Tertullian

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(Q S F T).

Ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries, b. probably about 160 atCarthage, being the son of acenturion in the proconsular service. He was evidently by profession an advocate in the law-courts, and he shows a close acquaintance with the procedure and terms ofRoman law, though it isdoubtful whether he is to be identified with a jurist Tertullian who is cited in thePandects. Heknew Greek as well as Latin, and wrote works in Greek which have not come down to us. Apagan until middle life, he had shared thepagan prejudices againstChristianity, and had indulged like others in shameful pleasures. His conversion was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier. He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became apriest, nodoubt of theChurch of Carthage. Monceaux, followed by d'Ales, considers that his earlier writings were composed while he was yet alayman, and if this be so, then hisordination was about 200. His extant writings range in date from theapologetics of 197 to the attack on abishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 218). It was after the year 206 that he joined theMontanistsect, and he seems to have definitively separated from theChurch about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against theChurch than even againstheathen andpersecutors, he separated from theMontanists and founded asect of his own. The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to theChurch bySt. Augustine. A number of the works of Tertullian are on special points ofbelief or discipline. According toSt. Jerome he lived to extreme old age.

The year 197 saw the publication of a short address by Tertullian, "To the Martyrs", and of his great apologetic works, the "Ad nationes" and the "Apologeticus". The former has been considered a finished sketch for the latter; but it is moretrue to say that the second work has a different purpose, though a great deal of the same matter occurs in both, the same arguments being displayed in the same manner, with the same examples and even the same phrases. The appeal to the nations suffers from its transmission in a single codex, in which omissions of a word or several words or whole lines are to be deplored. Tertullian's style is difficult enough without such super added causes of obscurity. But the text of the "Ad nationes" must have been always rougher than that of the "Apologeticus", which is a more careful as well as a more perfect work, and contains more matter because of its better arrangement; for it is just the same length as the two books "Ad nationes".

The "Ad nationes" has for its entire object the refutation ofcalumnies againstChristians. In the first place they areproved to repose on unreasoninghatred only; the procedure of trial is illogical; the offence is nothing but the name ofChristian, which ought rather to be a title ofhonour; noproof is forthcoming of any crimes, only rumour; the first persecutor wasNero, the worst of emperors. Secondly, the individual charges are met; Tertullian challenges the reader tobelieve in anything so contrary to nature as the accusations ofinfanticide and incest.Christians are not the causes of earthquakes and floods and famine, for these happened long beforeChristianity. Thepagans despise their own gods, banish them, forbid their worship, mock them on the stage; the poets tell horrid stories of them; they were in reality only men, and bad men. You say we worship an ass's head, he goes on, but you worship all kinds of animals; your gods are images made on a cross framework, so you worship crosses. You say we worship the sun; so do you. A certainJew hawked about a caricature of a creature half ass, half goat, as our god; but you actually adore half-animals. As forinfanticide, you expose your own children and kill the unborn. Your promiscuouslust causes you to be in danger of the incest of which you accuse us. We do not swear by the genius of Caesar, but we are loyal, for wepray for him, whereas you revolt. Caesar does not want to be a god; he prefers to be alive. You say it is through obstinacy that we despise death; but of old such contempt of death was esteemedheroic virtue. Many among youbrave death for gain or wagers; but we, because webelieve in judgment. Finally, do usjustice; examine our case, and change yourminds. The second book consists entirely in an attack on the gods of thepagans; they are marshalled in classes after Varro. It was not, urges theapologist, owing to these multitudinous gods that the empire grew.

Out of this fierce appeal and indictment was developed the grander "Apologeticus", addressed to the rulers of the empire and the administrators ofjustice. The former work attacked popular prejudices; the new one is an imitation of the Greek Apologies, and was intended as an attempt to secure an amelioration in the treatment ofChristians by alteration of thelaw or its administration. Tertullian cannot restrain his invective; yet he wishes to be conciliating, and it breaks out in spite of his argument, instead of being its essence as before. He begins again by an appeal to reason. There are no witnesses, he urges, to prove our crimes;Trajan ordered Pliny not to seek us out, but yet to punish us if we were known; — what a paralogism! The actual procedure is yet more strange. Instead of being tortured until we confess, we are tortured until we deny. So far the "Ad Nationes" is merely developed and strengthened. Then, after a condensed summary of the second book as to theheathen gods, Tertullian begins in chapter xvii an exposition of thebelief ofChristians in oneGod, the Creator, invisible,infinite, to whom thesoul of man, which by nature is inclined toChristianity, bears witness. The floods and the fires have been His messengers. We have a testimony, he adds, from our sacred books, which are older than all your gods. Fulfilled prophecy is theproof that they are divine. It is then explained that Christ isGod, theWord of God born of a virgin; His two comings, Hismiracles, passion,resurrection, and forty days with the disciples, are recounted. The disciples spread Hisdoctrine throughout the world;Nero sowed it with blood atRome. When tortured theChristian cries, "We worshipGod through Christ". Thedemons confess Him and they stir men up against us. Next, loyalty to Cæsar is discussed at greater length than before. When the populace rises, how easily theChristians could take vengeance: "We are but of yesterday, yet we fill your cities, islands, forts, towns, councils, even camps, tribes, decuries, the palace, the senate, the forum; we have left you thetemples alone". We might migrate, and leave you in shame and in desolation. We ought at least to be tolerated; for what are we? — a body compacted by community of religion, of discipline, and of hope. We meet together topray, even for the emperors and authorities, to hear readings from the holy books and exhortations. We judge and separate those who fall into crime. We have elders ofproved virtue to preside. Our common fund is replenished byvoluntary donations each month, and is expended not ongluttony but on the poor and suffering. This charity is quoted against us as a disgrace; see, it is said, how theylove one another. We call ourselves brethren; you also are our brethren by nature, but bad brethren. We are accused of every calamity. Yet we live with you; we avoid no profession, but those of assassins, sorcerers, and such like. You spare thephilosophers, though their conduct is less admirable than ours. They confess that our teaching is older than theirs, for nothing is older thantruth. Theresurrection at which you jeer has many parallels in nature. You think us fools; and we rejoice to suffer for this. We conquer by our death. Inquire into the cause of our constancy. We believe thismartyrdom to be the remission of all offences, and that he who is condemned before your tribunal is absolved beforeGod.

These points are all urged withinfinite wit and pungency. The faults are obvious. The effect on thepagans may have been rather to irritate than to convince. The very brevity results in obscurity. But every lover of eloquence, and there were many in those days, will have relished with the pleasure of an epicure the feast of ingenious pleading and recondite learning. The rapier thrusts are so swift, we can hardly realize their deadliness before they are renewed in showers, with sometimes a blow as of a bludgeon to vary the effect. The style is compressed like that of Tacitus, but the metrical closes are observed with care, against the rule of Tacitus; and that wonderful maker of phrases is outdone by hisChristian successor in gemlike sentences which will be quoted while the world lasts. Who does notknow theanima naturaliter Christiana (soul by natureChristian); theVide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligant (see they exclaim, how theylove one another), and theSemen est sanguis Christianorum (The blood ofChristians is seed)? It was probably about the same time that Tertullian developed his thesis of the "Testimony of the Soul" to theexistence of one God, in his little book with this title. With his usual eloquence he enlarges on theidea that common speech bids us use expressions such as "God grant", or "IfGod will", "God bless", "God sees", "MayGod repay". Thesoul testifies also to devils, to just vengeance, and to its ownimmortality.

Two or three years later (about 200) Tertullian assaultedheresy in a treatise even more brilliant, which, unlike the "Apologeticus", is not for his own day only but for all time. It is called "Liber de praescriptione haereticorum". Prescription now means the right obtained to something by long usage. InRoman law the signification was wider; it meant the cutting short of a question by the refusal to hear the adversary's arguments, on the ground of an anterior point which must cut away the ground under his feet. So Tertullian deals withheresies: it is of no use to listen to their arguments or refute them, for we have a number of antecedentproofs that they cannot deserve a hearing. Heresies, he begins, must not astonish us, for they were prophesied. Heretics urge the text, "Seek and ye shall find", but this was not said toChristians; we have arule of faith to be accepted without question. "Let curiosity give place to faith and vain glory make way for salvation", so Tertullian parodies a line of Cicero's. Theheretics argue out of Scripture; but, first, we are forbidden to consort with aheretic after one rebuke has been delivered, and secondly, disputation results only inblasphemy on the one side and indignation on the other, while the listener goes away more puzzled than he came. The real question is, "To whom does the Faith belong? Whose are the Scriptures? By whom, through whom, when and to whom has been handed down the discipline by which we areChristians? The answer is plain: Christ sent His apostles, who founded churches in each city, from which the others have borrowed the tradition of the Faith and the seed ofdoctrine and daily borrow in order to become churches; so that they also are Apostolic in that they are the offspring of the Apostolic churches. All are that one Church which the Apostles founded, so long as peace and intercommunion are observed [dum est illis communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis]. Therefore the testimony to thetruth is this: We communicate with the apostolic Churches". Theheretics will reply that the Apostles did notknow all thetruth. Could anything be unknown to Peter, who was called the rock on which theChurch was to be built? or to John, who lay on the Lord's breast? But they will say, the churches haveerred. Some indeed went wrong, and were corrected by theApostle; though for others he had nothing but praise. "But let us admit that all haveerred:— is it credible that all these great churches should have strayed into the samefaith"? Admitting this absurdity, then all thebaptisms, spiritual gifts,miracles,martyrdoms, were in vain untilMarcion and Valentinus appeared at last! Truth will be younger thanerror; for both these heresiarchs are of yesterday, and were stillCatholics atRome in the episcopate of Eleutherius (this name is a slip or afalse reading). Anyhow theheresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps someheretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of theirbishops till now from the Apostles or from somebishop appointed by theApostles, as the Smyrnaeans count fromPolycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; letheretics invent something to match this. Why, theirerrors were denounced by theApostles long ago. Finally (36), he names some Apostolic churches, pointing above all toRome, whose witness is nearest at hand, —happy Church, in which the Apostles poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter suffered a death like hisMaster's, where Paul wascrowned with an end like theBaptist's, where John was plunged into fiery oil without hurt! The Roman Rule of Faith is summarized, nodoubt from the old Roman Creed, the same as our presentApostles' Creed but for a few small additions in the latter; much the same summary was given in chapter xiii, and is found also in "De virginibus velandis" (chapter I). Tertullian evidently avoids giving the exact words, which would be taught only tocatechumens shortly beforebaptism. The whole luminous argument is founded on the first chapters ofSt. Irenæus's third book, but its forceful exposition is not more Tertullian's own than its exhaustive and compellinglogic. Never did he show himself less violent and less obscure. The appeal to the Apostolic churches was unanswerable in his day; the rest of his argument is still valid.

A series of short works addressed tocatechumens belong also to Tertullian'sCatholic days, and fall between 200 and 206. "De spectaculis" explains and probably exaggerates the impossibility for aChristian to attend anyheathen shows, even races or theatrical performances, without either wounding hisfaith by participation inidolatry or arousing his passions. "De idololatria" is by some placed at a later date, but it is anyhow closely connected with the former work. It explains that the making of idols is forbidden, and similarlyastrology, selling ofincense, etc. A schoolmaster cannot elude contamination. AChristian cannot be a soldier. To the question, "How am I then to live?", Tertullian replies thatfaith fears not famine; for the Faith we must give up our life, how much more our living?"De baptismo" is an instruction on the necessity ofbaptism and on its effects; it is directed against afemale teacher oferror belonging to thesect of Gaius (perhaps the Anti-Montanist). We learn thatbaptism was conferred regularly by thebishop, but with his consent could be administered bypriests,deacons, or evenlaymen. The proper times wereEaster and Pentecost. Preparation was made byfasting, vigils, andprayers. Confirmation was conferred immediately after by unction andlaying on of hands. "De paenitentia" will be mentioned later. "De oratione" contains an exposition of theLord's Prayer,totius evangelii breviarium. "De cultu feminarum" is an instruction on modesty and plainness in dress; Tertullian enjoys detailing the extravagances offemale toilet and ridiculing them. Besides these didactic works tocatechumens, Tertullian wrote at the same period two books, "Ad uxorem", in the former of which he begs his wife not to marry again after his death, as it is not proper for aChristian, while in the second book he enjoins upon her at least to marry aChristian if she does marry, forpagans must not be consorted with. A little book on patience is touching, for the writer admits that it is an impudence in him to discourse on a virtue in which he is so conspicuously lacking. A book against theJews contains some curiouschronology, used to prove the fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks. The latter half of the book is nearly identical with part of the third book againstMarcion. It would seem that Tertullian used over again what he had written in the earliest form of that work, which dates from this time. "Adversus Hermogenem" is against a certain Hermogenes, apainter (of idols?) who taught thatGod created the world out of pre-existing matter. Tertullian reduces his viewad absurdum, and establishes the creation out of nothing both from Scripture and reason.

The next period of Tertullian's literary activity shows distinct evidence ofMontanist opinions, but he has not yet openly broken with theChurch, which had not as yet condemned the new prophecy. Montanus and the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla had been long dead when Tertullian was converted tobelief in their inspiration. He held the words of Montanus to be really those of theParaclete, and he characteristically exaggerated their import. We find him henceforth lapsing into rigorism, and condemning absolutely second marriage and forgiveness of certainsins, and insisting on newfasts. His teaching had always been excessive in its severity; now he positively revels in harshness. Harnack and d'Alès look upon "De Virginibus velandis" as the first work of this time, though it has been placed later by Monceaux and others on account of its irritated tone. We learn that Carthage was divided by a dispute whether virgins should be veiled; Tertullian and the pro-Montanist party stood for the affirmative. The book had been preceded by a Greek writing on the same subject. Tertullian declares that the Rule of Faith is unchangeable, but discipline is progressive. He quotes a dream in favour of the veil. The date may be about 206. Shortly afterwards Tertullian published his largest extant work, five books againstMarcion. A first draft had been written much earlier; a second recension had been published, when yet unfinished, without the writer's consent; the first book of the final edition was finished in the fifteenth year of Severus, 207. The last book may be a few years later. This controversy is most important for ourknowledge ofMarcion'sdoctrine. The refutation of it out of his ownNew Testament, which consisted ofSt. Luke's Gospel andSt. Paul'sEpistles, enables us to reconstitute much of theheretic's Scripture text. The result may be seen in Zahn's, "Geschichte des N. T. Kanons", II, 455-524. A work against the Valentinians followed. It is mainly based on the first book of St. Irenæus.

In 209 the little book "De pallio" appeared. Tertullian had excited remark by adopting theGreek pallium, the recognized dress ofphilosophers, and he defends his conduct in a witty pamphlet. A long book, "De anima", gives Tertullian'spsychology. He well describes the unity of thesoul; he teaches that it is spiritual, but immateriality in the fullest sense he admits for nothing that exists, — evenGod iscorpus. Two works are against theDocetism of theGnostics, "De carne Christi" and"De resurrectione carnis". Here he emphasizes the reality ofChrist's Body and Hisvirgin-birth, and teaches acorporal resurrection. But he seems to deny the virginity of Mary, the Mother ofChrist,in partu, though he affirms itante partum. He addressed to a convert who was a widower an exhortation to avoid second marriage, which is equivalent to fornication. This work, "De exhortatione castitatis", implies that the writer is not yet separated from theChurch. The same excessive rigour appears in the "De corona", in which Tertullian defends a soldier who had refused to wear a chaplet on his head when he received the donative granted to the army on the accession ofCaracalla and Geta in 211. The man had been degraded andimprisoned. ManyChristians thought his action extravagant, and refused to regard him as amartyr. Tertullian not only declares that to wear the crown would have beenidolatry, but argues that noChristian can be a soldier without compromising hisfaith. Next in order is the"Scorpiace", or antidote to the bite of the Scorpion, directed against the teaching of the Valentinians thatGod cannot approve ofmartyrdom, since He does not want man's death; they even permitted the external act ofidolatry. Tertullian shows thatGod desires thecourage of themartyrs and their victory over temptation; he proves from Scripture theduty of suffering death for the Faith and the great promises attached to this heroism. To the year 212 belongs the open letter "Ad scapulam", addressed to the proconsul ofAfrica who was renewing thepersecution, which had ceased since 203. He is solemnly warned of the retribution which overtakespersecutors.

The formal secession of Tertullian from theChurch of Carthage seems to have taken place either in 211 or at the end of 212 at latest. The earlier date is fixed by Harnack on account of the close connection between the "De corona" of 211 with the "De fuga", which must, he thinks, have immediately followed the "De corona". It iscertain that "De fuga in persecutione" was written after the secession. It condemns flight in time ofpersecution, forGod's providence has intended the suffering. This intolerabledoctrine had not been held by Tertullian in hisCatholic days. He now terms theCatholics "Psychici", as opposed to the "spiritual"Montanists. The cause of hisschism is not mentioned. It is unlikely that he left theChurch by his own act. Rather it would seem that when theMontanist prophecies were finally disapproved atRome, theChurch of Carthageexcommunicated at least the more violent among their adherents. After "De fuga" come "De monogamia" (in which the wickedness of second marriage is yet more severely censured) and"De jejunio", a defence of theMontanistfasts. A dogmatic work, "Adversus Prazean", is of great importance.Praxeas had prevented, according to Tertullian, the recognition of theMontanist prophecy by thepope; Tertullian attacks him as aMonarchian, and develops his owndoctrine of theHoly Trinity (seeMONARCHIANS andPRAXEAS). The last remaining work of the passionateschismatic is apparently"De pudicitia", if it is a protest, as is generally held, against aDecree of Pope Callistus, in which the pardon of adulterers and fornicators, after due penance done, was published at the intercession of themartyrs. Monceaux, however, still supports the view which was once commoner than it now is, that theDecree in question was issued by abishop of Carthage. In any case Tertullian's attribution of it to a would-beepiscopus episcoporum andpontifex maximus merely attests its peremptory character. The identification of thisDecree with the far wider relaxation of discipline with whichHippolytus reproaches Callistus is uncertain.

The argument of Tertullian must be considered in some detail, since his witness to the ancient system of penance is of first-rate importance. As aCatholic, he addressed "De paenitentia" tocatechumens as an exhortation to repentance previous tobaptism. Besides that sacrament he mentions, with an expression of unwillingness, a "last hope", a second plank ofsalvation, after which there is no other. This is the severe remedy of exomologesis, confession, involving a long penance in sackcloth and ashes for the remission of post-baptismalsin. In the"De pudicitia" theMontanist now declared that there is no forgiveness for the gravestsins, precisely those for which exomologesis isnecessary. It is said by some modern critics, such as Funk and Turmel amongCatholics, that Tertullian did not really change his view on this point the writing of the two treatises. It is pointed out that in "De paenitentia" there is no mention of the restoration of the penitent to communion; he is to do penance, but with no hope of pardon in this life; no sacrament is administered, and the satisfaction is lifelong. This view is impossible. Tertullian declares in"De pudicitia". That he has changed his mind and expects to be taunted for his inconsistency. He implies that he used to hold such a relaxation, as the one he is attacking, to be lawful. At any rate in the "De paen." he parallelsbaptism with exomologesis, and supposes that the latter has the same effect as the former, obviously the forgiveness ofsin in this life. Communion is never mentioned, sincecatechumens are addressed; but if exomologesis did not eventually restore allChristian privileges, there could be no reason for fearing that the mention of it should act as an encouragement tosin, for a lifelong penance would hardly be a reassuring prospect. No length is mentioned, evidently because the duration depended on the nature of thesin and the judgment of thebishop; had death been the term, this would have been emphatically expressed. Finally. And this is conclusive, it could not be insisted on that no second penance was ever allowed, if all penance was lifelong.

For the full understanding of Tertullian'sdoctrine we mustknow his division ofsin into three classes. There are first the terrible crimes ofidolatry,blasphemy,homicide,adultery, fornication,false witness,fraud (Adv. Marc., IV, ix; in "De Pud." he substitutesapostasy forfalse witness and adds unnatural vice). As aMontanist he calls these irremissible. Between these and mere venialsins there are modica or media (De Pud.., I), less grave but yet serioussins, which he enumerates in "De Pud.", xix: "Sins of daily committal, to which we are all subject; to whom indeed does it not occur to be angry without cause and after the sun has set, or to give a blow, or easily to curse, or to swear rashly, or break a contract, or lie through shame or necessity? How much we are tempted in business, induties, in trade, in food, in sight, in hearing! So that, if there were no forgiveness for such things, none could be saved. Therefore there will be forgiveness for thesesins by theprayer of Christ to the Father" (De Pud., xix).

Another list (On Pudicity 7) represents thesins which may constitute a lost sheep, as distinguished from one that is dead: "The faithful is lost if he attend the chariot races, or gladiatorial combats, or the unclean theatre, or athletic shows, or playing, or feasts on some secular solemnity, or if he has exercised an art which in any way servesidolatry, or has lapsed without consideration into some denial orblasphemy". For thesesins there is forgiveness, though the sinner has strayed from the flock. How is forgiveness obtained? We learn this only incidentally from the words: "That kind of penitence which is subsequent tofaith, which can either obtain forgiveness from thebishop for lessersins, or fromGod only for those which are irremissible" (On Pudicity 18). Thus Tertullian admits the power of thebishop for all but "irremissible"sins. Theabsolution which he still acknowledges for frequentsins was obviously not limited to a single occasion, but must have been frequently repeated. It is not even referred to in "De paen", which deals only withbaptism and public penance for the gravestsins. Again, in"De pudicitia", Tertullian repudiates his own earlier teaching that the keys were left by Christ through Peter to HisChurch (Scorpiace 10); he now declares (On Pudicity 21) that the gift was to Peter personally, and cannot be claimed by theChurch of the Psychici. The spiritual have theright to forgive, but theParaclete said: "The Church has the power to forgivesins but I will not do so, lest theysin afresh."

The system of theChurch of Carthage in Tertullian's time was therefore manifestly this: Those who committed grievoussins confessed them to thebishop, and he absolved them after due penance enjoined and performed, unless the case was in his judgment so grave that public penance wasobligatory. This public penance was only allowed once; it was for protracted periods, even sometimes until the hour of death, but at the end of it forgiveness and restoration were promised. The term was frequently shortened at theprayer ofmartyrs.

Of the lost works of Tertullian the most important was the defence of theMontanist manner ofprophesying, "De ecstasi", in six books, with a seventh book against Apollonius. To the peculiarities of Tertullian's views which have already been explained must be added some further remarks. He did not care for philosophy: thephilosophers are the "patriarchs of theheretics". His notion that all things, pure spirits and evenGod, must be bodies, is accounted for by hisignorance ofphilosophical terminology. Yet of the humansoul he actually says that it was seen in a vision as tender, light, and of the colour of air! All oursouls were contained in Adam, and are transmitted to us with the taint oforiginal sin upon them, — an ingenious if gross form ofTraducianism. His Trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Romandoctrine with that ofSt. Justin Martyr. Tertullian has thetrue formula for theHoly Trinity,tres Personae, una Substantia. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each isGod; they are of one substance, one state, and one power. So far thedoctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop intoArianism: that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence but in the origin of the Persons. He says that from alleternity there was reason (ratio) inGod, and in reason the Word (Sermo), not distinct fromGod, butin vulva cordis. For the purpose of creation the Word received a perfect birth as Son. There was a time when there was no Son and nosin, whenGod was neither Father nor Judge. In hisChristology Tertullian has had no Greek influence, and is purely Roman. Like mostLatinFathers he speaks not of two Natures but of twoSubstances in one Person, united without confusion, and distinct in their operations. Thus he condemns by anticipation theNestorian,Monophysite, andMonotheliteheresies. But he seems to teach that Mary, the Mother ofChrist, had other children. Yet he makes her the second Eve, who by her obedience effaced the disobedience of the first Eve.

Tertullian'sdoctrine of theHoly Eucharist has been much discussed, especially the words: "Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei". A consideration of the context shows only one interpretation to be possible. Tertullian is proving thatOur Lord Himself explained bread inJeremiah 11:19 (mittamus lignum in panem ejus) to refer to His Body, when He said, "This is My Body", that is, that bread was the symbol of His Body. Nothing can be elicited either for or against theReal Presence; for Tertullian does not explain whether the bread is the symbol of the Body present or absent. The context suggests the former meaning. Another passage is:Panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat. This might mean "Bread which stands for His Body", or "Presents, makes present". D'Ales has calculated that the sense of presentation to theimagination occurs seven times in Tertullian, and the similar moral sense (presentation by picture, etc.) occurs twelve times, whereas the sense of physical presentation occurs thirty-three times. In the treatise in question againstMarcion the physical sense alone is found, and fourteen times. A more direct assertion of theReal Presence isCorpus ejus in pane censetur (On Prayer 6). As to the grace given, he has some beautiful expressions, such as: "Itaque petendo panem quotidianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individuitatem a corpore ejus" (In petitioning for daily bread, we ask for perpetuity in Christ, and indivisibility from His body. — Ibid.). A famous passage on the Sacraments of Baptism, Unction, Confirmation, Orders and Eucharist runs: "Caro abluitur ut anima maculetur; caro ungitur ut anima consecretur; caro signatur ut et anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur ut et anima spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur ut et anima de Deo saginetur" (The flesh is washed, in order that thesoul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that thesoul may beconsecrated; the flesh is signed [with the cross], that thesoul, too, may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with theimposition of hands, that thesoul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood ofChrist, that thesoul likewise may have its fill ofGod — "Deres. Carnis.", viii). He testifies to the practice of daily communion, and the preserving of theHoly Eucharist by privatepersons for this purpose. What will aheathen husband think of that which is taken by hisChristian wife before all other food? "If he knows that it is Bread, will he not believe that it is simply what it is called?" This implies not merely theReal Presence, buttransubstantiation. Thestation days were Wednesday and Friday; on what other days besides Holy Mass was offered we do notknow. Some thought thatHoly Communion would break their fast onstation days; Tertullian explains: "When you have received and reserved the Body of the Lord, you will have assisted at the Sacrifice and have accomplished theduty offasting as well" (De oratione, xix). Tertullian's list of customs observed byApostolic tradition though not in Scripture (De cor., iii) is famous: thebaptismal renunciations and feeding with milk and honey,fasting Communion, offerings for the dead (Masses) on their anniversaries, nofasting or kneeling on theLord's Day and betweenEaster and Pentecost, anxiety as to the falling to the ground of any crumb or drop of theHoly Eucharist, theSign of the Cross made continually during the day.

Tertullian's canon of theOld Testament included the deuterocanonical books, since he quotes most of them. He also cites the Book of Enoch as inspired, and thinks those who rejected it were wrong. He seems also to recognize IV Esdras, and the Sibyl, though he admits that there are manySibylline forgeries. In theNew Testament he knows theFour Gospels, Acts,Epistles ofSt. Paul, I Peter (Ad Ponticos), I John, Jude, Apocalypse. He does notknow James and II Peter, but we cannot tell that he did notknow II, III John. He attributes Hebrews to St. Barnabas. He rejects the "Pastor" of Hermas and says that many councils of the Psychici had also rejected it. Tertullian was learned, but careless in his historical statements. He quotes Varro and a medical writer, Soranus of Ephesus, and was evidently well read inpagan literature. He citesIrenaeus,Justin, Miltiades, and Proclus. He probablyknew parts ofClement of Alexandria's writings. He is the first of Latintheological writers. To some extent, how great we cannot tell, he must have invented atheological idiom and have coined new expressions. He is the first witness to the existence of a Latin Bible, though he seems frequently to have translated from the Greek Bible as he wrote. Zahn has denied that he possessed any Latin translation, but this opinion is commonly rejected, and St. Perpetua certainly had one at Carthage in 203.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT