are daily demanded against the Christians, and persecutions decreed". Already then, therefore, the governors were harassing the worshippers of Christ, against whom obstinacy in rejecting the pleasure of the shows had come to be alleged (ch. 1). Indeed, we said in § 7 that among the causes for violence against the Christians was counted this, that they made it a matter of conscience not to come to the games, and that this very cruelty against them had already arisen in the year CXCVII: wherefore we doubt that there will be anyone who would judge that the book On the Shows was written in any other year than this or the following one. And I am not unaware that many have been of the opinion that Tertullian in our little book had rather in view the Secular Games, whose memory we know was celebrated on so many coins; and Tillemont himself inclined to this view, a most accurate interpreter of these matters if you set aside the chronological reckoning (Mémoires pour

Editors' notes and page, col. 113

Page

running head: 113 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM [TERTULLIANI] (cut at the crop on the right)
marginal letters: A librum nostrum recentiorem; B Eadem tempestate, dubium non est; C Romae solum, sed per provincias; D Igitur jam tum Praesides
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:114

servir à l'Histoire Ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, tom. III. edit. Paris. 1701. in-4°. p. 210.). Sed isti opinioni, quo minus calculum adjiciamus, impedit primum hoc, quod Tertullianus praesides dicat auctores calamitatum in christianos, ut abhorrens videatur ab ista cautione ac studio Tertulliani removendi a christianis omnem suspicionem neglectae pietatis adversus Imperatorem. Itaque hac ipsa cautione alias Tertulliano ubivis adhibita, quam hic abesse videmus, adducimur in eam sententiam ut credamus, tempore editi hujus libelli nondum sceleris istius adversus christianos participem fuisse Severum, qualis tamen fuit A. CCIV. cum ludi isti saeculares ederentur. Deinde efficeretur ipsa hac dissentientium opinione, hunc librum scriptum esse a Tertulliano, cum transiisset ad partes Montanistarum; quod longe secus est, ut mox videbitur, ac repudiatur ab ipsis his qui secus existimant. Neque vero aliorsum, quam fere ad hujus anni CXCVIII. initium, hunc librum referri par est, quoniam ante Maium anni praecedentis, vix credibile est, Severum Romam rediisse, cum sint post pugnam Lugdunensem (§ 10.) multa adhuc ab ipso composita (Vid. Herodiani Hist., l. III. c. 8. ed. Boecleri): unde fit, ut nec libellus ad martyres, qui nostro est superior, nisi ad illius anni finem, scriptus possit dici. Cui si addamus id, quod suo loco docebimus, librum de Idololatria posteriorem esse eo de Spectaculis, et eodem anno compositum; haec nostra de aetate libri de Spectaculis sententia inde necessario intelligetur. Atque haec eadem libri aetas demonstrat satis, non posse eum haberi in numero eorum, quos addictus sectae Montanistarum Tertullianus conscripsit; huic enim adjunxisse se eum A. P. C. N. CC. supra disputavimus; neque ulla est ipsi libro impressa nota imbuti Montanistarum erroribus animi. At hic tamen libellus libro de Corona posterior est, quem nemo Montanismi signa habere negat. Ita fere Hoffmannus in diss. laud. § 7.; a quo si rationem ejus rei postulas, nostrum prodiisse librum respondet, « cum pax Ecclesiae non quidem Severi edictis, sed clamoribus populi et Praesidum auctoritate sublata esset. » At eodem illo argumento adductus, cum animum appelleret ad scribendum librum de Spectaculis, Tertullianum plane existimo orthodoxae familiae sodalem fuisse. Namque vim argumenti contrarii universam in eo esse video quod in isto libro de Corona, c. I. Tertullianus bonam longamque pacem christianis adhuc fuisse dicat; cui quid respondendum sit, postea dabitur commodior dicendi locus. Sed istud a veritate alienum est, quod de Spectaculis liber scriptus sit post librum de Corona; cujus rei testem habemus ipsum Tertullianum plane contrarium, qui in isto de Corona libello cap. 6. huic materiae, inquit, propter suaviludios nostros, graeco quoque stylo satisfecimus; loquimur autem de Spectaculis, quae ducta putat e diaboli disciplina. Et hoc ipsum jam Allixium commovit, ut nostrum de Spectaculis librum antiquiorem eo esse decerneret; cujus argumenti vim Hoffmannus vult frangere, quod de graeco libello sermonem esse

to serve the Ecclesiastical History of the first six centuries, vol. III, Paris edition 1701, in quarto, p. 210). But what prevents us from adding our vote to that opinion is, first, this: that Tertullian calls the governors the authors of the calamities against the Christians, so that it seems at odds with that caution of Tertullian's and his zeal to remove from the Christians every suspicion of neglected loyalty towards the Emperor. Therefore, since this very caution, used by Tertullian everywhere else, is seen to be absent here, we are led to the view of believing that at the time this little book was published Severus had not yet been a partner in that crime against the Christians, as he nevertheless was in the year CCIV, when those Secular Games were given. Next, it would follow from this very opinion of those who disagree that this book was written by Tertullian after he had passed over to the party of the Montanists; which is far otherwise, as will soon be seen, and is rejected by the very people who think otherwise. Nor is it right to refer this book anywhere else than to about the beginning of this year CXCVIII, since it is hardly credible that Severus returned to Rome before May of the preceding year, as there were still many things settled by him after the battle of Lyons (§ 10) (see Herodian's History, book III, ch. 8, Boecler's edition): whence it comes about that the little book To the Martyrs, which is earlier than ours, cannot be said to have been written except towards the end of that year. If to this we add what we shall teach in its place, that the book On Idolatry is later than that On the Shows and composed in the same year, this view of ours about the date of the book On the Shows will necessarily be understood from it. And this same date of the book shows sufficiently that it cannot be counted among those which Tertullian wrote when attached to the sect of the Montanists; for we argued above that he joined himself to it in the year after the birth of Christ CC; nor is there any mark impressed on the book itself of a mind imbued with the errors of the Montanists. "But this little book is nevertheless later than the book On the Crown, which no one denies has the signs of Montanism." So, more or less, Hoffmann in the dissertation cited, § 7; and if you ask him the reason for this, he answers that our book came out "when the peace of the Church had been taken away, not indeed by the edicts of Severus, but by the clamours of the people and the authority of the governors." But led by that same argument, I judge that Tertullian, when he set his mind to writing the book On the Shows, was plainly a member of the orthodox household. For I see that the whole force of the contrary argument lies in this, that in that book On the Crown, ch. I, Tertullian says that the Christians had until then enjoyed a good and long peace; what is to be answered to this, a more fitting place for speaking will be given later. But it is foreign to the truth that the book On the Shows was written after the book On the Crown; of which we have Tertullian himself as a witness plainly to the contrary, who in that little book On the Crown, ch. 6, says: "this subject, on account of our pleasure-lovers, we have also dealt with in a Greek work"; and he is speaking of the shows, which he thinks are derived from the devil's teaching. And this very thing already moved Allix to decide that our book On the Shows is older than that one; the force of this argument Hoffmann wishes to break, because the talk is of a Greek little book

Editors' notes and page, col. 114

Page

running head: [AC DOCTRINA] SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 114 (cut at the crop on the left)
marginal letters: A servir à l'Histoire Ecclésiastique; B ad partes Montanistarum; C Atque haec eadem libri aetas; D Namque vim argumenti contrarii
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:115

pronunciat, negatque, idem de latino propter rationes a se adductas sentiendum esse. Atque ego non inficier, Tertullianum de eo libro fuisse locutum, quem de Spectaculis olim graece composuisset; sed neque illud potest esse obscurum, ante istum graecum, latine etiam eum commentatum esse de eodem argumento. Nonne enim is, qui de Spectaculis graece quoque se dixisse fatetur, idem hoc voluisse censendus est, se olim alia etiam lingua istud argumentum tractasse? de rationibus autem Hoffmanni in contrariam partem allatis, jam monui me postea dicturum. Neque est audiendus Dupinius, qui hunc quidem librum cum eo qui est de Idololatria, circiter A. CCII. aut CCIII. scriptum esse opinatur a Tertulliano jam ad errores Montanistarum proclivi (dans la nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, édit. de Paris, 1693. in-4°. t. I. p. 91. et 108. not. 1.). Qua in re deceptum eum esse suspicor natali Getae Caesaris, cujus memini mentionem fieri in Actis Perpetuae et Felicitatis, quae quidem creduntur eo anno mortem subiisse. Hunc vero natalem putat a Tertulliano in libro de Idololatria indicatum, cujus rei, saltem in eo loco quem excitavit, nullum est vestigium, ac, si esset, id nimirum cederet in disceptationem, intellexeritne Tertullianus natalem imperii an vitae Getae Caesaris? sit igitur stabile, hunc de Spectaculis librum editum fere fuisse sub A. CXCVIII. initium.

declares it, and denies that the same is to be held of the Latin, on account of the reasons he has adduced. And I do not deny that Tertullian spoke of that book which he had once composed in Greek on the Spectacles; but neither can this be obscure, that before that Greek one he had also written in Latin on the same subject. For is not he who confesses that he had spoken on the Spectacles in Greek also to be judged to have meant by this very thing that he had once treated that subject in another language as well? As for the reasons of Hoffmann brought forward on the opposite side, I have already said that I would speak of them later. Nor is Dupin to be listened to, who thinks that this book, together with the one on Idolatry, was written about A.D. CCII or CCIII by Tertullian when already inclined to the errors of the Montanists (in the Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, Paris edition, 1693, in quarto, vol. I, p. 91 and 108, note 1). In this matter I suspect that he was misled by the birthday of Geta Caesar, of which I remember mention is made in the Acts of Perpetua and Felicity, who are indeed believed to have suffered death in that year. But he thinks this birthday is indicated by Tertullian in the book on Idolatry, of which matter there is no trace, at least in the passage he cited; and, if there were, it would of course come into dispute whether Tertullian meant the birthday of Geta Caesar's reign or of his life. Let it stand, then, that this book on the Spectacles was published at about the beginning of A.D. CXCVIII.

§ 15. — Liber de Idololatria eidem anno asseritur. Tillementii et Hoffmanni conjecturae dispelluntur.

§ 15. — The book on Idolatry is assigned to the same year. The conjectures of Tillemont and Hoffmann are dispelled.

Hunc excipit de Idololatria libellus. Quem cum Tertullianus scriberet, erant sane Romani occupati in eo, quo ostenderent laetitiam summam de temporum istorum felicitate, eaque de causa ipsas januas suas laureis exornaverant et multis lucernis (coll. c. 15.). Id vero in honorem Imperatoris factum esse, demonstrat omnis disputatio, quam subjicit Tertullianus super ista quaestione: an pietas imperatori debita requirat, ut christiani, ad declarandum de Caesaris salute gaudium, se Deorum cultoribus adjungant vario laetitiae apparatu? Haec, si quis quaesiverit, ad quaenam tempora spectent, nullus ego dubito dicere: ad varia laetitiae signa, quibus quasi Severo, e bello cum aemulis imperii reduci, Romani applaudebant. Namque ter legimus apud scriptores veteres istiusmodi quid factum sub Severi imperio; primum A. CXCIII. cum Severus, regnum occupaturus, Romam, interfecto Juliano, intrasset (Dio apud Xiphilinum L. LXXIV. c. 2. p. 1242. C.); postea, cum victor ex Gallia rediisset, Albino prostrato (Herodian. l. III. c. 8. Spartian., in Severo c. 12.); denique in decennalibus imperii sui, cum reverteretur ex Oriente (Dio. l. LXXVI. c. 1. p. 1272. et Herod., l. III. c. 10.); quod omne genus multis confirmari numeris potest. Atque primum illud haud potest a Tertulliano significari. Namque, ut hoc non dicam, si adhuc fuisset imperii aemulus, quem plurimi optabant, qualis Niger erat post mortem Juliani, vix negligentiam in ostendenda adversus novum Caesarem impietate objici potuisse christianis

The little book on Idolatry follows it. When Tertullian was writing it, the Romans were certainly busy showing the highest joy at the happiness of those times, and for that reason had adorned their very doors with laurels and many lamps (compare ch. 15). That this was done in honour of the Emperor is shown by the whole discussion which Tertullian adds on this question: whether the loyalty owed to the emperor requires that Christians, in order to declare their joy over Caesar's welfare, join the worshippers of the gods in the various display of rejoicing. If anyone should ask to what times these things refer, I do not hesitate at all to say: to the various signs of rejoicing with which the Romans applauded Severus as if returning from war with the rivals for the empire. For we read three times in the ancient writers of something of this kind done under the reign of Severus: first in A.D. CXCIII, when Severus, about to seize the throne, had entered Rome after Julianus was killed (Dio in Xiphilinus, book LXXIV, ch. 2, p. 1242 C); afterwards, when he had returned victorious from Gaul after Albinus was overthrown (Herodian, book III, ch. 8; Spartianus, Severus ch. 12); finally at the decennalia of his reign, when he was returning from the East (Dio, book LXXVI, ch. 1, p. 1272, and Herodian, book III, ch. 10); and every kind of this can be confirmed on many counts. And the first cannot be meant by Tertullian. For, not to mention this, if there had still been a rival for the empire whom very many desired, such as Niger was after the death of Julianus, negligence in showing disloyalty towards the new Caesar could hardly have been laid against the Christians

Editors' notes and page, col. 115

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: locorum Tertulliani› · call in col 118

Apol., c. 37. Quoties suo jure nos inimicum vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis nec mortuis parcunt christianis, quin illos de requie sepulturae avellant, dissecent, distrahant. Et c. 35. Nulli magis depostulatores christianorum quam vulgus. Plane caeteri ordines pro auctoritate religiosi ex fide; nihil hosticum de ipso senatu, de equite, de castris, de palatiis ipsis spirat.

Apology, ch. 37: How often does the hostile mob attack us on its own account with stones and fires? With the very frenzy of the Bacchanals they do not spare even dead Christians, but tear them from the rest of the grave, cut them up, pull them apart. And ch. 35: None are louder in demanding the Christians than the mob. The other orders, to be sure, are devout out of loyalty, as befits their standing; nothing hostile breathes from the senate itself, from the knights, from the camp, from the palaces themselves.

(printed under page 81)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: thos profectum› · call in col 119

Profectio Augusti conjungitur apud Mediobarbum ad a. c. 199. p. 172. et apud Vaillantium in num. Impp., vol. I. p. 113. cum Tr. P. VI. quae desiit A. CXCIX. medio. Sed apud illum p. 273. alius nummus habet Severi Tr. P. VI. cum cognomine Par. Ar. Ad. signisque victoriae aliis.

The "Departure of the Augustus" is joined, in Mediobarbus under the year 199, p. 172, and in Vaillant's Coins of the Emperors, vol. I, p. 113, with Tribunician Power VI, which ended in the middle of 199. But in the former, p. 273, another coin of Severus has Tribunician Power VI with the title Parthicus Arabicus Adiabenicus and other signs of victory.

(printed under page 82)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: A. CXCVIII.› · call in col 123

Spartianus in Severo, c. 14. : «Profectus ad bellum Parthicum est, edito gladiatorio munere, et congiario populo dato.»

Spartianus, Life of Severus, ch. 14: "He set out for the Parthian war, after giving a gladiatorial show and a largess to the people."

(printed under page 84)

(2) ‹anchor: spoliandam tradidisset› · call in col 123

Idem, c. 16. : « Harum appellationum causa donativum militibus largissimum dedit, concessa omni praeda oppidi Parthici, quod milites quaerebant. »

The same, ch. 16: "On account of these titles he gave the soldiers a most generous donative, granting them all the plunder of the Parthian town, which the soldiers were demanding."

(printed under page 84)

(3) ‹anchor: Aegyptiacum meditarentur› · call in col 123

Id., ibid. : « Post hoc (cum filium majorem consulem secum designasset), dato stipendio cumulatiore militibus, Alexandriam petiit. »

The same, in the same place: "After this (having designated his elder son consul with himself), he gave the soldiers a fuller pay and made for Alexandria."

(printed under page 84)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L04 blocked after writing 115 (2026-10-04). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 1:125

cum altera eaque vehementissima hujus urbis oppugnatio viginti sit diebus confecta (Dio. l. LXXV. c. 13. p. 1265.), eamque statim secutum iter Severi in Palaestinam atque Aegyptum. Sed quoquo modo hoc accipiatur, Ctesiphontem hiemali prope tempore captam esse Spartianus confirmat in Sev. c. 16. Hoc dici non potest accidisse A. CXCVIII.; quomodo enim, si dicamus etiam Severum statim post susceptam a Caracallo Augusti dignitatem Roma abiisse, quomodo, inquam, tempore tam brevi tantum iter in ultimas quasi regiones perficere, classem exornare, peragrare Armeniam, Seleuciam, Babylonemque capere, atque vastare Arabiam potuisset? Neque vero id magis anno sequenti contigisse credibile est. Etenim post captam Ctesiphontem, Atramque his obsessam, Severus venit in Syriam, ubi postea fasces imperii suscepit. Sed eum cum filio A. CCII. hos habuisse, norunt, qui fastos consuluerunt universi; itaque dicendum erit, per tres fere aut duos annos nihil egisse Severum in bello adversus caeteros persequendo: quod prorsus abhorret. Restat igitur, ut captam a Severo Ctesiphontem A. CC. fere vertente dicamus, cujus occupationem cum statim exceperit Augusti dignitas in Caracallum a militibus collata, ac donativum iis ea de causa concessum; hoc certe non alio tempore, nisi sub anni CC. finem aut sequentis initium contigit. Quae quidem res egregie confirmatur iis antiquitatum monumentis, quae utriusque rei memoriam nobis tradiderunt. Etenim, ut a victoria Parthica exordiar, non Eusebius solum, cujus forte quidam stare nolent judicio, hanc victoriam a Parthis, Adiabenis, Arabibusque reportatam transfert in A. CC. (Chronic. L. II. ad h. a. Edit. Scaligeri, p. 172.). Sed fasti etiam (apud Pamelium in vita Tertull. p. 18. H.) et nummi (apud Mediobarbum ad a. c. 201. p. 274.) cognomen Parthici Maximi Severo Tr. P. VIII. sustinenti tribuunt, quam progredi a medio anni CC. ad anni sequentis mediam partem, nemo ignorat. Deinceps in Caracallum Augusti, in Getam Caesaris dignitatem a militibus collatam esse A. CCI. ex Spartiano intelligitur quodam modo, qui hoc ait factum esse, cum Caracallus annum XIII. ageret (l. c. c. 16.); quem eo anno egit haud dubie, ut apparet ex iis quae de ejus natali alias disputavimus (§ 6.). Ac hujus quidem auctoritas si forte repudianda videtur propterea, quod in definienda Caracalli aetate sibi ipse non constat satis; hunc certe scrupulum eximit elegantissimus nummus thesauri olim Schwartzburgici, nunc Gothani, quem memoriae hujus rei conservandae destinatum fuisse, dubitari non potest. Ejus altera pars caput Severi laurea cinctum offert addita inscriptione: Severus Aug. Part. Max. P. M. Tr. P. IX. altera nudum

when the second and most violent siege of this city was completed in twenty days (Dio, book LXXV, ch. 13, p. 1265), and that Severus' journey into Palestine and Egypt followed it at once. But however this is taken, Spartian confirms (Severus, ch. 16) that Ctesiphon was taken at about the time of winter. This cannot be said to have happened in A.D. CXCVIII; for how, even if we say that Severus left Rome immediately after Caracallus had received the dignity of Augustus, how, I say, could he in so short a time have completed so long a journey into what were almost the farthest regions, fitted out a fleet, traversed Armenia, taken Seleucia and Babylon, and laid Arabia waste? Nor indeed is it any more credible that it happened in the following year. For after the capture of Ctesiphon and the siege of Atra, Severus came into Syria, where he afterwards took up the fasces of [the consulship of] the empire. But all who have consulted the Fasti know that he held these with his son in A.D. CCII; so it would have to be said that for nearly three or two years Severus did nothing in prosecuting the war against the rest: which is wholly absurd. It remains, therefore, that we say Ctesiphon was taken by Severus at about the turn of A.D. CC, upon whose occupation there followed at once the dignity of Augustus conferred on Caracallus by the soldiers, and a donative granted to them for that reason; and this certainly happened at no other time than about the end of the year CC or the beginning of the next. This indeed is excellently confirmed by those monuments of antiquity which have handed down to us the memory of both events. For, to begin with the Parthian victory, not only Eusebius, whose judgement some perhaps will be unwilling to abide by, places this victory won over the Parthians, Adiabenians and Arabians in A.D. CC (Chronicle, book II, at that year, Scaliger's edition, p. 172). But the Fasti too (in Pamelius, in the life of Tertullian, p. 18 H.) and the coins (in Mediobarbus, at the year 201, p. 274) give the surname of Parthicus Maximus to Severus while he held the eighth tribunician power, which no one is unaware runs from the middle of the year CC to the middle of the following year. Next, that the dignity of Augustus was conferred on Caracallus, and that of Caesar on Geta, by the soldiers in A.D. CCI is understood in some measure from Spartian, who says that this was done when Caracallus was in his thirteenth year (loc. cit., ch. 16); which year he was without doubt in at that time, as appears from what we have argued elsewhere about his birth (§ 6). And if his authority should perhaps seem to be rejected because he is not sufficiently consistent with himself in determining Caracallus' age, this scruple at least is removed by a most elegant coin, once of the Schwartzburg treasury, now of the Gotha one, which it cannot be doubted was intended to preserve the memory of this event. One side of it shows the head of Severus girt with laurel, with the inscription added: Severus Aug. Part. Max. P. M. Tr. P. IX; the other side, the bare

Editors' notes and page, col. 125

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: dubitari non potest› · call in col 125

Eum cum erudito orbe communicavit Polycarpus Tentzelius in diss. Jo. Andr. Schmidii praesidio habita, ubi selecta numismata aurea, argentea et aerea maximi moduli ex gasophylacio Amstadio Schwartzburgico explicat; pag. 22. seqq. Aliam inscriptionem, in qua nomina trium istorum cum anno Tr. P. IX. Severi et Tr. P. IV. Caracalli conjunguntur, habet Scaliger in animadvers. Euseb., pag. 228.

Polycarp Tentzel shared it with the learned world in a dissertation defended under the presidency of Johann Andreas Schmid, where he explains select gold, silver and bronze coins of the largest module from the Schwarzburg treasury at Arnstadt; p. 22 ff. Another inscription, in which the names of these three are joined with the ninth year of Severus's tribunician power and the fourth of Caracalla's, is given by Scaliger in his Animadversions on Eusebius, p. 228.

(printed under page 85)

Page

running head: 125 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM [running head continues over the right column; right half not in crop]
marginal letters: A sisse, cum altera eaque; B Severus venit in Syriam; C forte quidam stare nolent; D dianda videtur propterea
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:126

Getae, et Caracalli laureatum caput, quod hunc quidem Augustum, illum Caesarem fuisse indicat, cum epigraphe: Aeternit. Imperi. Nempe eo non solum confirmatur id, quod Spartianus de tempore hujus ab iis susceptae dignitatis tradidit, sed haec etiam sequuntur, quae antea diximus, eam rem Anno CCI. extitisse, siquidem eo anno Trib. Pot. IX. Severus suscepit. Sed redeamus ad librum de Corona. Hujus locum supra excussum dicimus intelligi optime posse, si admittatur sententia ea, quam nobis probasse satis videmur. Namque ex ea intelligi maxime potest, qui factum sit, ut milites laureati incederent; quod nemo mirari debet, qui milites etiam triumphantes cinctos coronis fuisse novit, quale quid hic fuisse facile perspicitur. Nam et nunc subacti pene erant omnes, adversus quos Severus exercitum duxerat, in primis Parthorum bellicosissima natio, et ipse Severus, cum propter articularem morbum agere triumphum de Parthis non posset, de Judaeis tamen eum agendum filio, ac Parthici compensandi gratia militibus forte signa triumphantium concessit. Quae si teneamus, simul illud aperitur, quo modo nunc turbandae pacis suspicio christianis potuerit oboriri. Jam enim prostrati erant hostes Imperatoris omnes, ipsaque Severi jam otiosi asperitas minabatur severitatem summam, quam, districtus adhuc gravioribus negotiis, non potuerat sequi. Et isti inflammandae maxime idoneum videbatur militis exemplum, quem eo, quod coronam repudiasset, parricidium commisisse, hostemque Caesaris publicum exstitisse, suo more Deorum cultores arbitrabantur.

of Geta and the laureate head of Caracallus, which shows that the latter was Augustus and the former Caesar, with the legend: Aeternit. Imperi. By this, namely, not only is what Spartian handed down about the time when this dignity was received by them confirmed, but there also follows what we said before, that this took place in the year CCI, since in that year Severus took up the ninth tribunician power. But let us return to the book On the Crown. We say that its passage examined above can be understood best if the opinion which we seem to ourselves to have sufficiently proved is admitted. For from it can best be understood how it came about that the soldiers went about wearing laurel; at which no one ought to wonder who knows that soldiers also, when celebrating a triumph, were girt with crowns, and that something of the kind was the case here is easily seen. For now too nearly all against whom Severus had led his army had been subdued, above all the most warlike nation of the Parthians; and Severus himself, since because of gout he could not celebrate a triumph over the Parthians, gave the triumph over the Jews to his son to celebrate, and, to make up for the Parthian one, perhaps granted the soldiers the insignia of men in triumph. If we hold to this, it is at the same time made plain how the suspicion of disturbing the peace could at that time arise against the Christians. For all the Emperor's enemies had now been laid low, and the harshness of Severus, now at leisure, threatened the utmost severity, which, while still occupied with weightier business, he had not been able to pursue. And the example of the soldier seemed most suited to kindle that harshness, since the worshippers of the gods, after their fashion, judged that by refusing the crown he had committed parricide and had shown himself a public enemy of Caesar.

§ 2. — Secus sentientium opiniones examinantur, et imprimis Hoffmanni et Orsii, qui illum A. CXCVIII. tribuerant, et Pagii, qui eum assignaverat A. CCII.

§ 2. — The opinions of those who think otherwise are examined, and first of all those of Hoffmann and Orsi, who had assigned it to A.D. CXCVIII, and of Pagi, who had assigned it to A.D. CCII.

At, cum his argumentis inductus, librum de Corona A. CCI. scriptum esse contendam, video plerosque contradicere, quamvis in diversas plane partes pronuntient. Namque Orsius, familiae Dominicanae doctissimus monachus, ejusque adstipulator Hoffmannus A. CXCVIII. Baronius A. CXCIX. Pagius A. CCII. Pamelius et Allixius A. CCX. postremo Tillemontius imperante Maximino A. CCXXXV. eum editum fuisse opinatur. Sed isti, si a Tertulliano discesseris, omnes ad unum errarunt in eo, quod aliud donativum militibus a Severo datum intellexerint, quam quod debeat intelligi. Quocirca supersedere possemus iis confutandis, dum, quale donativum hic fuerit a Tertulliano indicatum, docuimus. At quoniam ex istius libelli tempore pendet plurimorum ejus librorum chronologia, facitque ista secus sentientium confutatio plurimum ad confirmandam nostram sententiam, age! eas opiniones brevissime examinemus. Atque hic de opinione Tillemontii nihil attinet dicere propterea, quod tota ista res satis tractata videtur ab Hoffmanno (In diss. de Tertulliani omnibus in Montanismo scriptis, § 6. p. 26. seqq.), et plane sequitur illam haeresim, quae neque A.

But while I, led by these arguments, contend that the book On the Crown was written in A.D. CCI, I see that most contradict this, although they pronounce in quite different directions. For Orsi, a most learned monk of the Dominican family, and his supporter Hoffmann think it was published in A.D. CXCVIII, Baronius in A.D. CXCIX, Pagi in A.D. CCII, Pamelius and Allix in A.D. CCX, and lastly Tillemont under the reign of Maximinus in A.D. CCXXXV. But these, if you leave Tertullian aside, all to a man erred in this, that they understood a different donative given to the soldiers by Severus from the one which ought to be understood. We could therefore dispense with refuting them, since we have shown what kind of donative was indicated here by Tertullian. But since the chronology of very many of his books depends on the date of this little book, and this refutation of those who think otherwise contributes very much to confirming our own opinion, come, let us examine those opinions as briefly as possible. And here there is no need to say anything about Tillemont's opinion, because that whole matter seems to have been treated sufficiently by Hoffmann (in the dissertation On all the writings of Tertullian in his Montanism, § 6, p. 26 ff.), and that heresy plainly follows, which neither in A.D.

Editors' notes and page, col. 126

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: rem istam descripsit› · call in col 127

In diss. hist., qua ostenditur, catholicam Ecclesiam tribus prioribus seculis capitalium criminum reis pacem et absolutionem neutiquam denegasse; sect. II. cap. 3. Digressione 2. p. 104. 113. Ea prodiit Mediolani, 1730. 4.

In the historical dissertation showing that the Catholic Church in the first three centuries by no means refused peace and absolution to those guilty of capital crimes; sect. II, ch. 3, Digression 2, pp. 104, 113. It appeared at Milan, 1730, in quarto.

(printed under page 86)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Pagii argumentis› · call in col 128

Ea proposuit in Critica Annalium Baronii ad a. c. CXCIX. n. 3. p. m. 91. 92.

He put them forward in the Critica of Baronius's Annals, at the year 199, no. 3, pp. 91–92 of my copy.

(printed under page 86)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quem excitavit› · call in col 132

Lib. I. c. 6. Gemmarum quoque nobilitatem vidimus Romae de fastidio Parthorum et Medorum, caeterorumque gentilium suorum coram matronis erubescentem.

Book I, ch. 6: "We have seen at Rome the nobility of gems, too, blushing before the matrons at the disdain of the Parthians and Medes and the rest of their own countrymen."

(printed under page 88)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: nemo dubitabit› · call in col 133

Argumento esse potest Paracleti Montanistarum commemoratio, quem dicit non recipi ab iis, ad quos frater ille pertinebat, cui librum inscripsit (c. 1.); spiritus praeterea effatum ad testimonium citat (cap. 9.) quod cum in sacro codice non occurrat, haud dubie spiritus Montanistici est; de quo etiam, c. 1. et c. 14. loquitur.

Proof of this can be found in his mention of the Paraclete of the Montanists, whom he says is not received by those to whom the brother belonged to whom he addressed the book (ch. 1); besides, he cites a saying of the Spirit as testimony (ch. 9), which, since it does not occur in the sacred text, is beyond doubt from the Montanist spirit; he speaks of it also in ch. 1 and ch. 14.

(printed under page 89)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L05 blocked after writing 125-126 (2026-10-04). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 1:135

volumen contra Marcionem, nunc amissum quidem, satis commode potuit; primum enim opusculum, ut ait ipse Tertullianus, demum pleniore postea compositione rescidit, et citari id quidem poterat, cum accuratiori oratione nondum haec persecutus fuisset. Quam ob rem in isto Hoffmanni argumento vel ea jam tanquam vera sumuntur, quae plane sunt in controversia, vel relinquuntur in medio potius. Quod si illud est, sane ejus argumentum redit in orbem; sin hoc, nostra quidem sententia non est inferior Hoffmanniana. Sed, remota hac difficultate, quae fraudi nobis esse poterat, scriptae Scorpiaces aetatem nunc age definiamus.

the volume against Marcion, now indeed lost, quite conveniently could; for the first little work, as Tertullian himself says, he afterwards at length rescinded by a fuller composition, and it could indeed be cited, since he had not yet pursued these matters in more careful discourse. For this reason, in this argument of Hoffmann's, either those things are already taken as true which are plainly in controversy, or rather they are left undecided. If it is the former, his argument surely goes round in a circle; if the latter, our opinion is certainly not inferior to Hoffmann's. But, this difficulty which could have told against us being removed, come now, let us determine the date at which the Scorpiace was written.

§ 9. — Scorpiacen A. CCIV. scriptam esse conficitur.

§ 9. — It is established that the Scorpiace was written in A.D. CCIV.

Cum Tertullianus, quae de martyrii dignitate disputare in ista Scorpiace volebat, in litteras referret; erant deorum cultores in christianis funditus delendis occupati; quod universum docet argumentum hujus libelli iis haereticis oppositi, qui, cum fides aestuaret, et Ecclesia de figura rubi exureretur, suscipere propter religionem mala turpe putabant (c. 1.). Hujusmodi mala jam oportet atrocissima fuisse, ut verba Tertulliani ostendunt, quae in eadem sectione subjicit: Et nunc praesentia rerum est medius ardor, ipsa canicula persecutionis, ab ipso scilicet cynocephalo. Alios ignis, alios gladius, alios bestiae christianos probaverunt, etc. Atque hic nullum est dubium, quin intelligenda sit vexatio ea, quae post Severi edictum exardescebat; siquidem hunc librum post illum de Fuga in persecutione composuit. Namque Tertullianum nuspiam legimus probantem, quod tales propter religionem calamitates Deum auctorem agnoscant, nisi in isto de Fuga libello, ejusque in primis tertia sectione; qua tamen de re se jam fuisse olim commentatum ait in quarta Scorpiaces sectione. Sed, ut de aetate hujus libri pressius dicam, prorsus eum existimo prodiisse A. CCIV. Ubi primum mihi hoc argumento est, quod, cum Eusebius H. E. VI. c. 2. Ed. Cantabrig. p. 257. calamitates a Severo summa vi christianis illatas esse dixisset, et ita quidem, ut multi jam Antichristi adventum appropinquantem putarent; neque is ipse, neque quis alius scriptorum veterum alia mala litteris consignaverit, praeter ea, quae anno Severi decimo, sub Laeto, Africae praeside, christianis contigerunt, et anno sequenti auctore Aquila, Praeside ejusdem provinciae (Euseb. l. c. c. 3. p. 261.). Nam quod haec eo anno extiterint, ipse Eusebius docet, qui Origenem tum Catechumenis instituendis praefectum fuisse confirmat, dum Aquila se incremento christianae religionis ejus asseclas laedendo opponebat, eumque XVIII. annorum fuisse, cum eum XVII. aetatis annum egisse dixisset eo tempore, quo pater ejus Leonides morti traderetur (c. 2. p. 258.), quod factum est anno decimo Severi. Jam si qui tamen pergunt opinari, nostrum libellum scriptum esse A. CCVIII.; dicant mihi tamen, quonam jure ei anno calamitates maximas christianorum possint asserere, quarum nulla tamen apud veteres scriptores exstat memoria? Quo

When Tertullian was committing to writing what he wished to argue in this Scorpiace concerning the dignity of martyrdom, the worshippers of the gods were busy utterly destroying the Christians; this the whole argument of this little book teaches, set against those heretics who, while the faith was in ferment and the Church was being burnt after the figure of the bush, thought it shameful to undergo evils for the sake of religion (ch. I). Evils of this kind must already have been most atrocious, as the words of Tertullian show which he adds in the same section: And now the present state of things is the midst of the heat, the very dog-days of persecution, from the dog-headed one himself, of course. Fire has tried some Christians, the sword others, beasts others, etc. And here there is no doubt that the harassment to be understood is that which was blazing up after the edict of Severus; since he composed this book after that one On Flight in Persecution. For nowhere do we read of Tertullian maintaining that such calamities on account of religion acknowledge God as their author, except in that little book On Flight, and in its third section in particular; on which matter, however, he says in the fourth section of the Scorpiace that he had already commented once before. But, to speak more precisely of the date of this book, I consider that it certainly appeared in A.D. CCIV. Here my first argument is this: that when Eusebius, H. E. VI, ch. II (Cambridge ed. p. 257), had said that calamities were inflicted on the Christians by Severus with the utmost violence, and indeed to such a degree that many thought the coming of Antichrist was already approaching, neither he himself nor any other of the ancient writers has recorded in writing other evils besides those which befell the Christians in the tenth year of Severus, under Laetus, governor of Africa, and in the following year at the instigation of Aquila, governor of the same province (Euseb. loc. cit. ch. III, p. 261). For that these things happened in that year Eusebius himself teaches, who affirms that Origen was then placed in charge of instructing the catechumens, while Aquila was setting himself against the growth of the Christian religion by harming its adherents, and that he was eighteen years old, since he had said that he was in the seventeenth year of his age at the time when his father Leonides was put to death (ch. II, p. 258), which happened in the tenth year of Severus. Now if some nevertheless go on supposing that our little book was written in A.D. CCVIII, let them tell me by what right they can assign to that year very great calamities of the Christians, of which no record whatever exists among the ancient writers? At this

Editors' notes and page, col. 135

Page

running head: 135 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [rest of head on facing column, cut by crop]
marginal letters: A volumen contra Marcionem, nunc amissum quidem; B putare in ista Scorpiace volebat; C librum post illum de Fuga in persecutione; D sub Laeto, Africae praeside
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "me / dius" printed across a line end without hyphen; joined as medius. Column ends on "Quo", continued in col. 136 by "loco libet admirari" (Quo loco = at this point).

PL 1:136

loco libet admirari tot doctissimorum virorum levitatem, qui, cum semel inbibissent opinionem de Scorpiace libris nostris contra Marcionem posteriore, obliti sunt ejus, quod nihil sit in historia turpius, quam temere credere. Nam si ego duas sententias ferri videam, alteram opinabilem, sed nullo veterum scriptorum testimonio efficiendam, alteram ita comparatam, ut prae se ferat hoc veritatis praesidium; quidni, relicta illa, hanc sequerer? Atqui hoc praesto est argumentum, idque premendum etiam atque etiam, siquidem postea ostenderimus, librum Tertulliani de Pallio esse in annum CCVIII. conjiciendum. Namque in eo (c. I.) gaudeo vos, inquit, Carthaginienses, tam prosperos temporum, cum ita vacat, ac juvat, habitus denotare. Pacis haec et annonae otia, ab imperio et a coelo bene est. Ubi quo modo Tertullianus potuisset temporis prosperitatem commemorare, aut ad res nullius plane momenti, quales sunt istae de pallio nugae, descendere ob pacis otia, si gravissimae tum fuissent christianorum calamitates, quales eas in Scorpiace depingit? Itaque quam alii fere quinquennio tardius putarunt scriptam Scorpiacen, prius utique prodiisse arbitror, quam istae, quae supersunt, adversus Marcionem disputationes, et anno quidem CCIII. aut CCIV.; cujus Eusebium testem rectissimum habemus, qui nusquam id quidem dicit omnino, sed, uti vidimus, quae dicit, idem fere ostendunt. Ubi mihi quidem magis placet iste posterior annus, propter ludos, quos nuper admodum editos Tertullianus dicit. Quod si quis malit editos credere in decennalibus Severi et Caracalli quinquennalibus, non repugnabo admodum; quoniam id satis est a Spanhemio, viro in his litteris probato sane et maxime nobili, evictum, Pythia alibi quoque quam Delphis, nec in unius Apollinis Pythii honorem, sed Imperatorum etiam acta fuisse. Tamen ego alterum praetulerim propterea, quod ludi Pythii sint in Graecia quovis tertio anno Olympiados editi, ipseque tertius Olympiados CCXLV. annus incidat in annum P. C. N. CCIV. Atque sic nulla vis infertur verbis Tertulliani, quae quidem, si ii ludi editi Carthagine dicuntur, ubi Carthago ipsa praemio non poterat donari, non satis bene videntur cohaerere.

point one may well marvel at the levity of so many most learned men who, having once imbibed the opinion that the Scorpiace was later than our books against Marcion, forgot this: that nothing in history is more shameful than to believe rashly. For if I should see two opinions put forward, the one plausible but not to be established by the testimony of any of the ancient writers, the other so framed that it carries before it this safeguard of truth, why should I not abandon the former and follow the latter? And yet this argument is to hand, and it must be pressed again and again, since we shall afterwards show that Tertullian's book On the Pallium is to be assigned to the year CCVIII. For in it (ch. I) he says: I rejoice, men of Carthage, that you are so prosperous in your times, since there is leisure, and it pleases you, to censure dress. These are the leisures of peace and of plenty; from the empire and from heaven all is well. Here how could Tertullian have recalled the prosperity of the time, or have descended, because of the leisures of peace, to matters of plainly no moment, such as these trifles about the pallium, if the calamities of the Christians had then been most grievous, such as he depicts them in the Scorpiace? Therefore I judge that the Scorpiace, which others have thought was written about five years later, certainly appeared before those disputations against Marcion which survive, and indeed in the year CCIII or CCIV; of which we have Eusebius as a most correct witness, who nowhere, it is true, says this outright, but, as we have seen, the things he does say show nearly the same. Here for my part the latter year pleases me more, on account of the games which Tertullian says had been held quite recently. But if anyone prefers to believe that they were held at the decennalia of Severus and the quinquennalia of Caracalla, I shall not greatly object; since it has been sufficiently proved by Spanheim, a man truly approved in these studies and most distinguished, that Pythian games were held elsewhere also than at Delphi, and not in honour of Pythian Apollo alone, but also of the emperors. Yet I should prefer the other, for this reason: that the Pythian games were held in Greece in every third year of an Olympiad, and the third year of Olympiad CCXLV itself falls in the year CCIV after the birth of Christ. And thus no violence is done to the words of Tertullian, which indeed, if those games are said to have been held at Carthage, where Carthage itself could not be granted the prize, do not seem to hang together well enough.

§ 10. — Libri V. qui supersunt adversus Marcionem, quorum primus refertur ad A. CCVII. aut CCVIII. caeteros dubiae aetatis esse docetur.

§ 10. — Of the five surviving books against Marcion, the first of which is referred to A.D. CCVII or CCVIII, it is shown that the rest are of uncertain date.

Praeter hunc Tertulliani librum supersunt ex iis, qui scripti sunt, cum jam ab orthodoxis degenerasset, adversus Marcionem libri V. quos dubium non est argui Montanisticorum errorum posse. Etenim, si maxime dubia videretur ipsius Tertulliani professio (lib. IV. c. 22.), qua suos dicit et Psychi-

Besides this book of Tertullian there survive, of those which were written when he had already fallen away from the orthodox, the five books against Marcion, which there is no doubt can be convicted of Montanist errors. For even if the profession of Tertullian himself (book IV, ch. XXII) should seem highly doubtful, in which he calls his own people and the Psychi-

Editors' notes and page, col. 136

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Tertullianus dicit› · call in col 136

Cap. 6. Agonas istos, contentiosa solemnia et superstitiosa certamina Graecorum et religionum et voluptatum, quanta gratia saeculum celebret, etiam Africae licuit. Adhuc Carthaginem singulae civitates gratulando inquietant, donatum Pythico agone post stadii senectutem.

Ch. 6: "Those contests, the quarrelsome festivals and superstitious competitions of the Greeks, of their religions and their pleasures, with what favour the age celebrates them Africa too has been allowed to know. To this day the cities one by one disturb Carthage with their congratulations, presented with the Pythian games after the stadium's old age."

(printed under page 90)

(2) ‹anchor: maxime nobili, evictum› · call in col 136

In Epist. I. ad Andr. Morellum, quae est adjecta hujus specimini universae rei nummariae antiquae, in Ed. Lips., pag. 12. seq.

In the first Letter to Andreas Morell, which is appended to his specimen of the whole science of ancient coinage, in the Leipzig edition, p. 12 f.

(printed under page 90)

Page

running head: 136 DISSERTATIO DE VERA AETATE (left part of head on facing column)
marginal letters: A loco libet admirari tot doctissimorum; B imperio et a coelo bene est; C nus dicit (1). Quod si quis malit / decennalibus Severi; D quorum primus refertur ad A. CCVII.
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:137

cos in loco de Ecstasi dissentire; neque quis visorum rationem habere velit, quibus ista decreta, ait, confirmata fuisse (l. III. c. 24. V. c. 8.); quoniam omnes isti contra Marcionem libri non sunt uno tempore editi: tamen in libro ejus argumenti primo Montani disciplinam et suam dicit, et se decreta sua de fugiendis repetitis nuptiis auctore Paracleto defendentem (c. 29.); ac ipsa temporis ratio docet eum librum scriptum esse, postquam a partibus Montanistarum jam esse coeperat. De quo altero loco, quem disputandum sumpsimus, cum dubitare ne in mentem quidem venerit multis eorum, qui in definienda librorum Tertulliani aetate laborarunt, et ab aliis multa perperam dicta sint, subtilius videmur nobis, re saepius cogitata, disputare debere. Atque ut de libro primo primum dicamus, nemo est qui ejus aetatem controversam esse dicat. Recte quidem et satis bene; est enim aperta ejus rei et capitalis Tertulliani professio (l. I. c. 15.) qui anno decimo quinto Severi hunc librum a se compositum fatetur. Sed cum de caeterorum aetate nihil dicant, ipso silentio eos declarant ejusdem aetatis esse. Quod longe secus est. Nam ex verbis iis, quibus finem libro primo Tertullianus imposuit, haud obscure colligitur, eum esse separatim editum, caeteros diverso tempore exaratos. Etsi autem non audemus dicere, an alterum, tertium et quartum seorsum aut conjunctim, ac quonam tempore scripserit, id tamen dubio carere confirmamus, quod quintum librum Tertullianus non eodem cum reliquis tempore ediderit. Est enim liber de Resurrectione recentior eo, quem de Carne Christi composuit (de Resurrect., c. 2), in quo (de Carne Christi, cap. 7), locum excitat ex libro adversus Marcionem quarto, de quo postea dicemus. Enimvero in quinto Antimarcionis libro, c. 10. ad eum remittit, quem de Resurrectione scripserat; unde Tertullianum patet alio tempore, quam quo quartum edidit, quintum in lucem protulisse. Pariter in primo Antimarcionis, c. 1., opus de Praescriptione haereticorum se confecturum aliquando pollicetur; sed in libro de Carne Christi tale jam dicit a se scriptum fuisse, c. 2.; igitur et hoc ostendit, primum non esse eodem partu cum caeteris omnibus editum. Quae cum ita sint, certe quidem confirmamus, primum adversus Marcionem librum A. P. C. N. CCVII. aut, si mavis, CCVIII. prodiisse, cum XV. Severi annus in utrumque incidat, sed de caeteris, quando sint scripti, dici nihil posse, nisi hoc, quod quintum reliquis aequale non sit.

cs dissent on the point of ecstasy; and though one may not wish to take account of the visions by which, he says, these decrees were confirmed (book III, ch. XXIV; V, ch. VIII), since all those books against Marcion were not published at one time: yet in the first book of that argument he calls the discipline of Montanus his own too, and himself as defending his decrees on avoiding repeated marriages on the authority of the Paraclete (ch. XXIX); and the very reckoning of time teaches that this book was written after he had already begun to be of the Montanist party. Concerning this second point which we have undertaken to discuss, since it did not even come into the mind of many of those who have laboured over determining the date of Tertullian's books to doubt it, and many things have been wrongly said by others, we think we ought, having considered the matter rather often, to discuss it more minutely. And to speak first of the first book, there is no one who says that its date is disputed. Rightly indeed and well enough; for there is an open and principal profession of Tertullian on that matter (book I, ch. XV), who acknowledges that this book was composed by him in the fifteenth year of Severus. But since they say nothing about the date of the others, by their very silence they declare them to be of the same date. Which is far otherwise. For from those words with which Tertullian put an end to the first book it is gathered not obscurely that it was published separately, the others written out at a different time. And although we do not dare to say whether he wrote the second, third and fourth separately or together, and at what time, yet we affirm that this is beyond doubt: that Tertullian did not publish the fifth book at the same time as the rest. For the book On the Resurrection is more recent than the one which he composed On the Flesh of Christ (On the Resurrection, ch. II), in which (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. VII) he cites a passage from the fourth book against Marcion, of which we shall speak afterwards. But in the fifth book of the Anti-Marcion, ch. X, he refers to the one which he had written On the Resurrection; whence it is plain that Tertullian brought out the fifth at another time than that at which he published the fourth. Likewise in the first of the Anti-Marcion, ch. I, he promises that he will at some time complete a work On the Prescription of Heretics; but in the book On the Flesh of Christ he says that such a work has already been written by him, ch. II; therefore this too shows that the first was not published at the same birth with all the others. Since these things are so, we certainly affirm that the first book against Marcion appeared in the year after the birth of Christ CCVII or, if you prefer, CCVIII, since the fifteenth year of Severus falls in both; but that of the others, as to when they were written, nothing can be said, except this, that the fifth is not contemporary with the rest.

§ 11. — Tillemontii contraria opinio castigatur.

§ 11. — The contrary opinion of Tillemont is corrected.

At quod verebamur fore, ut quale in loco de Scorpiace diximus, libros contra Marcionem ibi citatos non eos esse, quos habemus superstites, sed alios abrogatos quasi, et dudum amissos, tale etiam his argumentis nostris nonnulli objiciant, id fere factum videmus a Tillemontio (Mémoires pour servir à l'hist. Eccl.,

But what we feared would happen, namely that, just as we said in the passage on the Scorpiace that the books against Marcion cited there are not those which we have surviving but others, abrogated as it were and long since lost, some would raise a like objection against these arguments of ours too, we see has nearly been done by Tillemont (Mémoires pour servir à l'hist. Eccl.,

Editors' notes and page, col. 137

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Tertullianus imposuit› · call in col 137

Si cui minus quid videmur egisse, speret reservatum suo tempori, sicut et ipsarum Scripturarum examinationem, quibus Marcion utitur.

If anyone thinks we have done too little, let him hope that it is kept back for its own time, as is the examination of the very Scriptures that Marcion uses.

(printed under page 91)

Page

running head: 137 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM [rest of head on facing column, cut by crop]
marginal letters: A cos in loco de Ecstasi dissentire; B primum dicamus, nemo est qui; C ediderit. Est enim liber de Resurrectione; D diisse, cum XV. Severi annus
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:138

tom. III. p. 666. not. 19.), qui istam rem pugnacissime defendit. Oportet igitur et ea, quae pro nostris responderi possunt, in medium proferri, et discuti ea quae in illam partem Tillemontius disputavit; sed utraque brevissime, et ita quidem, ut quae aperto firmavimus ipsius Tertulliani testimonio, ea nunc plane mittamus. Itaque hoc unum disputari potest: utrum Tertullianus in libro de Carne Christi quartum contra Marcionem librum citaverit, quem adhuc superstitem habemus? quod prorsus existimo, primum, quoniam in illo libro Marcionis codicem sacrum examinavit, et ibi (lib. IV. c. 19.) reperitur omnino id, quod in eo de Carne Christi tetigit; deinde quod, cum librum primum adhuc superstitem Marcioni opponeret, librum de Praescriptione haereticorum nondum ediderat. Hic tamen uti jam prodierat in publicum, cum Tertullianus de Carne Christi commentaretur, quod modo probavimus, ita necesse est sane, ut tum quoque primus inter superstites contra Marcionem libellus jam editus fuerit. Enimvero cum hunc scriberet, duo illa opuscula, quibus olim Marcionem impugnavit, resciderat amiseratque Tertullianus; quocirca apparet, eum in libro de Carne Christi remittere lectores non potuisse. Sed Tillemontium tamen contra disputantem audiamus. Is primo hos Tertulliani: Scorpiacen, de Carne Christi, de Anima et de Resurrectione libros ait superiores dici posse libris qui supersunt adversus Marcionem, hujusque nominis in iis citatos esse eos qui dudum periere. Ac de Scorpiace ego non repugno; est enim illa quaestio satis tractata: sed de caeteris non assentior. Nam de libro qui de Carne Christi inscribitur, modo diximus, quid sit sentiendum, cui si quis resistere velit, eum audiemus. Atque cum hoc ostendimus, simul illud aperiebatur, a libro de Resurrectione (qui eo est haud dubie recentior), quod Tillemontius contra volebat, remotissimum esse. Denique quod animus hominis non aliunde agitetur, in libro de Anima, c. 21, ait se Marcionem docuisse. Atque ista de re cum multa dixerit in altero, qui superest, adversus eum libro, c. 6. seqq., non absurdum est dicere, quod hunc in illo respexerit; nec tamen mordicus id quidem tenebimus, qui usi non sumus istius libri testimonio. Altera dubitatio etiam puerilis est. In loco eo, quem e libro de Carne Christi ad testimonium citavimus, Tertullianus illum librum contra Marcionem, quem appellavit, libellum dixit; itaque quartum inter superstites non voluit laudare, qui non libellus sit, sed magnum volumen. Inepta conclusio! quasi vero Tertullianus omne opus contra Marcionem non opusculum dixisset, lib. I. c. 1. c. 31. II. c. 1. etc., aut quasi is dici libellus non posset, qui partem majoris operis constituit. At eo modo dicendum est, Tertullianum opus nondum perfectum citasse! Hoccine vero et potuit tanto viro scrupulum injicere, qui millies in commentariis suis ipsos libros suos nunquam absolutos antestatus est? Eodemque modo Tertullianum egisse quis negabit, si quidem nostras nostri argumenti vindicias legerit? Denique dicit Tertullianum de loco, quo sancti viri contineantur a

tom. III, p. 666, note 19), who defends this matter most combatively. It is fitting therefore both that the things which can be answered on our behalf be brought forward, and that those things be examined which Tillemont argued on that side; but both most briefly, and indeed in such a way that what we have established by the open testimony of Tertullian himself we now pass over entirely. And so this one thing can be disputed: whether Tertullian in the book On the Flesh of Christ cited the fourth book against Marcion, which we still have surviving? Which I certainly believe, first, because in that book he examined Marcion's sacred codex, and there (book IV, ch. XIX) is found exactly what he touched on in that work On the Flesh of Christ; next, because when he set the first book, still surviving, against Marcion, he had not yet published the book On the Prescription of Heretics. But as this had already gone out in public when Tertullian was writing On the Flesh of Christ, which we have just proved, so it is surely necessary that then too the first among the surviving little books against Marcion had already been published. Indeed, when he was writing this one, Tertullian had rescinded and lost those two little works with which he had formerly assailed Marcion; wherefore it is evident that in the book On the Flesh of Christ he could not have referred his readers to them. But let us nevertheless hear Tillemont arguing against us. He says first that these books of Tertullian, the Scorpiace, On the Flesh of Christ, On the Soul and On the Resurrection, can be said to be earlier than the books against Marcion which survive, and that those cited in them under this name are those which perished long ago. And as to the Scorpiace I do not object; for that question has been sufficiently treated: but as to the others I do not agree. For concerning the book entitled On the Flesh of Christ we have just said what is to be thought, and if anyone wishes to resist it, we shall hear him. And when we showed this, at the same time it became clear that it is very far removed from the book On the Resurrection (which is without doubt more recent than it), contrary to what Tillemont wished. Lastly, in the book On the Soul, ch. XXI, he says that he had taught Marcion that the mind of man is not moved from elsewhere. And since he has said much on this matter in the second surviving book against him, ch. VI and following, it is not absurd to say that he had this one in view in that place; yet we shall not hold on to this tooth and nail, since we have not used the testimony of that book. The other doubt is even childish. In that passage which we cited as testimony from the book On the Flesh of Christ, Tertullian called that book against Marcion to which he referred a little book; therefore, it is said, he did not mean to cite the fourth among the surviving ones, which is not a little book but a great volume. A silly conclusion! as though Tertullian had not called the whole work against Marcion a little work, book I, ch. I, ch. XXXI; II, ch. I, etc., or as though that could not be called a little book which forms part of a larger work. But in that way, it is said, one must say that Tertullian cited a work not yet completed! Could this really have raised a scruple for so great a man, who a thousand times in his commentaries has called to witness his own books, never finished? And who will deny that Tertullian acted in the same way, if indeed he has read our defence of our argument? Lastly he says that Tertullian, concerning the place in which holy men are contained from

Editors' notes and page, col. 138

Page

running head: 138 SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. (left part of head on facing column)
marginal letters: A tom. III. p. 666. not. 19.); B tamen uti jam prodierat in publicum; C est enim illa quaestio satis tractata; D monium citavimus, Tertullianus illum librum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "(Cinq.)" printed below the column at the page foot treated as a printer's mark and not set. "Is primo" read with a damaged s. The chapter numbers in "lib. I. c. 1. c. 31. II. c. 1." are printed as small i.

PL 1:139

morte ad ultimi judicii diem, alia in libro de Anima, c. 55, deque Resurrectione, c. 43., alia in Antimarcione IV, c. 34., tradere. Audio. Sed numquid isti libri pugnant in iis locis, quos se ait in disputatione adversus Marcionem pertractasse? Hoc vero nec Tillemontius unquam probavit, nec quisquam, si in aliis ad caussam propriam non pertinentibus a se Tertullianus defecerit, dicet admitti talem conclusionem posse.

death until the day of the last judgement, teaches one thing in the book On the Soul, ch. LV, and On the Resurrection, ch. XLIII, and another in the Anti-Marcion IV, ch. XXXIV. I hear it. But do these books conflict in those passages which he says he had treated thoroughly in the disputation against Marcion? This indeed Tillemont never proved, nor will anyone say, if Tertullian has departed from himself in other matters not pertaining to the case in hand, that such a conclusion can be admitted.

§ 12. — Liber de Pallio. Disputatur de triplici praesentis Imperii virtute, et inquiritur in annum quo Geta dignitatem Augusti suscepit.

§ 12. — The book On the Pallium. The threefold strength of the present Empire is discussed, and inquiry is made into the year in which Geta assumed the dignity of Augustus.

Jam nobis libellum de Pallio tractandum sumamus, obscurum illum quidem et satis confusum, sed magna tamen omnis antiquitatis scientia refertum. De cujus aetate cum sint tot discrepantes virorum doctissimorum sententiae, id agamus necesse est, ut vel eas candide examinemus, vel nostram proponamus. Existit autem hic primo loco quaedam quaestio facile expedienda, quaenam sit ista praesentis imperii triplex virtus, Deo tot Augustis in unum favente, cui Tertullianus tribuit eorum temporum felicitatem. Namque alii (Jac. Gutherius, de Officiis domus Augustae, edit. Lips. p. 277.) his unum Severum indicatum volunt propterea, quod tres illos imperii aemulos Julianum, Nigrum et Albinum superaverat; alii cum Nigro et Albino Severum (Centuriatores Magdeburgici, cent. III. p. 241.); alii Albinum, Severum et Antoninum (Pamelius, in vita Tertull., p. 10. D. 14. F.); denique alii Severum cum duobus filiis Bassiano Getaque intelligunt. Sed trium priorum opinionum nullam probo. Nam ea Gutherii opinatio contorta est et perinepta, ut pene nesciam, an quis unquam tam aperte et perversa et falsa secutus sit. Non tangam id quidem, bonum virum non vidisse triplicem illam virtutem praesentis Imperii, Deumque dici tot Augustis favisse in unum, hos etiam multas urbes produxisse, auxisse, reddidisse; quod dicat mihi quis, an de Juliano, Nigro et Albino affirmari queat, maxime tum, cum jam essent interempti? Nec dicam, quam male adhibita sint Herodiani verba, lib. III. c. 7., qui Severum miratur ἕνα ἄνδρα τρεῖς καθελόντα βασιλέας ἤδη κρατοῦντας; sunt enim haec jam a Boeclero satis disputata (In annot. ad Herod. p. 420.). Hoc unum lubet examinare, quod ad rem nostram imprimis pertinet, utrum Geta, vivo Severo, nunquam sit factus Augustus. Quod cum velit Gutherius, primum Getam Severi fratrem a Geta Caesare, Severi filio, non quidem, ut par erat, distinguit. Nam cum Spartianus, in Sev. c. 10. Severum dicit filium suum Bassianum Caesarem appellasse, ut fratrem suum Getam a spe imperii, quam ipse conceperat, submoveret, nonne consentaneum est, eum de Geta, Severi fratre, fuisse locutum? Deinde quod in multis codicis titulis nomina Severi et Antonini Augustorum reperiantur, sed

Let us now take up for treatment the little book On the Pallium, obscure indeed and rather confused, but nevertheless filled with great knowledge of all antiquity. Since there are so many discordant opinions of most learned men about its date, we must needs set about either examining them candidly or proposing our own. Here in the first place a certain question arises, easily settled: what is that threefold strength of the present empire, God favouring so many Augusti as one, to which Tertullian attributes the happiness of those times. For some (Jac. Gutherius, On the Offices of the Augustan Household, Leipzig ed. p. 277) will have it that by these words Severus alone is indicated, because he had overcome those three rivals for the empire, Julian, Niger and Albinus; others take it as Severus with Niger and Albinus (the Magdeburg Centuriators, cent. III, p. 241); others Albinus, Severus and Antoninus (Pamelius, in the Life of Tertull., p. 10 D, 14 F); finally others understand Severus with his two sons Bassianus and Geta. But of the first three opinions I approve none. For that notion of Gutherius is so twisted and so utterly inept that I hardly know whether anyone has ever followed things so openly both perverse and false. I shall not touch on this, that the good man did not see that threefold strength of the present Empire, and that God is said to have favoured so many Augusti as one, and that these also founded, enlarged and restored many cities; let someone tell me whether this can be affirmed of Julian, Niger and Albinus, especially at the time when they had already been slain? Nor shall I say how badly the words of Herodian are applied, book III, ch. VII, who marvels at Severus as one man who had overthrown three emperors already in power; for these things have already been sufficiently discussed by Boecler (In the notes on Herod. p. 420). This one thing I wish to examine, which pertains chiefly to our matter: whether Geta was never made Augustus while Severus was alive. Since Gutherius will have this, in the first place he does not, as was proper, distinguish Geta the brother of Severus from Geta Caesar, the son of Severus. For when Spartian, in Sev. ch. X, says that Severus named his son Bassianus Caesar in order to remove his brother Geta from the hope of empire which he had conceived, is it not consistent that he spoke of Geta, Severus's brother? Next, because in many titles of the Code the names of Severus and Antoninus, Augusti, are found, but

Editors' notes and page, col. 139

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: temporum felicitatem› · call in col 139

Cap. 2. Quantum urbium aut produxit aut auxit aut reddidit praesentis imperii triplex virtus, Deo tot Augustis in unum favente, quot census transcripti!

Ch. 2: "How many cities the threefold strength of the present empire has brought forth or enlarged or restored, God favouring so many Augusti as one! How many censuses transcribed!"

(printed under page 92)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Anni CCXII. tenuit› · call in col 141

Hoc ut multis confirmemus, non ita necesse est; satis enim ea opera functus est Tillemontius in opere cui titulus: Histoire des empereurs, tom. II. p. I. éd. de Bruxell., p. 183. et dans les notes p. 391.

There is no great need for us to confirm this at length; Tillemont has done that work well enough in the book entitled Histoire des empereurs, vol. II, part I, Brussels edition, p. 183, and in the notes, p. 391.

(printed under page 93)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: nummi prodiderunt› · call in col 142

V. Spanhemium in immortali opere de praestantia et usu numismatum, diss. XII, vol. II. p. 443. qui istos nummos Severi et Antonini, in quibus est Felix Karthago, ad jus nummos cudendi urbi huic restauratae datum pertinere dicit. Quam ipsam rem, aut cognatam certe, si respiciant ii nummi creberrimi, qui laudant Indulgentiam Augg. in Carthag. (ita enim mihi videtur), hoc fere exstitit A. CCIV. aut V., quia in quibusdam cum ea re Tr. P. VI. Caracalli conjungitur. Certe editi sunt ante scriptum libellum de Pallio; nusquam enim in iis Getae, sed Severi tantum et Caracalli nomen reperitur.

See Spanheim in his immortal work De praestantia et usu numismatum, diss. XII, vol. II, p. 443, who says that those coins of Severus and Antoninus bearing "Felix Karthago" relate to the right of striking coin granted to this city on its restoration. If the very frequent coins that praise "the Indulgence of the Augusti towards Carthage" refer to this same matter, or at least a related one (as seems to me the case), it took place about the year 204 or 205, since on some of them the sixth year of Caracalla's tribunician power is joined to it. Certainly they were issued before the book De pallio was written, for nowhere on them is Geta's name found, only those of Severus and Caracalla.

(printed under page 93)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: inimicitiae reperiantur› · call in col 144

Hoc satis adversus Scaligerum aliosque defendit Sam. Basnagius, l. c. p. 218. n. 11.

Samuel Basnage defends this adequately against Scaliger and others, in the place cited, p. 218, no. 11.

(printed under page 94)

(2) ‹anchor: A. CCX.› · call in col 144

In epist. ad Jo. Bessonum quam edidit Petr. Possinus in notis ad Acta Perpetuae et Felicitatis, in Ruinarti Actis primorum martyrum sinceris, Ed. Amstelodam., p. 119.

In the letter to Jean Besson that Pierre Poussines published in his notes on the Acts of Perpetua and Felicity, in Ruinart's Acta primorum martyrum sincera, Amsterdam edition, p. 119.

(printed under page 94)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L06 blocked after writing 135-139 (2026-10-04). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 1:145

non satis definite produnt, sed doctrina tamen non est admodum obscura, nisi in quibusdam paucis, qui ancipitem habere formam videntur. Itaque primum illos excitabimus aetate majores, qui Tertullianum ostendunt nondum plane Montanistarum partibus addictum; deinde eos, quibus notae Montanismi non sunt leviter impressae; postremo hos, qui lectorem dimittunt dubitantem, fueritne Tertullianus tum, cum illos praescriberet, a communi Ecclesia sejunctus, necne? Cui triplici librorum Septimianorum generi cum dicamus aetatem asseri non satis certe posse, non volumus id quidem, prorsus ignorari aetatem cuivis tribuendam (erit enim etiam, quod probabiliter de hac disputari possit), sed accurate ipsum annum scriptorum librorum definiri posse, id quidem audemus negare propterea, quod nullae in iis sunt significationes certae, quae vindicari certo quodam ac definito anno possint. Sed ad propositum veniamus.

do not reveal clearly enough, but whose doctrine is nevertheless not very obscure, except in a certain few, which seem to have an ambiguous form. Accordingly we shall first call up those older in age, which show Tertullian not yet wholly given over to the party of the Montanists; next those on which the marks of Montanism are not lightly impressed; lastly those which leave the reader in doubt whether Tertullian, at the time when he wrote them, was separated from the common Church or not. When we say that the age of this threefold class of Septimian books cannot be established with sufficient certainty, we do not indeed mean that the age to be assigned to each is wholly unknown (for there will also be something that can be argued with probability about it), but that the very year of the books' writing can be accurately determined, that we do dare to deny, because there are in them no certain indications that can be claimed for some certain and definite year. But let us come to our purpose.

§ 2. — Liber de Oratione ante defectionem scriptus et anno 196. vel 197. editus.

§ 2. — The book On Prayer, written before the defection and published in the year 196 or 197.

Primi generis haud dubie dici potest liber de Oratione, qui, nisi vehementer fallor, primus est omnium Tertulliani, qui aetatem tulerunt, magnoque omnium consensu, si ab Hoffmanno discesseris (Dissertat. citat. § 11. p. 37. sq.) cujus intererat omnia Tertulliani scripta ad eum Montanistam referre, in libris castioris doctrinae numeratur. Atque si forte suspecta est fides Hilarii Pictaviensis, qui scriptum hunc libellum ante Tertulliani defectionem non obscure significat; tamen in libro ipso tot sunt notae sententiarum diversarum ab iis, quas postea in scriptis, erroribus Montanistarum infectis, defendit, ut libri istius doctrina nemini sit ad reperiendum difficilis, qui comparare utrorumque sententias velit. Nam primum quantae hic sunt laudes operis Hermae, quod Pastor inscribitur, cum consuetudinem considendi finita oratione observatam ab Herma non secum pugnare ostendit, quod fere Scripturam, ac (ne illud fere cuidam invidiam nostrae sententiae moveat) postea Scripturam appellat? quod tametsi non sic ceperim cum Muratorio (loc. cit. not. 3. p. 31.) aliisque, quasi Tertullianus Hermae libros referat in libris N. T. canonicis (loquitur enim ex more magis adversariorum quam suo); tamen non contemnit Hermae auctoritatem, sed sibi conciliat, longe secus atque in libro de Pudicitia, c. 10. et 20., in quo non modo Hermae effata repudiat, sed spurium illud omnibus consentientibus scriptum appellat et illum moechorum Pastorem. Quod miror argumentum miratum in Allixio fuisse Hoffmannum existimantem, non exagitasse Tertullianum in nostro libello Hermae Pastorem propterea, quod sibi Hermae auctoritas non tantum obstitisset quam tum, cum exararet librum de Pudicitia, quare nec fuisset necesse ut ejus pretium elevaret. Nam etiamsi non negemus magis adversariam fuisse Hermae auctoritatem

Of the first class can without doubt be named the book On Prayer, which, unless I am greatly mistaken, is the first of all the works of Tertullian that have survived, and by the broad agreement of all, if you depart from Hoffmann (Dissertation cited, § 11, p. 37 f.), whose interest it was to refer all Tertullian's writings to him as a Montanist, it is numbered among the books of purer doctrine. And even if perhaps the testimony of Hilary of Poitiers is suspect, who indicates not obscurely that this little book was written before Tertullian's defection, yet in the book itself there are so many marks of opinions different from those which he afterwards defended in writings infected with the errors of the Montanists, that the doctrine of that book is difficult for no one to discover who will compare the opinions of both. For first, how great are the praises here of the work of Hermas entitled the Shepherd, when he shows that the custom of sitting down when prayer is ended, observed by Hermas, is not in conflict with itself, because he calls it almost Scripture, and (lest that "almost" should stir up ill-will against our opinion with anyone) afterwards calls it Scripture? And although I would not take this, with Muratori (place cited, note 3, p. 31) and others, as though Tertullian ranked the books of Hermas among the canonical books of the New Testament (for he speaks rather in the manner of his opponents than in his own), yet he does not despise the authority of Hermas, but wins it over to himself, far otherwise than in the book On Modesty, chapters X and XX, in which he not only repudiates the sayings of Hermas, but calls it a spurious writing by the consent of all, and that Shepherd of adulterers. I wonder that Hoffmann marvelled at this argument in Allix, holding that Tertullian did not attack the Shepherd of Hermas in our little book because the authority of Hermas had not stood in his way so much as at the time when he composed the book On Modesty, so that there was no need for him to lower its value. For even if we do not deny that the authority of Hermas was more adverse

Editors' notes and page, col. 145

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: quantae hic› · call in col 145

C. 16. Edit. Lud. Ant. Muratorii, qua utimur, qui nostrum libellum antea mutilum e Bibliothecae Ambrosianae codice integrum edidit in Anecdotis latinis, tom. III, p. 9. sq.

Ch. 16, in the edition of Ludovico Antonio Muratori, which we use; he published our little book, previously mutilated, complete from a codex of the Ambrosian Library in his Anecdota latina, vol. III, p. 9 ff.

(printed under page 95)

Page

running head: 145 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM T[ertulliani] (right part cropped)
marginal letters: A non satis definite produnt; B mus negare propterea; C ficat; tamen in libro; D tem, sed sibi conciliat
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:146

Tertulliano in rebus iis, quarum mentio est injecta in libello de Pudicitia, ejus tamen de Herma judicium in nostro de Oratione libro non solum multo est mitius, sed ita comparatum etiam, ut ipse Hermae auctoritatem non universe contempsisse videatur. Ac illud fere Scriptura, quod vim hujus argumenti minuere Hoffmannus arbitratur, satis est ab eo inepte explicatum sic, ut temere dicere voluerit Tertull. nomen Pastoris Hermae libello imponi, cum illud nomen nullo modo mereatur; nam illud fere Scriptura certe est ita intelligendum, Hermiani libelli auctoritatem fere eamdem, quam sacrorum librorum putari; quod ipsum ex eo patet, quod eum postea prorsus Scripturam dicat, neque sic eum, ut opinor, appellasset, si tam ipsi contemptus Hermas fuisset, quam erat tempore conscripti de Pudicitia libri. Sed sunt hic etiam alia Tertulliani dicta multum discrepantia ab iis quae in libris Montanisticis proposuit, quae ostendunt clarissime tum longe aliam fuisse Tertulliani disciplinam quam postea. Videlicet sectione 18. (p. 35. Murat.) cum disputat adversus eos, qui, dum se cibo abstinebant, nec alios solebant osculo excipere, non ait, nisi die Paschae, quo communis et quasi publica jejunii religio est, jure osculum caeteris negari debere; quod ostendit profecto Tertullianum tum ex illa societate sacra fuisse, quae nullum diem publica et communi abstinentia a cibo celebrat praeter eum, quo Christus mortuus erat; nam Dies Paschae est is, qui erat memoriae Jesu interempti consecratus. Enimvero christiani veteres Tertulliani tempore non nisi hunc diem communiter inedia celebrabant propterea, quod tum aiebant sponsum fuisse ablatum; et tamen Tertullianus in libro de Jejuniis, c. 2., qui est haud dubie e numero Montanisticorum suorum, multum vituperat hanc consuetudinem, unum hunc diem communi jejuniorum religione celebrandi; estque satis clarum Montanistas plures alios dies praeter diem Christi emortualem celebrasse. Unde elicitur illud: Tertullianum cum hunc de Oratione librum componeret, nondum in partes Montanistarum secessisse. Quod novo potest argumento ducto ex utroque libello confirmari, quorum si quis loca alio potest modo in concordiam redigere, quam eo, quo diximus, ducto a diversa Tertulliani disciplina tempore utriusque conscripti libelli, cum audiemus. Nam cum in eo de Oratione c. 25. descendisset ad disputationem de tempore precum Deo offerendarum, bonum id quidem esse inquit, quasdam certas et fixas quasi horas precibus destinari, tertiam scilicet, et sextam et nonam ab Apostolis quoque observatam; sed id quidem fieri, adjicit, sine ullius observationis praecepto, neque lege praeceptas esse alias praeter legitimas orationes, h. e. eas: quae sub ortum lucis noctisque pronuntiantur. Et c. 23. extr.: De temporibus, inquit, orationis nihil omnino praescriptum est, nisi plane omni in tempore et loco orare. Sed ille in libello de Jejuniis peracerbe exagitat orthodoxae Ecclesiae addictos

to Tertullian in the matters mentioned in the little book On Modesty, yet his judgement concerning Hermas in our book On Prayer is not only much milder, but is also so framed that he seems not to have despised the authority of Hermas altogether. And that phrase "almost Scripture", which Hoffmann thinks lessens the force of this argument, he has explained ineptly enough, as though Tertullian meant to say that the name of the Shepherd of Hermas was rashly given to the little book, since it in no way deserves that name; for that "almost Scripture" must certainly be understood thus: that the authority of the little book of Hermas was reckoned almost the same as that of the sacred books; which is plain from this very fact, that he afterwards calls it Scripture outright, and he would not, I think, have so named it if Hermas had been as despised by him as he was at the time when the book On Modesty was written. But there are here also other sayings of Tertullian greatly at variance with those which he put forward in the Montanist books, which show most clearly that Tertullian's discipline was then far different from what it was afterwards. Namely, in section 18 (p. 35, Muratori), when he argues against those who, while they abstained from food, were not accustomed to receive others with a kiss either, he says that the kiss ought not rightly to be refused to the rest, except on the day of the Pasch, on which there is a common and as it were public observance of fasting; which shows indeed that Tertullian was then of that sacred society which keeps no day with a public and common abstinence from food except that on which Christ had died; for the Day of the Pasch is the one that was consecrated to the memory of Jesus put to death. For indeed the ancient Christians in Tertullian's time kept no day in common with fasting but this, because, they said, the bridegroom had then been taken away; and yet Tertullian in the book On Fasting, chapter II, which is without doubt among his Montanist works, strongly reproaches this custom of keeping this one day with the common observance of fasts; and it is clear enough that the Montanists kept many other days besides the day of Christ's death. From this is drawn the conclusion that Tertullian, when he composed this book On Prayer, had not yet seceded to the party of the Montanists. This can be confirmed by a new argument drawn from both little books; if anyone can bring their passages into agreement in another way than the one we have stated, drawn from Tertullian's differing discipline at the time each little book was written, we shall hear him. For when in that book On Prayer, chapter XXV, he had come down to a discussion of the time of the prayers to be offered to God, he says that it is good indeed that certain fixed hours, as it were, be appointed for prayers, namely the third, and the sixth and the ninth, observed also by the Apostles; but this is done, he adds, without a precept of any observance, and no other prayers are prescribed by law except the lawful prayers, that is, those which are said at the rising of the light and of the night. And at the end of chapter XXIII: "Concerning the times of prayer," he says, "nothing at all has been prescribed, except plainly to pray at every time and place." But in the little book On Fasting he very bitterly assails those devoted to the orthodox Church

Editors' notes and page, col. 146

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: interempti consecratus› · call in col 146

Vid., exempli caussa, adversus Judaeos, libr., c. 10.

See, for example, the book Against the Jews, ch. 10.

(printed under page 95)

Page

running head: [cropped] SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 146
marginal letters: A ritatem Tertulliano in rebus iis; B tempore conscripti de Pudicitia libri; C nisi hunc diem communiter; D eo de Oratione c. 25.
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:147

(c. 2.) propter eam caussam, quod abstinendum esse dicebant a cibo ex arbitrio, non ex imperio novae disciplinae pro temporibus et caussis uniuscujusque, et orationes etiam fere hora nona concluderent de Petri exemplo; additque diserte, c. 10., salva plane indifferentia semper et ubique et omni tempore orandi, tamen tres istas horas solemniores fuisse in orationibus divinis; et cap. 13. ad ipsam provocat legem a Paracleto datam, qua hanc Montanistarum consuetudinem confirmasset. Quibus omnibus evincitur haud dubie, aliam prorsus Tertulliani sententiam fuisse, cum de Oratione librum componeret. Denique, ut alia omittam multa, id mihi videtur magno argumento esse ad asserendam libro nostro ὀρθοδοξίαν, quod nullam in hoc libro, cum de Jejuniis ac stationibus crebrius disserat, injiciat mentionem xerophagiarum, quas tanto cum fervore in libro de Jejuniis, cap. 2. 5. seqq., defendit; cujus omissionis dubito an ulla alia ratio reddi possit, quam ea, quod tempore scripti libelli nostri isti Ecclesiae addictus fuerit, quae xerophagias (ut ait in libro de Jejuniis, c. 2.) novum dicebat affectati officii nomen esse et proximum ethnicae superstitionis. Haec omnia mihi multo videntur magis audienda, quam quae Hoffmannus ad vindicandam opinionem suam profert, quibus alia non nullius auctoritatis nos etiam ipsi possemus, si necesse esset, addere. Simillima scilicet esse ait ea, quae hic c. 22. de virginibus velandis praecipiat, eorum quae ab eo in libro hujus argumenti defenduntur: quod longe secus est. Nam tametsi in utroque libro velit ut virgines obtegantur velo, non ipse tamen iste consensus librorum, ex eadem disciplina prodiisse utrumque, demonstrat; sed, si quis utriusque loca accurate contulerit, magnus erit a se Tertulliani dissensus, qui nostram multo magis quam Hoffmanni sententiam confirmat. In libro de Virg. velandis vehementer et ex ipsa imprimis lege Montanistarum hanc consuetudinem defendit, sed in nostro de Orat. libello, c. 22. p. 43., non tenendam jubet hanc consuetudinem, legemque adeo virginibus quoque injicientem velamentum ait excusari posse; atque in principiis illius disputationis, c. 21., quasi incertum retractandum esse illud, quod promiscue observetur per Ecclesias, velarine debeant virgines an non? Leve igitur est istud viri docti argumentum, potuissetque ille rectius ad testimonium sententiae suae citare cap. 6., ubi cum rogationem quartam orationis dominicae non proprie, sed tropice de sacra coena esse intelligendam dixerat, Sed et quia, adjicit, carnaliter admittitur ista vox, non sine religione potest fieri et spiritalis disciplinae, ubi spiritalis disciplina aliquam dat Montanistici scriptoris suspicionem, qui spiritales se, caeteros Psychicos appellabant. Sed potuit Tertullianus sub spiritalibus etiam quosvis probos homines et christianos intelligere, quod mihi magis placet propterea, quod hos non ita multo post interpretatur per fideles, eosque non orthodoxis v. Psychicis opponit, sed nationibus, h. e. non credentibus in Jesum; neque usquam reperi Tertullianum vel in ipsis Montanisticis

(ch. II) for this reason, that they said one should abstain from food by choice, not by command of a new discipline, according to the times and causes of each person, and that they ended their prayers too at about the ninth hour after the example of Peter; and he adds expressly, in chapter X, that, with full indifference preserved as to praying always and everywhere and at every time, yet those three hours were the more solemn in divine prayers; and in chapter XIII he appeals to the very law given by the Paraclete, by which he had confirmed this custom of the Montanists. By all these things it is proved beyond doubt that Tertullian's opinion was wholly different when he composed the book On Prayer. Finally, to omit many other things, this seems to me to be a great argument for asserting the ὀρθοδοξία of our book: that in this book, although he discusses fasts and stations rather often, he makes no mention of the xerophagies, which he defends with such great fervour in the book On Fasting, chapter II, V and following; for which omission I doubt whether any other reason can be given than this, that at the time when our little book was written he was attached to that Church which (as he says in the book On Fasting, chapter II) called xerophagies the new name of an affected duty and next door to heathen superstition. All these things seem to me much more deserving of a hearing than what Hoffmann brings forward to vindicate his opinion, to which we ourselves too could, if it were necessary, add other things of some authority. He says, namely, that what he prescribes here in chapter XXII about the veiling of virgins is very like what is defended by him in the book on this subject: which is far otherwise. For although in both books he wishes virgins to be covered with a veil, yet that agreement of the books does not itself show that both came from the same discipline; rather, if anyone compares the passages of each carefully, Tertullian's disagreement with himself will be great, and it confirms our opinion much more than Hoffmann's. In the book On the Veiling of Virgins he defends this custom vehemently and above all from the very law of the Montanists, but in our little book On Prayer, chapter XXII, p. 43, he bids that this custom not be held as binding, and says that a law imposing the veil on virgins also can be excused; and at the beginning of that discussion, chapter XXI, he says that that which is observed indiscriminately throughout the Churches must be reconsidered as uncertain: whether virgins ought to be veiled or not. Light, therefore, is that argument of the learned man, and he could more rightly have cited in witness of his opinion chapter VI, where, having said that the fourth petition of the Lord's Prayer is to be understood not literally but figuratively of the sacred supper, "But because," he adds, "that word is admitted carnally too, it can be done not without religion and spiritual discipline"; where "spiritual discipline" gives some suspicion of a Montanist writer, since they called themselves the spiritual and the rest Psychics. But Tertullian could have understood by the spiritual any upright men and Christians, which I prefer for this reason, that not much later he interprets these as the faithful, and opposes them not to the orthodox or Psychics, but to the nations, that is, those not believing in Jesus; nor have I anywhere found Tertullian even in the Montanist

Editors' notes and page, col. 147

Page

running head: 147 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [cropped]
marginal letters: A (c. 2.) propter eam caussam; B tionibus crebrius disserat; C utroque libro velit; D rectius ad testimonium
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Greek word set as ὀρθοδοξίαν (small type, accents read at low resolution; UNSURE). No foot notes in this column.

PL 1:148

libris orthodoxis nomen fidelium negasse. Jam cum hunc librum ex iis esse constet, qui castigatiorem doctrinam continent, quemcumque illi locum in hujus modi Septimianis scriptis dederis, idem est. Nobis, quibus ex eo nulla se vel levis suspicio errorum Montanistarum obtulit, optimum videtur, eum inprimis hujus generis collocare.

books to have denied the name of the faithful to the orthodox. Now since it is established that this book is among those which contain the more correct doctrine, whatever place you give it among Septimian writings of this kind, it is the same. To us, to whom not even a slight suspicion of the errors of the Montanists has presented itself from it, it seems best to place it first of this class.

§ 3. — Liber de Baptismo a Tertulliano catholico exaratus. Confutantur argumenta dissentientium.

§ 3. — The book On Baptism written by Tertullian as a Catholic. The arguments of those who disagree are refuted.

At dicere quaenam doctrina asserenda sit libro de Baptismo, majori est cum difficultate conjunctum. Equidem non ignoro omnes sic sentire, quasi sit hujus libri ὀρθοδοξία extra omnem dubitationem posita, leviter, ut in caeteris, repugnante Hoffmanno; sed in ea re miranda venit multorum doctorum hominum levitas, qui libros alios, quorum argumentum certam habet puritatis significationem, Tertulliano Montanistae tribuerint, et hunc tuto exemerint e numero horum librorum, cujus tamen loci, si vel praecipuas Montanistarum in eo vel orthodoxorum sententias requisiveris, tam sunt obscuri, ut, inquisitis omnibus, vix quo se vertat animus videat. Sed ut, quantum fieri possit, dicamus tamen quaenam in libro nostro doctrina vel ad has vel ad illas magis inclinata regnet, primum placet examinare locos qui huic libro suspicionem Montanismi conficiunt, deinde eos qui sunt in contrariam partem, rarius licet, propositi. Atque, ut omittamus ea quae subdubitans objecit Baronius, satis ille ab Allixio confutatus (in Vit. Tert. p. 29. sqq.), Hoffmannus in illam superiorem partem haec excitat argumenta. Primum quod in libro de Baptismo Tertullianus dictis utatur similibus eorum quae in eo de Pudicitia defenderat, ita ut exagitet eos qui sibi sumebant potestatem dandi veniam delictorum, quae uni tamen Deo competeret. Cujus rei, ni fallor, significationem in illis verbis reperit: neque peccatum dimittit, neque spiritum indulget, nisi Deus solus; quae quomodo nonnisi a scriptore disciplinae Montani dedito pronuntiari potuerint, non perspicio. Nam neque illud sodales orthodoxae Ecclesiae negabant, neque de ea re erat eos inter et Montanistas disputatio; sed illi orthodoxi, quamvis nonnisi Deo potestatem remittendorum peccatorum assignarent, negandam tamen pacem iis qui propter peccata fuerant e societate sacra ejecti, non putabant, siquidem illi se vitam emendaturos pollicerentur. Postea hunc librum vir doctus ait ad calamitatum christianis a Deorum cultoribus immissarum plena tempora pertinere; quae est levis profecto conjectura. Nam c. 16. libri nostri, quem locum ille antestatur: est nobis etiam secundum lavacrum, sanguinis scilicet, nullo modo tum praesens periculum ostendit. Quod si commemoratum etiam a Tertulliano fuisset, non propterea hic liber ad scripta Montani erroribus referta abjici posset; sunt enim multa Tertulliani scripta (ut diss. I. docebamus), aequalia his calamitatibus, ante Tertulliani defectionem composita. Sed neque ipse ille dicendi modus, quo Tertullianus cruciatus aliquem

But to say what doctrine is to be ascribed to the book On Baptism is attended with greater difficulty. I am indeed not unaware that all think as though the ὀρθοδοξία of this book were placed beyond all doubt, with Hoffmann objecting lightly, as in the other cases; but in this matter the levity of many learned men is to be wondered at, who have assigned other books, whose subject carries a sure indication of purity, to Tertullian the Montanist, and have safely exempted this one from the number of those books, though its passages, if you look in it for the chief opinions either of the Montanists or of the orthodox, are so obscure that, when all have been examined, the mind scarcely sees which way to turn. But so that, as far as possible, we may nevertheless say which doctrine prevails in our book, inclined more to the one side or the other, it is best first to examine the passages which produce a suspicion of Montanism in this book, then those set forth on the contrary side, though more rarely. And, to omit what Baronius objected with some hesitation, he having been sufficiently refuted by Allix (in the Life of Tertullian, p. 29 ff.), Hoffmann raises these arguments for the former side. First, that in the book On Baptism Tertullian uses sayings like those which he had defended in that On Modesty, so as to assail those who took to themselves the power of granting pardon for offences, which nevertheless belonged to God alone. An indication of this, if I am not mistaken, he finds in these words: "neither does anyone forgive sin, nor grant the Spirit, but God alone"; how these words could have been uttered only by a writer devoted to the discipline of Montanus, I do not see. For neither did the members of the orthodox Church deny this, nor was there any dispute about this matter between them and the Montanists; but those orthodox, although they assigned the power of remitting sins to God alone, yet did not think that peace was to be refused to those who had been cast out of the sacred society for their sins, provided they promised to amend their lives. Next, the learned man says that this book belongs to times full of calamities brought upon the Christians by the worshippers of the gods; which is a slight conjecture indeed. For chapter XVI of our book, the passage he calls to witness, "we have also a second laver, namely of blood", in no way shows a danger then present. And even if it had been mentioned by Tertullian, this book could not on that account be cast off among the writings filled with the errors of Montanus; for there are many writings of Tertullian (as we showed in Dissertation I), contemporary with these calamities, composed before Tertullian's defection. But neither does that very manner of speaking by which Tertullian [calls] torments some

Editors' notes and page, col. 148

Page

running head: [cropped] TIO DE VERA AETATE 148
marginal letters: A libris orthodoxis nomen fidelium; B sed in ea re miranda; C Tert. p. 29. sqq.; D rant e societate sacra
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Greek word set as ὀρθοδοξία (small type, accents UNSURE). Column ends mid-sentence ("cruciatus aliquem"); the English supplies [calls] provisionally, UNSURE until the next column's verb is seen. No foot notes in this column.

PL 1:149

veluti baptismum appellat, statim Montanistam prodit, nisi velimus dicere Origenem quoque et alios, quorum loca habet Dodwellus (Dissert. Cyprian. XIII. quae est de secundo martyrii baptismo, imprimis § 2.), qui nunquam accusati Montanismi fuere, propter eam rem Montanistarum addictos societati haberi debere. Denique quod non obscure Tertullianum eodem in loco significare Hoffmannus dicit injuria Montanistas fuisse e societate communis Ecclesiae proscriptos, cum iis caeterisque christianis unus Deus, unum baptisma, una denique in coelis Ecclesia, cum caeteris autem haereticis nulla societas sit (c. 15.), illud certe argumentum opinioni ejus nihil firmamenti affert. Nam Tertullianus de consensu Montanistarum cum orthodoxis in ista doctrina ne verbum quidem habet, sed illam christianorum fidem opponit Caianorum haeresi, hosque spurios esse christianos ex eo docet, quod adempta ipsis cum caeteris christianis communio fuerit. Ac si, quae ille putat, vera essent, tam

a baptism, as it were, immediately betray the Montanist, unless we wish to say that Origen also and others, whose passages Dodwell has (Cyprianic Dissertation XIII, which is on the second baptism, of martyrdom, especially § 2), who were never accused of Montanism, ought on that account to be held as attached to the society of the Montanists. Finally, as for Hoffmann's saying that Tertullian indicates not obscurely in the same place that the Montanists had been wrongfully banished from the society of the common Church, since with them and the other Christians there is one God, one baptism, and lastly one Church in the heavens, but with the other heretics there is no fellowship (chapter XV), that argument certainly brings no support to his opinion. For Tertullian has not even a word about the agreement of the Montanists with the orthodox in that doctrine, but sets that faith of the Christians against the heresy of the Cainites, and teaches that these are spurious Christians from this, that communion with the other Christians had been taken from them. And if what he thinks were true, so

Editors' notes and page, col. 149

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: addictos societati haberi debere› · call in col 149

At dicere quis posset, illos, qui post Tertullianum vixerint, christianos scriptores, cum summa existimatio eorum orta esset, qui vel morte vel cruciatibus susceptis Christum confessi publice erant, ut alia plura, hanc quoque dicendi consuetudinem a Montanistis sumpsisse; neque ergo horum loca esse idonea ad liberandum hunc sermonem a Montanismi suspicione, praesertim cum is primus in Tertulliano aliorumque Montanistarum scriptis, veluti in Actis Perpetuae et Felicitatis (§ 22.), appareat. Quam forte suspicionem pellam alia suspicione, si ostendero, ipsum jam Marcionem eamdem dicendi consuetudinem habuisse. Nempe Epiphanius, haeres. XLII. § 3. edit. Colon., p. 304, tres ait baptismos defensos a Marcione fuisse (οὐ μόνον παρ' αὐτῷ ἓν λουτρὸν δίδονται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕως τριῶν λουτρῶν). In quo narrando etsi damus vera esse falsis ab Epiphanio permixta, tanquam cum dicat: Marcionem triplicem baptismum excogitasse, ut se a flagitio cum virgine commisso purgaret (quod est, ut multi ostenderunt, mera calumnia); etiam cum dicat dedisse Marcionem triplicem baptismum, quod cum argumento ad hunc baptismum triplicem confirmandum, ut postea patebit, nullo modo consentit; neque tamen hoc Epiphanii testimonium universe contemnendum arbitror. Erit igitur operae pretium, ut quisnam is fuerit triplex Marcionis baptismus, breviter ostendam. I. Multa sunt in disciplina Marcionis similia disciplinae Manichaeae, quem Manetem constat suos in Auditores et Electos distinxisse; quare haud scio an Marcionitis non possit eadem distributio assignari, cum Tertull. advers. Marc., lib. V. c. 7. videatur indicare, non nisi sanctioribus ex suis Marcionem nuptiarum licentiam negasse, his verbis: Marcion totum concubitum aufert Fidelibus, viderint enim catechumeni ejus; in quibus potuit catechumenos appellare minus perfectos modo eo, quo Epiphanius aliique hoc nomen etiam adhibent de auditoribus Manichaeorum; neque credibile est, Marcionem in universum omnes nuptias sustulisse apud suos, cum, quemadmodum constat, nuptiarum auctorem non Deum malum, sed medium illum putarit, quem justum nuncupabat. Ex quo II. non inepte potest cum Bellosobrio conjici (Histoire du Manichéisme, t. II. p. 121.) unum Marcionis baptismum in omnes collatum, altero initiatos fuisse interioris admissionis Marcionitas; imprimis quia Epiphanius diserte adjicit: ἔξεστι διδόναι (scilic. λουτρὸν) παρ' αὐτοῖς τῷ βουλομένῳ, quod pugnaret cum omnibus super ea re locis Tertulliani, qui nuptiis se abdicare debuisse cunctos ait, qui tingi sacro lavacro a Marcionitis voluissent (lib. IV. adv. Marc. c. 11. lib. I. c. 29. etc.) nisi duplicem hunc baptismum admitteremus. At nunc III. restat dicere, qualem baptismum tertium Marcion crediderit, in qua re nostra proprie caussa versatur; quem quomodo oporteat intelligi, clarissime docet argumentum, quo Marcionem Epiphanius ait triplicem baptismum confirmasse, ductum e loco illo apud Lucam (c. XII, 50.), ubi haud dubie de supplicio suo deque aliquo sibi adhuc imminente baptismo Christus loquitur: quod allatum quoque a caeteris ad defendendum alterum martyrii baptismum videmus. Qua re motus sine ulla dubitatione sic statuo, eum suppliciis christianorum ad exemplum Jesu Christi suscipiendis etiam nomen baptismi cujusdam indidisse, (continues)

But someone might say that the Christian writers who lived after Tertullian, since the highest esteem had arisen for those who had confessed Christ publicly by undergoing death or torture, took this manner of speaking too, like many other things, from the Montanists; and that therefore their passages are not fit to free this expression from the suspicion of Montanism, especially since it appears first in the writings of Tertullian and of other Montanists, as in the Acts of Perpetua and Felicity (§ 22). This suspicion I shall perhaps drive out with another suspicion, if I show that Marcion himself already had the same manner of speaking. For Epiphanius, Heresy 42, § 3, Cologne edition, p. 304, says that three baptisms were maintained by Marcion ("not only do they give one washing among them, but even up to three washings"). Although we grant that in this account true things are mixed by Epiphanius with false, as when he says that Marcion devised the triple baptism to purge himself of a crime committed with a virgin (which is, as many have shown, sheer calumny), and also when he says that Marcion gave a triple baptism, which in no way agrees, as will appear later, with the argument for confirming this triple baptism, I nevertheless do not think this testimony of Epiphanius is to be despised altogether. It will therefore be worth the trouble to show briefly what this triple baptism of Marcion was. I. There are many things in Marcion's discipline similar to the Manichaean discipline, and it is established that Mani divided his followers into Hearers and Elect; so I am inclined to think the same division may be assigned to the Marcionites, since Tertullian, Against Marcion, book V, ch. 7, seems to indicate that Marcion denied the licence of marriage only to the holier of his followers, in these words: Marcion takes away all intercourse from the Faithful; let his catechumens see to it; in which he could have called the less perfect "catechumens" in the same way in which Epiphanius and others also use this name of the hearers of the Manichaeans; nor is it credible that Marcion abolished all marriages universally among his followers, since, as is established, he held the author of marriage to be not the evil God but that middle one whom he called the just. From this, II., it may not unfittingly be conjectured with Beausobre (Histoire du Manichéisme, vol. II, p. 121) that one baptism of Marcion was conferred on all, and that by the other the Marcionites of the inner admission were initiated; above all because Epiphanius expressly adds: "it is permitted among them to give (that is, the washing) to whoever wishes" — which would conflict with all Tertullian's passages on the matter, where he says that all who wished to be dipped in the sacred washing by the Marcionites had to renounce marriage (Against Marcion, book IV, ch. 11; book I, ch. 29, etc.), unless we admitted this twofold baptism. It now remains, III., to say what third baptism Marcion believed in, which is where our case properly lies; how it is to be understood is shown most clearly by the argument with which, Epiphanius says, Marcion confirmed the triple baptism, drawn from that passage in Luke (12:50), where Christ undoubtedly speaks of His own punishment and of a baptism still awaiting Him — a passage we see brought forward also by the rest in defence of the second baptism, that of martyrdom. Moved by this, I conclude without any hesitation that he also gave the name of a kind of baptism to the punishments of Christians undergone after the example of Jesus Christ, (continues)

(printed under page 97)

Page

running head: 149 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM T[ertulliani] (right part cropped)
marginal letters: A veluti baptismum appellat; B habet, sed illam christianorum; C (in the foot note) tismum excogitasse; D (in the foot note) potest cum Bellosobrio
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:150

se non defenderet Tertull. ab injuria Montanistis illata, ut potius se Montanistasque haereticos esse fuisset confessus. Nam in illo ipso capite 15. haereticos ait extraneos (h. e. non christianos) testari ipsam ademptionem communicationis. Igitur si Tertullianus significasset in hoc loco, orthodoxos ex Ecclesia projecisse Montanistas, se certe suosque haereticos dixisset, quod prorsus abhorret. Atque hic alii occurramus necesse est difficultati propositae ab Allixio adversus receptam de doctrina in hoc libro regnante sententiam (Diss. de Tertulliani vita et scriptis, c. 4, p. 33.) qui suspicari nos posse dicit, Tertulliani mentem jam tum ad Montani disciplinam inclinatam fuisse, quod et christiani pisciculi et Christus PISCIS (ΙΧΘΥΣ) dictus ab eo fuerit, quae nomina essent hausta e libris sybillinis, ab aliquo Montanista vel ipso etiam Montano exaratis; et c. 20. aliquam charismatum mentionem injecerit, quod Montanismum redolere videretur, imprimis cum conferuntur ea cum iis quae sunt c. 29. libri de Spectaculis tradita. Sed bene ille fecit, quod hanc ipsam suspicionem non nimis subtilem et acutam putaverit. Nam etsi dederimus esse etiam eos libros, qui nunc sub nomine Sibyllinorum jactantur, vel a Montano vel ab aliquo ejus discipulo confictos, quos tamen magis vellem Gnostico cuidam asserere, Tertullianum etiam inde hoc nomen Piscis Christo datum hausisse; tamen ex eo argumento non magis suspectus Montanismi Tertullianus haberi posset, cum hunc composuisset librum, quam Justinus martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, aliique, qui saepius libros quosdam sibyllinos ad testimonium citant. Atque si isti libri generatim exstiterunt ipso hoc tempore, quis est qui possit praestare non fuisse eos postea adulteratos, ut eam, quam nunc habent, formam receperint? Quod est verendum imprimis in acrostichide libri octavi: Ἰησοῦς Χρίστος Θεοῦ υἱὸς σώτηρ, unde ipsum hoc ἰχθύος cognomen sumptum vulgus existimat. Neque enim illa prius est a quoquam veterum proposita, quam a Constantino M. (in oratione ad Sanctorum coetum, c. 18.) cui, vel ex eo, quod Virgilium cecinisse de Jesu Christi nativitate dicat (c. 19. seqq.), patet, quam nullo negotio verba dari ab hominibus religionem fingentibus potuerint. Atque

would Tertullian fail to defend himself from the wrong done to the Montanists that he would rather have confessed that he and the Montanists were heretics. For in that very chapter XV he says that the very removal of communion testifies that heretics are strangers (that is, not Christians). Therefore if Tertullian had indicated in this place that the orthodox had cast the Montanists out of the Church, he would certainly have called himself and his followers heretics, which is wholly abhorrent. And here we must meet the difficulty raised by Allix against the received opinion concerning the doctrine prevailing in this book (Dissertation on the Life and Writings of Tertullian, chapter IV, p. 33), who says we may suspect that Tertullian's mind was already then inclined to the discipline of Montanus, because both the Christians were called by him "little fishes" and Christ "the FISH" (ΙΧΘΥΣ), names which were drawn from the Sibylline books, composed by some Montanist or even by Montanus himself; and because in chapter XX he made some mention of charisms, which seemed to smack of Montanism, especially when these things are compared with those delivered in chapter XXIX of the book On the Shows. But he did well in thinking this very suspicion not too subtle and sharp. For even if we were to grant that the books now bandied about under the name of the Sibyllines were invented either by Montanus or by some disciple of his, though I would rather ascribe them to some Gnostic, and that Tertullian drew from there this name of Fish given to Christ, yet from that argument Tertullian could not be held more suspect of Montanism, when he composed this book, than Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others, who quite often cite certain Sibylline books in testimony. And if those books existed in general at this very time, who is there who can guarantee that they were not afterwards adulterated, so as to receive the form they now have? This is to be feared above all in the acrostic of the eighth book, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour", from which the common opinion holds this very surname of the fish to have been taken. For it was not put forward by any of the ancients before Constantine the Great (in the Oration to the Assembly of the Saints, chapter XVIII), who, if only from his saying that Virgil sang of the birth of Jesus Christ (chapter XIX ff.), plainly could be deceived with no trouble by men inventing religion. And

Editors' notes and page, col. 150

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: religionem fingentibus potuerint› · call in col 150

Mirum fortasse videbitur doctissimum Auctorem nostrum ac veteris disciplinae scientissimum, haerere quasi anxium in propalata via, incertumque dubitare christianisne an Montanistis peculiarior esset notissima tessera ΙΧΘΥΣ, quin et asseverare a veterum nemine, Magnum ante Constantinum eamdem symbolicam acrostichidem fuisse propositam. Multa ex adverso occurrunt dicenda, quae, usque dum ad librum, de Baptismo deventum fuerit, satius est opportuno loco disserenda differre. Nunc nonnulla tantum carptim et accinctus praelibare lubet. Enimvero ad primum satis superque innumera respondent monumenta, sufficientia prorsus et indubiae vetustatis, ac vere christiana manu data dedicataque; in quibus emicat quidem praefata tessera, sive scalpro incisa, sive aere fusa aut ebore coelata, sive delineata coloribus aut litteris expressa, carminibusve adornata caeteris, ut plerumque fit, immixta signis siclisque, unde puram putam fidei sanioris integritatem indigitaveris: hinc piscis saepe saepius cum columba depictus (Aringhi, t. I, 580. t. II. 238): aut anchorae connexus Christive monogrammati, quod, ut quisque novit, diu ante constantinianum labarum vulgari usu fuit acceptum, (Boldett. 370. 366 453. Aringhi, I. 520. II. 327. 620. Bottari, III, 19). Nunc demum ad orantium pedes, (continues)

It will perhaps seem strange that our most learned Author, so very knowledgeable in ancient discipline, should hesitate as if anxious on a road laid open, and doubt uncertainly whether the well-known token ΙΧΘΥΣ was more peculiar to the Christians or to the Montanists, and even assert that by none of the ancients before Constantine the Great was that same symbolic acrostic put forward. Much offers itself to be said on the other side, which it is better to put off to be discussed in its proper place, until we come to the book On Baptism. For now I am pleased only to give a foretaste of a few things, piecemeal and in brief. Indeed, to the first point countless monuments answer more than enough, fully sufficient and of undoubted antiquity, and truly given and dedicated by a Christian hand; in which that token stands out, whether cut with a chisel, or cast in bronze, or carved in ivory, or drawn in colours or expressed in letters, or adorned with verses, mixed, as usually happens, with the other signs and marks, from which you would point to the pure and simple integrity of the sounder faith: hence the fish depicted again and again with the dove (Aringhi, vol. I, 580; vol. II, 238); or joined to the anchor or to the monogram of Christ, which, as everyone knows, was received in common use long before the Constantinian labarum (Boldetti 370, 366, 453; Aringhi I, 520; II, 327, 620; Bottari III, 19). Now at last at the feet of those praying, (continues)

(printed under page 97; the rest is printed under page 98, col 151: see n151)

Page

running head: [cropped] SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 150
marginal letters: A se non defenderet Tertull.; B bris sybillinis; C qui saepius libros quosdam; D (in the foot note) anxium in propalata via
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:151

ut omnia quae velit susceperim, ne ipsa quidem haec, quae sunt in hoc viri docti argumento collecta, consistere et secum consentire possunt. Antiquissimi scriptorum christianorum, quod Guillelmus Beveregius (In codice canonum Ecclesiae primitivae, lib. I. cap. 14. § 4. sqq.) et Guill. Whisthonus multis docent, hos, quos appellant, libros Sibyllinos antiquissimos confitentur; ex quo necessaria consecutione efficitur, multum eos diversos fuisse ab his qui horum nomen nostro tempore mentiuntur, qui ipsi adversario videntur saeculo P. C. N. secundo compositi. Quid? idem ille, de quo quaerimus, Tertullianus, cum tempore eo quo proxime aberat a defectione sua, in libror. ad Nationes c. 12. antiquissima dicit Sibyllae effata; potuitne igitur ille libros Sibyllinos a Montano vel aliquo gregis istius profectos putare? Neque vero quidquam probat alterum illud, quod de charismate Allixius subjicit, cujus me fateor non satis dilucidam citato c. 20. memoriam invenire; ac si inveniatur, tam profecto non sequeretur librum de Baptismo ex officina Tertulliani montanistae fuisse egressum, quam illud dici de libro super Spectaculis non potest, qui est haud dubie, ut alibi ostendebam, ante ejus defectionem exaratus. Ac ne quid praetereamus silentio, quo posset quis aliquo modo huic opinioni adversae libro nostro de Baptismo veritatem conciliare, fortasse possit excitare c. 20. hujus libelli, in quo magnam Tertullianus ait esse utilitatem abstinentiae a cibis ad evitandas peccati sollicitationes; quod videri posset consentiens cum laudibus inediae iis quas decantavit in libro de Jejuniis. Magis etiam illud est suspectum, cum cap. 8. extr. dicat: Igni destinatur homo qui post baptismum delicta restaurat.

even if I were to grant all he wishes, not even these things that are gathered in this argument of the learned man can stand and agree with themselves. The most ancient of the Christian writers, as William Beveridge (In the Codex of the Canons of the Primitive Church, book I, chapter XIV, § 4 ff.) and William Whiston teach at length, acknowledge these books which they call Sibylline as most ancient; from which it follows by necessary consequence that they were very different from those which falsely bear their name in our time, which even to our opponent seem to have been composed in the second century after the birth of Christ. What then? That same Tertullian about whom we are inquiring, at the time when he was nearest to his defection, in the books To the Nations, chapter XII, calls the utterances of the Sibyl most ancient; could he then have thought the Sibylline books came from Montanus or someone of that flock? Nor indeed does that other point prove anything, which Allix adds about the charism, of which I confess I find no sufficiently clear mention in the cited chapter XX; and if it were found, it would certainly no more follow that the book On Baptism came out of the workshop of Tertullian the Montanist than this can be said of the book On the Shows, which was without doubt, as I showed elsewhere, written before his defection. And lest we pass over in silence anything by which someone might in some way win credit for this opinion adverse to our book On Baptism, he could perhaps raise chapter XX of this little book, in which Tertullian says that there is great usefulness in abstinence from food for avoiding the solicitations of sin; which might seem to agree with those praises of fasting which he sang in the book On Fasting. That is still more suspect, when at the end of chapter VIII he says: "The man who renews his offences after baptism is destined for fire."

Editors' notes and page, col. 151

Footnotes

(1, continued from col 150) ‹continuation of col 150 note (1), after "Nunc demum ad orantium pedes,"› · printed under col 151 nunc ad latera Boni Pastoris adpositus (Bold., 573. Bolt., pl. XXXV. Videsis et cf. Costadoni dissertazione sopra i pesce come simbolo de primi cristiani; Raccolta d' opuscoli scientifici da Calogera, t. XLI. 1749. — Lupi dissert. ad Severae Epitaphium, Panormi, 1734. p. 103. 136. 145. 153. 165, 185. — Fabretti, Inscript. antiq., lib. VIII, p. 569. nº 124-126; p. 590, nº 107, — Münter, Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen. — Thiersch. Jahres-Berichte der Koeniglich Bayerschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. München. 1829.) Constantino autem magno longe antiquiorem esse Sybillini acrostichii usum, nec pauciora nec sublestae fidei faciunt scripta, sculptave testimonia. Imo mirare quanta ab aetate apostolica ad usque tempora nostra assurgat ea de re testium turba, qui quasi manum dant nonnullis primae hominum aetatis traditionibus, undequaque diffusis, ac in medio temporum, orta jam Ecclesia, in ipsius gremio, renovatis ac reviviscentibus; donec, pace per orbem composita, piscis ac columba, caeteraque quotquot floruerint in abdito signa vel siglia symbolica palam in lucem prodierint. Nunc ergo de ΙΧΘΥΣ acrostichide ad quosdam sit tantumdem satis referre Patres, nempe Clementem Alexandr. in quatuor locis, t. I, p. 260. 312; p. 289, p. 787. Potter Nostrummet. Tertullianum de Baptismo, de Resurrectione, de Spectaculis, ut infra fusius erit occasio dicendi. Nec etiam addere pigeat ex marmoreis vetustis duas recenter effossas inscriptiones publicique juris factas, unam nempe cura D. Raoul Rochette, Mémoires de l'académie royale des inscript., t. XIII, p. 98, et D. Thiersch, loco citato. — Alteram e vetustissimo prope urbem Aeduensem coemeterio sancti Petri a via strata erutam, ac typis mandatam in opere cui titulus: Annales de philosophie chrétienne, t. XIX. Praeterea cf. Costadoni, § 23-27, 30, 33; Secchi, epigramma greco cristiano de' primi secoli trovata preso l' antica Agustoduno, Roma 1840. — Franz, Christliches Denkmal vou Autun erkloit, Berlin, 1841. EDD.

now set beside the Good Shepherd (Boldetti 573; Bottari, plate XXXV. See also Costadoni, Dissertazione sopra il pesce come simbolo de' primi cristiani, in Calogera's Raccolta d'opuscoli scientifici, vol. XLI, 1749. — Lupi, Dissertation on the Epitaph of Severa, Palermo, 1734, pp. 103, 136, 145, 153, 165, 185. — Fabretti, Ancient Inscriptions, book VIII, p. 569, nos 124–126; p. 590, no. 107. — Münter, Sinnbilder und Kunstvorstellungen der alten Christen. — Thiersch, Jahres-Berichte der Königlich Bayerschen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1829.) That the use of the Sibylline acrostic is far older than Constantine the Great is attested by testimonies, written or carved, neither few nor of doubtful credit. Indeed, marvel how great a crowd of witnesses on this matter rises from the apostolic age down to our own times, who, as it were, join hands with certain traditions of the first age of mankind, spread everywhere and, in the middle of the times, when the Church had now arisen, renewed and reviving in her very bosom; until, when peace had been settled throughout the world, the fish and the dove and all the other symbolic signs or sigla that had flourished in hiding came openly into the light. Now, then, concerning the ΙΧΘΥΣ acrostic let it be enough just to refer to certain Fathers, namely Clement of Alexandria in four places, vol. I, pp. 260, 312; p. 289, p. 787 (Potter's edition); our very own Tertullian, On Baptism, On the Resurrection, On the Shows, as there will be occasion to say more fully below. Nor let it irk us to add, from ancient marbles, two inscriptions recently dug up and made public: the one through the care of M. Raoul Rochette, Mémoires de l'Académie royale des inscriptions, vol. XIII, p. 98, and of M. Thiersch, in the place cited. — The other unearthed from the very ancient cemetery of St Peter on the paved road, near the city of the Aedui (Autun), and printed in the work entitled Annales de philosophie chrétienne, vol. XIX. See further Costadoni, §§ 23–27, 30, 33; Secchi, Epigramma greco cristiano de' primi secoli trovato presso l'antica Augustoduno, Rome, 1840. — Franz, Christliches Denkmal von Autun erklärt, Berlin, 1841. THE EDITORS.

(printed under page 98)

(1) ‹anchor: Guill. Whisthonus› · call in col 151

In libro suorum facile optimo: a vindicat on of the Sibylline oracles, Propos. 10, p. 36, sq.

In the book that is easily the best of his: A Vindication of the Sibylline Oracles, Proposition 10, p. 36 ff.

(printed under page 98)

Page

running head: 151 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [cropped]
marginal letters: A ut omnia quae velit susceperim; B nos a Montano vel aliquo; C iis quas decantavit; D (in the foot note) ipsius gremio, renovatis
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:152

At neque hoc utrumque decretum abhorruit a disciplina recte sentientium sic, ut proprium esset Montanistarum Nam in illo quidem superiori, quod admitti non potuerit nihil est, etiamsi aliis in locis Tertullianus nimium huic abstinentiae tribuat, et hoc vel ab ipsis quibusdam orthodoxae Ecclesiae addictis quamvis inepto sensu defensum est, ut postea docebitur, vel dici commode potuit de iis, qui post baptismum ad vitam impiam delati, de ea emendanda non cogitant.

But neither of these two pronouncements was so foreign to the discipline of those who think rightly as to be peculiar to the Montanists. For in the former there is nothing that could not be admitted, even if in other places Tertullian attributes too much to this abstinence; and the latter was either defended, though in an inept sense, by certain persons themselves attached to the orthodox Church, as will be shown later, or could fittingly be said of those who, having been carried after baptism into an impious life, give no thought to amending it.

§ 4. — Pamelius et Dupinius castigantur. Puritas libri a montanismo demonstratur.

§ 4. — Pamelius and Dupin are corrected. The book's freedom from Montanism is demonstrated.

Sed age audiamus etiam eos longe plures qui de Baptismo librum scriptum ante Tertulliani secessionem uno ore confitentur. In quibus ineptus est error eorum, tanquam Pamelii, qui, praeeunte quodam modo Epiphanio (Haer. 42, n. 1. 2.), Quintillam eam, quae hujus libri conscribendi occasionem dedit, ex disciplina Montanistarum putant fuisse, cui feminae cum se etiam contumeliis opposuerit Tertullianus, sequeretur eum tum, cum hunc librum perscriberet, adhuc a partibus Ecclesiae purioris stetisse. Quod argumentum omnem certe rem conficeret, nisi levissimus in exponendis Haereticorum opinionibus homo Epiphanius etiam hic more suo errori se dedisset. Nam et Caianorum sectae hanc mulierem addictam fuisse ait ipse Tertullianus, c. 1., quorum et decreta et mores multum discrepant a Montanistarum disciplina, et nunquam repudiatum baptismum a Montanistis legimus, sed defensum etiam a Tertulliano montanista multis in locis, ut de Pudicitia, c. 19. Sed sunt alia duo argumenta apud Dupinium (Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, tom. I. p. 91.), quibus hunc librum in indicem scriptorum emendatioris doctrinae infert; alterum quod nulli sint huic libro errores Montanistarum aspersi, alterum quod dicat potestatem conferendi baptismi non nisi episcoporum esse, nefas etiam esse, si quis illam mulieribus concedat; quae verba Tertulliani illi videntur contraria Montanistarum disciplinae. At illud superius eludere quivis facile potest eo, quod dicat non esse hunc librum oppositum orthodoxae Ecclesiae doctrinis, unde nec admirationem haberet hoc, quod Tertullianus hic nullum ab illa Ecclesia dissensum profiteatur, quod nec in aliis fecit, in quibus sibi non pugnandum cum psychicis esse videbat, veluti in libro de Pallio aliisque supra pertractatis. Sed in altero Dupinii argumento falsa veris sunt mixta. Itaque, quae recte ex eo pro integra hujus libri doctrina depromi possint, postea disputabimus, et unum hic animadvertemus viri docti errorem. Videlicet Montanistas suspicatur feminis potestatem publice docendi dedisse, quam cum iis adimat licentiam Tertull. in nostro libello, hunc putat e numero non montanisticorum esse. In quo haud dubie errat, et contra niteremur hoc loco ex ipsis Tertulliani scriptis montanismo infectis, e. c. e libro de Velandis virginibus, c. 9. nisi eam disputationem occupasset Cl. V. Theophilus Wernsdorfius (In

But come, let us hear also those far more numerous who with one voice confess that the book On Baptism was written before Tertullian's secession. Among them the error of some, such as Pamelius, is inept, who, with Epiphanius in a way leading the way (Heresy 42, nos. 1, 2), think that the Quintilla who gave occasion for writing this book belonged to the discipline of the Montanists; and since Tertullian set himself against this woman even with insults, it would follow that at the time when he wrote this book he still stood on the side of the purer Church. This argument would certainly settle the whole matter, had not Epiphanius, a most careless man in setting out the opinions of Heretics, here too given himself up to error after his fashion. For Tertullian himself says, in chapter I, that this woman was attached to the sect of the Cainites, whose decrees and morals differ greatly from the discipline of the Montanists; and we never read of baptism being repudiated by the Montanists, but rather defended even by Tertullian the Montanist in many places, as in On Modesty, chapter XIX. But there are two other arguments in Dupin (New Library of Ecclesiastical Authors, vol. I, p. 91), by which he enters this book in the list of writings of the more correct doctrine: one, that no errors of the Montanists are sprinkled through this book; the other, that he says the power of conferring baptism belongs only to the bishops, and that it is even a sin if anyone grants it to women; which words of Tertullian seem to him contrary to the discipline of the Montanists. But anyone can easily evade the former by saying that this book is not opposed to the doctrines of the orthodox Church, so that it would be nothing to wonder at that Tertullian here professes no dissent from that Church, which he did not do in others either, in which he saw he had no need to fight with the psychics, as in the book On the Pallium and others treated above. But in Dupin's other argument false things are mixed with true. Accordingly, what can rightly be drawn from it for the sound doctrine of this book we shall discuss later, and here we shall note one error of the learned man. He supposes, namely, that the Montanists gave women the power of teaching publicly, and since Tertullian takes this licence from them in our little book, he thinks it is among the non-Montanist works. In this he doubtless errs, and we should strive against him in this place from Tertullian's own writings infected with Montanism, for example from the book On the Veiling of Virgins, chapter IX, had not that discussion been taken up already by the most distinguished Theophilus Wernsdorf (In

Editors' notes and page, col. 152

Page

running head: [cropped] ATIO DE VERA AETATE 152
marginal letters: A At neque hoc utrumque; B Baptismo librum scriptum; C nunquam repudiatum baptismum; D nec in aliis fecit
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "Montanistarum Nam": the full stop is not visible in the print; set as printed. Whether "At neque" opens a new paragraph (col. 151 ended at a sentence end) cannot be told from the indent; set as its own paragraph by the file break only. No foot notes in this column.

PL 1:153

Commentat. de Montanistis saec. 2. vulgo creditis haereticis, Gedani. 1751. § 19.). Quam ob rem exponamus oportet illud, quod nos commoveat, ut de libro nostro magis in honestiorem, quam pejorem partem pronuntiandum esse putemus. Hujus judicii duplex est caussa. Primum cum quaestionem tractat de iis, quibus jus sit baptismi conferendi (c. 17.) illam potestatem summum habere ait sacerdotem, qui est Episcopus, dehinc Presbyteros et Diaconos, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate propter Ecclesiae honorem. Alioquin etiam, pergit, laicis jus est, — sed cum ea majoribus competant, ne sibi assumant dicatum Episcopis officium Episcopatus. Unde haec consequuntur, Tertullianum librum nostrum scripsisse tum, cum versaretur in aliquo coetu sacro, qui et Episcopos summos esse putabat rerum sacrarum moderatores, et laicis non nisi summa in necessitate versantibus jus concedebat aliquem sacro lavacro abluendi. Sed in Montanistarum conventiculis longe alia videtur consuetudo obtinuisse. Nam etsi non negem, iis etiam suos et Presbyteros fuisse et Diaconos, tamen alium in eorum doctoribus collocandis ordinem observatum fuisse, testis est Hieronymus (Epistola ad Marcellam, quae est 27. edit. Jo. Martianaei, tom. IV. part. II. p. 65.): qui apud nos, inquit, Apostolorum locum Episcopi tenent, apud eos Episcopus tertius est. Habent enim primos de Pepuza Patriarchas, secundos quos appellant Cenonas, atque ita in tertium, i. e., pene ultimum locum Episcopi devolvuntur. Quam si quis dicere velit consuetudinem Montanistarum ab Hieronymo fictam esse, vel Tertulliani aevo recentiorem, neque quid movere Hieronymum potuisset video, ut talia fingeret, quae magno crimini dari Montanistis non poterant, neque abhorret aliquo modo, qui ipsi se suis vel doctrinis vel institutis a communi Ecclesia sejunxerant, eos etiam ordinem sacerdotum diversum a communi consuetudine constituisse, praesertim cum jam ipse Montanus Pepuzam Phrygiae oppidum Hierosolymam appellasset (V. Eusebii Hist. Ecclesiasticam, lib. V. c. 18.). Atque ecce mihi quantum in nostro libello honorem Episcopis asserat, cum omnem tingendi aqua sacra potestatem ab iis deducat, et ipsius Ecclesiae honorem cum horum dignitate conjunctissimum tradat. Sed in libro de Pudicitia, tam vehementi illo in consuetudinem orthodoxae Ecclesiae, quam salse, obsecro, perstringit (c. 1.) Pontificem scilicet maximum Episcopumque Episcoporum, ejusque edictum peremptorium! quam nihil dat tanto viro, ut ait hic, a quo dignitas Ecclesiae pendebat! Ac si quis putat, quod ego non diffiteor, Tertullianum in illo libro magnam animi permotionem ad caussam attulisse, alium dabo e libro de Exhortatione castitatis haud dubie Montanistico locum, qui longe majorem, ut mihi videtur, laicis tribuit baptismi conferendi licentiam, quam eam, qualem nostro in libro defenderat, ut jam video magnum virum, quem honoris caussa nuncupo, Justum Henningium Boehmerum acute monuisse (Diss. IX. Juris Ecclesiast. antiqui, § 5.). Ubi cum neque sacerdotibus V. T. neque christianae

Dissertation on the Montanists of the second century, commonly believed heretics, Danzig, 1751, § 19). Therefore we must set out what moves us to think that judgement should be given on our book rather in the more honourable than the worse sense. The cause of this judgement is twofold. First, when he treats the question of those who have the right of conferring baptism (chapter XVII), he says that the high priest, who is the Bishop, has that power; after him the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the Bishop's authority, for the honour of the Church. "Otherwise," he continues, "laymen too have the right — but since these things belong to the greater, let them not take upon themselves the office of the Episcopate dedicated to the Bishops." From which these things follow: that Tertullian wrote our book at the time when he was in some sacred assembly which both held the Bishops to be the supreme governors of sacred things and granted laymen the right of washing someone in the sacred laver only when placed in extreme necessity. But in the conventicles of the Montanists a far different custom seems to have prevailed. For although I would not deny that they too had their Presbyters and Deacons, yet that a different order was observed in placing their teachers is witnessed by Jerome (Letter to Marcella, which is 27 in the edition of Jean Martianay, vol. IV, part II, p. 65): "Among us," he says, "the Bishops hold the place of the Apostles; among them the Bishop is third. For they have as first the Patriarchs from Pepuza, as second those whom they call Cenonae, and so the Bishops are relegated to the third, that is, almost the last place." If anyone wishes to say that this custom of the Montanists was invented by Jerome, or was later than Tertullian's age, I neither see what could have moved Jerome to invent such things, which could not be charged to the Montanists as a great crime, nor is it in any way unlikely that those who had separated themselves from the common Church by their own doctrines or institutions also established an order of priests different from the common custom, especially since Montanus himself had already called Pepuza, a town of Phrygia, Jerusalem (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter XVIII). And behold how much honour he claims for the Bishops in our little book, since he derives from them all the power of dipping in the sacred water, and teaches that the honour of the Church itself is most closely joined with their dignity. But in the book On Modesty, with what vehemence against the custom of the orthodox Church, and with what wit, I ask you, does he lash (chapter I) "the Supreme Pontiff, forsooth, and Bishop of Bishops, and his peremptory edict"! How he gives nothing to so great a man, on whom, as he says here, the dignity of the Church depended! And if anyone thinks, as I do not deny, that Tertullian brought great agitation of mind to the case in that book, I shall give another passage from the book On the Exhortation to Chastity, without doubt Montanist, which, as it seems to me, grants laymen a far greater licence of conferring baptism than that which he had defended in our book, as I now see that great man, whom I name for honour's sake, Justus Henning Böhmer, has acutely pointed out (Dissertation IX on Ancient Ecclesiastical Law, § 5). Where, since neither to the priests of the Old Testament nor to the Christian

Editors' notes and page, col. 153

Page

running head: 153 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM T[ertulliani] (right part cropped)
marginal letters: A Commentat. de Montanistis; B mos esse putabat; C nymo fictam esse; D licet maximum Episcopumque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column ends "chris-"; completed as "christianae" from the first word of col. 154 visible beside it on this page. No foot notes in this column.

PL 1:154

Ecclesiae sacerdotibus repetitas permissas esse nuptias Tertullianus dixisset, neque illas ait suscipi a laicis debere, quoniam et ipsi sacerdotes a Christo constituti fuissent, quare illi etiam offerendi tingendique haberent potestatem et sacerdotes sibi soli essent. Quod tametsi non dicat fieri debere, nisi ubi non sit ecclesiastici ordinis consessus, tamen neque mentionem auctoritatis Episcoporum vel caeterorum doctorum publicorum injicit, ut fit in nostro libro, neque hanc laicorum potestatem ex officiorum jurisque vicissitudine, ut hic, deducit, sed plane ex mystico omnium christianorum sacerdotio; unde magna, ni fallor, duci suspicio potest, aliam plane disciplinam Tertulliani, scribentis hos erroribus Montani infectos libros fuisse, quam ejus, cum animum ad nostrum scribendum adjungeret. Atque ut illud magis confirmem proponam hic aliquam conjecturam meam, non quasi ipse me putarem errare in ea non posse, sed ut offeram iis quorum hac de re potest esse judicium, quod videant, valeatne quidquam ad caussam nostram viris doctis probandam. Nempe c. 17. libri nostri confutat Tertullianus argumentum illud, quod, quibuscum pugnabat, homines solebant ex actis quibusdam Pauli sumere, ut feminis potestatem publice docendi vindicarent. Haec ego Pauli Acta si, quaenam fuerint quemque auctorem habuerint, ostendere potuero, tum mihi quidem Tertullianus vix videtur ea spernere potuisse, si hunc de baptismo librum jam disciplinae Montanistarum deditus scripsisset. Atque haec ego Acta ea fuisse suspicor, quae apud veteres sub nomine Actorum Pauli et Theclae exstitisse novimus, non quidem eo habitu ac forma, qualem habent edita illa a Jo. Ernesto Grabio (In spicilegio SS. Patrum et Haereticorum, tom. I. sec. 1. p. 95. sq.), sunt enim haec haud dubie temporibus prodeuntibus adulterata: sed sunt in illis tamen Grabianis quaedam quasi venae aut fragmenta eorum Theclae Actorum, quae veteribus celebrata fuerunt, veluti p. 115. is locus, ubi Paulus Theclae potestatem imponit doctrinam Christi aliis publice tradendi. Quae ipsa res, opinor, ostendit, Tertullianum in loco excitato haec Acta Theclae habuisse ob oculos posita propterea, quod mentionem injicit scripti cujusdam commentitii, quod Pauli apostoli nomen mentiebatur, in quo concessa erat feminis haec docendi licentia; id quod magis postea confirmabimus. Sed si quaeratur quis fuerit is qui sub Pauli apostoli nomine finxerit haec acta spuria, tum ego nullus dubito Leucium haereticum, quem vulgo Manichaeum non recte putant, horum Actorum, quae Tertullianus affert, scriptorem extitisse. Cur ita censeam breviter exponendum videtur. Primum negari non potest Leucium ut aliorum Apostolorum, sic etiam Pauli quaedam Acta finxisse, quod Photius testatur (In Bibliotheca, sect. 114. p. m. 156.), qui talia saepius tractaverat. Deinde Leucium non Manichaeorum, sed Docetarum vel Encratitarum disciplinae

Church Tertullian had said that repeated marriages were permitted, he says that neither ought they to be undertaken by laymen, since they too had been appointed priests by Christ, so that they too had the power of offering and dipping and were priests to themselves alone. Although he does not say that this ought to be done except where there is no assembly of the ecclesiastical order, yet he makes no mention of the authority of the Bishops or of the other public teachers, as happens in our book, nor does he derive this power of laymen from an interchange of offices and right, as here, but simply from the mystical priesthood of all Christians; from which, unless I am mistaken, a strong suspicion can be drawn that the discipline of Tertullian when writing these books infected with the errors of Montanus was quite different from his discipline when he set his mind to writing ours. And to confirm this further I shall put forward here a conjecture of my own, not as though I thought I could not err in it, but to offer it to those who can judge of this matter, for them to see whether it has any weight in commending our case to learned men. In chapter XVII of our book, namely, Tertullian refutes that argument which the men he was contending with used to take from certain acts of Paul, to claim for women the power of teaching publicly. If I can show what these Acts of Paul were and what author they had, then Tertullian seems to me scarcely to have been able to scorn them, had he written this book on baptism when already devoted to the discipline of the Montanists. And I suspect these Acts to have been those which we know existed among the ancients under the name of the Acts of Paul and Thecla, not indeed in the dress and form which those published by John Ernest Grabe have (In the Spicilegium of the Holy Fathers and Heretics, vol. I, century I, p. 95 f.), for these were without doubt adulterated as time went on: but there are nevertheless in those of Grabe certain veins, as it were, or fragments of those Acts of Thecla that were celebrated among the ancients, such as the passage on p. 115 where Paul lays on Thecla the power of handing on the doctrine of Christ publicly to others. This very thing, I think, shows that Tertullian in the passage cited had these Acts of Thecla set before his eyes, because he makes mention of a certain fictitious writing which falsely bore the name of Paul the apostle, in which this licence of teaching had been granted to women; which we shall confirm further later. But if it is asked who it was that forged these spurious acts under the name of Paul the apostle, then I have no doubt that Leucius the heretic, whom people commonly but wrongly think a Manichee, was the writer of these Acts which Tertullian adduces. Why I think so, it seems, should be set out briefly. First, it cannot be denied that Leucius, as he forged Acts of other Apostles, so too forged certain Acts of Paul, as Photius testifies (In the Bibliotheca, section 114, p. 156 of my copy), who had often handled such things. Next, that Leucius was devoted to the discipline not of the Manichees but of the Docetae or Encratites

Editors' notes and page, col. 154

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: vicissitudine, ut hic› · call in col 154

Ita enim de baptismo, c. 16. Laicis etiam jus est baptismum dandi; quod enim ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari potest.

For so he says in On Baptism, ch. 16: Laymen too have the right of giving baptism; for what is received on equal terms can be given on equal terms.

(printed under page 99)

Page

running head: [cropped] SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 154
marginal letters: A tianae Ecclesiae sacerdotibus; B scribendum adjungeret; C sub nomine Actorum Pauli; D erat feminis haec docendi
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:155

deditum fuisse, praeclare probavit vir egregie doctus maximeque limatus Isaacus Bellosobrius, (Beausobre, histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, lib. II. c. 2. § 2. sq.) quorum capitalis error continebatur in contemnendis nuptiis; et Actorum universorum Pauli et Theclae hic finis est, ut vitam sine nuptiis summis laudibus efferant, multa item sunt alia sub Apostolorum nomine a Leucio ad illum errorem per ipsam Apostolorum doctrinam et usum confirmandum conficta. Porro multis argumentis Bellosobrius, l. c., docuit, Leucium jam saec. II. exstitisse, et Epiphanius (Haer. LI. 6. p. 427.) Leucium clarissime appellat Joannis apostoli discipulum. Itaque et tempore Tertulliani exstiterunt haec Acta Pauli, quae Leucium auctorem habuisse diximus, et est admodum verisimile, Tertullianum non alia nisi Leucii Acta indicare voluisse; nam horum Actorum scriptorem ait fuisse Presbyterum, qui fraudis in ea re convictus de loco fuerit, h. e. de munere sacro dejectus. Cui si quis addiderit Hieronymum (In catal. scriptorum eccles., c. 7. p. 104.), qui diserte ait, Tertullianum dixisse hunc Presbyterum apud Joannem convictum et remotum a menere publico fuisse propter fraudem commissam; profecto videbit scriptorem Actorum Pauli et Theclae auctoritati Joannis apostoli fuisse subjectum, quod dici de Leucio, ut modo ostendi, optime potest. Denique mihi peropportune cecidit, ut hujus rei etiam in Philastrio (De Haeresibus, c. 55, edit. Fabricii p. 112.) aliquam significationem reperirem in loco eo, ubi de Seleuco haeretico ejusque doctrina disserit. Nempe confitentur omnes Seleucum haereticum et Leucium nostrum eosdem esse. Jam ecce mihi quaeso, quid de Seleuco suisque Philastrius? Baptismo, inquit, non utuntur propter verbum hoc, quod dixit Joa. Baptista: Ipse vos baptizabit in spiritu et igne. Nihil similius hoc esse potest illorum errorum, quos Tertullianus in libro de Baptismo confutat. Negabant haeretici, adversus quos ibi disputat, sacro lavacro tingendos christianos esse, atque is ipse dicta Joannis de baptismo per spiritum et ignem suae sententiae conciliat; quare, quid est probabilius quam adversarios Tertulliani a sententia Leucii stetisse, qui, teste Philastrio, idem prorsus dixerat, Nemo mihi occurrat? Seleucum v. Leucium, de quo Philastrius loquitur, Manichaeum fuisse atque diversum a Leucio Joa. apostoli discipulo; Philastrium etiam hominem nullius pretii esse, unde existeret: quod fidei hujus male ambulanti credere nos non oporteat. Namque istud discrimen fictum esse, ac nullum, satis adversus Fabricium Bellosobrius, loc. cit. § 3, defendit, et Philastrium non quidem ignoro nugatorem esse in plerisque, etiam in enarrandis ipsis Seleuci erroribus, qui certe Leucio Joa. discipulo tribui non omnes possunt; sed in nugis illis Philastrianis quis nulla dicere audeat veritatis semina latere? Sit igitur hoc constitutum, Tertullianum in libro nostro, cum Acta Pauli rejiceret, scriptum aliquod repudiasse, quod fictum erat a Leucio, qui justitiam vitae sine nuptiis transactae omni modo defendebat. Jam placet provocare ad Pacianum Episcopum Barinonensem

was excellently proved by that exceptionally learned and most polished man Isaac Bellosobrius (Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme, book II, ch. 2, § 2 ff.), whose capital error consisted in contempt of marriage; and the whole aim of the Acts of Paul and Thecla is to extol life without marriage with the highest praises, and many other things likewise were fabricated by Leucius under the name of the Apostles to confirm that error by the very teaching and practice of the Apostles. Moreover, Bellosobrius showed by many arguments (loc. cit.) that Leucius already existed in the second century, and Epiphanius (Heresies LI. 6, p. 427) most clearly calls Leucius a disciple of John the apostle. Thus these Acts of Paul, which we have said had Leucius as their author, existed even in Tertullian's time, and it is highly probable that Tertullian meant to indicate no other than the Acts of Leucius; for he says that the writer of these Acts was a presbyter who, convicted of fraud in the matter, was put out of his place, that is, deposed from the sacred office. If anyone adds to this Jerome (In the Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, ch. 7, p. 104), who expressly says that Tertullian stated that this presbyter was convicted before John and removed from public office for the fraud he had committed, he will surely see that the writer of the Acts of Paul and Thecla was subject to the authority of John the apostle, which, as I have just shown, can very well be said of Leucius. Finally, it fell out most opportunely for me that I found some indication of this matter in Philastrius too (On Heresies, ch. 55, Fabricius's edition p. 112), in the place where he discusses the heretic Seleucus and his doctrine. Now all agree that the heretic Seleucus and our Leucius are the same. Now see, I pray, what Philastrius says of Seleucus and his followers. "They do not use baptism," he says, "because of this saying which John the Baptist spoke: He will baptize you in the spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11)." Nothing can be more like this than those errors which Tertullian refutes in his book On Baptism. The heretics against whom he disputes there denied that Christians are to be dipped in the sacred washing, and he himself reconciles John's words about baptism by the spirit and fire with his own view; therefore, what is more probable than that Tertullian's opponents stood by the view of Leucius, who, on Philastrius's testimony, had said exactly the same? Let no one object to me that Seleucus, or Leucius, of whom Philastrius speaks, was a Manichaean and different from Leucius the disciple of John the apostle; and that Philastrius too is a man of no worth, whence it would follow that we ought not to believe one whose faith walks so badly. For Bellosobrius (loc. cit., § 3) has sufficiently maintained against Fabricius that this distinction is invented and none at all; and I am not indeed unaware that Philastrius is a trifler in most things, even in recounting the very errors of Seleucus, not all of which can certainly be attributed to Leucius the disciple of John; but who would dare say that no seeds of truth lie hidden in those Philastrian trifles? Let this then be settled: that Tertullian in our book, when he rejected the Acts of Paul, repudiated a certain writing that had been fabricated by Leucius, who defended in every way the righteousness of a life passed without marriage. Now I wish to appeal to Pacian, bishop of Barcelona,

Editors' notes and page, col. 155

Page

running head: 155 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [continued on facing column]
marginal letters: A ‹plinae deditum fuisse›; B ‹est admodum verisimile›; C ‹doctrina disserit. Nempe›; D ‹discipulo; Philastrium etiam›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:156

saec. IV. qui (Epist. I. ad Sympromianum Novatianum, edita in Biblioth. maxima PP. Lugdunensi, tom. IV. p. 305. G.): Phryges, h. est, Montanistae, inquit, se animatos a Leucio mentiuntur. Neque illud testimonium videtur a vero aberrare, propterea quod certum est Montanistas eodem modo atque Encratitas, e quorum disciplina Leucius erat, nimium tribuisse iis qui abhorrebant a nuptiis. Unde hoc effici posse credo: Tertullianum, siquidem librum nostrum inter Montani discipulos constitutus scripsisset, cautius fuisse locuturum de libro tali, qui Leucium auctorem habebat, neque illum fraudis accusaturum, cum is ipse cum Montanistis sentiret. Quod si quis contra dicat, elabi nobis illam caussam, propterea quod non satis constat, ignoraveritne Tertullianus horum Actorum parentem (quod vix credibile est in tam curioso universae antiquitatis exploratore), dabo illud, si ita placet; hoc tamen mihi quisque vicissim dederit, nisi quis contrariam sententiam docuerit, satis hanc suspicionem impedire debere, quo minus hunc Tertulliani librum ad genus eorum librorum abjiciamus, quos post secessionem ab orthodoxis factam composuit.

of the fourth century, who (Letter I to Sympronianus the Novatian, published in the Bibliotheca maxima Patrum of Lyons, vol. IV, p. 305 G) says: "The Phrygians," that is, the Montanists, "falsely claim that they were inspired by Leucius." Nor does that testimony seem to stray from the truth, because it is certain that the Montanists, in the same way as the Encratites, of whose school Leucius was, attributed too much to those who shrank from marriage. From this I believe it can be concluded that Tertullian, had he written our book when he was settled among the disciples of Montanus, would have spoken more cautiously about such a book, which had Leucius as its author, and would not have accused him of fraud, since he himself held with the Montanists. But if anyone objects that this argument slips from our grasp, because it is not sufficiently established whether Tertullian was ignorant of the parent of these Acts (which is scarcely credible in so curious an explorer of all antiquity), I will grant that, if you please; yet everyone in turn will grant me this, unless someone has demonstrated the contrary view, that this suspicion ought sufficiently to prevent us from casting this book of Tertullian among the class of those books which he composed after his secession from the orthodox.

§ 5. — Libri II ad Uxorem ante lapsum Tertulliani exarati.

§ 5. — The two books To His Wife were written before Tertullian's fall.

Venio nunc ad libros quos Uxori suae Tertullianus inscripsit, qui quod sint conjunctim editi, dubitari non patitur libri posterioris principium. In quibus libris tametsi sint quae videantur erroribus Montanistarum consentanea, tamen ego hos ausim potius in numero eorum collocare quos ante hanc defectionem perscripsit. Quod mihi primum videtur confirmari eo, quod nusquam suum Paracletum Tertullianus jactat in rebus iis, in quibus multum auctoritatis hujus effata habitura fuissent. Namque, ut hoc utar, cap. 7. lib. I. extrem., ubi satius esse disputat fugere secundas nuptias, nullum excitat Paracletum, quem locum nunquam praetermittit in libris qui e Montanistarum disciplina prodiere; sed unam adhibet auctoritatem disciplinae Ecclesiae et Apostoli legem, qua qui bis

I come now to the books which Tertullian addressed to his wife, which were published together, as the beginning of the latter book does not allow us to doubt. Although there are things in these books that seem consistent with the errors of the Montanists, yet I would venture rather to place them among the number of those which he wrote out before this defection. This seems to me confirmed first by the fact that Tertullian nowhere boasts of his Paraclete in those matters in which the pronouncements of this authority would have carried much weight. For, to use this instance, at the end of ch. 7 of book I, where he argues that it is better to flee second marriages, he calls up no Paraclete, a commonplace he never passes over in the books which came forth from the school of the Montanists; but he applies the one authority of the discipline of the Church and the law of the Apostle, by which those who twice

Editors' notes and page, col. 156

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: posterioris principium› · call in col 156

Proxime tibi... quid feminae sanctae sectandum sit prosecutus sum.

Recently I set out for you... what a holy woman ought to follow.

(printed under page 100)

(2) ‹anchor: qua qui bis› · call in col 156

Perspicue, nisi fallor, hic locus, et alter ille e libro de Exhort. castit., c. 7. excitatus, ut alia multa non tangam, docet, antiquam christianorum Ecclesiam verba Pauli I. Tim. III. 3. de Episcopo μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνδρὶ sic cepisse, ut Paulus de secundis doctorum nuptiis dixerit. Nam in illo Tertulliani loco, cum interdictas has sacerdotibus V. T. dixisset: Christo, inquit, servabatur sicut in caeteris, ita in isto quoque, legis plenitudo. Inde igitur apud nos plenius atque instructius praescribitur, unius matrimonii esse oportere, qui allegantur in ordinem sacerdotalem. Usque adeo quosdam memini digamos loco dejectos. Ubi neque vult illis de sacerdotibus intelligi, qui praeter uxorem etiam meretrice quadam utebantur, ut videbatur Heumanno in Erklærung des N. T. part. IX. p. 179. neque more Montanistarum loquitur. Nam contra illam Heumanni interpretationem pugnat universum Tertulliani consilium, qui clare dicit de castrata licentia saepius nubendi, et c. 6. de duplici Dei dispositione, una illa: crescite et multiplicamini, altera: Tempus jam in collecto est, etc., qua Deus abolefecerit priorem. Neque commemorat sententiam Montanistis propriam, sed illis atque Catholicis communem. Nam primum in locis similibus libri de Monogamia, c. 11. convincit adversarios iniquitatis repetitarum nuptiarum sic, ut eos tale matrimonium postulare dicat ab iis quibus non liceat tale habere, ab Episcopo monogamo, a presbyteris et Diaconis ejusdem Sacramenti, a viduis etiam, et laicis, et ab Apostolo interdictas argumentatur nuptias, propterea quod totum ordinem Ecclesiae, h. e., sacerdotes de (continues)

Clearly, unless I am mistaken, this passage, and that other one cited from the book On the Exhortation to Chastity, ch. 7, show, not to touch on many other things, that the ancient Church of the Christians took Paul's words in 1 Tim. 3:3 [as printed] about the bishop, "husband of one wife", in the sense that Paul spoke of second marriages of teachers. For in that passage of Tertullian, after saying that these were forbidden to the priests of the Old Testament, he says: For Christ was reserved, as in other things so in this also, the fullness of the law. Hence, then, among us it is prescribed more fully and more carefully that those who are chosen into the priestly order must be of one marriage. So much so that I remember certain digamists being removed from their place. Here he does not mean it to be understood of priests who besides a wife also kept some harlot, as it seemed to Heumann in his Explanation of the New Testament, part IX, p. 179; nor does he speak in the Montanist manner. For against that interpretation of Heumann fights Tertullian's whole design, who speaks plainly of the licence of marrying more often being cut off, and in ch. 6 of God's twofold dispensation: the one, increase and multiply; the other, The time is now shortened, etc., by which God abolished the former. Nor does he record an opinion peculiar to the Montanists, but one common to them and to the Catholics. For first, in similar passages of the book On Monogamy, ch. 11, he convicts his opponents of the injustice of repeated marriages by saying that they ask for such a marriage from those to whom it is not lawful to have such: from a monogamous bishop, from presbyters and deacons of the same sacrament, from widows also, and from laymen; and he argues that marriages are forbidden by the Apostle because the whole order of the Church, that is, the priests, of (continues)

(printed under page 100)

Page

running head: [DISSERT]ATIO DE VERA AETATE 156
marginal letters: A ‹nensem saec. IV. qui›; B ‹rum parentem (quod vix›; C ‹perscripsit. Quod mihi›; D ‹in isto quoque, legis plenitudo› (in the footnote block)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:157

matrimonium contraxerant, ait ab officio publico sejungi; quae verba haud scio, an non sint minus accommodata scriptori Montanistico quam ei qui doctrinas Ecclesiae rectius sentientis sequebatur. Deinde in eadem sectione uxorem, si denuo societatem conjugalem inierit, non ait male facere, adjicitque e mente Pauli apostoli non quidem non honestas esse secundas nuptias, sed tamen eas sollicitudinem non levem calamitatesque inducere. Neque lib. II. c. 1. abstinentiam a novo matrimonio aliunde commendat, nisi ex eo, quod ea majorem afferat utilitatem. Quod est nimiae lenitatis in scriptore Montanistico, cujus disciplina omnes secundas nuptias in loco summorum vitiorum habebat. Denique libro II. uxori suae permittit novam post obitum suum conjunctionem ineundam, neque illud alia severiori lege, nisi ut nubat christiano, dicitque c. 1. difficilium rerum facilem esse veniam. Sed Montanistae quo modo excipiebant eos qui ad nuptias redierant? Digamos, inquit Tertullianus, de Pudicit. c. 1. extrem., foris sistimus, eumdem limitem moechis quoque et fornicatoribus figimus, — non amplius ab Ecclesia publicationem dedecoris relataris. Scilicet hoc est facilem veniam dare. Jam haud difficile est ad judicandum num possint ista tam clara, quae caussam a nobis propositam adjuvant, loca convelli aliqua tali similitudine dictorum quorumdam, quae sunt in istis libris, cum iis quae severior Montani disciplina in aliis Tertulliano persuasit. Illud vero unum, quod habet Hoffmannus, l. c. § 12., argumentum, quod libri isti scripti sint cum quaestio de Fuga in periculo propter religionem agitata fuisset, eaque salutem petere quemquam debere Tertullianus cum Montanistis negasset; hoc illud unum adeo nos non movet, ut eamus in ejus sententiam, ut ab ea magis retrahat. Nam ille ipse locus, quem promit e lib. I. c. 3.: Etiam in persecutionibus melius est ex permissu fugere de oppido, quam deprehensum et distortum negare; ille satis docet Tertullianum non omnem fugam in tali tempestate non legitimam existimasse; eum igitur confirmat tempore eo quo hos composuit libros, cum Montanistis minus, quam caeteris sensisse.

had contracted marriage he says are separated from public office; and I rather think these words are less suited to a Montanist writer than to one who followed the teachings of the Church as she judged more rightly. Next, in the same section he says that his wife, if she enters again into the conjugal partnership, does not do wrong, and he adds, after the mind of Paul the apostle, that second marriages are indeed not dishonourable, but that they nevertheless bring no slight anxiety and calamities. Nor in book II, ch. 1, does he commend abstinence from a new marriage on any other ground than that it brings greater benefit. That is too much leniency in a Montanist writer, whose school held all second marriages in the place of the gravest vices. Finally, in book II he permits his wife to enter into a new union after his death, and that under no stricter law than that she marry a Christian, and he says in ch. 1 that pardon for difficult things is easy. But how did the Montanists treat those who had returned to marriage? "The digamists," says Tertullian (On Modesty, end of ch. 1), "we set outside; we fix the same boundary for adulterers too and fornicators — you will no longer bring back from the Church the publication of your disgrace." That, to be sure, is granting easy pardon! Now it is not hard to judge whether these passages, so clear, which support the case we have put forward, can be overthrown by some such likeness of certain sayings in these books to those which the stricter school of Montanus persuaded Tertullian of in other works. As for the one argument which Hoffmann has (loc. cit., § 12), that these books were written when the question of flight in danger for religion's sake had been raised, and Tertullian with the Montanists had denied that anyone ought to seek safety by it: this one argument is so far from moving us to go over to his view that it rather draws us away from it. For that very passage which he brings out of book I, ch. 3, "Even in persecutions it is better, with permission, to flee from town than, when caught and racked, to deny," sufficiently shows that Tertullian did not hold all flight in such a storm to be unlawful; it therefore confirms that at the time when he composed these books he agreed less with the Montanists than with the rest.

ARTICULUS V.

ARTICLE V.

Quarta classis librorum, quorum non nisi Montanismus patet.

The fourth class of books, in which nothing but Montanism is evident.

§ 1. — Liber de Patientia, an. 200 vel 201 scriptus

§ 1. — The book On Patience, written in the year 200 or 201

Quam ob rem etiam hos eximamus e librorum

For this reason let us also remove these from

Editors' notes and page, col. 157

Page

running head: 157 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM T[ERTULLIANI]
marginal letters: A ‹matrimonium contraxerant›; B ‹ineundam, neque illud›; C ‹cum quaestio de Fuga›; D ‹§ 1. — Liber de Patientia›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the last body line ends "e librorum" mid-sentence; the sentence continues in the next column ("Montanisticorum numero"). The English ends "remove these from" and col. 158's English goes on "the number of Montanist [books]" (Q1: the earlier "[the number] of the books" here doubled col. 158's rendering, so it was removed). The page foot carries the continuation of note (2) from col. 156 ("monogamis disponat. Quae omnia ostendunt, Catholicos ..." to "nisi univiram, non concedit."): not set here, belongs to the notes layer. "Quarta classis" is printed in italic with blurred type ("Quarta classis"), read from context.

PL 1:158

Montanisticorum numero, et qui eo rectius referri debeant, videamus. In quibus non dubito aureum de Patientia librum primo loco ponere. Nam etsi Tillemontius (Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire Ecclésiastique, tom. III. p. 262.) hunc velit iis adjungere, qui superiores sunt defectione Tertulliani ad Montanistas, propterea, quod et fugam in publicis christianorum propter religionem calamitatibus non spernit, et magnam modestiam adhibet; tamen illa nequaquam idonea ad hanc rem confirmandam arbitror. Nam de modestia ea non video quare uti Tertullianus non etiam post susceptam in orthodoxos inimicitiam potuisset, neque enim ea propria est virtus recte sentientium; et illi alteri ne sua quidem veritas constat. Etenim in eo loco, e quo potestatem fugiendi a Tertulliano concessam excitare conatur (c. 13.) fuga illa nullo modo conceditur, sed ipsam patientiam affirmatur firmitatem humanae imbecillitatis praestare, ignem etiam et crucem et bestias et gladium ipsa constantia vinci. Atqui sunt etiam in hoc quamvis praeclaro libello plura, quae animum Tertulliani Montanistarum erroribus non leviter tinctum ostendunt, suntque ibi omnes fere Montanistarum errores propositi. Ac significatio illa quidem Paracleti subobscura est, nonnulla tamen in hoc loco, c. 1, ad capienda et praestanda ea, sola gratia divinae inspirationis operatur. Porro praestantia nuptiarum non repetitarum ita fere proponitur c. 13.: Patientia sanctitati quoque procurat continentiam carnis; haec, et viduam tenet, et virginem assignat, et voluntarium spadonem ad regna coeli levat. Secundas item nuptias adulterii nomine traducit c. 12. Inediae ex arbitrio susceptae maxima laus ex h. l. cernitur c. 13.: Afflictatio carnis hostia Domino placatoria per humiliationis sacrificium, quum sordes cum angustia victus Domino libat contenta simplici pabulo puroque aquae potu, quum jejunia conjungit, quum cineri et sacco inolescit. De fuga jam dixi. Negata denique semotis a Societate sacra peccatoribus venia nonne est in his verbis c. 12. ubi omnem peccatorum spem non in venia ab Ecclesiae sodalibus obtinenda ponit, sed in salute ea, quam christiani horum emendationem exspectantes vel exoptarent vel exorarent; praeter quod a collegio sacro Montanistarum exspectandum nihil erat (vide de Pudicitia c. 1. extr.). Qui Montanistarum errores, quamvis non possint nisi per quaedam veluti involucra in hoc libro perspici; tamen ex eo nihil efficitur, nisi quod hic libellus sit ex eo tempore, quo illa Tertulliani contentio in defendendis Montanistarum scitis vel nondum exarserat, vel restincta aliquo modo erat. Aetas igitur hujus libelli non satis certa est. Quod imminente jam christianis periculo scriptus sit, non admodum dubitem, etenim aliqua hujus sententiae non inepta ratio in ipso libri argumento quaerenda. At vero scripseritne illum Tertullianus inter metus Scapulae adversus christianos, imperante Caracallo, excitatos, quod Allixio placuit, an sub initium calamitatum publicarum sub Severo Aug., quo tempore et ille

the number of Montanist [books], and let us see which ought more rightly to be placed there. Among these I do not hesitate to put in first place the golden book On Patience. For although Tillemont (Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, vol. III, p. 262) would join it to those which are earlier than Tertullian's defection to the Montanists, because he both does not spurn flight in the public calamities of Christians for religion's sake and shows great moderation, yet I judge that these points are by no means fit to establish the matter. For as to that moderation, I do not see why Tertullian could not have used it even after taking up enmity against the orthodox, for it is not a virtue peculiar to those who think rightly; and the other point does not even hold true. For in the passage from which he tries to draw out a permission to flee granted by Tertullian (ch. 13), that flight is in no way granted; rather it is affirmed that patience itself furnishes steadfastness to human weakness, and that fire too and the cross and the beasts and the sword are overcome by constancy itself. And yet there are in this little book also, however excellent, several things which show that Tertullian's mind was not lightly tinged with the errors of the Montanists, and almost all the errors of the Montanists are set out there. The allusion to the Paraclete, indeed, is somewhat obscure, yet there is some in this passage, ch. 1: "for grasping and performing these things, the grace of divine inspiration alone works." Further, the excellence of marriages not repeated is set forth roughly thus in ch. 13: "Patience also procures for holiness the continence of the flesh; she both holds the widow, and seals the virgin, and lifts the voluntary eunuch to the kingdom of heaven." Likewise he brands second marriages with the name of adultery in ch. 12. The highest praise of fasting undertaken by choice is seen in this place, ch. 13: "The affliction of the flesh, a victim propitiatory to the Lord through the sacrifice of humiliation, when it offers to the Lord squalor with scantiness of food, content with simple fare and a pure draught of water, when it joins fasts together, when it grows accustomed to ashes and sackcloth." Of flight I have already spoken. Lastly, is not pardon denied to sinners removed from the sacred fellowship in these words of ch. 12, where he places all the hope of sinners not in pardon to be obtained from the members of the Church, but in that salvation which Christians, awaiting their amendment, would either long for or pray for; besides which nothing was to be expected from the sacred college of the Montanists (see On Modesty, end of ch. 1). These errors of the Montanists, although they can be perceived in this book only as through certain wrappings, yet nothing follows from that except that this little book is from the time when that zeal of Tertullian in defending the decrees of the Montanists had either not yet blazed up or had been in some way quenched. The date of this little book, therefore, is not sufficiently certain. That it was written when danger was already threatening the Christians I would hardly doubt, for some not unfitting ground for this view is to be sought in the very argument of the book. But whether Tertullian wrote it amid the alarms stirred up by Scapula against the Christians under the reign of Caracalla, as Allix held, or at the beginning of the public calamities under Severus Augustus, at which time he too

Editors' notes and page, col. 158

Page

running head: [S]CRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 158
marginal letters: A ‹Montanisticorum numero›; B ‹tulliano concessam excitare›; C ‹luntarium spadonem›; D ‹de Pudicitia c. 1. extr.›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:159

de Fuga in persecutione placidus ille non minus et mitigatus commentarius prodiit, id nemo facile dixerit: quare ad alium transeamus.

that calm and no less mitigated treatise On Flight in Persecution came out, no one could easily say: therefore let us pass on to another.

§ 2. — Liber de velandis Virginibus, qui est facile librorum Montanisticorum primus.

§ 2. — The book On the Veiling of Virgins, which is easily the first of the Montanist books.

Est is de velandis Virginibus liber, quem ad primos errorum Montani plenos pertinere non admodum dubito. Nam de illo nos haesitare non sinit creberrima Paracleti novaeque ejus disciplinae commemoratio; ut ne necesse quidem sit vel libri istius similitudinem cum iis de Cultu feminarum, qui sunt e Montanistarum disciplina, vel obscuriorem unius conjugii (c. 3.) defensionem referre. Quid enim illa significatio revelationum, quibus, ut ait ille c. 17., Dominus velaminis spatia metatus est? Quid novitas correctionis, quam lege fidei (in Symbolo apostolico comprehensa) manente, caetera disciplinae et conversationis, operante et proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei, admittant (c. 1.)? Quid ille Paracletus, quem miserit Dominus, ut paulatim dirigeretur et ad perfectum perduceretur disciplina (ibid.)? Quid enarratio aetatum disciplinae christianae, in quibus justitia demum per Paracletum componenda sit in maturitatem? Quid, inquam, haec omnia aliud, quam Tertullianum Montani discipulum testantur? Sed neque illud magis obscurum est, primum hunc fere foetum esse quem conjunctus cum Montanistis ediderit. Namque, ut ab hoc ordiar, nullus fere est inter omnes ejus Montanisticos liber, in quo majorem vim adhibeat ad defendendam disciplinam Montanistarum a culpa novitatis, quam is de quo quaeritur, imprimis sect. 1. 2.; quod certe dat locum suspicandi non inepte Tertullianum hunc, quam primum se Montanistis adjunxerat, composuisse, ut crimen a se novarum rerum removeret. Nec in ullo alio magis videtur Paracletum ejusque disciplinae divinam originem defendere, nisi in hoc ipso; quam non modo agnitionem Paracleti, sed defensionem cum alibi (adv. Praxeam, c. 1.) dicat se disjunxisse a Psychicis, facile est intellectu, nostrum librum, in quo vehementer eum quidem defendit, inter primordia temporis ab ipso apud Montanistas acti exaratum fuisse. Atque illud confirmari multis argumentis non probabilitate destitutis potest. Primo sub isto ipso tempore scripti sunt libri de Cultu feminarum, ut alio loco disputabamus, isti vero ejusdem prope sunt cum nostro argumenti. Deinde, cum haberet occasionem satis opportunam invehendi severius in orthodoxae Ecclesiae addictorum, nonnullorum saltem, in velandis Virginibus consuetudinem contrariam suae, tamen hic multo modestius disputat, quam in aliis qui sunt orthodoxis oppositi, quod, nisi quod vellemus admittatur, conceptu difficile esse quisque dicet, qui vehementissimam Tertulliani in defendendo Montanismo animi commotionem aliunde intellexit. Denique, tametsi multum profuisset caussae, cujus in libro nostro defensionem susceperat, si calamitatum publicarum et periculorum,

There is the book On the Veiling of Virgins, which I hardly doubt belongs to the first [books] full of the errors of Montanus. For the very frequent mention of the Paraclete and of his new discipline does not allow us to hesitate about it; so that there is no need even to cite either the likeness of that book to the books On the Apparel of Women, which are of the Montanist school, or the more obscure defence of a single marriage (ch. 3). For what is that mention of revelations, by which, as he says in ch. 17, the Lord has measured out the extent of the veil? What is the novelty of correction which, the rule of faith (comprised in the Apostles' Creed) remaining, the other matters of discipline and conduct admit, the grace of God working and advancing to the end (ch. 1)? What is that Paraclete whom the Lord sent, that discipline might be directed by degrees and brought to perfection (ibid.)? What is the account of the ages of Christian discipline, in which righteousness is at last to be brought to maturity through the Paraclete? What, I say, do all these things testify but that Tertullian was a disciple of Montanus? But neither is it more obscure that this is very nearly the first offspring which he brought forth when joined with the Montanists. For, to begin with this, there is hardly a book among all his Montanist ones in which he applies greater force to defending the discipline of the Montanists from the charge of novelty than the one in question, especially in sections 1 and 2; which certainly gives room to suspect, not unreasonably, that Tertullian composed it as soon as he had joined himself to the Montanists, to remove from himself the charge of innovation. Nor does he seem in any other to defend the Paraclete and the divine origin of his discipline more than in this very one; and since he says elsewhere (Against Praxeas, ch. 1) that it was not merely the acknowledgement of the Paraclete but its defence that separated him from the Psychics, it is easy to understand that our book, in which he defends it so vehemently, was written in the first beginnings of the time he spent among the Montanists. And this can be confirmed by many arguments not lacking in probability. First, the books On the Apparel of Women were written at that very time, as we argued in another place, and these are of nearly the same argument as ours. Next, although he had a quite convenient occasion to inveigh more severely against the custom, contrary to his own, of those adherents of the orthodox Church — of some at least — in the veiling of virgins, yet here he argues much more moderately than in the others which are opposed to the orthodox; which, unless what we wish is admitted, anyone will say is hard to conceive who has learned from elsewhere Tertullian's most vehement agitation of mind in defending Montanism. Finally, although it would have greatly helped the cause whose defence he had undertaken in our book if, of the public calamities and dangers,

Editors' notes and page, col. 159

Page

running head: 159 DISSERTATIO DE VERA
marginal letters: A ‹de Fuga in persecutione›; B ‹c. 17., Dominus velaminis›; C ‹in quo majorem vim›; D ‹sub isto ipso tempore›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:160

quibus christiani a Deorum cultoribus objiciebantur, mentionem injecisset, ipse etiam Tertullianus, qui nihil solet omittere caussae suae proficuum, cum illud argumentum in libris de Cultu feminarum nostri similibus adhibuerit, tamen hic ne uno quidem verbo eas ait exstitisse. Qua ex re colligi potest, eum scriptum esse tum, cum talibus malis non essent christiani oppressi. Atqui cum eum dixerimus compositum esse postquam Tertullianus se Montanistis adjunxerat, apparet nostrum librum non posse antiquiorem esse anno CC., quoniam Tertullianum alibi docebamus eo anno ad Montanistas transiisse; neque multo posteriorem etiam, cum anno CCII. calamitates a Severo excitatae jam ceperint initium. Sed eum librum noluimus inter illos referre, quorum aetas certissime constaret propterea, quod conjectando magis quam adhibitis certissimis argumentis, ejus potuerunt natales constitui.

to which the Christians were exposed by the worshippers of the gods, had made mention of them, Tertullian himself, who is wont to omit nothing profitable to his cause, although he used that argument in the books On the Apparel of Women, which are like ours, yet here does not say by so much as a single word that they existed. From this it can be gathered that it was written at a time when the Christians were not oppressed by such evils. And yet, since we have said that it was composed after Tertullian had joined himself to the Montanists, it is evident that our book cannot be older than the year 200, since we showed elsewhere that Tertullian went over to the Montanists in that year; nor much later either, since in the year 202 the calamities stirred up by Severus had already begun. But we did not wish to place this book among those whose date was most certainly established, because its birth could be fixed by conjecture rather than by the use of the most certain arguments.

§ 3. — Liber de Exhortatione Castitatis anno 201. exaratus.

§ 3. — The book On the Exhortation to Chastity, written in the year 201.

Neque vero ita multo post scripti videntur libri ii, quibus domesticas Montanistarum doctrinas a contemptu et impetu contrariae partis vindicare studuit, quales sunt de Exhortatione castitatis, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis, deque Pudicitia commentationes. Quas esse omnes plenas errorum Montani, nemo est qui dubitet; et eas hoc fere tempore, h. e. sub initiis Montanismi Septimii prodiisse, dubitari vix magis potest. Quod utrumque, singulos hos libros percurrendo, breviter docebimus, ne haec nostrae scriptionis pars, quamvis ab aliis etiam tractata, desiderari videatur. Sunt vero isti, si quid video, eodem ordine editi, quo eos enarravimus; ita ut horum primus videri possit is, qui est de Exhortatione castitatis. Qui quidem non refertur ab Hieronymo (Catal. scriptor. Eccl. C. 53.) in numero librorum quos ad defendenda Montani scita Tertullianus composuerit; sunt etiam in hoc libro quae rem non satis excutienti persuadere possent, nondum tum de illa disciplina eum fuisse: sed ea quidem sunt leviora. Nam quod Hieronymus in indice horum librorum nostrum non habeat, hujus rei potest haec ratio esse, quod non voluerit enumerare nisi libros eos, quos opponendi orthodoxis consilium Tertulliano fuit, is vero de Exhortatione castitatis liber non iis oppositus est, sed scriptus ad docendum fratrem nescio quem, quem non tam confutare de nuptiis repetendis cogitantem voluit, quam ad omittendas istas adhortari. Praeterea non equidem inficior, satis hic modestiae et plus esse quam in caeteris, qui doctrinam aliquam Montanistarum disputant, ipsum etiam Tertullianum in hoc libro suadere magis et utile honestumque dicere unum conjugium, quam perfectam intermittendarum secundarum nuptiarum necessitatem defendere; unde colligere quis posset, eum inclinasse forte, sed nec tum se applicasse ad partes Montanistarum, quemadmodum et illud in libris ad Uxorem superius diximus. At ista modestia

Nor indeed do those books seem to have been written much later in which he strove to defend the domestic doctrines of the Montanists from the contempt and attack of the opposing party, such as are the treatises On the Exhortation to Chastity, On Monogamy, On Fasts, and On Modesty. That all of them are full of the errors of Montanus there is no one who doubts; and that they came out at about this time, that is, at the beginnings of Septimius's Montanism, can scarcely be doubted more. Both these points we shall show briefly by running through these books one by one, lest this part of our writing seem wanting, although it has been treated by others too. These, if I see anything, were published in the same order in which we have listed them; so that the first of them may seem to be the one On the Exhortation to Chastity. This book, indeed, is not reckoned by Jerome (Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, ch. 53) among the books which Tertullian composed to defend the decrees of Montanus; there are also things in this book which might persuade one who does not sift the matter sufficiently that he was not yet of that school at the time: but these are rather slight. For as to Jerome's not having our book in his list of these books, the reason for this may be that he wished to enumerate only those books which Tertullian's purpose was to oppose to the orthodox, whereas this book On the Exhortation to Chastity is not opposed to them, but was written to instruct some brother or other, whom, as he was thinking of marrying again, he wished not so much to refute as to exhort to forgo it. Besides, I do not deny that there is a good deal of moderation here, and more than in the others which argue some doctrine of the Montanists, and that Tertullian himself in this book rather persuades, and calls a single marriage useful and honourable, than defends an absolute necessity of forgoing second marriages; from which someone might gather that he perhaps leaned towards the party of the Montanists, but had not yet attached himself to it, as we said above of that point in the books To His Wife as well. But that moderation

Editors' notes and page, col. 160

Page

running head: [DISSERT]ATIO DE VERA AETATE 160
marginal letters: A ‹rum, quibus christiani›; B ‹constaret propterea›; C ‹rendo, breviter docebimus›; D ‹Exhortatione castitatis liber›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:161

facilitasque ejus apparet etiam in aliis libris haud dubie tempore eo scriptis, quo jam se disciplinae Montani dediderat, et admiranda non nimis est in libro tali, qui est instar epistolae suasoriae, in qua solemus uti summissiori placidaque dictione, ac scriptus videtur non ad aliquem Montanistarum, qui severiore disciplina delectabatur, sed ad quemdam de Ecclesia orthodoxorum hominem. Cujus rei non obscura est in principiis libri significatio, ubi fratrem illum ait sine dubio de exitu singularitatis (h. e. de restaurandis nuptiis) cogitare; quod haud scio, an non cadat in eum qui cum Montanistis non legitimas putabat secundas nuptias. Neque ego ignoro scrupulum Tillemontii (l. c. p. 202.), qui et magnam sibi fingit inter hunc et de Monogamia commentarium dissimilitudinem, quae nulla fere est recte attendenti, et praeteritam silentio Montani memoriam miratur. At ne appellem illum locum, quem non expressum in libris nostris Rigaltius (in not. ad h. l. p. 114.) restituit, in quo summae Priscillae, vatis Montanisticae, laudes continentur, non fuisset prudentiae ei laudare Montanum, qui repudiare ejus disciplinam videbatur. Sed si qua est etiam alia dubitatio, omni illi opponi potest, non solum summa, etiam ad verba, similitudo cum libro de Monogamia, quem fere libri nostri posses dicere παράφρασιν; sed quoque id, quod est c. 6: Deus in primordio sementem generis emisit indultis conjugiorum habenis, donec mundus repleretur, donec novae disciplinae materia proficeret; nunc vero sub extremitatibus temporum compressit quod emiserat, et revocavit quod indulserat. Neque vero est a veritate magis alienum, librum nostrum fere primum dicere eorum, quorum ipsum argumentum versatur in defendendis Montanistarum erroribus. Nam de Monogamia librum non possumus eodem, cum nostro, tempore scriptum existimare propterea quod, uti dicebamus, est prorsus ejusdem argumenti. Deinde nostrum videtur Tertullianus prius scripsisse, quam illum, qui, si jam exstitisset, cum se ad nostrum scribendum accingeret, nostri scribendi nulla necessitas fuisset, sed fratrem illum potuisset ad commentarium de Monogamia tanquam ad publice editam disputationem remittere. Sed nostrum si prius scriptum esse arbitremur, non poterat is commendari Psychicis; siquidem non publice erat, sed privato alicui propositus. Denique ostendemus postea, librum de Monogamia esse fere sub initium calamitatum ab ipso Severo A. CCII. excitatarum scriptum, caeterosque Psychicis consulto oppositos posteriores esse eo de Monogamia; itaque necesse est credere, nostrum de Exhortatione castitatis librum illos aetate fere superare.

and its gentleness appears also in other books undoubtedly written at the time when he had already given himself to the discipline of Montanus, and it is not too much to be wondered at in such a book, which is like a letter of persuasion, in which we are wont to use a more subdued and calm diction; and it seems to have been written not to some one of the Montanists, who delighted in the stricter discipline, but to some man of the Church of the orthodox. Of this there is no obscure indication at the beginning of the book, where he says that that brother is without doubt thinking "of the departure from singleness" (that is, of renewing marriage); which I rather think does not fit one who, with the Montanists, held second marriages unlawful. Nor am I ignorant of the scruple of Tillemont (loc. cit., p. 202), who both imagines for himself a great unlikeness between this and the treatise On Monogamy, which is almost none to one who attends rightly, and wonders at the memory of Montanus being passed over in silence. But, not to cite that passage which Rigault restored (in his note on this place, p. 114), though it is not printed in our books, in which the praises of the great Priscilla, the Montanist prophetess, are contained, it would not have been prudent for him to praise Montanus to one who seemed to reject his discipline. But if there is any other doubt as well, there can be set against it all not only the likeness, in substance and even in words, to the book On Monogamy, which you might almost call a paraphrase of our book; but also what is in ch. 6: "God in the beginning sent forth the seed of the race, giving free rein to marriages, until the world should be filled, until the material of the new discipline should advance; but now, at the ends of the times, He has restrained what He had sent forth and recalled what He had allowed." Nor is it any further from the truth to call our book very nearly the first of those whose very argument is concerned with defending the errors of the Montanists. For we cannot suppose that the book On Monogamy was written at the same time as ours, because, as we were saying, it is of exactly the same argument. Next, Tertullian seems to have written ours before that one; for if that one had already existed when he girded himself to write ours, there would have been no necessity of writing ours, but he could have referred that brother to the treatise On Monogamy as to a publicly issued disputation. But if we judge that ours was written first, it could not be commended to the Psychics, since it was not set out publicly but for some private person. Finally, we shall show later that the book On Monogamy was written about the beginning of the calamities stirred up by Severus himself in the year 202, and that the others deliberately opposed to the Psychics are later than that one On Monogamy; therefore it must be believed that our book On the Exhortation to Chastity is somewhat earlier in date than those.

§ 4. — Libri de Monogamia, Jejuniis et Pudicitia, ann. 203 scripti.

§ 4. — The books On Monogamy, On Fasts and On Modesty, written in the year 203.

Devolvitur ergo oratio nostra ad illum de Monogamia librum: in quo cum ubivis Psychicos redarguat, Paracletum auctorem suum (c. 4. init. cap. 14. caet.) cum nova prophetia decantet, suosque crepet spirituales,

Our discourse therefore comes down to that book On Monogamy: in which, since he everywhere confutes the Psychics, harps on the Paraclete as his authority, with the new prophecy (beginning of ch. 4, ch. 14, etc.), and boasts of his own people as the spiritual,

Editors' notes and page, col. 161

Page

running head: 161 AC DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM T[ERTULLIANI]
marginal letters: A ‹facilitasque ejus apparet›; B ‹dissimilitudinem, quae nulla›; C ‹pressit quod emiserat›; D ‹commendari Psychicis›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:162

ita propter agnitionem charismatum appellatos, denique in impugnandis secundis nuptiis consumat universum, non necesse est multis hunc librum asserere Montanisticis. Sed paulum juvat in tempus scripti hujus commentarii inquirere. Cum illum locum Pauli quo abstinentiam a nuptiis suadet propter injuriam illius temporis, quo subjecti christiani erant periculorum perpetuitati, Tertullianus ad caussam suam contorsisset, magis nunc, addit, tempus in collecto est (c. 3.), neque his ipsis verbis obscure significat magnam tempestatem calamitatum tum, cum de monogamia scriberet, in christianos irruisse. Quod etiamsi quis diceret etiam dici a Tertulliano potuisse nulla adhuc calamitate publica in christianos existente, illud tamen multo est probabilius propterea quod admodum credibile est, Tertullianum statim sub initium suscepti Montanismi animum ad hujus disciplinae doctrinam defendendam appulisse. Id si verum sit, incidit profecto hic liber in ea tempora, quibus jam ignis calamitatum publicarum inter christianos exarserat. Hoc igitur loco dum requiratur qualis vexatio christianorum intelligenda sit, demonstrari ista nullo negotio potest. Nam post Tertulliani ad Montanistas secessionem ea repente exstitit rerum perturbatio, quam Severus Aug. edicto suo concitaverat. Atque haec cum coepta. A. CCII. fere post annum CCIV. desierit, scriptique sint post librum nostrum libri de Jejuniis, deque Pudicitia, non librum nostrum abhorret in annum fere CCIII. conjicere. Neque vero vereor huic subjungere illum de Jejuniis librum, quem posteriorem esse libro de Monogamia et alteram veluti disputationis adversus Psychicos partem, initium istius libri satis ostendit, ipsumque illud docet non ita multo post illum editum a Tertulliano fuisse. Est igitur is quoque in publica quadam vexatione expositus, quam significare hinc inde, veluti in extrema libri parte, videtur; nec potest vindicari a Montanismi suspicione, non modo propter illam libri aetatem, sed propter Paracleti etiam defensionem, c. 10. c. 11. c. 13. et bellum Psychicis publice in hoc libro indictum. Post hunc una restat commentatio Psychicis studio opposita, ea videlicet, est de quae Pudicitia instituta. Quam esse contra adversarios Montanistarum scriptam nemo unquam dubitavit, nec dubitare quis potest propterea quod ipse illud Tertull. seque alienum a societate Psychicorum profitetur. c. 1. c. 6. c. 10. e. 16. et caet.) Suntque multa vel libro ipsi impressa (c. 22.) vel aliunde certa signa, qualia Orsius (In diss. de pace et absolut. capitalium criminum a catholica Ecclesia tribus prioribus saeculis non denegata, (c. 4. digress. 3. p. 120. sq.) produxit, quae non admodum recentiorem hunc librum calamitatibus a Severo christianorum familiae inflictis, annum igitur natalem hujus libri fere CCIV. aut sequentem ostendunt.

called so, moreover, because of their acknowledgement of the charismata, and, finally, spends the whole [book] in attacking second marriages, there is no need to prove at length that this book belongs to the Montanist ones. But it helps a little to inquire into the time at which this treatise was written. When Tertullian had twisted to his own cause that passage of Paul in which he counsels abstinence from marriage because of the hardship of that time, when Christians were subject to a perpetual succession of dangers, he adds, "more so now, the time is shortened" (ch. 3), and by these very words he indicates not obscurely that a great storm of calamities had broken upon the Christians at the time when he was writing on monogamy. Even if someone were to say that this could have been said by Tertullian too when no public calamity yet existed against the Christians, the other view is nevertheless much more probable, because it is highly credible that Tertullian, immediately at the beginning of his adoption of Montanism, turned his mind to defending the teaching of this school. If that is true, this book certainly falls in those times when the fire of public calamities had already blazed up among the Christians. If, then, it is asked at this point what harassment of the Christians is to be understood, this can be shown without any trouble. For after Tertullian's secession to the Montanists there suddenly arose that disturbance of affairs which Severus Augustus had stirred up by his edict. And since this, begun in the year 202, ceased about the year 204, and the books On Fasts and On Modesty were written after our book, it is not unreasonable to place our book in about the year 203. Nor indeed do I fear to subjoin to it that book On Fasts, which the beginning of that book sufficiently shows to be later than the book On Monogamy and, as it were, the second part of the disputation against the Psychics, and this very fact teaches that it was published by Tertullian not very long after that one. It too, therefore, was set forth in some public harassment, which it seems to indicate here and there, for instance in the last part of the book; nor can it be cleared of the suspicion of Montanism, not only because of that date of the book, but also because of the defence of the Paraclete (chs. 10, 11, 13), and the war publicly declared on the Psychics in this book. After this there remains one treatise deliberately opposed to the Psychics, namely the one composed on Modesty. That it was written against the adversaries of the Montanists no one has ever doubted, nor can anyone doubt it, because Tertullian himself declares it and professes himself a stranger to the fellowship of the Psychics (chs. 1, 6, 10, 16, etc.). And there are many sure signs, either stamped on the book itself (ch. 22) or from elsewhere, such as Orsi has brought forward (In his dissertation On the peace and absolution of capital crimes not denied by the Catholic Church in the first three centuries, ch. 4, digression 3, p. 120 ff.), which show that this book is not much more recent than the calamities inflicted by Severus on the household of Christians, and therefore that the birth-year of this book is about 204 or the following.

§ 5. — Libri adversus Praxeam, Hermogenem, et de Anima, anno 204. vel 205. editi.

§ 5. — The books Against Praxeas, Against Hermogenes, and On the Soul, published in the year 204 or 205.

Hos nondum fere libros contra Ecclesiam orthodoxam

These books, hardly yet against the orthodox Church,

Editors' notes and page, col. 162

Page

running head: [A]C DOCTRINA SCRIPTORUM TERTULLIANI. 162
marginal letters: A ‹tuales, ita propter›; B ‹lius propterea quod›; C ‹conjicere. Neque vero›; D ‹vit, nec dubitare›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the column opens with "tuales," completing "spiri-" from col. 161, where "spirituales," was set whole; this file begins at "ita". The column ends "ortho-" hyphenated across the column break; the next column's top was not seen when this was written, so the visible part is set and the English breaks likewise; the word is presumably orthodoxam. The parenthesis after "profitetur." closes with no opening bracket as printed. "p. 120." is printed with a blurred middle digit; set 120. The transposition in "est de quae Pudicitia instituta" is UNSURE as a misprint.

PL 1:163

confecerat, cum alii se generi disputationum adversus haereticos dederet. Namque horum doctrinas libris statim sibi subjectis Tertullianum exagitasse, non abhorret a vero, quoniam ipsi hi libri eamdem fere aetatem magna sub Severo calamitate christianorum paulo posteriorem produnt; et si quis conjecturae dandus est locus, non inepte quis Tertullianum concentum cum vera Ecclesia suum in rebus ad fidem pertinentibus ipsis his doctrinis adversus haereticos defendendis confirmare voluisse diceret. Ac in his libris nulla videtur antiquior disputatio illa quae est adversus Praxeam; nam et videtur paulo ante librum contra Valentinianos conscripta, nusquam enim in hoc Antipraxea, quamvis saepenumero Valentinianos commemoret, ad librum Valentinianis oppositum provocat, quem morem alias, id quod omnibus ipsum legentibus constat, tenere solet Tertullianus; et quod videtur ad ea, quae diximus, confirmanda accommodatius, Praxeas is erat haereticus, quem Montanistae sibi longe molestissimum putare debebant, quoniam is ipse, praeterquam quod errorem doctrinae de Triade sanctissima adversum disseminaverat, persuaserat etiam Pontifici Romano, quem viri docti satis bene Victorem fuisse existimant, ut jam paratam Montanistis pacem refringeret (vid. c. 1.). Neque ergo difficile est credere, initium disputationum suarum Tertullianum a velitatione cum Praxea fecisse. Quam nemo negabit a Tertulliano Montanista fuisse susceptam; ipsum enim nomen Psychicorum (c. 1), ipse Paracletus, in quo se melius de veritate mysterii de summa maxima Triade edoctum profitetur (c. 2. c. 8, etc.), ipsa denique professio agnitionem Paracleti et defensionem sejunxisse se a Psychicis, ponunt illud supra omnem dubitationem. Sed de ipsa hujus libri aetate nos non audemus asseveranter pronuntiare, quamvis, si ista adversus Praxeam disputatio prima est inter concertationes cum haereticis, atque hae secutae sunt statim libros orthodoxae Ecclesiae oppositos, anno fere CCIV. aut V. assignari non male possit. Hanc excepisse librum adversus Hermogenem non dubitarim dicere, est enim iste antiquior libro de Anima et illo adversus Valentinianos, ut postea docebitur, qui cum compositi sint fere transactis furoribus Severianis, eidem cum Antipraxea anno tribuendus videtur noster libellus, quem a Montanista Tertulliano profectum esse peracerba in repetitas ab Hermogene nuptias oratio (c. 1.) non obscure declarat. Huic veluti appendicem adjecit, quod initium libri et multa alia loca docent, librum de Anima refertum somniis innumerabilibus, qui habet haud dubias Montanismi notas; sed fueritne eodem fere cum libro adversus Hermogenem anno, an post annum demum CCVIII. scriptus, illud vero cadere in disceptationem potest. Nam c. 2, Inesse, ait, nobis τὸ αὐτεξούσιον naturaliter jam et Marcioni ostendimus; quae disputatio in libro, qui

had he completed, when he gave himself to another kind of disputation, against the heretics. For it is not far from the truth that Tertullian assailed the teachings of these in books following immediately upon those, since these very books betray almost the same date, a little after the great calamity of the Christians under Severus; and if any room is to be given to conjecture, one might say not unreasonably that Tertullian wished, by defending these very doctrines against the heretics, to confirm his own agreement with the true Church in matters pertaining to the faith. And among these books no disputation seems older than the one against Praxeas; for it also seems to have been written a little before the book against the Valentinians, since nowhere in this Against Praxeas, although he often mentions the Valentinians, does he refer to the book opposed to the Valentinians, a practice which Tertullian is otherwise wont to follow, as is plain to all who read him; and, what seems more suited to confirming what we have said, Praxeas was a heretic whom the Montanists had cause to regard as by far the most troublesome to them, since he himself, besides having sown an error of doctrine against the most holy Trinity, had also persuaded the Roman Pontiff, whom learned men judge, with good reason, to have been Victor, to break off the peace already prepared for the Montanists (see ch. 1). It is therefore not hard to believe that Tertullian began his disputations with the skirmish with Praxeas. No one will deny that it was undertaken by Tertullian as a Montanist; for the very name of Psychics (ch. 1), the Paraclete himself, by whom he professes to have been better instructed in the truth of the mystery of the supreme and greatest Trinity (ch. 2, ch. 8, etc.), and finally the very profession that the acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete had separated him from the Psychics, put it beyond all doubt. But concerning the date of this book itself we do not dare pronounce with assurance, although, if this disputation against Praxeas is the first among the contests with heretics, and these immediately followed the books opposed to the orthodox Church, it could not be badly assigned to about the year 204 or 205. That the book against Hermogenes followed it I would not hesitate to say, for it is older than the book On the Soul and the one against the Valentinians, as will be shown later; and since these were composed about the time when the furies of Severus had passed, our little book seems to belong to the same year as the Against Praxeas; and the very bitter speech against Hermogenes' repeated marriages (ch. 1) declares not obscurely that it came from Tertullian as a Montanist. To this he added, as a kind of appendix, as the beginning of the book and many other passages show, the book On the Soul, stuffed with innumerable dreams, which bears undoubted marks of Montanism; but whether it was written in about the same year as the book against Hermogenes, or only after the year 208, may indeed fall into dispute. For in ch. 2 he says, "That there is in us by nature free will (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον) we have already shown to Marcion too"; a disputation which in the book which

Editors' notes and page, col. 163

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Montanismi notas› · call in col 163

E. c. cum c. 55. et 58. Paracleti monita et testimonium excitat, ibidemque et c. 9. dicit suos Spiritalia charismata agnoscere, ac post Joannem quoque Prophetiam meruisse consequi.

For example, when in chs. 55 and 58 he cites the admonitions and testimony of the Paraclete, and in the same place and in ch. 9 says that his people acknowledge spiritual gifts, and have deserved to obtain prophecy even after John.

(printed under page 104)

Page

running head: 163 DISSERTATIO DE VERA [AETATE]
marginal letters: A ‹doxam confecerat›; B ‹quem morem alias›; C ‹c. 8, etc.), ipsa denique›; D ‹quem a Montanista Tertulliano›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:164

exstat, adversus Marcionem secundo, c. 6., occurrit; sed potest etiam a Tertulliano unus librorum contra Marcionem deperditorum intelligi. Si illud statueris, erit de Anima scriptio posterior anno CCVIII.; sin hoc, potest etiam ante illum annum collocari. Quarum sententiarum mihi magis posterior probatur: nam ut appendices librorum, qualis est noster libellus, magis moris est statim, non longo post tempore, iis subjicere, sic et eodem modo in Scorpiace amissos jam libros adversus Marcionem excitat, et erit ordo librorum Tertulliani, si ista admittatur sententia, multo concinnior. Etenim in ista Scorpiace, quam probavimus anno CCIV. scriptam fuisse, haereticos, Gnosticos et Valentinianos queritur impugnare supplicia sponte a christianis propter religionem suscepta (c. 1. c. 4. 3.). Sed in libro de Anima, c. 55, multa disputat de gloria martyrum, et huic libro, ut postea apparebit, statim subjecit adversus Valentinianos librum, in quo, c. 30. init., impugnatam ait a Valentinianis martyrii necessitatem. Itaque satis videtur veritati consentaneum, nostrum de Anima et adversus Valentinianos librum non multo post Scorpiacen anno fere CCV. fuisse conscriptum.

is extant, the second against Marcion, ch. 6, is met with; but Tertullian can also be understood to mean one of the lost books against Marcion. If you decide on the former, the writing On the Soul will be later than the year 208; if on the latter, it can also be placed before that year. Of these views the latter commends itself more to me: for just as it is more customary to subjoin appendices of books, such as our little book is, to them immediately and not a long time after, so too in the Scorpiace he cites in the same way books against Marcion that are already lost, and the order of Tertullian's books, if this view is admitted, will be much more orderly. For in that Scorpiace, which we have proved was written in the year 204, he complains that the heretics, the Gnostics and Valentinians, attack the sufferings voluntarily undertaken by Christians for religion's sake (ch. 1, ch. 4, 3). But in the book On the Soul, ch. 55, he argues much on the glory of the martyrs, and to this book, as will appear later, he immediately subjoined the book against the Valentinians, in which, at the beginning of ch. 30, he says that the necessity of martyrdom was attacked by the Valentinians. It therefore seems quite consistent with the truth that our book On the Soul, and the one against the Valentinians, were composed not long after the Scorpiace, in about the year 205.

§ 6. — Libri adversus Valentinianos et de Praescriptionibus, Carne Christi et Resurrectione, post ann. 203 scripti.

§ 6. — The books Against the Valentinians, and On the Prescriptions, On the Flesh of Christ and On the Resurrection, written after the year 203.

Ordo igitur librorum postulat, ut nunc de hac Valentinianorum reprehensione dicamus. Et vero illa defectione Tertulliani ad Montanistas inferior: quod quidem dicta huic disputationi aspersa non planissime docent; nihil est enim in hoc libello doctrinarum, quod non potuisset etiam ab orthodoxo proficisci; sed tamen id apparet dupliciter. Primum quod jam se dicat, c. 16., extrem., cum Hermogene de eodem atque cum Valentinianis argumento congressum fuisse, quae Antihermogeniana disputatio est a nobis modo Montanistico scriptori asserta; deinde quod vehementer optat, c. 5. extr., ut sibi daretur assequi Proculum in omni opere, quem et virginis senectae et christianae eloquentiae dignitatem appellat. Hunc Proculum ego non dubito Proculum illum Montanistam fuisse, cujus exstat apud Eusebium, l. VI. H. E. c. 20. memoria, cum propter laudem virginitatis ejus, quam tanquam praeclaram in eo virtutem Tertullianus collaudat, tum propterea, quod ipsum nostrum nuncupat, distinctum hoc nomine ab iis quos modo laudaverat, Justino Martyre, Miltiade (Ecclesiarum sophista, ut ait forte incensus odio hujus viri, qui [ut refert Eusebius, l. c. lib. V. 17.] etiam se Montanistis opposuerat), atque Irenaeo, scriptoribus orthodoxae Ecclesiae. Sed ipsam hujus libri aetatem si quis subtilius percunctatur, satis videtur consentaneum dicere, eum esse non ita multo post sopitam quodam modo crudelitatem in christianos exaratum. Nam et confessionem veritatis christianae sub potestatibus istius saeculi et apud tribunalia praesidum (quam urget c. 50.) defendere non admodum necesse erat, nisi tum vel ipsum illud calamitosum tempus, vel

The order of the books therefore requires that we now speak of this rebuke of the Valentinians. And indeed it is later than Tertullian's defection to the Montanists: which, it is true, the remarks scattered through this disputation do not show most plainly, for there is nothing of doctrine in this little book which could not also have come from an orthodox man; but nevertheless it appears in two ways. First, that he says (end of ch. 16) that he has already engaged with Hermogenes on the same argument as with the Valentinians, which disputation against Hermogenes we have just assigned to a Montanist writer; next, that he earnestly wishes (end of ch. 5) that it might be given him to equal Proculus in every work, whom he calls "the dignity of virgin old age and of Christian eloquence". I do not doubt that this Proculus was that Montanist Proculus of whom a record exists in Eusebius (book VI of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 20), both because of the praise of his virginity, which Tertullian extols as an excellent virtue in him, and because he calls him "our own", distinguished by this name from those whom he had just praised, Justin Martyr, Miltiades ("the sophist of the churches", as he says, perhaps inflamed by hatred of this man, who [as Eusebius reports, loc. cit., book V. 17] had also opposed himself to the Montanists), and Irenaeus, writers of the orthodox Church. But if anyone inquires more closely into the date of this book itself, it seems quite consistent to say that it was written not very long after the cruelty against the Christians had in some measure been laid to rest. For it was not very necessary to defend the confession of Christian truth under the powers of this world and before the tribunals of governors (which he presses in ch. 50 [so printed, perhaps 30]), unless at that time either that calamitous time itself, or

Editors' notes and page, col. 164

Page

running head: [DISSERTA]TIO DE VERA AETATE 164
marginal letters: A ‹exstat, adversus Marcionem›; B ‹c. 4. 3.). Sed in libro›; C ‹fectione Tertulliani›; D ‹tanquam praeclaram›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 1:165

ejus viva memoria exstitisset, et est, ut modo dicebamus, hic liber eodem fere cum Scorpiace tempore scriptus postquam furor Severi restinctus fuerat, ut historia hujus temporis docet. Itaque placet ad librum de Praescriptionibus haereticorum progredi, quem huic subjicere non dubitamus; quidquid etiam in contrariam partem Tillemontius (L. c. part. III. p. 203. et not. 6. in Tertullian. p. 656.) et Whistonus (In scripto: The true origin of the Subellian and Athanasian Doctrines of the Trinity, p. 3. sq.) disputaverint. Nam libro I. adversus Marcionem, c. 1., se aliquando exaraturum promittit disputationem de Praescriptione adversus haereticos, e quo hoc necessaria conclusione elicitur, demum post annum CCVIII. nostrum librum luci fuisse expositum. Atque illud ipsum, neque tempore eo, quo librum nostrum perscriberet, vacuum a Montanistarum erroribus fuisse animum Tertulliani clarissime ostendit, ut non dicam horum errorum vestigia non obscura esse in hoc libro, veluti c. 40., ubi, cum doceat, etiam malignum genium aemulari institutiones divinas: quid quod, inquit, et summum Pontificem in unis nuptiis statuit, habet et virgines, habet et continentes; et quae sunt generis ejusdem. Sed age aperiamus ea capita, unde omnis ad hanc caussam disputatio ab iis qui contra sentiunt ducitur. Ac primum aiunt, locum a nobis e libro adversus Marcionem excitatum significare etiam posse librum jam scriptum; Wisthonus etiam aliud exemplum ponit hujus loquendi modi, nec necessarium in re omnibus nota, nec ullo modo aptum, e lib. V. c. 19. Sed illud defendi non satis potest. Nam quotiescumque Tertullianus aliquem librum jam a se compositum profert, nunquam futurum adhibet loquendi genus, sed ubivis praeteritum, atque eodem, opinor, modo praeteriti temporis flexionem usurpaturus fuisset Tertullianus, ut fecit de hoc libro alibi (In libro de Carne Christi, c. 2.), si illum jam a se compositum voluisset dicere. Neque vero illud minus est contortum, cum locum ex Antimarcione Tillemontius putat remanere potuisse e libris iis, quos ante hoc, quod exstat, opus adversus Marcionem jam contra eum scripserat. Nam et illud mera conjectura est nullo modo probabilis propterea, quod Tertullianus, cum se ad scribendos nostros adversus Marcionem libros accingeret, unam illi oppositam disputationem rescissam, alteram amissam confirmat; et istud argumentum Tillemontii in se etiam ineptum est. Quod vero dicit librum de Carne Christi esse priorem libris nostris adversus Marcionem, hunc vero posteriorem libro de haereticorum Praescriptione, ea non conor attingere; est enim ea de re satis supra disputatum, unde intelligatur, primum nostrum librum Antimarcionis, de quo hic quaerimus, non esse cum caeteris editum, nec ullo modo illo de Carne Christi posteriorem. Sed in fine libri de Praescriptione Tertullianus: nunc quidem generaliter, inquit, actum est a nobis adversus haereses omnes, certis et justis et necessariis praescriptionibus repellendus a collatione Scripturarum. De reliquo … etiam specialiter quibusdam respondebimus.

his memory had remained alive; and this book, as we were saying just now, was written at almost the same time as the Scorpiace, after the fury of Severus had been quenched, as the history of that time teaches. And so we are pleased to proceed to the book On the Prescriptions of Heretics, which we do not hesitate to place after this one, whatever Tillemont (loc. cit., part III, p. 203, and note 6 on Tertullian, p. 656) and Whiston (in the writing The true origin of the Sabellian and Athanasian Doctrines of the Trinity, p. 3 ff.) may have argued to the contrary. For in Book I Against Marcion, ch. 1, he promises that he will at some time compose a disputation On Prescription against heretics, from which it is drawn by necessary inference that our book was brought to light only after the year CCVIII. And that very fact shows most clearly that Tertullian's mind was not free of the errors of the Montanists even at the time when he was writing our book through, not to say that the traces of those errors in this book are not obscure, as for instance in ch. 40, where, while teaching that even the malign spirit emulates the divine institutions, he says: 'What of the fact that he has also established a high priest in a single marriage, has virgins too, has continent men too'; and things of the same kind. But come, let us lay open those heads from which the whole disputation on this question is drawn by those who think otherwise. And first they say that the passage cited by us from the book Against Marcion could also signify a book already written; Whiston also puts forward another example of this manner of speaking, from Book V, ch. 19, neither necessary in a matter known to all nor in any way apt. But that cannot be sufficiently defended. For whenever Tertullian brings forward some book already composed by himself, he never employs the future manner of speaking, but everywhere the past; and Tertullian would, I think, have used the inflection of the past tense in the same way, as he did of this book elsewhere (in the book On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 2), if he had wished to speak of it as already composed by himself. Nor indeed is it any less contorted when Tillemont thinks that the passage from the Antimarcion could have remained over from those books which he had already written against him before this work Against Marcion which survives. For that too is mere conjecture, in no way probable, for this reason, that Tertullian, when he girded himself to write our books against Marcion, affirms that one disputation opposed to him had been rescinded and another lost; and this argument of Tillemont is also inept in itself. As for his saying that the book On the Flesh of Christ is earlier than our books Against Marcion, but this one later than the book On the Prescription of Heretics, I do not attempt to touch on these things; for it has been disputed enough on that matter above, from which it may be understood that our first book of the Antimarcion, which we are inquiring about here, was not published with the rest, nor is in any way later than the one On the Flesh of Christ. But at the end of the book On Prescription Tertullian says: 'Now indeed it has been done by us in general against all heresies, that they are to be repelled from the comparison of the Scriptures by certain and just and necessary prescriptions. For the rest … we shall also respond specially to certain ones.

Editors' notes and page, col. 165

Page

set: text placed 2026-10-24 from the filter re-test of 2026-10-19; second read against the page by QA Q6a 2026-10-25. No footnotes on this page (p. 105).

PL 1:166

Audio. Quid ergo est? omnes sunt Tertulliani adversus haereticos libri posteriores eo qui est de Praescriptione? At istum locum Tertullianus, ut mihi videtur, non recte cepit. Nam in eo loco non generatim in hoc libro Tertullianus ait se haereticos confutasse, sed addit, se id fecisse universe certis et justis et necessariis praescriptionibus. Itaque in aliis libris non se pollicetur separatim confutaturum haereticorum singulorum doctrinam, sed ostensurum se, singulos etiam haereticos eorumque scita, aetate doctrinis recte sentientium cedere. At denuo Whistonus, l. c. p. 4: Antiquior est is de Praescriptione Commentarius Apologetico Tertulliani. Quamobrem obsecro? Expedite, inquit in Apolog. c. 47., praescribimus adulteris nostris, illam esse regulam veritatis, quae veniat a Christo, transmissa per comites ipsius, quibus aliquando posteriores diversi isti commentatores probabuntur. Acutum vero hominem, qui cum de praescriptione audit, etiam librum super ea re scriptum videt! Et ea quidem oppugnatio ad aetatem hujus libri magis pertinebat; caetera, quibus se adactos eo dicunt, ut hunc librum e numero Montanisticorum proscriberent, haec sunt: Primum Whistonus adjectum libro nostro libellum, qui haereticos ortos in familia christianorum recenset, objicit, in quo planissime οἱ κατά φρύγας haeretici condemnantur; quod esset argumentum nullo modo eludendum, si, quod probandum suscipit Whistonus, hic libellus vindicari Tertulliano posset. Sed quid pro sententia hodie a viris doctis prorsus profligata disputet, audiamus tamen. Idem est, ait, in hoc, quod in scriptis Tertulliani, dicendi genus. Quomodo tandem? Graeca saepius verba libellus latinis miscet; loquitur eo modo, quo Africani solent, horrido illo et pene barbaro; acutis persequitur haereticos conclusiunculis; multa etiam ex Irenaeo sumit; denique haereticos narrat a Tertulliano commemoratos, etiam eos, quos unus ille habet, veluti Ebionem et Praxeam. At si, qui hunc libellum scripsit, Afer genere fuit, vel Tertullianum descripsit? Nihil ad haec Whistonus. Progrediamur ergo. Clarissime Augustinus de Haeres. n. 86.: Tertullianus transiit ad Phrygas, quos antea destruxerat. Ubinam tandem? Nusquam, ait Wisthonus, tam ample quam in hac appendice. Certe audiam, unde haec Wisthonus didicerit. Hieronymus adversus Luciferianos ex hoc, de quo quaerimus, libello, multa, tanquam ex antiquo scripto sumit, itemque Epiphanius. Sit ita sane, descripserint igitur multa. Ergo hic libellus magnam habet antiquitatem. Habet profecto, etiam Tertulliano forte aequalem; an eum etiam parentem habeat, id nondum video a Whistono planum his testimoniis factum. Deinde, abhorrere arbitrantur quod Tertullianus separatus a communi Ecclesia scripserit librum tam bellum, tam fortem ad exagitandos omnes, qui se erroribus ab Ecclesia separassent: ac, etiamsi tanta vis insit veritati, ut etiam invitis se conspiciendam defendendamque praebeat, ipse quoque Tertullianus saepius in libris haud dubie in Montanismo conscriptis praescriptioni adversus haereticos insistat,

I hear it. What then? Are all Tertullian's books against heretics later than the one On Prescription? But Tertullian, as it seems to me, did not take this passage rightly. For in that passage Tertullian does not say that he refuted the heretics in general in this book, but adds that he did so universally, by certain and just and necessary prescriptions. And so in other books he does not promise that he will refute separately the doctrine of individual heretics, but that he will show that individual heretics too, and their tenets, yield in age to the doctrines of those who think rightly. But again Whiston, loc. cit., p. 4: 'That Commentary On Prescription is older than Tertullian's Apology.' Why, I ask? 'Expeditiously,' he says in Apol., ch. 47, 'we prescribe against our adulterators that that is the rule of truth which comes from Christ, handed down through His companions, than whom these diverse commentators will be proved to be somewhat later.' A sharp man indeed, who, when he hears of prescription, sees also a book written on that matter! And that attack, indeed, pertained rather to the age of this book; the other things by which they say they were driven to strike this book off the number of the Montanistic ones are these. First Whiston objects the little book added to our book, which reviews the heretics that arose in the household of the Christians, in which the heretics 'according to the Phrygians' are most plainly condemned; which would be an argument in no way to be evaded if, as Whiston undertakes to prove, this little book could be claimed for Tertullian. But let us nevertheless hear what he argues on behalf of an opinion today utterly routed by learned men. The manner of speaking, he says, is the same in this as in the writings of Tertullian. How so, pray? The little book quite often mixes Greek words with Latin; it speaks in the manner the Africans are accustomed to, that rough and almost barbarous one; it pursues the heretics with sharp little syllogisms; it also takes much from Irenaeus; finally, it recounts the heretics mentioned by Tertullian, even those whom he alone has, such as Ebion and Praxeas. But what if he who wrote this little book was African by birth, or copied Tertullian? To this Whiston says nothing. Let us go on, then. Most clearly Augustine, On Heresies, n. 86: 'Tertullian passed over to the Phrygians, whom he had earlier destroyed.' Where, pray? Nowhere, says Whiston, so amply as in this appendix. I should certainly like to hear where Whiston learned this. Jerome, against the Luciferians, takes many things from this little book about which we are inquiring, as from an ancient writing, and likewise Epiphanius. Let it be so indeed; let them, then, have copied many things. Therefore this little book has great antiquity. It has indeed; it is perhaps even contemporary with Tertullian; but whether it also has him for its parent, that I do not yet see made plain by Whiston with these testimonies. Next, they think it incongruous that Tertullian, separated from the common Church, should have written a book so fine, so strong for harrying all who had separated themselves from the Church by errors: and yet, even if such force is inherent in truth that it offers itself to be seen and defended even by the unwilling, Tertullian himself too quite often, in books without doubt composed in his Montanism, insists on prescription against heretics,

Editors' notes and page, col. 166

Page

set: text placed 2026-10-24 from the filter re-test of 2026-10-19; second read against the page by QA Q6a 2026-10-25. No footnotes on this page (p. 105).

PL 1:167

tamen tanto cum consilio et amplitudine nusquam hoc telo eum fuisse usum animadvertere jubent. Quae disputatio est magis, quam decet, arguta. Nam Montanistae, ipse etiam Tertullianus, id quod constat, (v. de Jejun. c. 1. de Virg. vel. c. 2.), nunquam se alienos in doctrinis ad fidem pertinentibus ab orthodoxis professi sunt, neque Tertullianus usquam Psychicos ponit in numero haereticorum, sed ab iis planissime distinguit (e. g. in lib. de Monog. sub init.). Modo emendatam aiebant et perductam ad perfectionem disciplinam suam, neque in rebus, quae sub fidem cadunt, de quibus dissensio unice haereticos constituit, se discrepantes a doctrina Christi et Apostolorum confirmabant. Itaque nihil mirari attinet, quod ex aetate recentiori doctrinarum ab haereticis defensarum argumentum ad eos impugnandos duxerit. Alterum vero illud Tillemontii nihil est. Etenim etsi suscipiam quod hic consilio, sed in caeteris libris obiter, de hac regula doctrinarum judicandarum Tertullianus disputaverit, tamen illam non obscure, sed plane satis, proponit in libris adversus haereticos, et ad illam rem ex instituto disputandam librum nostrum destinaverat, alioque modo confutat in caeteris haereticorum ineptias. Atque haec ipsa possunt etiam opponi alii cuidam adversariorum argumento, non levi illi quidem, sed ita forti, ut pene nos videri posset pertrahere in adversarias partes posse, sed a Tillemontio, quod miror, non satis illustrato. Videlicet summum in doctrinis apostolicarum Ecclesiarum cum suis consensum, sed vehementem ab haereticis dissensum proponit cap. 36.; et quod longe majus est, vehementer, c. 21., exagitat haereticos, propterea quod consueverant dicere, non omnia Apostolos scisse, quod ipse illis videbatur Jesus Christus dixisse apud Joannem verbis his: Multa vobis a me dicenda restant, sed suscipere ea nondum potestis. Illos postea retundit verbis Christi iis, quae superioribus subjecerat: Cum venerit ille Spiritus, is vos ad omne id, quod verum est, cognoscendum perducet; unde effici posse putat omnia fuisse edoctos Apostolos; nam ipsos illos Spiritum a Christo postea omnino accepisse ait ex Actis Apostolorum haud dubie constare. Atqui haec cogitanti cuidam, et apud se reputanti scita Montanistarum, qui, fere ad eumdem illum locum Joannis posteriorem provocantes, Paracleti disciplinam perfectiorem quoque disciplina Christi et Apostolorum defendebant, videreturne igitur illi Tertullianus tam clare adversus ipsos Montanistas sententiam dicere, ut dubitari de ὀρθοδοξίᾳ hujus libri non posset? Non equidem puto. Nam, etsi hic locus magnam habeat rationem, potuit tamen proferri etiam ab eo qui stabat a Montanistarum partibus. Etenim, uti diximus, nusquam Tertullianus ullum admittit inter Montanistas et orthodoxos Apostolorum sectatores dissensum de iis esse, quae fide accipienda sunt; et quod nullius verae doctrinae expertes fuisse Apostolos defendit, illud dari a quovis Montanistarum poterat. Sed emendatiorem demum per Paracletum disciplinam, doctrinas etiam non novas,

nevertheless they bid us observe that he nowhere used this weapon with so much design and amplitude. This disputation is more subtle than is fitting. For the Montanists, and Tertullian himself too, as is well established (see On Fasting, ch. 1; On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 2), never professed themselves estranged from the orthodox in the doctrines pertaining to the faith, nor does Tertullian anywhere put the Psychics in the number of the heretics, but distinguishes them most plainly from them (e.g. in the book On Monogamy, near the beginning). They only said that their discipline had been amended and brought to perfection, and they did not affirm that they differed from the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles in the things that fall under faith, dissent about which alone constitutes heretics. And so there is no reason to wonder that he drew an argument for attacking them from the more recent age of the doctrines defended by the heretics. But that second point of Tillemont is nothing. For even if I should grant that Tertullian disputed about this rule for judging doctrines here by design, but in the other books only in passing, nevertheless he sets it out not obscurely but plainly enough in the books against the heretics, and he had destined our book for disputing that matter of set purpose, and in the others he refutes the follies of the heretics in another manner. And these very things can also be set against a certain other argument of the adversaries, not a light one indeed, but so strong that it might almost seem able to draw us over to the opposing side, yet one not sufficiently brought to light, to my surprise, by Tillemont. Namely, in ch. 36 he sets forth the supreme agreement of the apostolic Churches with their own in doctrines, but their vehement disagreement with the heretics; and, what is far greater, in ch. 21 he vehemently harries the heretics because they had been accustomed to say that the Apostles did not know all things, since Jesus Christ Himself seemed to them to have said in John in these words: 'Many things remain to be said to you by Me, but you cannot yet take them up.' Afterwards he beats them back with those words of Christ which He had added to the foregoing: 'When that Spirit comes, He will lead you to the knowing of all that is true'; from which he thinks it can be concluded that the Apostles had been taught all things; for he says that it is established beyond doubt from the Acts of the Apostles that they themselves afterwards fully received the Spirit from Christ. Yet to one considering these things and pondering within himself the tenets of the Montanists, who, appealing almost to that same later passage of John, defended the discipline of the Paraclete as more perfect even than the discipline of Christ and the Apostles, would Tertullian then seem to him to pronounce his opinion so clearly against the Montanists themselves that there could be no doubt about the orthodoxy of this book? I for my part do not think so. For although this passage has great reason in it, it could nevertheless have been brought forward even by one who stood on the side of the Montanists. For, as we have said, Tertullian nowhere admits that there is any dissent between the Montanists and the orthodox followers of the Apostles about the things that are to be accepted by faith; and his maintaining that the Apostles had lacked no true doctrine could have been granted by any of the Montanists. But a discipline at length made more correct through the Paraclete, and doctrines too, not new ones,

Editors' notes and page, col. 167

Page

set: text placed 2026-10-24 from the filter re-test of 2026-10-19; second read against the page by QA Q6a 2026-10-25. The page's only footnote, (1), is called in col. 168 and is set in n168.

PL 1:168

sed magis confirmatas veteres christianorum propugnabant; imo ipsos ritus, quos recentius inductos apud Montani sectatores rectius sentientes clamabant, ut probet e sacris litteris, ipsorum etiam Apostolorum vel consuetudine vel praeceptis, multis in locis Tertullianus laborat. Sed ii haeretici adversus quos Tertulliani instituta est in libro de Praescriptione disputatio, multarum Christi doctrinarum vel rudes Apostolos dictitabant fuisse, vel Christum non omnia omnibus tradidisse, ut Noster ait in ipso hoc, quem tractamus, loco. Quam ob rem cum locus is, de quo disputamus, a Montanista non minus potuerit adhiberi, quam a socio Ecclesiae recte sentientis, hoc quaeritur, utra sit sententia vel interpretatio ad veritatem propensior? ubi ego non multum dubito quin ipsum hunc librum dicam a Tertulliano Montanista proficisci. Nam primum, sunt libri Septimiani e disciplina Montanistarum ducti, in quibus illi instat praescriptioni in caussa haereticorum, nec ullo modo, quod usu ipsi venit de libris omnibus suis, ad quos remittere lectores poterat, suum de Praescriptione haereticorum opus antestatur, veluti in libro adversus Praxeam, c. 2., adversus Hermogenem c. 1. Deinde, si is esset loci superius tractati e libro nostro sensus qualem Tillemontius fingit, non admodum credibile est Tertullianum potuisse post scriptum hunc librum ad Montanistas delabi, qui tam dilucide sententiam adversus Montani scholam dixerat, vel hunc librum, in quo Montani molitiones tanto impetu damnati fuerant, etiam in libris, quos tanquam Montanista exaravit, ut in lib. de Carne Christi c. 2. extr. laudare. Neque vero mirari quis debet, Tertullianum tam se adjunxisse defensioni doctrinarum in christianorum Ecclesiis susceptarum in libro quem tempore defectionis suae ab his Ecclesiis scripserat; tum enim jam ipso tempore restinctus aliquo modo erat ille Tertulliani in secus sentientes orthodoxae Ecclesiae socios furor, seque, placato paulisper animo, in haereticos converterat, unde major cum recte sentientibus consensus et mitior de iis sententia exstitit.

but rather the old doctrines of the Christians, made firmer: these they championed; indeed, the very rites which those who thought more rightly cried out had been recently introduced among the followers of Montanus, Tertullian labours in many places to prove from the sacred writings, and even from the custom or the precepts of the Apostles themselves. But those heretics against whom Tertullian's disputation in the book On Prescription is set up kept saying either that the Apostles had been unversed in many of Christ's doctrines, or that Christ had not handed on all things to all, as our author says in this very passage which we are treating. Wherefore, since the passage about which we are disputing could have been employed by a Montanist no less than by a member of the Church that thinks rightly, the question is this: which opinion or interpretation leans more towards the truth? Here I have no great doubt but that I should say this very book proceeded from Tertullian as a Montanist. For first, there are books of Septimius drawn from the discipline of the Montanists in which he insists on prescription in the case of the heretics, and yet in no way, as is his habit with all his books to which he could refer his readers, does he call to witness his own work On the Prescription of Heretics, as for instance in the book Against Praxeas, ch. 2, and Against Hermogenes, ch. 1. Next, if the sense of the passage from our book treated above were such as Tillemont imagines, it is not very credible that Tertullian, who had pronounced his opinion so lucidly against the school of Montanus, could have slipped away to the Montanists after writing this book, or could praise this book, in which the machinations of Montanus had been condemned with such force, even in books which he composed as a Montanist, as in the book On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 2, at the end. Nor indeed ought anyone to wonder that Tertullian so attached himself to the defence of the doctrines received in the Churches of the Christians in a book which he had written at the time of his defection from these Churches; for at that very time that fury of Tertullian against the members of the orthodox Church who thought otherwise had already been in some measure quenched, and, his mind calmed for a while, he had turned himself against the heretics, whence there arose a greater agreement with those who thought rightly and a milder opinion of them.

ARTICULUS VI.

ARTICLE VI.

Quinta classis librorum, quorum nec aetas nec doctrina certa est.

The fifth class of books, of which neither the age nor the doctrine is certain.

§ 1. — Liber de Poenitentia.

§ 1. — The book On Penitence.

Jam de libris, qui sunt de Carne Christi, deque carnis Resurrectione, non est quod multa dicamus, cum hunc eo posteriorem esse illius libri in hoc excitatio satis

Now concerning the books On the Flesh of Christ and On the Resurrection of the Flesh there is no reason for us to say much, since the citation of the former book in the latter sufficiently

Editors' notes and page, col. 168

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: tia exstitit› · call in col 168

Ardua sane, si qua fuerit, ac angustiis intricata videtur haec de Praescriptionum tempore controversia: quam rursus in hujus operis decursu in promptu erit aliquatenus exagitare, nostramque, etsi nobis non liceat tantas componere lites, sententiam qualemcumque explicare. Nunc autem id obiter tantum dicere juvat, nec jam videlicet displicuisse quam subodoratur Tillemontius opinionem, qua librum hunc, equidem ante Tertulliani defectionem, cum adhuc sana fide floreret, ac forsan dum Romae agens traditiones apostolicas penitus introspiceret, conceptum fuisse ac inceptum, nec tamen nisi post libros in Marcionem, haerente jam auctore in montanismi faece, in lucem editum arbitraremur. Edd.

Arduous indeed, if any controversy is, and tangled in difficulties, seems this controversy over the date of the Prescriptions; it will be open to us to stir it up again to some extent in the course of this work, and to set out our own view, such as it is, even though it is not for us to settle such great disputes. For now it is enough to say only this in passing: that the opinion Tillemont scents out has not displeased us, and we would judge that this book was conceived and begun before Tertullian's defection, while he still flourished in sound faith, and perhaps while, living at Rome, he was looking deeply into the apostolic traditions, but was nevertheless not brought out into the light until after the books against Marcion, when the author was already stuck in the dregs of Montanism. The Editors.

(printed under page 106)

Page

set: text placed 2026-10-24 from the filter re-test of 2026-10-19; second read against the page by QA Q6a 2026-10-25 (footnote (1) checked against the foot).

PL 1:169

doceat (c. 2.), ac ille demum post librum de haereticorum Praescriptione compositus sit, quod eodem modo apparet (Vid. art. 4, § 6); at certus horum librorum annus non constat. Restant igitur ii libri, quorum nulla, ut mihi videtur, ratio vel aetatis vel doctrinae tradi potest (is enim erat tertius nostrae scriptionis locus), de quibus cum alii, qui eam rem a se perfectam putarunt, decrevisse sibi visi sint cum aliqua certitudine, quaecumque in istam rem disputarunt, ea nos, quibus magis placet in hac caussa verecundius loqui, oportet paululum postremo loco excutere. Est hujus generis liber de Poenitentia, quem Tertulliani esse adeo negabat Erasmus, probatus in hac re a Dallaeo aliquando, etiam ab Hoffmanno, maxime propter styli dissimilitudinem in hoc caeterisque Tertulliani libris; quam ego, fateor, deprehendere non satis queo, etiamsi hic non tam appareat impeditum illud et concisum dicendi genus, quod regnat in caeteris. Neque enim tanta est, quanta putatur, haec dissimilitudo, sed eadem fracta et interrupta dictio hic exstat, quae est in aliis mitigatae paulisper dictionis libris veluti in iis, qui sunt de Patientia, deque Fuga in persecutione. Sit igitur hic liber Septimii nostri, sed eum cum scriberet, cujusnam sectae fuerit, dicere non audeo. At hic intercedunt fere omnes, certissimumque esse aiunt, cum orthodoxis tum Tertullianum sensisse, namque et cum coetui sacro potestatem concedere delicta condonandi iis qui gravius peccassent, quam prorsus destruxisset in libro de Pudicitia, et in illo libro ipsum illum profiteri, se nunc confutare velle librum quem olim, haeresi communis Ecclesiae addictus pro hac potestate scripsisset. In qua universa disputatione multo sapientior mihi videtur Hoffmannus, quam in caeteris. Namque l. c. § XIII pulchre monet is, longe diversam esse quaestionem in libro de Poenitentia propositam ab ea, quam Tertullianus in commentario super Pudicitia posuit, atque etiam Montanistas omne illud potuisse defendere quod est in libro de Poenitentia propositum. Videlicet non super ea re erat orthodoxos inter et Montanistas quaestio: possentne ii, qui ad impuritatem pristinam gravioribus delictis rediissent, interposita poenitentia, veniam malefactorum a Deo impetrare, quod neutri, ne Montanistae quidem, negabant, quos potius constat ipsam ἐξομολόγησιν a reis postulasse, sed eam quidem non ita, ut impetraret, qui peccaverat, veniam ab Ecclesia et conjunctionis cum illa restitutionem, sed ut incitarentur probi ad supplicandum Deo, ut huic peccatori tandem aliquando veniam concederet; sed illud quaerebatur potius, liceretne Ecclesiam usurpare potestatem, qua se non destitutam etiam ipsa sentiret, recipiendi sejunctos a societate sua peccatores in amicitiam veterem et communionem sacrorum; quod Montanistae ita negabant fieri debere, sed orthodoxi ita posse fieri aiebant. Hanc igitur licentiam usurpatam ab orthodoxis Tertullianus in libro eo, qui est de Pudicitia, vehementer salseque exagitat, sed in libro de Poenitentia neque confirmat, neque impugnat etiam, sed de illa venia loquitur, ad quam etiam iis qui immersi

shows (ch. 2), and that the latter was composed only after the book On the Prescription of Heretics, which is apparent in the same way (see art. 4, § 6); but the precise year of these books is not established. There remain, then, those books of which, as it seems to me, no account can be given either of their age or of their doctrine (for that was the third topic of our writing). Since others, who thought they had brought this matter to completion, seemed to themselves to have decided about them with some certainty, it is fitting that we, who prefer to speak more modestly in this question, should in the last place briefly sift whatever they have argued on this matter. Of this kind is the book On Penitence, which Erasmus so firmly denied to be Tertullian's, being supported in this at one time by Daillé, and also by Hoffmann, chiefly on account of the dissimilarity of style between this and Tertullian's other books; a dissimilarity which I, I confess, cannot well detect, even though that cumbered and clipped manner of speaking which reigns in the others does not so much appear here. For this dissimilarity is not so great as it is thought to be; rather, the same broken and interrupted diction is found here as in other books of somewhat softened diction, such as those On Patience and On Flight in Persecution. Let this book, then, be our Septimius's; but to which sect he belonged when he wrote it I do not dare to say. Here, however, almost all intervene and say that it is most certain that Tertullian then thought with the orthodox, since he both concedes to the sacred assembly the power of pardoning sins to those who had sinned more gravely, a power which he utterly demolished in the book On Modesty, and in that book he himself professes that he now wishes to refute the book which he had once written in favour of this power, when he was attached to the heresy of the common Church. In this whole disputation Hoffmann seems to me far wiser than in the rest. For in the place cited, § XIII, he rightly points out that the question proposed in the book On Penitence is very different from the one which Tertullian set in the commentary on Modesty, and that the Montanists too could have defended all that is proposed in the book On Penitence. That is to say, the question between the orthodox and the Montanists was not about this: whether those who had returned to their former impurity by graver sins could, with penitence intervening, obtain from God pardon for their misdeeds; this neither side denied, not even the Montanists, who, it is established, rather demanded exomologesis itself from the guilty, but not indeed in such a way that the one who had sinned should obtain pardon from the Church and restoration of union with her, but so that the upright should be stirred up to supplicate God that He would at long last grant pardon to this sinner. Rather, the question was this: whether the Church might lay claim to a power, of which she herself felt she was not destitute, of receiving sinners separated from her society back into their old friendship and the communion of the sacred rites; which the Montanists denied ought to be done thus, but the orthodox said could be done thus. This licence, then, claimed by the orthodox, Tertullian harries vehemently and wittily in that book which is On Modesty; but in the book On Penitence he neither confirms it nor even attacks it, but speaks of that pardon to which even those who, immersed

Editors' notes and page, col. 169

Page

set: text placed 2026-10-24 from the filter re-test of 2026-10-19; second read against the page by QA Q6a 2026-10-25. No footnotes on this page (p. 107). Printer's signature "TERTULLIANI I." at the column foot, not set.

PL 1:170

essent gravissimis flagitiis, apud Deum, si ad bonam mentem rediissent, aditus non esset impeditus. Ex quo etiam illud efficitur, non revocare Tertullianum in libro de Pudicitia id, quod in singulari libello orthodoxorum olim sententiae addictus scripsisset, sed nihil nunc fatetur, nisi se aliter sentire de ista venia a coetu sacro concedenda, quam olim inter orthodoxos non quidem scripsisset, sed sensisset tamen. Quid ergo est? Tertullianumne putaremus hunc librum in montanismo scripsisse? Neque hoc audeo dicere. Nam etsi peccatoribus ad pristinam eamque perversam vitam redeuntibus non nisi unam eamque ultimam spem veniae apud Deum impetrandae polliceri videatur c. 8, tamen et in ea re nihil docet, quod proprium fuisse legamus Montanistarum, sed quod etiam ab aliis orthodoxorum vehementer propugnatum esse inveniamus (Vide Hermae, Pastorem Mandato 4, in Fabricii Apocryphis N, t. T. III, p. 845, sq., et loca ibi a Fabricio citata), nullam spem esse salutis iis qui post susceptum baptismum iterum gravius et ad jacturam verae pietatis peccassent, quod pessimam baptismi differendi consuetudinem in Ecclesiam postea intulit; et quae durius locutus esse videri poterat, ipse his verbis subjectis mitigat: Verum non statim succidendus ac subruendus est animus desperatione. Quare ad quam vel aetatem vel doctrinam hic liber referendus sit, cum aliae rei dirimendae in hoc libro significationes non exstent, me quidem prorsus nescire profiteor.

were sunk in the gravest crimes access to God was not barred, if they had returned to a right mind. From which it also follows that Tertullian, in the book On Modesty, does not retract what he had written in a separate little book when he was formerly attached to the opinion of the orthodox; rather, he now admits nothing except that he thinks otherwise about that pardon to be granted by the sacred assembly than he had formerly, among the orthodox, if not indeed written, yet nevertheless thought. What then? Should we think that Tertullian wrote this book in his Montanism? This too I do not dare to say. For although in ch. 8 he seems to promise to sinners returning to their former and perverse life only one hope, and that the last, of obtaining pardon with God, yet even in this matter he teaches nothing that we read to have been peculiar to the Montanists, but what we find to have been vehemently championed by others among the orthodox as well (see Hermas, The Shepherd, Mandate 4, in Fabricius's Apocrypha of the New Testament, vol. III, p. 845 ff., and the passages cited there by Fabricius): namely, that there is no hope of salvation for those who after receiving baptism had sinned again more gravely and to the loss of true piety; a view which afterwards brought into the Church the very bad custom of deferring baptism. And what he could seem to have said rather harshly, he himself softens with these words added: 'But the mind is not at once to be cut down and undermined by despair.' Wherefore, since there are no other indications in this book for settling the matter, I for my part profess that I simply do not know to what age or to what doctrine this book is to be referred.

§ 2. — Liber adversus Judaeos.

§ 2. — The book Against the Jews.

Atque etiam illud non me fateri pudet de libro quem adversus Judaeos conscripsit, in quo nihil est, quod Montani ineptias saperet: sed neque illud admirationem habet; nulla enim fere exstitit Tertulliano in hoc libro talium commemorandarum opportunitas. Quare illud est videndum, utrumne ibi aliqua reperiatur temporis significatio. Et ea est quidem subobscura in duobus locis: Prima c. 7 in quo Britan⟨n⟩orum inaccessa Romanis loca commemorat, et paulo post eos Oceani sui ambitu conclusos. Quae res quidem Baronium (Annal. Ecclesiast., ad an. 212.), Allixium, aliosque deduxit in eam opinionem, ut crederent post victorias Severi a Britannis reportatas scriptum hunc librum esse, et ita anno fere CCIX; quod ego non dixerim; nam quomodo tum tandem loca Britannorum dici inaccessa potuissent, quorum sibi aditum Romani fecerant; et qui potuisset Tertullianus dicere: Trans istas gentes Romanos porrigere regni sui vires non posse, cum illud ipsum inter Britannos fecissent. Nimis profecto clare confirmat Herodianus (Hist., lib. III, c. 14, p. m. 170), Severum non modo Getam in iis Britannorum regionibus reliquisse, quae imperio Romanorum subjectae erant, sed Severum quoque, pergit, latius se profudisse. Neque vero murus a Severo in Britannia exstructus, qui Baronium caeterosque decepit, is est, quo Tertullianus significat conclusos finibus suis Britannos fuisse, neque enim muro, sed intra Oceani ambitum conclusos Britannos

I am not ashamed to confess this too about the book which he composed Against the Jews, in which there is nothing that savours of the follies of Montanus: but that is no cause for wonder either; for Tertullian had hardly any opportunity in this book of mentioning such things. Wherefore we must see whether any indication of time is found there. And there is one indeed, somewhat obscure, in two places: the first in ch. 7, in which he mentions the places of the Britons inaccessible to the Romans, and a little later says that they are enclosed by the circuit of their Ocean. This indeed led Baronius (Ecclesiastical Annals, at the year 212), Allix and others into the opinion that they believed this book to have been written after the victories won by Severus over the Britons, and so about the year CCIX; which I would not say; for how could the places of the Britons then at last have been called inaccessible, when the Romans had made access to them for themselves; and how could Tertullian have said, 'The Romans cannot extend the forces of their kingdom beyond these nations', when they had done that very thing among the Britons? Herodian confirms all too clearly (History, book III, ch. 14, p. 170 of my copy) that Severus not only left Geta in those regions of the Britons which were subject to the empire of the Romans, but that Severus too, he goes on, spread himself more widely. Nor indeed is the wall built by Severus in Britain, which deceived Baronius and the rest, that by which Tertullian indicates that the Britons were enclosed within their own bounds; for not by a wall, but within the circuit of the Ocean, enclosed the Britons

Editors' notes and page, col. 170

Page

text set in parts/c170_a.md (placed 2026-10-24; second read against the page, Q6b 2026-10-25). Page 107 carries no footnotes in either series (both foot images checked). "(Six.)" at the foot of the column and "TERTULLIANI I." under col. 169 are signature marks, not set.

PL 1:171

planissime dicit. Sed ista demum, quae de Britannis caeteri scriptores tradiderunt, sunt in expeditione Severi adversus eos facta, quam constat fuisse anno CCVIII. susceptam. Prior igitur hic Tertulliani liber exstitit, et multo prior quidem, si quid video, recteque Tertullianus altero in loco disputavit, qui est c. 13. Neque enim tempore scripti hujus libri cuiquam Judaeorum permissus erat aditus ad Bethlehemum aut agrum circumjacentem, aut Hierosolymam. Enimvero constat, Severum multas rogasse Judaeis amicas leges, quas in compendio recitavit Jacobus Basnagius (Hist. des Juifs, t. VIII, p. 49, seq.), ac ista jura Spartianus (In Vita Severi, c. 16) ait fundata ipsis esse tum, cum Severus, capta Ctesiphonte, in Aegyptum proficisceretur, h. e. an. fere CCII. Itaque non est credibile, cum multa ipsis jura concesserit, amplius quemquam prohibuisse ab aditu vel Hierosolymorum vel cujusquam alius in Palaestina loci, nec dici potest exilium Judaeorum vel Tertulliani adversus Judaeos librum demum post illum annum exstitisse, sed antea magis. In qua sententia confirmari videor loco aliquo Tertulliani ex Apologetico, c. 21, ubi praeter alia Judaeis narrat ne advenarum quidem jure concedi, ut terram patriam saltem vestigio salutarent. Quod etiamsi falsum sit de universo Palaestinae tractu, e quo non videntur Judaei ne per Adrianum quidem ejecti, quod multis locis scriptorum veterum imprimis docuit Jo. Massonus (In collect. histor. ad op. Aristidis ed. a Sam. Jebbio. § 6, n. 8); tamen Tertullianum ita oportuit existimasse in Apologetico. Unde caeteris, quae diximus, assumptis, ejusdem fere aetatis esse librum adversus Judaeos colligi quodam modo potest. Sed cum neque annus hujus libri accurate possit definiri, neque perspicuum sit, senseritne jam tum Tertullianus cum Montanistis, placuit etiam hunc librum iis adjungere, quorum nec aetas nec doctrina appareat; et collectis omnibus iis quae hactenus proposita sunt, ita fere ordinem librorum Tertulliani constituere.

he says most plainly. But those things which the other writers have related about the Britons belong only to the expedition of Severus made against them, which it is established was undertaken in the year CCVIII. This book of Tertullian therefore came earlier, and much earlier indeed, if I see anything, and Tertullian argued rightly in the other passage, which is ch. 13. For at the time this book was written access to Bethlehem or the surrounding country, or to Jerusalem, was permitted to none of the Jews. For indeed it is established that Severus proposed many laws friendly to the Jews, which Jacques Basnage has recited in summary (Histoire des Juifs, vol. VIII, p. 49 ff.), and Spartianus (in the Life of Severus, ch. 16) says that these rights were established for them at the time when Severus, having taken Ctesiphon, was setting out for Egypt, that is, about the year CCII. And so it is not credible, since he granted them many rights, that anyone was any longer barred from access either to Jerusalem or to any other place in Palestine; nor can it be said that the exile of the Jews, or Tertullian's book Against the Jews, came into being only after that year, but rather before. In this opinion I seem to be confirmed by a certain passage of Tertullian from the Apology, ch. 21, where among other things he relates that not even the right of strangers is granted to the Jews, that they might at least greet their native land with a footstep. Even though this is false of the whole territory of Palestine, from which the Jews seem not to have been expelled even by Hadrian, as Jo. Masson has shown above all from many passages of the ancient writers (in the historical collections on the works of Aristides edited by Sam. Jebb, § 6, n. 8), yet Tertullian must have thought so in the Apology. Whence, taking in the other things we have said, it can in a certain manner be gathered that the book Against the Jews is of about the same age. But since neither can the year of this book be accurately determined, nor is it clear whether Tertullian was already then of one mind with the Montanists, we have decided to join this book too to those whose age and doctrine are not apparent; and, having gathered together everything that has been set out so far, to establish the order of Tertullian's books roughly thus.

Ante suscept. montanism. De Oratione. Ad Martyres. De Spectaculis. De Idololatria. Apologeticum. De Testim. animae. Lib. 2 ad nationes. De Baptismo. Lib. 2 ad uxorem. (adversus Judaeos)

Before taking up Montanism: On Prayer. To the Martyrs. On the Shows. On Idolatry. The Apology. On the Testimony of the Soul. Two books To the Nations. On Baptism. Two books To his Wife. (Against the Jews)

In Montanismo. De Corona. De Virg. velandis. De Cultu feminar. De Fuga in persecut. De Exhort. castitatis. De Monogamia. De Jejuniis. De Pudicitia. Advers. Praxeam. Adv. Hermog. De Anima.

In Montanism: On the Crown. On the Veiling of Virgins. On the Dress of Women. On Flight in Persecution. On the Exhortation to Chastity. On Monogamy. On Fasting. On Modesty. Against Praxeas. Against Hermogenes. On the Soul.

Scorpiacen. Adv. Valentin. Adv. Marcion. l. I. De Praescript. haeretic. II, III, IV, advers. Marc. De carne Christi. De Resurrectione. Lib. V, adv. Marc. De Pallio. (De Patientia.) Ad Scapulam. (De Poenitentia.)

Scorpiace. Against the Valentinians. Against Marcion, book I. On the Prescription of Heretics. II, III, IV Against Marcion. On the Flesh of Christ. On the Resurrection. Book V Against Marcion. On the Pallium. (On Patience.) To Scapula. (On Penitence.)

§ 3. — De Actis Perpetuae et Felicitatis, harumque montanismo.

§ 3. — On the Acts of Perpetua and Felicity, and their Montanism.

Atque hic possemus finem facere disputationis nostrae; neque enim caetera Tertulliani scripta, quae vel perperam sunt ipsi adscripta, vel non exstant, excutere nobis est propositum. Sed in animum venit quaedam de Actis illis SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis dicere, quae sunt, qui etiam Tertulliano tribuerint. In quibus unum illum Whistonum impugnare placet, qu⟨i⟩ omnem operam dedit, ut haec Acta Tertulliano assereret

And here we could make an end of our disputation; for it is not our purpose to sift the other writings of Tertullian, which either have been wrongly ascribed to him or do not survive. But it has come into my mind to say something about those Acts of SS. Perpetua and Felicity, which there are some who have also attributed to Tertullian. Among these it is our pleasure to contest that one man Whiston, who has spent every effort to claim these Acts for Tertullian

Editors' notes and page, col. 171

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: praenuntiandorum accepisse› · call in col 173

Acta Perpet. et Felicit., in Ruinarti Actis martyrum sinceris. Ed. Amst., p. 93. § 3. In ipso spatio paucorum dierum baptizati sumus. Mihi autem spiritus dictavit: nihil aliud petendum in aqua, nisi sufferentiam carnis.

The Acts of Perpetua and Felicity, in Ruinart's Acta martyrum sincera, Amsterdam edition, p. 93, § 3: "Within the space of those few days we were baptized. And the Spirit dictated to me that nothing else was to be sought in the water but endurance of the flesh."

(printed under page 109)

(2) ‹anchor: mortuos liberare posset› · call in col 173

Ibid., p. 94, § 4: Dixit mihi frater meus: Domina soror, jam in magna dignitate es, et tanta, ut postules visionem, et ostendatur tibi, an passio sit, an commeatus? i. e. an futurum sit, ut mortis periculum effugias? V. Hostenii not. ad h. l. ibid., p. 106, qui bene observat locum Tertulliani, in quo sorores a Domino commemorat dignationem i. e. gratiam singularem, quotiescumque desiderent, consequi. Pergit illa: Et ego, quae me sciebam fabulari cum Domino, cujus beneficia tanta experta eram, fidenter repromisi ei dicens: Crastina die tibi renuntiabo... Deinde p. 96, § 7, profecta est ipsi vox et nominavit Dinocratem, fratrem jam mortuum, et cognovit se statim dignam esse et pro eo petere debere..... continuo ipsa nocte ostensum est ei in oramate: periclitari mortuum Dinocratem. Sed § 8, crebras post preces intellexit translatum esse de poena. Tantam vim ne preces quidem Apostolorum, aut cujusvis magni legati Dei unquam legimus habuisse.

Same work, p. 94, § 4: "My brother said to me: Lady sister, you are now in great dignity, so great that you may ask for a vision, and it will be shown you whether it is to be a passion or a release?" — that is, whether it will turn out that you escape the danger of death. See Hostenius's note on this place, same work, p. 106, who rightly points to the passage of Tertullian in which he records that the sisters obtain from the Lord a favour, that is, a singular grace, whenever they desire it. She goes on: "And I, who knew that I talked with the Lord, whose great benefits I had experienced, confidently promised him, saying: Tomorrow I will tell you..." Then p. 96, § 7: a voice came forth to her and named Dinocrates, her brother already dead, "and she knew at once that she was worthy and ought to pray for him..... and that very night it was shown to her in a vision": the dead Dinocrates was in danger. But in § 8, after frequent prayers, she understood that he had been transferred out of punishment. Such power we never read that even the prayers of the Apostles, or of any great envoy of God, possessed.

(printed under page 109)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: ris profiteantur› · call in col 174

Istam infaustam sane, tantisque martyribus ingratam, Valesii et Basnagii sententiam, quam male refricat hic auctor noster, strenue fusam fugatamque habet in peremptoria Jos. Aug. Orsi postea S. R. E. cardinalis dissertatione apologetica pro SS. Perpetuae, Felicitatis et SS. MM. orthodoxia, Flor. 1728, in qua haec imprimis statuuntur: 1° constare ex gravissimis testimoniis cultum fuisse SS. martyribus nostris ab omni aevo in ecclesia praestitum; 2° etiamsi e fontibus montanistarum dimanarint acta SS. martyrum, nihil inde in ipsis praejudicii suboriri; 3° nihil reapse in ipsismet actis occurrere quod Montani officinam redoleat, aut quod cum genuinis caeterorum martyrum actis non apprime consonet; 4° eas demum esse martyrum nostrorum virtutes, eos visionum fructus, vaticiniorum eventus, miraculorum, doctrinae, totiusque considerationis caracteres, ut pateat illos fuisse spiritu divino afflatos et a montanistarum institutis a toto coelo alienos; quae videre est infra in III tom. hujusce Biblioth. ubi de SS. Perpetuae et SS. actis cum variorum veterum et recentiorum notis loco suo edendis. Edd.

That opinion of Valesius and Basnage, ill-omened indeed and offensive to such great martyrs, which our author here wrongly revives, is vigorously routed and put to flight in the decisive Dissertatio apologetica pro SS. Perpetuae, Felicitatis et SS. MM. orthodoxia (Florence, 1728) of Joseph Augustine Orsi, afterwards cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, in which these points above all are established: 1° that it is shown by the weightiest testimonies that veneration was paid to our holy martyrs in the Church from every age; 2° that even if the acts of the holy martyrs flowed from Montanist sources, no prejudice against them arises from that; 3° that nothing in fact occurs in the acts themselves that smells of Montanus's workshop, or that does not fully agree with the genuine acts of the other martyrs; 4° finally, that the virtues of our martyrs, the fruits of their visions, the fulfilment of their prophecies, and the marks of their miracles, their doctrine and their whole conduct are such that it is plain they were inspired by the divine Spirit and as far as heaven from the institutions of the Montanists. This may be seen below in volume III of this Library, where the acts of SS. Perpetua and companions are to be edited in their place with the notes of various older and more recent scholars. The Editors.

(printed under page 109)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L09 blocked before writing any column (2026-10-04). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 1:175

Amen, et violentum mortis genus? Mihi, si quid video, non videntur ea conjuncta aliquo modo, nisi hanc e Montanistarum familia virginem fuisse dicam; quippe quos, aliquos certe, Epiphanius (haer. 49, § 2) aliique dicunt in sacra coena (in agapis forte volebant dicere homines non nimis accurati) caseum adhibuisse. Jam vero usu venerat inter christianos, ut qui adessent ex multitudine Amen adderent in sacro epulo, id quod e Justino Martyre (In Apolog. mag. c. 85 et 87, ed. Grabii, p. 125, 131, 132), et distribui solebat etiam illud in carcere iis qui morti erant destinati. Omnia igitur perpicua sunt, si ista virgo e Montani disciplina fuisse putatur; si negatur, explicari nullo modo, ut mihi videtur, possunt.

"Amen", and a violent kind of death? To me, if I see anything at all, these things do not appear to be connected in any way, unless I say that this virgin belonged to the family of the Montanists; for Epiphanius (Heresies 49, § 2) and others say that they, or some of them at least, used cheese in the sacred supper (men not overly precise perhaps meant to say "in the agapes"). Now it had become the custom among Christians that those of the multitude who were present added "Amen" at the sacred meal, as [appears] from Justin Martyr (Greater Apology, ch. 85 and 87, Grabe's edition, pp. 125, 131, 132), and this was also customarily distributed in prison to those who were destined for death. Everything, therefore, is clear if this virgin is held to have been of the school of Montanus; if this is denied, they can, as it seems to me, be explained in no way at all.

Editors' notes and page, col. 175

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: nullo modo, ut mihi videtur, possunt› · call in col 175

Sunt, quae ex hac Perpetuae fabula occurrunt non sine magna ratione adversus ea quae dixi disputanda, et adhibita etiam multo cum ingenio a laudatissimo historiae Montanistarum scriptore, Theoph. Wernsdorfio, § 18, quibus breviter placet et modeste respondere. Atque mihi non contemnenda omnino videntur, quae veterum nonnulli de adhibito a Montanistis in sacris epulis caseo tradunt, unde nomen Artotyritarum traxerunt. Nam etiamsi illud inepte de modo sacrae Coenae apud eos dicatur, longeque illud praeclarius etiam a viro docto ad agapas Montanistarum et oblationes referatur, nostra tamen causa nihil postulat magis, nisi ut usus casei his eorum agapis vindicetur. Quod fieri facile potest non modo propterea, quod nulla alia reddi ratio potest originis tam ridiculae culpae atque cognominis, sed quod etiam constat, Montanistas xerophagiarum studiosissimos fuisse, unde nec lauta fuisse eorum sacra convivia facile intelligitur; eoque cibo tenui, qualis caseus erat, Perpetuam quoque caeterosque martyres in carcere etiam, cum veluti agapas haberent, usos fuisse, non magis dubitabit qui, quam miserabilis sors eorum in vinculis fuerit, ex Actis illis didicerit. Sed quod illam rem adhibuerimus ad efficiendum horum martyrum, imprimis Perpetuae, Montanismum, convelli videtur iis, quae vir doctiss. l. c. attulit; primum Augustini ac Tertulliani auctoritate, quorum alter illam Perpetuae visionem laudavit, alter non commemoravit in lib. de Anima. Quorum neutrum, opinor, admirationem habet. Tertullianus enim, dubitari potest, num hanc ipsam, de qua quaeritur, visionem significaverit; cum a Perpetua non nisi martyres in paradiso visos fuisse dicat, cujus rei quis forte mentionem in nostra visione desiderabit; neque is ad caussam suam, quae unice in asserenda solis martyribus ante ultimum judicii diem perfecta felicitate versatur, apte congruenterque a Perpetua sumptum caseum commemoraturus fuisset. Augustinum vero, qui in laudibus Perpetuae totus est, alioque modo traditam illi casei buccellam interpretatur, cum vero quis hanc rem tamen laudasse mirabitur? Sed alterum gravius est; Augustinus illam casei buccellam signum putat fuisse dulcedinis felicitatis Perpetuae, istamque interpretationem persuasit viro cl., qui omnem illam significationem mortis violentae quaerere videtur in scala illa spinis, gladiis, aliisque munita, per quam ascendendum Perpetuae erat; caseus vero cur adhibitus sit ad sempiternam felicitatem adumbrandam, rationem dicit in lege persequendae metaphorae, ductae ab imagine Pastoris, fuisse. At ego, si nulla alia, nisi haec, fuisset sumptionis casei significatio, quaererem quid esset, quod Perpetuae caseus a Pastore mulgente fuisset oblatus, non aliquid potius lactis, quod esset ad felicitatem coelestis Chanaan, melle quasi et lacte fluentis, adumbrandam multo accommodatius? Deinde dicat mihi quis, quare Perpetua hoc commemoret objectum menti suae, quod istam casei buccellam acceperit junctis manibus (ex more in coena sacra apud veteres christianos recepto) et universi circumstantes Amen dixerint, cujus an ullam rationem dare possit quisquam dubito, nisi quis causae nostrae faveat. Denique si ista casei sumptio aliquid in regno coelesti Perpetuae eventurum significat, et coenam forte adumbrat Agni, descriptam in Apocalypsi Joannis, ex qua fere omnes sunt istae visiones in Actis laudatis desumptae, Montanistam si dixeris Perpetuam, multo faciliorem habet cogitationem, quam ob rem ad hoc significandum casei buccella tradita illi fuerit, cum caseo, uti diximus, Montanistae in Agapis uterentur; at si illum caseum non aliquid coeleste dicis respicere, sed conjunctum quidvis aliud cum morte violenta Perpetuae, explicari istud visum e coena libera potest, quam Acta illa (Sect. 8) referunt martyres, pridie quam supplicia sustinerent, tanquam agapen sumpsisse.

There are points arising from this story of Perpetua that may be urged, not without strong reason, against what I have said, and they have been urged with much ingenuity by that most praiseworthy historian of the Montanists, Theophilus Wernsdorf, § 18; I wish to answer them briefly and modestly. To me, then, what some of the ancients report about the Montanists' use of cheese in their sacred meals, whence they took the name Artotyritae, seems by no means to be despised. For even if it is ineptly said of the form of the sacred Supper among them, and is far more aptly referred by a learned man to the agapes and offerings of the Montanists, our case requires nothing more than that the use of cheese be established for these agapes of theirs. This can easily be done, not only because no other account can be given of the origin of so ridiculous a fault and nickname, but also because it is agreed that the Montanists were most devoted to xerophagies (dry fasts), from which it is easily understood that their sacred banquets were not sumptuous either; and that Perpetua and the other martyrs, even in prison, when they held what were in effect agapes, used that meagre food, such as cheese was, no one will doubt who has learned from those Acts how wretched their lot was in chains. But our use of this point to prove the Montanism of these martyrs, and of Perpetua above all, seems to be overthrown by what that most learned man has brought forward in the place cited: first, by the authority of Augustine and Tertullian, of whom the one praised that vision of Perpetua and the other did not mention it in the book On the Soul. Neither of these, I think, is surprising. For it may be doubted whether Tertullian alluded to this very vision under discussion, since he says that Perpetua saw only martyrs in paradise, a point one might perhaps miss in our vision; nor would he have mentioned, aptly and fittingly for his own argument, which turns solely on asserting that the martyrs alone enjoy perfect happiness before the last day of judgement, the cheese taken by Perpetua. As for Augustine, who is wholly given to the praises of Perpetua and interprets the morsel of cheese given her in another way, who will wonder that he nevertheless praised the thing? But the other point is weightier: Augustine thinks that morsel of cheese was a sign of the sweetness of Perpetua's happiness, and he has persuaded the distinguished man of this interpretation, who seems to look for the whole signification of a violent death in that ladder set with thorns, swords and other things, by which Perpetua had to climb; while the reason why cheese was used to foreshadow everlasting happiness, he says, lay in the law of following through a metaphor drawn from the image of the Shepherd. But if the taking of the cheese had had no other meaning than this, I would ask why cheese was offered to Perpetua by the Shepherd as he milked, and not rather some milk, which would have been far more fitting to foreshadow the happiness of the heavenly Canaan, flowing as it were with milk and honey? Next, let someone tell me why Perpetua records, as presented to her mind, that she received that morsel of cheese with joined hands (according to the custom received at the sacred supper among the early Christians) and that all who stood around said Amen; I doubt whether anyone can give any account of this unless he favours our case. Finally, if this taking of cheese signifies something that was to befall Perpetua in the heavenly kingdom, and perhaps foreshadows the supper of the Lamb described in John's Apocalypse, from which nearly all these visions in the Acts cited are taken, then if you call Perpetua a Montanist, the reason why a morsel of cheese was given her to signify this is much easier to conceive, since the Montanists, as we said, used cheese at their Agapes; but if you say that the cheese refers not to something heavenly but to something else connected with Perpetua's violent death, that sight can be explained from the free supper which those Acts (Section 8) report the martyrs took, as an agape, on the day before they underwent their punishment.

(printed under page 110)