Date: 1890-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Polemics & Heresiology

The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian

Royal Archives

1890

Copyright

The source text and this English translation are in the public domain.

The cover design is © 2026 Royal Archives.

Published by Royal Archives

First published 1890

Source: The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Roberts & Donaldson, 1885)

Cover: Rostov the Great by Nicholas Roerich, Public collection, which is in the public domain.

Edition identifier: urn:royalarchives:prescription_against_heretics:en:1

The Prescription Against Heretics

Chapter 1

I.

The Prescription Against Heretics. Of the various forms of the title of this treatise, de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, de Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum, de Præscriptionibus adversus Hæreticos, the first is adopted by Oehler after the oldest authorities, such as the Liber Argobardinus and the Codex Paterniacensis (or Seletstadiensis), and the Editio Princeps of Rhenanus. The term præscriptio is a legal one, meaning a demurrer, or formal objection. The genitive hæreticorum is used in an objective sense, as if adversus hæreticos. Tertullian himself, in de Carne Christi, ii. says, “Sed plenius ejusmodi præscriptionibus adversus omnes hæreses alibi jam usi sumus.” The title therefore means, “On the Church’s Prescriptive Rule against Heresies of all kinds.” [Elucidation I.]

[Translated by the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., F.R.A.S., Etc., Etc.]

————————————

The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound)[1] neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass;[2] nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being “approved.”[3] Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offence of the many[4] who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies prevail to such a degree. How great (might their offence have been) if they had not existed.[5] When it has been determined that a thing must by all means be, it receives the (final) cause for which it has its being. This secures the power through which it exists, in such a way that it is impossible for it not to have existence.

[1] Istas.

[2] Matt. 7:15; 24:4, 11, 24; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Pet. 2:1.

[3] 1 Cor. 11:19.

[4] Plerique, “the majority.”

[5] The Holy Ghost having foretold that they should exist. (Rigalt.)

Chapter 2

Taking the similar case[1] of fever, which is appointed a place amongst all other deadly and excruciating issues (of life) for destroying man: we are not surprised either that it exists, for there it is, or that it consumes man, for that is the purpose of its existence. In like manner, with respect to heresies, which are produced for the weakening and the extinction of faith, since we feel a dread because they have this power, we should first dread the fact of their existence; for as long as they exist, they have their power; and as long as they have their power, they have their existence. But still fever, as being an evil both in its cause[2] and in its power, as all know, we rather loathe than wonder at, and to the best of our power guard against, not having its extirpation in our power. Some men prefer wondering at heresies, however, which bring with them eternal death and the heat of a stronger fire, for possessing this power, instead of avoiding their power when they have the means of escape: but heresies would have no power, if (men) would cease to wonder that they have such power. For it either happens that, while men wonder, they fall into a snare, or, because they are ensnared, they cherish their surprise, as if heresies were so powerful because of some truth which belonged to them. It would no doubt be a wonderful thing that evil should have any force of its own, were it not that heresies are strong in those persons who are not strong in faith. In a combat of boxers and gladiators, generally speaking, it is not because a man is strong that he gains the victory, or loses it because he is not strong, but because he who is vanquished was a man of no strength; and indeed this very conqueror, when afterwards matched against a really powerful man, actually retires crest-fallen from the contest. In precisely the same way, heresies derive such strength as they have from the infirmities of individuals—having no strength whenever they encounter a really powerful faith.

[1] Denique has in Tertullian sometimes the meaning of proinde.

[2] Causam “purpose,” “final cause.”

Chapter 3

It is usual, indeed, with persons of a weaker character, to be so built up (in confidence) by certain individuals who are caught by heresy, as to topple over into ruin themselves. How comes it to pass, (they ask), that this woman or that man, who were the most faithful, the most prudent, and the most approved[1] in the church, have gone over to the other side? Who that asks such a question does not in fact reply to it himself, to the effect that men whom heresies have been able to pervert[2] ought never to have been esteemed prudent, or faithful, or approved? This again is, I suppose, an extraordinary thing, that one who has been approved should afterwards fall back? Saul, who was good beyond all others, is afterwards subverted by envy.[3] David, a good man “after the Lord’s own heart,”[4] is guilty afterwards of murder and adultery.[5] Solomon, endowed by the Lord with all grace and wisdom, is led into idolatry, by women.[6] For to the Son of God alone was it reserved to persevere to the last without sin.[7] But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr,[8] have fallen from the rule (of faith), will heresies on that account appear to possess[9] the truth? Do we prove the faith[10] by the persons, or the persons by the faith? No one is wise, no one is faithful, no one excels in dignity,[11] but the Christian; and no one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end.[12] You, as a man, know any other man from the outside appearance. You think as you see. And you see as far only as you have eyes. But says (the Scripture), “the eyes of the Lord are lofty.”[13] “Man looketh at the outward appearance, but God looketh at the heart.”[14] “The Lord (beholdeth and) knoweth them that are His;”[15] and “the plant which (my heavenly Father) hath not planted, He rooteth up;”[16] and “the first shall,” as He shows, “be last;”[17] and He carries “His fan in His hand to purge His threshing-floor.”[18] Let the chaff of a fickle faith fly off as much as it will at every blast of temptation, all the purer will be that heap of corn which shall be laid up in the garner of the Lord. Did not certain of the disciples turn back from the Lord Himself,[19] when they were offended? Yet the rest did not therefore think that they must turn away from following Him,[20] but because they knew that He was the Word of Life, and was come from God,[21] they continued in His company to the very last, after He had gently inquired of them whether they also would go away.[22] It is a comparatively small thing,[23] that certain men, like Phygellus, and Hermogenes, and Philetus, and Hymenæus, deserted His apostle:[24] the betrayer of Christ was himself one of the apostles. We are surprised at seeing His churches forsaken by some men, although the things which we suffer after the example of Christ Himself, show us to be Christians. “They went out from us,” says (St. John,) “but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”[25]

[1] Usitatissimi, “most experienced.”

[2] Demutare.

[3] 1 Sam. 18:8, 9.

[4] 1 Sam. 13:14.

[5] 2 Sam. 11.

[6] 1 Kings 11:4.

[7] Heb. 4:15. [See p. 221, supra.]

[8] [Here the word martyr means no more than a witness or confessor, and may account for what are called exaggerated statements as to the number of primitive martyrs. See Kaye p. 128.]

[9] Obtinere.

[10] Fidem, “The Creed.”

[11] Major.

[12] Matt. 10:22.

[13] Jer. 32:19.

[14] 1 Sam. 16:7.

[15] 2 Tim. 2:19.

[16] Matt. 15:13.

[17] Matt. 20:16.

[18] Matt. 3:12.

[19] John 6:66.

[20] A vestigiis ejus.

[21] John 1:1; 6:68, and 16:30.

[22] John 6:67.

[23] Minus.

[24] 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:17; 1 Tim. 1:20.

[25] 1 John 2:19. [i.e., with the Apostolic Churches. See Cap. xx, infra.]

Chapter 4

But let us rather be mindful of the sayings of the Lord, and of the letters of the apostles; for they have both told us beforehand that there shall be heresies, and have given us, in anticipation, warnings to avoid them; and inasmuch as we are not alarmed because they exist, so we ought not to wonder that they are capable of doing that, on account of which they must be shunned. The Lord teaches us that many “ravening wolves shall come in sheep’s clothing.”[1] Now, what are these sheep’s clothing’s, but the external surface of the Christian profession? Who are the ravening wolves but those deceitful senses and spirits which are lurking within to waste the flock of Christ? Who are the false prophets but deceptive predictors of the future? Who are the false apostles but the preachers of a spurious gospel?[2] Who also are the Antichrists, both now and evermore, but the men who rebel against Christ?[3] Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks,[4] except that persecution make seven martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates. And therefore “heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest,”[5] both those who remained stedfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way[6] into heresy. For the apostle does not mean[7] that those persons should be deemed approved who exchange their creed for heresy; although they contrariously interpret his words to their own side, when he says in another passage, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good;”[8] as if, after proving all things amiss, one might not through error make a determined choice of some evil thing.

[1] Matt. 7:15.

[2] Adulteri evangelizatores, the spurious preachers of the gospel. [Galat. 1:8, 9, an example of Apostolic præscription.]

[3] Hoc scil. “tempore.”

[4] Oehler’s “persecutionem” ought of course to be “persecutionum.”

[5] 1 Cor. 11:19.

[6] Exorbitaverint.

[7] Juvat.

[8] 1 Thess. 5:21. [But Truth is to be demonstrated as a theorem, not treated as a problem of which we must seek the solution.]

Chapter 5

Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that “there must be heresies also.”[1] For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended “to make manifest all such as were approved;”[2] in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert.[3] In short, since the whole passage[4] points to the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes those to be “not approved,” who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with reproofs he exhorts[5] men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should “all speak and think the selfsame thing,”[6] the very object which heresies do not permit.

[1] 1 Cor. 11:19.

[2] 1 Cor. 11:18.

[3] Depravare.

[4] Capitulum.

[5] Objurget.

[6] 1 Cor. 1:10.

Chapter 6

On this point, however, we dwell no longer, since it is the same Paul who, in his Epistle to the Galatians, counts “heresies” among “the sins of the flesh,”[1] who also intimates to Titus, that “a man who is a heretic” must be “rejected after the first admonition,” on the ground that “he that is such is perverted, and committeth sin, as a self-condemned man.”[2] Indeed, in almost every epistle, when enjoining on us (the duty) of avoiding false doctrines, he sharply condemns[3] heresies. Of these the practical effects[4] are false doctrines, called in Greek heresies,[5] a word used in the sense of that choice which a man makes when he either teaches them (to others)[6] or takes up with them (for himself).[7] For this reason it is that he calls the heretic self-condemned,[8] because he has himself chosen that for which he is condemned. We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object[9] after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine[10] which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed[11] by us. The Holy Ghost had even then foreseen that there would be in a certain virgin (called) Philumene[12] an angel of deceit, “transformed into an angel of light,”[13] by whose miracles and illusions[14] Apelles was led (when) he introduced his new heresy.

[1] Gal. 5:20.

[2] Tit. 3:10, 11.

[3] Taxat.

[4] Opera.

[5] Αἱρέσεις.

[6] Instituendas.

[7] Suscipiendas.

[8] [A remarkable word is subjoined by the Apostle (ἐξέστραπται) which signifies turned inside out, and so self-condemned, as exhibiting his inward contentiousness and pravity.

[9] Nihil, any doctrine.

[10] Disciplinam, including both the principles and practice of the Christian religion.

[11] Anathema. See Gal. 1:8.

[12] Concerning Philumene, see below, chap. xxv.; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 13; Augustine, de Hæres, chap. xlii.; Jerome, Epist. adv. Ctesiph. (Works, ed. Ben.) iv. 477, and in his Commentary on Galatians, ii. See also Tertullian, Against Marcion, p. 139, Edinb. Edition.

[13] 2 Cor. 11:14.

[14] Præstigiis.

Chapter 7

These are “the doctrines” of men and “of demons”[1] produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom: this the Lord called “foolishness,”[2] and “chose the foolish things of the world” to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed[3] heresies are themselves instigated[4] by philosophy. From this source came the Æons, and I known not what infinite forms,[5] and the trinity of man[6] in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato’s school. From the same source came Marcion’s better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again[7] by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments[8] are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed—Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma.[9] Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions,[10] so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing[11] even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of[12] nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,”[13] and “unprofitable questions,”[14] and “words which spread like a cancer?”[15] From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.”[16] He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,”[17] who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.”[18] Away with[19] all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

[1] 1 Tim. 4:1.

[2] 1 Cor. 3:18 and 25.

[3] Denique.

[4] Subornantur.

[5] Formeæ, “Ideæ” (Oehler).

[6] See Tertullian’s treatises, adversus Valentinum, xxv., and de Anima, xxi.; also Epiphanius, Hær. xxxi. 23.

[7] Volutatur.

[8] Retractatus.

[9] “De enthymesi;” for this word Tertullian gives animationem (in his tract against Valentinus, ix.), which seems to mean, “the mind in operation.” (See the same treatise, x. xi.) With regard to the other word, Jerome (on Amos. 3.) adduces Valentinus as calling Christ ἔκτρωμα, that is, abortion.

[10] Sententiis.

[11] Molestam.

[12] Tractaverit, in the sense of conclusively settling.

[13] 1 Tim. 1:4.

[14] Tit. 3:9.

[15] 2 Tim. 2:17.

[16] Col. 2:8. The last clause, “præter providentiam Spiritus Sancti,” is either Tertullian’s reading, or his gloss of the apostle’s οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν—“not after Christ.”

[17] Because in the beginning of the church the apostles taught in Solomon’s porch, Acts 3:5.

[18] Wisdom of Solomon, 1:1.

[19] Viderint.

Chapter 8

I come now to the point which (is urged both by our own brethren and by the heretics). Our brethren adduce it as a pretext for entering on curious inquiries,[1] and the heretics insist on it for importing the scrupulosity (of their unbelief).[2] It is written, they say, “Seek, and ye shall find.”[3] Let us remember at what time the Lord said this. I think it was at the very outset of His teaching, when there was still a doubt felt by all whether He were the Christ, and when even Peter had not yet declared Him to be the Son of God, and John (Baptist) had actually ceased to feel assurance about Him.[4] With good reason, therefore, was it then said, “Seek, and ye shall find,” when inquiry was still be to made of Him who was not yet become known. Besides, this was said in respect of the Jews. For it is to them that the whole matter[5] of this reproof[6] pertains, seeing that they had (a revelation) where they might seek Christ.

“They have,” says He, “Moses and Elias,”[7]—in other words, the law and the prophets, which preach Christ; as also in another place He says plainly, “Search the Scriptures, in which ye expect (to find) salvation; for they testify of me;”[8] which will be the meaning of “Seek, and ye shall find.” For it is clear that the next words also apply to the Jews: “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”[3] The Jews had formerly been in covenant with[9] God; but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be[10] without God. The Gentiles, on the contrary, had never been in covenant with God; they were only as “a drop from a bucket,” and “as dust from the threshing floor,”[11] and were ever outside the door. Now, how shall he who was always outside knock at the place where he never was? What door does he know of, when he has passed through none, either by entrance or ejection? Is it not rather he who is aware that he once lived within and was thrust out, that (probably) found the door and knocked thereat? In like manner, “Ask, and ye shall receive,”[3] is suitably said[12] to one who was aware from whom he ought to ask,—by whom also some promise had been given; that is to say, “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” Now, the Gentiles knew nothing either of Him, or of any of His promises. Therefore it was to Israel that he spake when He said, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[13] Not yet had He “cast to the dogs the children’s bread;”[14] not yet did He charge them to “go into the way of the Gentiles.”[15] It is only at the last that He instructs them to “go and teach all nations, and baptize them,”[16] when they were so soon to receive “the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who should guide them into all the truth.”[17] And this, too, makes towards the same conclusion. If the apostles, who were ordained[18] to be teachers to the Gentiles, were themselves to have the Comforter for their teacher, far more needless[19] was it to say to us, “Seek, and ye shall find,” to whom was to come, without research,[20] our instruction[21] by the apostles, and to the apostles themselves by the Holy Ghost. All the Lord’s sayings, indeed, are set forth for all men; through the ears of the Jews have they passed on to us. Still most of them were addressed to Jewish persons;[22] they therefore did not constitute instruction properly designed[23] for ourselves, but rather an example.[24]

[1] Curiositatem.

[2] Scrupulositatem, “hair-splitting.”

[3] Matt. 7:7.

[4] See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, iv. 18 (infra), and Tertullian’s treatise, de Bapt. x.

[5] Sermo.

[6] Suggillationis.

[7] Luke 16:29.

[8] John 5:39.

[9] Penes.

[10] Or, “were for the first time.”

[11] Isa. 40:15.

[12] Competit.

[13] Matt. 15:24.

[14] Ver. 26.

[15] Matt. 10:5.

[16] Matt. 28:19.

[17] John 16:13.

[18] Destinati.

[19] Multo magis vacabat.

[20] Ultro.

[21] Doctrina.

[22] In personas, i.e., Judæorum (Oehler).

[23] Proprietatem admonitionis.

[24] “That is, not a specific command” primarily meant for us, but a principle “to be applied by us” (Dodgson).

Chapter 9

I now purposely[1] relinquish this ground of argument. Let it be granted, that the words, “Seek, and ye shall find,” were addressed to all men (equally). Yet even here one’s aim is[2] carefully to determine[3] the sense of the words[4] consistently with[5] (that reason),[6] which is the guiding principle[7] in all interpretation. (Now) no divine saying is so unconnected[8] and diffuse, that its words only are to be insisted on, and their connection left undetermined. But at the outset I lay down (this position) that there is some one, and therefore definite, thing taught by Christ, which the Gentiles are by all means bound to believe, and for that purpose to “seek,” in order that they may be able, when they have “found” it, to believe. However,[9] there can be no indefinite seeking for that which has been taught as one only definite thing. You must “seek” until you “find,” and believe when you have found; nor have you anything further to do but to keep what you have believed provided you believe this besides, that nothing else is to be believed, and therefore nothing else is to be sought, after you have found and believed what has been taught by Him who charges you to seek no other thing than that which He has taught.[10] When, indeed, any man doubts about this, proof will be forthcoming,[11] that we have in our possession[12] that which was taught by Christ. Meanwhile, such is my confidence in our proof, that I anticipate it, in the shape of an admonition to certain persons, not “to seek” anything beyond what they have believed—that this is what they ought to have sought, how to avoid[13] interpreting, “Seek, and ye shall find,” without regard to the rule of reason.

[1] Sponte.

[2] Expetit.

[3] Certare.

[4] Sensus.

[5] Cum.

[6] See Oehler’s note.

[7] Gubernaculo. See Irenæus, ii. 46, for a similar view (Rigalt.). Surely Dodgson’s version, if intelligible in itself even, incorrectly represents Tertullian’s sense.

[8] Dissoluta.

[9] Porro.

[10] [Not to be contented with Truth, once known, is a sin preceding that against the Holy Spirit, and this state of mind explains the judicial blindness inflicted on Lapsers, as asserted by St. Paul, 2 Thess. 2:10, 13, where note—“they received not the love of the truth.” They had it and were not content with it.]

[11] Constabit.

[12] Penes nos.

[13] Ne.

Chapter 10

Now the reason of this saying is comprised in three points: in the matter, in the time, in the limit.[1] In the matter, so that you must consider what it is you have to seek; in the time, when you have to seek; in the limit, how long. What you have “to seek,” then, is that which Christ has taught,[2] (and you must go on seeking) of course for such time as you fail to find,[3]—until indeed you find[4] it. But you have succeeded in finding[5] when you have believed. For you would not have believed if you had not found; as neither would you have sought except with a view to find. Your object, therefore, in seeking was to find; and your object in finding was to believe. All further delay for seeking and finding you have prevented[6] by believing. The very fruit of your seeking has determined for you this limit. This boundary[7] has He set for you Himself, who is unwilling that you should believe anything else than what He has taught, or, therefore, even seek for it. If, however, because so many other things have been taught by one and another, we are on that account bound to go on seeking, so long as we are able to find anything, we must (at that rate) be ever seeking, and never believe anything at all. For where shall be the end of seeking? where the stop[8] in believing? where the completion in finding? (Shall it be) with Marcion? But even Valentinus proposes (to us the) maxim, “Seek, and ye shall find.” (Then shall it be) with Valentinus? Well, but Apelles, too, will assail me with the same quotation; Hebion also, and Simon, and all in turn, have no other argument wherewithal to entice me, and draw me over to their side. Thus I shall be nowhere, and still be encountering[9] (that challenge), “Seek, and ye shall find,” precisely as if I had no resting-place;[10] as if (indeed) I had never found that which Christ has taught—that which ought[11] to be sought, that which must needs[12] be believed.

[1] In modo.

[2] This is, “the matter.”

[3] “The time.”

[4] “The limit.”

[5] Invenisti.

[6] Fixisti, “determined.”

[7] Fossam.

[8] Statio, “resting-place.”

[9] Dum convenero.

[10] This is the rendering of Oehler’s text, “et velut si nusquam. There are other readings of this obscure passage, of which as we add the two most intelligible. The Codex Agobardinus has, “et velim si nunquam;” that is, “and I would that I were nowhere,” with no fixed belief—in such wise as never to have had the truth; not, as must now be, to have forfeited it. (Dodgson). This seems far-fetched, and inferior to the reading of Pamelius and his mss.: “et velint me sic esse nusquam;”—or (as Semler puts it) “velint sic nusquam;” i.e., “and they (the heretics) would wish me to be nowhere”—without the fixed faith of the Catholic. This makes good sense. [Semler is here mentioned, and if anybody wishes to understand what sort of editor he was, he may be greatly amused by Kaye’s examination of some of his positions, pp. 64–84. Elucidation II.]

[11] Oportet.

[12] Necesse est. Observe these degrees of obligation.

Chapter 11

There is impunity in erring, if there is no delinquency; although indeed to err it is itself an act of delinquency.[1] With impunity, I repeat, does a man ramble,[2] when he (purposely) deserts nothing. But yet, if I have believed what I was bound to believe, and then afterwards think that there is something new to be sought after, I of course expect that there is something else to be found, although I should by no means entertain such expectation, unless it were because I either had not believed, although I apparently had become a believer, or else have ceased to believe. If I thus desert my faith, I am found to be a denier thereof. Once for all I would say, No man seeks, except him who either never possessed, or else has lost (what he sought). The old woman (in the Gospel)[3] had lost one of her ten pieces of silver, and therefore she sought it;[4] when, however, she found it, she ceased to look for it. The neighbour was without bread, and therefore he knocked; but as soon as the door was opened to him, and he received the bread, he discontinued knocking.[5] The widow kept asking to be heard by the judge, because she was not admitted; but when her suit was heard, thenceforth she was silent.[6] So that there is a limit both to seeking, and to knocking, and to asking. “For to every one that asketh,” says He, “it shall be given, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened, and by him that seeketh it shall be found.”[7] Away with the man[8] who is ever seeking because he never finds; for he seeks there where nothing can be found. Away with him who is always knocking because it will never be opened to him; for he knocks where there is none (to open). Away with him who is always asking because he will never be heard; for he asks of one who does not hear.

[1] Quamvis et errare delinquere est.

[2] Vagatur.

[3] Anus illa.

[4] Luke 15:8.

[5] Luke 11:5.

[6] Luke 18:2, 3.

[7] Luke 11:9.

[8] Viderit.

Chapter 12

As for us, although we must still seek, and that always, yet where ought our search to be made? Amongst the heretics, where all things are foreign[1] and opposed to our own verity, and to whom we are forbidden to draw near? What slave looks for food from a stranger, not to say an enemy of his master? What soldier expects to get bounty and pay from kings who are unallied, I might almost say hostile—unless forsooth he be a deserter, and a runaway, and a rebel? Even that old woman[2] searched for the piece of silver within her own house. It was also at his neighbour’s door that the persevering assailant kept knocking. Nor was it to a hostile judge, although a severe one, that the widow made her appeal. No man gets instruction[3] from that which tends to destruction.[4] No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our “seeking,” therefore be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own,—that, and only that,[5] which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.

[1] Extranea.

[2] Although Tertullian calls her “anus,” St. Luke’s word is γυνή not γραῦς.

[3] Instrui potest.

[4] Unde destruitur.

[5] Idque dumtaxat.

Chapter 13

Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point[1] acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth;[2] that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended[3] into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself[4] the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.[5]

[1] Jam hinc.

[2] Primo omnium demissum. Literally, “sent down.” See on this procession of the Son of God to create the world, Bishop Bull’s Defence of the Nicene Creed, etc., by the translator of this work, pp. 445 and following.

[3] Ereptum, having been taken away.

[4] Vicariam. [Scott’s Christian Life, Vol. III. p. 64.]

[5] [See Bunsen (Hippol. III. Notes, etc., p. 129.) for a castigated form of the Latin Creed, as used in Rome. Observe it lacks the word Catholic. But a much better study of these formulas may be found in Dupin’s comparative Table. First Cent. pp. 9–12.]

Chapter 14

So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may seek and discuss as much as you please, and give full rein to[1] your curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang in doubt, or to be shrouded in obscurity. You have at hand, no doubt, some learned[2] brother gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class, some one of your close acquaintance who is curious like yourself; although with yourself, a seeker he will, after all,[3] be quite aware[4] that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know.[5] “Thy faith,” He says, “hath saved thee”[6] not observe your skill[7] in the Scriptures. Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation. Skill,[7] however, consists in curious art, having for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack.[8] Let such curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let them either relinquish their noisiness,[9] or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things. (Suppose) that heretics were not enemies to the truth, so that we were not forewarned to avoid them, what sort of conduct would it be to agree with men who do themselves confess that they are still seeking? For if they are still seeking, they have not as yet found anything amounting to certainty; and therefore, whatever they seem for a while[10] to hold, they betray their own scepticism,[11] whilst they continue seeking. You therefore, who seek after their fashion, looking to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a waverer to waverers, must needs be “led, blindly by the blind, down into the ditch.”[12] But when, for the sake of deceiving us, they pretend that they are still seeking, in order that they may palm[13] their essays[14] upon us by the suggestion of an anxious sympathy,[15]—when, in short (after gaining an access to us), they proceed at once to insist on the necessity of our inquiring into such points as they were in the habit of advancing, then it is high time for us in moral obligation[16] to repel[17] them, so that they may know that it is not Christ, but themselves, whom we disavow. For since they are still seekers, they have no fixed tenets yet;[18] and being not fixed in tenet, they have not yet believed; and being not yet believers, they are not Christians. But even though they have their tenets and their belief, they still say that inquiry is necessary in order to discussion.[19] Previous, however, to the discussion, they deny what they confess not yet to have believed, so long as they keep it an object of inquiry. When men, therefore, are not Christians even on their own admission,[20] how much more (do they fail to appear such) to us! What sort of truth is that which they patronize,[21] when they commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually[22] treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do.[23] From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith?

[1] Omnem libidinem effundas, “pour out the whole desire for.”

[2] Doctor, literally, “teacher.” See Eph. 4:11; also above; chap. iii. p. 244.

[3] This seems to be the more probable meaning of novissime in this rather obscure sentence. Oehler treats it adverbially as “postremo,” and refers to a similar use of the word below in chap. xxx. Dr. Routh (and, after him, the translator in The Library of the Fathers, Tertullian, p. 448) makes the word a noun, “thou newest of novices,” and refers to Tertullian’s work, against Praxeas, chap. xxvii., for a like use. This seems to us too harsh for the present context.

[4] Sciet.

[5] See 1 Cor. 12:8.

[6] Luke 18:42.

[7] Exercitatio.

[8] De peritiæ studio.

[9] Non obstrepant.

[10] Interim.

[11] Dubitationem.

[12] Matt. 15:14.

[13] Insinuent.

[14] Tractatus.

[15] Or, “by instilling an anxiety into us” (Dodgson).

[16] Jam debemus.

[17] Refutare.

[18] Nondum tenent.

[19] Ut defendant.

[20] Nec sibi sunt.

[21] Patrocinantur.

[22] Ipsi.

[23] Scilicet.

Chapter 15

We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward[1] the Scriptures, and by this insolence[2] of theirs they at once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.[3]

If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.

[1] Obtendunt.

[2] Audacia.

[3] De Scripturis. But as this preposition is often the sign of the instrument in Tertullian, this phrase may mean “out of,” or “by means of the Scriptures.” See the last chapter.

Chapter 16

I might be thought to have laid down this position to remedy distrust in my case,[1] or from a desire of entering on the contest[2] in some other way, were there not reasons on my side, especially this, that our faith owes deference[3] to the apostle, who forbids us to enter on “questions,” or to lend our ears to new-fangled statements,[4] or to consort with a heretic “after the first and second admonition,”[5] not, (be it observed,) after discussion. Discussion he has inhibited in this way, by designating admonition as the purpose of dealing with a heretic, and the first one too, because he is not a Christian; in order that he might not, after the manner of a Christian, seem to require correction again and again, and “before two or three witnesses,”[6] seeing that he ought to be corrected, for the very reason that he is not to be disputed with; and in the next place, because a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly,[7] produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain.

[1] De consilio diffidentiæ.

[2] Constitutionis, “prima causarum conflictio,”—a term of the law courts.

[3] Obsequium.

[4] 1 Tim. 6:3, 4.

[5] Tit. 3:10.

[6] Matt. 18:16.

[7] Plane, ironical.

Chapter 17

Now this heresy of yours[1] does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even when it does receive any up to a certain point[2] as entire, it nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text.[3] Their vain presumptions must needs refuse to acknowledge the (writings) whereby they are refuted. They rely on those which they have falsely put together, and which they have selected, because of[4] their ambiguity. Though most skilled[5] in the Scriptures, you will make no progress,[6] when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy.

[1] Ista hæresis.

[2] Aliquatenus.

[3] Stilus.

[4] “De” has often the sense of “propter” in our author.

[5] Literally, “O most skilled.”

[6] Quid promovebis.

Chapter 18

But with respect to the man for whose sake you enter on the discussion of the Scriptures,[1] with the view of strengthening him when afflicted with doubts, (let me ask) will it be to the truth, or rather to heretical opinions that he will lean? Influenced by the very fact that he sees you have made no progress, whilst the other side is on an equal footing[2] (with yourself) in denying and in defence, or at any rate on a like standing[3] he will go away confirmed in his uncertainty[4] by the discussion, not knowing which side to adjudge heretical. For, no doubt, they too are able[5] to retort these things on us. It is indeed a necessary consequence that they should go so far as to say that adulterations of the Scriptures, and false expositions thereof, are rather introduced by ourselves, inasmuch as they, no less than we[6] maintain that truth is on their side.

[1] Or, “from the Scriptures.”

[2] Æquo gradu.

[3] Statu certe pari.

[4] Incertior.

[5] Habent.

[6] Proinde.

Chapter 19

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible,[1] or uncertain, or not certain enough.[2] But even if a discussion from the Scriptures[3] should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong.[4] From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule,[5] by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.

[1] Nulla.

[2] Parum certa.

[3] Conlatio scripturarum, or, “a polemical comparison of the Scriptures.”

[4] Quibus competat fides ipsa cujus sint Scripturæ.

[5] Disciplina [or, where was the guide-post set?]

Chapter 20

Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side,[1] and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.”[2] Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David,[3] chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith,[4] and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them,[5] that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing[6] must necessarily revert to its original for its classification.[7] Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion,[8] and title of brotherhood, and bond[9] of hospitality,—privileges[10] which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.[11]

[1] Mark 4:34.

[2] Matt. 28:19.

[3] Ps. 109:8; comp. with Acts 1:15–20.

[4] Traducem fidei.

[5] Mutuantur “borrowing.”

[6] Omne genus.

[7] Censeatur or, “for its origin.”

[8] Communicatio pacis.

[9] Contesseratio. [3 John 8.]

[10] Jura, “rights.”

[11] That is, of the faith, or Christian creed.

Chapter 21

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.”[1] Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree[2] manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds[3] and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged[4] as false[5] which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin[6] in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto[7]proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

[1] Matt. 11:27.

[2] Perinde.

[3] Matricibus.

[4] Præjudicandam. [This then is Præscription.]

[5] De mendacio.

[6] Censeatur.

[7] Ex hoc ipso, “from this very circumstance.”

Chapter 22

But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand,[1] that if it were at once produced there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the opposite side, if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point,[2] and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,—in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers),[3] keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things[4] which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,”[5] which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,”[6] who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”[7] with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”[7] Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast[8] to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor,[9] whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead?[10] Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven?[11] Not as if He thus disapproved[12] of all the rest, but because “by three witnesses must every word be established.”[13] After the same fashion,[14] too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, “to expound all the Scriptures.”[15] No doubt[16] He had once said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;” but even then He added, “When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth.”[17] He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture[18] can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves[19] who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes[20] this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures[21] of those things which they mendaciously devise.

[1] Expedita.

[2] Susam rursus convertun.

[3] Magistros.

[4] Mark 4:34.

[5] Matt. 13:11.

[6] Matt. 16:18. [See Kaye p. 222, also Elucidation II.]

[7] Ver. 19.

[8] John 21:20.

[9] John 13:25. [N.B. loco suo.]

[10] John 19:26.

[11] Matt. 17:1–8.

[12] Reprobans.

[13] Deut. 19:15, and 2 Cor. 13:1.

[14] Itaque, ironical.

[15] Luke 24:27.

[16] Plane.

[17] John 16:12, 13.

[18] See Tertullian’s Anti-Marcion, iv. 5, and v. 2 (Trans. pp. 187 and 377).

[19] Nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere.

[20] Incunabulis, infant nursing.

[21] Traductiones.

Chapter 23

Now, with the view of branding[1] the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked by Paul. “Something therefore,” they say, “was wanting in them.” (This they allege,) in order that they may from this construct that other position of theirs, that a fuller knowledge may possibly have afterwards come over (the apostles,) such as fell to the share of Paul when he rebuked those who preceded him. I may here say to those who reject The Acts of the Apostles: “It is first necessary that you show us who this Paul was,—both what he was before he was an apostle, and how he became an apostle,”—so very great is the use which they make of him in respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle,[2] still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself.[3] But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures.[4] Still they should show, from the circumstance which they allege of Peter’s being rebuked by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel besides that which Peter and the rest had previously set forth. But the fact is,[5] having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren—to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles’ hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he “went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,”[6] because of his office, no doubt,[7] and by right of a common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have “glorified the Lord,”[8] because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. They accordingly even gave him “the right hand of fellowship,”[9] as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons,[10] Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching.[11] For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced.

[1] Suggillandam.

[2] Gal. 1:13.

[3] John 5:31.

[4] Ut credunt contra Scripturas.

[5] Atquin.

[6] Gal. 1:18.

[7] Scilicet.

[8] Gal. 1:24.

[9] Gal. 2:9.

[10] The same verse. [Note Peter’s restriction to Jews.]

[11] Vers. 12, 13. See also Anti-Marcion, iv. 3 (Trans. p. 182).

Chapter 24

I have not the good fortune,[1] or, as I must rather say,[2] I have not the unenviable task,[3] of setting apostles by the ears.[4] But, inasmuch as our very perverse cavillers obtrude the rebuke in question for the set purpose of bringing the earlier[5] doctrine into suspicion, I will put in a defence, as it were, for Peter, to the effect that even Paul said that he was “made all things to all men—to the Jews a Jew,” to those who were not Jews as one who was not a Jew—“that he might gain all.”[6] Therefore it was according to times and persons and causes that they used to censure certain practices, which they would not hesitate themselves to pursue, in like conformity to times and persons and causes. Just (e.g.) as if Peter too had censured Paul, because, whilst forbidding circumcision, he actually circumcised Timothy himself. Never mind[7] those who pass sentence on apostles! It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory[8] of martyrdom. Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise,[9] and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no human being.[10] If, however, that unspeakable mystery[11] did leak out,[12] and become known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same, (then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some other man must actually[13] be shown to have been afterwards “caught up into paradise,” who had permission to speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed (even) to mutter.

[1] Non mihi tam bene est.

[2] Immo.

[3] Non mihi tam male est.

[4] Ut committam.

[5] Superiorem, “that which Peter had preached.”

[6] 1 Cor. 9:20, 22.

[7] Viderint.

[8] Et in martyrio.

[9] 2 Cor. 12:4.

[10] Nulli hominum.

[11] Nescio quid illud.

[12] Emanavit.

[13] Et.

Chapter 25

But here is, as we have said,[1] the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;”[2] and again: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep.”[3] What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize[4] a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?”[5] and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?”[6] Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious[7] hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched[8] doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase.[9] Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,”[9] be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.[10]

[1] Above, in chap. xxii. [Note the Gnostic madness of such a plea. Kaye, p. 235 and Elucidation IV.]

[2] 1 Tim. 6:20.

[3] 2 Tim. 1:14.

[4] Ut alterius doctrinæ deputetur.

[5] 1 Tim. 1:18.

[6] 1 Tim. 6:13.

[7] Nescis quid.

[8] Remotiore.

[9] 2 Tim. 2:2.

[10] Apud conscientiam. [Clement of Alexandria is to be interpreted by Tertullian, with whom he does not essentially differ. For Clement’s Esoteric Doctrine (See Vol. II. pp. 302, 313, etc.) is defined as perfecting the type of the Christian by the strong meat of Truth, of which the entire deposit is presupposed as common to all Christians. We must not blame Clement for the abuse of his teaching by perverters of Truth itself.]

Chapter 26

Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom he committed the ministration of the gospel, he would add the injunction that it be not ministered in all places,[1] and without respect to persons,[2] in accordance with the Lord’s saying, “Not to cast one’s pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto dogs.”[3] Openly did the Lord speak,[4] without any intimation of a hidden mystery. He had Himself commanded that, “whatsoever they had heard in darkness” and in secret, they should “declare in the light and on the house-tops.”[5] He had Himself foreshown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest,[6] a single pound, that is, one word of His. He used Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually “pushed away under a bushel, but placed on a candlestick,” in order to “give light to all who are in the house.”[7] These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,—neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in their violence;[8] with all the greater freedom, then, would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they “set forth in order”[9] that which they would have them believe. Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends,[10] so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches,[11]—as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church,[12] seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil;”[13] so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.

[1] Passim.

[2] Inconsiderate.

[3] Matt. 7:6.

[4] John 18:20.

[5] Matt. 10:27.

[6] Luke 19:20–24.

[7] Matt. 5:15.

[8] Literally, “the violence of neither Jew nor Gentile.”

[9] Luke 1:1.

[10] Domesticos. [All this interprets Clement and utterly deprives the Trent System of its appeal to a secret doctrine, against our Præscription.]

[11] Catholice, or, “which they were bringing before the public in catholic way.”

[12] 1 Cor. 1:10.

[13] Matt. 5:37.

Chapter 27

Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare,[1] or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust[2] you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?”[3] and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?”[4] and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.”[5] That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;”[6] who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.”[7] When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

[1] Plenitudinem prædicationis.

[2] Scrupulositatis.

[3] Gal. 3:1.

[4] Gal. 5:7.

[5] Gal. 1:6.

[6] 1 Cor. 3:1, and following verses.

[7] 1 Cor. 8:2.

Chapter 28

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ,[1] and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth;[2] grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,[3] neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless[4] enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?

[1] John 14:26.

[2] John 15:26.

[3] [Tertullian knows no other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit. They who attribute infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.]

[4] Audeat.

Chapter 29

In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course[1] only as long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly[2] preached; men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts,[3] so many spiritual endowments,[4] were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many ministries,[5] were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own church—“Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.”[6]

[1] Utique, ironical.

[2] Perperam.

[3] Virtutes, “potestatem edendi miracula” (Oehler).

[4] Charismata.

[5] Ministeria. Another reading has mysteria, “mysteries” or “sacraments.”

[6] Gal. 1:8. [In this chapter (xxix.) the principle of Prescription is condensed and brought to the needle-point—Quod semper. If you can’t show that your doctrine was always taught, it is false: and this is “Prescription.”]

Chapter 30

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,—in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,[1]—and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus,[2] until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which he had brought into the church, and,[3] when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines. Afterwards, it is true, Marcion professed repentance, and agreed to the conditions granted to him—that he should receive reconciliation if he restored to the church all the others whom he had been training for perdition: he was prevented, however, by death. It was indeed[4] necessary that there should be heresies;[5] and yet it does not follow from that necessity, that heresies are a good thing. As if it has not been necessary also that there should be evil! It was even necessary that the Lord should be betrayed; but woe to the traitor![6] So that no man may from this defend heresies. If we must likewise touch the descent[7] of Apelles, he is far from being “one of the old school,”[8] like his instructor and moulder, Marcion; he rather forsook the continence of Marcion, by resorting to the company of a woman, and withdrew to Alexandria, out of sight of his most abstemious[9] master. Returning therefrom, after some years, unimproved, except that he was no longer a Marcionite, he clave[10] to another woman, the maiden Philumene (whom we have already[11] mentioned), who herself afterwards became an enormous prostitute. Having been imposed on by her vigorous spirit,[12] he committed to writing the revelations which he had learned of her. Persons are still living who remember them,—their own actual disciples and successors,—who cannot therefore deny the lateness of their date. But, in fact, by their own works they are convicted, even as the Lord said.[13] For since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is (necessarily) subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was (previously) united. Having then been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation. In like manner Valentinus, by his different expositions and acknowledged[14] emendations, makes these changes on the express ground of previous faultiness, and therefore demonstrates the difference[15] of the documents. These corrupters of the truth we mention as being more notorious and more public[16] than others. There is, however, a certain man[17] named Nigidius, and Hermogenes, and several others, who still pursue the course[18] of perverting the ways of the Lord. Let them show me by what authority they come! If it be some other God they preach, how comes it that they employ the things and the writings and the names of that God against whom they preach? If it be the same God, why treat Him in some other way? Let them prove themselves to be new apostles![19] Let them maintain that Christ has come down a second time, taught in person a second time, has been twice crucified, twice dead, twice raised! For thus has the apostle described (the order of events in the life of Christ); for thus, too, is He[20] accustomed to make His apostles—to give them, (that is), power besides of working the same miracles which He worked Himself.[21] I would therefore have their mighty deeds also brought forward; except that I allow their mightiest deed to be that by which they perversely vie with the apostles. For whilst they used to raise men to life from the dead, these consign men to death from their living state.

[1] Fere.

[2] [Kaye, p. 226.]

[3] See adv. Marcion, iv. 4. infra.

[4] Enim, profecto (Oehler).

[5] 1 Cor. 11:19.

[6] Mark. 14:21.

[7] Stemma. The reading of the Cod. Agobard. is “stigma,” which gives very good sense.

[8] Vetus.

[9] Sanctissimi. This may be an ironical allusion to Marcion’s repudiation of marriage.

[10] Impegit.

[11] In chap. vi. p. 246 above.

[12] Energemate. Oehler defines this word, “vis et efficacia dæmonum, quibus agebatur.” [But see Lardner, Credib. viii. p. 540.]

[13] Matt. 7:16.

[14] Sine dubio.

[15] Alterius fuisse. One reading is anterius; i.e., “demonstrates the priority” of the book he alters.

[16] Frequentiores.

[17] Nescio qui.

[18] Ambulant.

[19] Compare de Carne Christi, chap. ii. [Elucidation IV.]

[20] Christ; so Routh.

[21] We add Oehler’s reading of this obscure passage: “Sic enim apostolus descripsit, sic enim apostolos solet facere, dare præterea illis virtutem eadem signa edendi quæ et ipse.” [“It is worthy of remark” (says Kaye, p. 95), “that he does not appeal to any instance of the exercise of miraculous powers in his own day.”]

Chapter 31

Let me return, however, from this digression[1] to discuss[2] the priority of truth, and the comparative lateness[3] of falsehood, deriving support for my argument even from that parable which puts in the first place the sowing by the Lord of the good seed of the wheat, but introduces at a later stage the adulteration of the crop by its enemy the devil with the useless weed of the wild oats. For herein is figuratively described the difference of doctrines, since in other passages also the word of God is likened unto seed. From the actual order, therefore, it becomes clear, that that which was first delivered is of the Lord and is true, whilst that is strange and false which was afterwards introduced. This sentence will keep its ground in opposition to all later heresies, which have no consistent quality of kindred knowledge[4] inherent in them—to claim the truth as on their side.

[1] Ab excessu.

[2] Disputandam. Another reading has deputandam, i.e., “to attribute.”

[3] Posteritatem.

[4] Nulla constantia de conscientia, “no conscientious ground of confidence” (Dodgson).

Chapter 32

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records[1] of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs[2]] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit[3] their registers:[4] as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.[5] In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive[6] something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof[7] by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.[8] Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two[9] tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.[10]

[1] Origines, “the originals” (Dodgson).

[2] Ille. A touch of irony occurs in the phrase “primus ille episcopus.”

[3] Deferunt.

[4] Fastos.

[5] [Linus and Cletus must have died or been martyred, therefore, almost as soon as appointed. Our author had seen these registers, no doubt.]

[6] Confingant.

[7] Probabuntur. Another reading is provocabuntur, “will be challenged.” [Not to one particular See, but to all the Apostolic churches: Quod ubique.]

[8] Pro consanguinitate doctrinæ.

[9] That is, the succession of bishops from the apostles, and the identity of doctrine with the apostolic.

[10] Sacramenti.

Chapter 33

Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which, existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and denounced by the said apostles. For by this method they will be more easily reprobated,[1] when they are detected to have been even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings[2] of the (tares) which then were. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection.[3] This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.[4] A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law.[5] Thus runs Hebion’s heresy. Such also as “forbid to marry” he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy.[6] Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow[7] against those who said that “the resurrection was past already.”[8] Such an opinion did the Valentinians assert of themselves. When again he mentions “endless genealogies,”[9] one also recognises Valentinus, in whose system a certain Æon, whosoever he be,[10] of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own grace[11] Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of themselves Word[12] and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the Church. From these primary eight[13] ten other Æons after them spring, and then the twelve others arise with their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty Æons. The same apostle, when disapproving of those who are “in bondage to elements,”[14] points us to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning,[15] and then compares it with God, who has no beginning.[16] By thus making the mother of the elements a goddess, he has it in his power “to be in bondage” to a being which he puts on a par with[17] God. John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those “who eat things sacrificed to idols,” and “who commit fornication.”[18] There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans. Theirs is called the Gaian[19] heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates those as “Antichrists” who “denied that Christ was come in the flesh,”[20] and who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion.[21] The doctrine, however, of Simon’s sorcery, which inculcated the worship of angels,[22] was itself actually reckoned amongst idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon’s own person.

[1] Traducentur.

[2] Semina sumpsisse.

[3] 1 Cor. 15:12.

[4] Comp. Tertull. De Resur. Carnis, xxxvi.

[5] Gal. 5:2.

[6] 1 Tim. 4:3.

[7] Æque tangit.

[8] 2 Tim. 2:3.

[9] 1 Tim. 1:4.

[10] Nescio qui.

[11] Charite.

[12] Sermonem.

[13] De qua prima ogdoade. [See Irenæus, Vol. I. p. 316, etc. this Series.]

[14] Gal. 4:9.

[15] Non natam, literally, “as being unbegotten.”

[16] Deo non nato.

[17] Comparat.

[18] Rev. 2:14.

[19] Gaiana. So Oehler; the common reading being “Caiana.”

[20] 1 John 4:3.

[21] Comp. Epiphanius, i. 30.

[22] Referred to perhaps in Col. 2:18.

Chapter 34

These are, as I suppose, the different kinds of spurious doctrines, which (as we are informed by the apostles themselves) existed in their own day. And yet we find amongst so many various perversions of truth, not one school[1] which raised any controversy concerning God as the Creator of all things. No man was bold enough to surmise a second god. More readily was doubt felt about the Son than about the Father, until Marcion introduced, in addition to the Creator, another god of goodness only. Apelles made the Creator of some nondescript[2] glorious angel, who belonged to the superior God, the god (according to him,) of the law and of Israel, affirming that he was fire.[3] Valentinus disseminated his Æons, and traced the sin of one Æon[4] to the production of God the Creator. To none, forsooth, except these, nor prior to these, was revealed the truth of the Divine Nature; and they obtained this especial honour and fuller favour from the devil, we cannot doubt,[5] because he wished even in this respect to rival God, that he might succeed, by the poison of his doctrines, in doing himself what the Lord said could not be done—making “the disciples above their Master.”[6] Let the entire mass[7] of heresies choose, therefore, for themselves the times when they should appear, provided that the when be an unimportant point; allowing, too, that they be not of the truth, and (as a matter of course[8]) that such as had no existence in the time of the apostles could not possibly have had any connection with the apostles. If indeed they had then existed, their names would be extant,[9] with a view to their own repression likewise. Those (heresies) indeed which did exist in the days of the apostles, are condemned in their very mention.[10] If it be true, then, that those heresies, which in the apostolic times were in a rude form, are now found to be the same, only in a much more polished shape, they derive their condemnation from this very circumstance. Or if they were not the same, but arose afterwards in a different form, and merely assumed from them certain tenets, then, by sharing with them an agreement in their teaching,[11] they must needs partake in their condemnation, by reason of the above-mentioned definition,[12] of lateness of date, which meets us on the very threshold.[13] Even if they were free from any participation in condemned doctrine, they would stand already judged[14] on the mere ground of time, being all the more spurious because they were not even named by the apostles. Whence we have the firmer assurance, that these were (the heresies) which even then,[15] were announced as about to arise.

[1] Institutionem.

[2] Nescio quem.

[3] Igneum, “consisted of fire.”

[4] “The ectroma, or fall of Sophia from the Pleroma, from whom the Creator was fabled to be descended” (Dodgson).

[5] Scilicet.

[6] Luke 6:40.

[7] Universæ.

[8] Utique.

[9] Nominarentur et ipsæ.

[10] Nominatione, i.e. by the apostles.

[11] Prædicationis.

[12] Fine.

[13] Præcedente.

[14] Præjudicarentur. [i.e. by Præscription.]

[15] i.e., in the days of the apostles, and by their mouth.

Chapter 35

Challenged and refuted by us, according to these definitions, let all the heresies boldly on their part also advance similar rules to these against our doctrine, whether they be later than the apostles or contemporary with the apostles, provided they be different from them; provided also they were, by either a general or a specific censure, precondemned by them. For since they deny the truth of (our doctrine), they ought to prove that it also is heresy, refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves refuted; and at the same time to show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident has no existence amongst them. Our system[1] is not behind any in date; on the contrary, it is earlier than all; and this fact will be the evidence of that truth which everywhere occupies the first place. The apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend it,—a fact which will show that it comes from themselves.[2] For that doctrine which they refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every strange opinion, they show to be their own, and on that ground too they defend it.

[1] Res.

[2] Indicium proprietatis, a proof of its being their own.

Chapter 36

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones[1] of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places,[2] in which their own authentic writings[3] are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy,[4] you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).[5] How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s[6] where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa![7] One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites[8] in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom,[9] and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from[10] which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her.[11] Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ[12] of the fruitful, rich, and genuine[13] olive; also from the seed[14] of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant,[15] although not of our kind; (they come) from the grain of truth,[16] but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show.[17]

[1] Cathedræ.

[2] Suis locis præsident.

[3] Authenticæ. This much disputed phrase may refer to the autographs or the Greek originals (rather than the Latin translations), or full unmutilated copies as opposed to the garbled ones of the heretics. The second sense is probably the correct one.

[4] [Note, those near by may resort to this ancient and glorious church; not as any better than Corinth, or Philippi, or having any higher Apostolic throne. See Irenæus, Vol. I. p. 415, (note) and Elucid. p. 460.]

[5] Compare our Anti-Marcion, iv. 5, p. 186.

[6] The Baptist’s.

[7] [Observe—“even with us in Africa.” If this implies noteworthy love, it proves that there was no organic relation requiring such particular fellowship, even in the West.]

[8] Miscet.

[9] We have taken Oehler’s hint in favour of “martyrio.” The usual reading “martyrium” (meaning “she exhorts to martyrdom”) is stiff, and unsuited to the context.

[10] De.

[11] Or, “they were not of it, because they were opposed to it,” i.e., the discipline or teaching.

[12] Nucleo.

[13] Necessariæ.

[14] Papavere. “Ego cum aliis papaver ficus interpretor de seminalibus ficus, non de ipso fructu” (Oehler).

[15] Frutice.

[16] We again follow Oehler’s hint, who would like to read “de grano veritatis.” The texts are obscure, and vary much here.

[17] Silvestres.

Chapter 37

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics.[1] Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired[2] no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge),[3] even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers—as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?”

[1] “That is, in following out their own choice (αἳρεσις) of opinions, they both receive and admit the name of heretics,” αἱρετικοί, “self-choosers” (Dodgson). [In Theology, technically, one must be a baptized Christian in order to be a heretic. The Mohammedans, e.g., are not heretics but pagans. But, our author speaks rhetorically.]

[2] Capiunt.

[3] Compare 1 Tim. 5:21, and 6:13; 2 Tim. 2:14, and 4:1–4.

Chapter 38

Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of doctrine.[1] They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now, what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us?[2] What of our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures?[3] What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning.[4] Of them we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you. Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor home-born[5] with that which it emulates, it is as incredible to every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, from the very first, and being the first, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume,[6] he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill[7] than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter.[8] Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.[9]

[1] By the instrumenta doctrinæ he here means the writings of the New Testament.

[2] [Our author insists on the precise agreement of Catholic Tradition with Holy Scripture. See valuable remarks on Schleiermacher, in Kaye, pp. 279–284.]

[3] We add the original of this sentence, which is obscured by its terseness: “Quid de proprio intulimus, ut aliquid contrarium ei et in Scripturis deprehensum detractione vel adjectione vel transmutatione remediaremus?”

[4] That is, teaching the same faith and conversation (De la Cerda).

[5] Domestica.

[6] Integro instrumento.

[7] Callidiore ingenio.

[8] That is, cutting out whatever did not fall in with it (Dodgson).

[9] Non comparentium rerum. [Note, he says above “of them, the Scriptures, we, Catholics, have our being.” Præscription does not undervalue Scripture as the food and life of the Church, but supplies a short and decisive method with innovaters.]

Chapter 39

These were the ingenious arts of “spiritual wickednesses,”[1] wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have “to wrestle,” as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered. And therefore they possess influence, and a facility in thinking out and fabricating[2] errors, which ought not to be wondered at as if it were a difficult and inexplicable process, seeing that in profane writings also an example comes ready to hand of a similar facility. You see in our own day, composed out of Virgil,[3] a story of a wholly different character, the subject-matter being arranged according to the verse, and the verse according to the subject-matter. In short,[4] Hosidius Geta has most completely pilfered his tragedy of Medea from Virgil. A near relative of my own, among some leisure productions[5] of his pen, has composed out of the same poet The Table of Cebes. On the same principle, those poetasters are commonly called Homerocentones, “collectors of Homeric odds and ends,” who stitch into one piece, patchwork fashion, works of their own from the lines of Homer, out of many scraps put together from this passage and from that (in miscellaneous confusion). Now, unquestionably, the Divine Scriptures are more fruitful in resources of all kinds for this sort of facility. Nor do I risk contradiction in saying[6] that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of God in such a manner as to furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as I read that “there must be heresies,”[7] which there cannot be without the Scriptures.

[1] See Eph. 6:12, and 1 Cor. 11:18.

[2] Instruendis.

[3] Oehler reads “ex Vergilio,” although the Codex Agobard. as “ex Virgilio.”

[4] Denique. [“Getica lyra.”]

[5] Otis.

[6] Nec periclitor dicere. [Truly, a Tertullianic paradox; but compare 2 Pet. iii. 16. N.B. Scripture the test of heresy.]

[7] 1 Cor. 11:19.

Chapter 40

The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted[1] the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions[2] of the sacraments of God.[3] He, too, baptizes some—that is, his own believers and faithful followers;[4] he promises the putting away[5] of sins by a laver (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.[6] What also must we say to (Satan’s) limiting his chief priest[7] to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence.[8] Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known[9] moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ’s sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon,[10] and succeeded in, adapting[11] to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints[12]—his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that “spiritual wickednesses,” from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry.

[1] “Interpretur” is here a passive verb.

[2] Res.

[3] Sacramentorum divinorum. The form, however, of this phrase seems to point not only to the specific sacraments of the gospel, but to the general mysteries of our religion.

[4] Compare Tertullian’s treatises, de Bapt. v. and de Corona, last chapter.

[5] Expositionem.

[6] “Et sub gladio redimit coronam” is the text of this obscure sentence, which seems to allude to a pretended martyrdom. Compare Tertullian’s tract, de Corona, last chapter.

[7] The Flamen Dialis. See Tertullian’s tract, ad Uxorem, i. 7.

[8] [Corruptio optimi pessima. Compare the surprising parallels of M. Huc between debased Christianity and the paganism of Thibet, etc. Souvenirs d’un voyage, etc. Hazlitt’s translation, 1867.]

[9] Morositatem Illam. [He refers to the minute and vexatious ordinances complained of by St. Peter (Acts 14:10,) which Latin Christianity has ten-folded, in his name.]

[10] Gestiit.

[11] Attemperare.

[12] i.e., the Scriptures of the New Testament.

Chapter 41

I must not omit an account of the conduct[1] also of the heretics—how frivolous it is, how worldly, how merely human, without seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as suits their creed. To begin with, it is doubtful who is a catechumen, and who a believer; they have all access alike, they hear alike, they pray alike—even heathens, if any such happen to come among them. “That which is holy they will cast to the dogs, and their pearls,” although (to be sure) they are not real ones, “they will fling to the swine.”[2] Simplicity they will have to consist in the overthrow of discipline, attention to which on our part they call brothelry.[3] Peace also they huddle up[4] anyhow with all comers; for it matters not to them, however different be their treatment of subjects, provided only they can conspire together to storm the citadel of the one only Truth. All are puffed up, all offer you knowledge. Their catechumens are perfect before they are full-taught.[5] The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake[6] cures—it may be even to baptize.[7] Their ordinations, are carelessly administered,[8] capricious, changeable.[9] At one time they put novices in office; at another time, men who are bound to some secular employment;[10] at another, persons who have apostatized from us, to bind them by vainglory, since they cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels, where the mere fact of being there is a foremost service.[11] And so it comes to pass that to-day one man is their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a deacon who to-morrow is a reader; to-day he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a layman. For even on laymen do they impose the functions of priesthood.

[1] Conversationis.

[2] See Matt. 7:6.

[3] Lenocinium. “Pandering” is Archdeacon Dodgson’s word.

[4] Miscent.

[5] Edocti.

[6] Repromittere.

[7] Compare Tertullian’s tract, de Bapt. I. and de Veland. Virg. viii. [Also, Epiphan. iv. p. 453, Ed. Oehler.]

[8] Temerariæ.

[9] They were constantly changing their ministers. It was a saying of the heretics, “Alius hodie episcopus, cras alius” (Rigalt.).

[10] Sæculo obstrictos.

[11] Promereri est.

Chapter 42

But what shall I say concerning the ministry of the word, since they make it their business not to convert the heathen, but to subvert our people? This is rather the glory which they catch at, to compass the fall of those who stand, not the raising of those who are down. Accordingly, since the very work which they purpose to themselves comes not from the building up of their own society, but from the demolition of the truth, they undermine our edifices, that they may erect their own. Only deprive them of the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the divinity of the Creator, and they have not another objection to talk about. The consequence is, that they more easily accomplish the ruin of standing houses than the erection of fallen ruins. It is only when they have such objects in view that they show themselves humble and bland and respectful. Otherwise they know no respect even for their own leaders. Hence it is [supposed] that schisms seldom happen among heretics, because, even when they exist, they are not obvious.[1] Their very unity, however,[2] is schism. I am greatly in error if they do not amongst themselves swerve even from their own regulations, forasmuch as every man, just as it suits his own temper, modifies the traditions he has received after the same fashion as the man who handed them down did, when he moulded them according to his own will. The progress of the matter is an acknowledgment at once of its character and of the manner of its birth. That was allowable to the Valentinians which had been allowed to Valentinus; that was also fair for the Marcionites which had been done by Marcion—even to innovate on the faith, as was agreeable to their own pleasure. In short, all heresies, when thoroughly looked into, are detected harbouring dissent in many particulars even from their own founders. The majority of them have not even churches.[3] Motherless, houseless, creedless, outcasts, they wander about in their own essential worthlessness.[4]

[1] Non parent.

[2] Enim. [e.g. The Trent system of Unity, alas! is of this sort.]

[3] Hence the saying, “Wasps make combs, so Marcionites make churches” (see our Anti-Marcion, p. 187); describing the strangeness and uselessness of the societies, not (as Gibbon said) their number (Dodgson).

[4] Sua in vilitate. Another reading, pronounced corrupt by Oehler, has “quasi sibi latæ vagantur,” q.d. “All for themselves, as it were, they wander” etc. (Dodgson).

Chapter 43

It has also been a subject of remark, how extremely frequent is the intercourse which heretics hold with magicians, with mountebanks, with astrologers, with philosophers; and the reason is,[1] that they are men who devote themselves to curious questions. “Seek, and ye shall find,” is everywhere in their minds. Thus, from the very nature of their conduct, may be estimated the quality of their faith. In their discipline we have an index of their doctrine. They say that God is not to be feared; therefore all things are in their view free and unchecked. Where, however is God not feared, except where He is not? Where God is not, there truth also is not. Where there is no truth, then, naturally enough, there is also such a discipline as theirs. But where God is, there exists “the fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom.”[2] Where the fear of God is, there is seriousness, an honourable and yet thoughtful[3] diligence, as well as an anxious carefulness and a well-considered admission (to the sacred ministry)[4] and a safely-guarded[5] communion, and promotion after good service, and a scrupulous submission (to authority), and a devout attendance,[6] and a modest gait, and a united church, and God in all things.

[1] Scilicet.

[2] Ps. 111:10; Prov. 1:7.

[3] Attonita, as if in fear that it might go wrong (Rigalt.).

[4] In contrast to the opposite fault of the heresies exposed above.

[5] Deliberata, where the character was well weighed previous to admission to the eucharist.

[6] Apparitio, the duty and office of an apparitor, or attendant on men of higher rank, whether in church or state.

Chapter 44

These evidences, then, of a stricter discipline existing among us, are an additional proof of truth, from which no man can safely turn aside, who bears in mind that future judgment, when “we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ,”[1] to render an account of our faith itself before all things. What, then, will they say who shall have defiled it, even the virgin which Christ committed to them with the adultery of heretics? I suppose they will allege that no injunction was ever addressed to them by Him or by His apostles concerning depraved[2] and perverse doctrines assailing them,[3] or about their avoiding and abhorring the same. (He and His apostles, perhaps,) will acknowledge[4] that the blame rather lies with themselves and their disciples, in not having given us previous warning and instruction! They[5] will, besides, add a good deal respecting the high authority of each doctor of heresy,—how that these mightily strengthened belief in their own doctrine; how that they raised the dead, restored the sick, foretold the future, that so they might deservedly be regarded as apostles. As if this caution were not also in the written record: that many should come who were to work even the greatest miracles, in defence of the deceit of their corrupt preaching. So, forsooth, they will deserve to be forgiven! If, however, any, being mindful of the writings and the denunciations of the Lord and the apostles, shall have stood firm in the integrity of the faith, I suppose they will run great risk of missing pardon, when the Lord answers: I plainly forewarned you that there should be teachers of false doctrine in my name, as well as that of the prophets and apostles also; and to my own disciples did I give a charge, that they should preach the same things to you. But as for you, it was not, of course, to be supposed[6] that you would believe me! I once gave the gospel and the doctrine of the said rule (of life and faith) to my apostles; but afterwards it was my pleasure to make considerable changes in it! I had promised a resurrection, even of the flesh; but, on second thoughts, it struck me[7] that I might not be able to keep my promise! I had shown myself to have been born of a virgin; but this seemed to me afterwards to be a discreditable thing.[8] I had said that He was my Father, who is the Maker of the sun and the showers; but another and better father has adopted me! I had forbidden you to lend an ear to heretics; but in this I erred! Such (blasphemies), it is possible,[9] do enter the minds of those who go out of the right path,[10] and who do not defend[11] the true faith from the danger which besets it. On the present occasion, indeed, our treatise has rather taken up a general position against heresies, (showing that they must) all be refuted on definite, equitable, and necessary rules, without[12] any comparison with the Scriptures. For the rest, if God in His grace permit, we shall prepare answers to certain of these heresies in separate treatises.[13] To those who may devote their leisure in reading through these (pages), in the belief of the truth, be peace, and the grace of our God Jesus Christ for ever.[14]

[1] 2 Cor. 5:10.

[2] Scævis.

[3] Futuris.

[4] It seems to us, that this is the force of the strong irony, indicated by the “credo,” which pervades this otherwise unintelligible passage. Dodgson’s version seems untenable: “Let them (the heretics) acknowledge that the fault is with themselves rather than with those who prepared us so long beforehand.”

[5] Christ and His apostles, as before, in continuation of the strong irony.

[6] This must be the force of a sentence which is steeped in irony: “Scilicet cum vos non crederetis.” We are indebted to Oehler for restoring the sentence thus.

[7] Recogitavi.

[8] Turpe.

[9] Capit.

[10] Exorbitant.

[11] Cavent.

[12] This sense comes from the “repellendas” and the “a collatione Scripturarum.”

[13] Specialiter. He did this, indeed, in his treatises against Marcion, Hermogenes, the Valentinians, Praxeas, and others. [These are to follow in this Series. Kaye (p. 47) justly considered this sentence as proving the De Præscript, a preface to all his treatises against particular heresies.]

[14] Elucidation V.

Elucidations

Elucidations

I.

(Prescription, Chap. I., p. 243, Supra.)

In adopting this expression from the Roman Law, Tertullian has simply puzzled beginners to get at his idea. Nor do they learn much when it is called a demurrer, which, if I comprehend the word as used in law-cases, is a rejoinder to the testimony of the other party, amounting to—“Well, what of it? It does not prove your case.” Something like this is indeed in Tertullian’s use of the term præscription; but Dr. Holmes furnishes what seems to me the best explanation, (though he only half renders it,) “the Prescriptive Rule against Heresies.” In a word, it means, “the Rule of Faith asserted against Heresies.” And his practical point is, it is useless to discuss Scripture with convicted (Titus 3:10, 11.) heretics; every one of them is ready with “his psalm, his doctrine, his interpretation,” and you may argue fruitlessly till Doomsday. But bring them to the test of (Quod Semper, etc.), the apostolic præscription (1 Corinthians 11:16).—We have no such custom neither the Churches of God. State this Rule of Faith, viz. Holy Scripture, as interpreted from the apostolic day: if it proves the doctrine or custom a novelty, then it has no foundation, and even if it be harmless, it cannot be innocently professed against the order and peace of the churches.

II.

(Semler, cap. x., note 15, p. 248.)

The extent to which Bp. Kaye has stretched his notice of this critic is to be accounted for by the fact that, for a time, the German School of the last century exerted a sad influence in England. In early life Dr. Pusey came near to being led away by it, and Hugh James Rose was raised up to resist it. Semler lived (at Halle and elsewhere) from a.d. 1725 to 1791. Kahnis in his invaluable manual, named below, thus speaks of his Patristic theories: “The history of the Kingdom of God became, under his hands, a world of atoms, which crossed each other as chaotically as the masses of notes which lay heaped up in the memory of Semler.…Under his pragmatical touches the halo of the martyrs faded, etc.” Internal Hist. of German Protestantism (since circa 1750, ) by Ch. Fred. Aug. Kahnis, D.D. (Lutheran) Professor at Leipzig. Translated. T. and F. Clark, Edinburgh, 1856.

III.

(Peter, cap. xxii. note 6, p. 253.)

In the treatise of Cyprian, De Unitate, we shall have occasion to speak fully on this interesting point. The reference to Kaye may suffice, here. But, since the inveterate confusion of all that is said of Peter with all that is claimed by a modern bishop for himself promotes a false view of this passage, it may be well to note (1) that St. Peter’s name is expounded by himself (1 Peter 2:4, 5) so as to make Christ the Rock and all believers “lively stones”—or Peters—by faith in Him. St. Peter is often called the rock, most justly, in this sense, by a rhetorical play on his name: Christ the Rock and all believers “lively stones,” being cemented with Him by the Spirit. But, (2) this specialty of St. Peter, as such, belongs to him (Cephas) only. (3) So far as transmitted it belongs to no particular See. (4) The claim of Rome is disproved by Præscription. (5) Were it otherwise, it would not justify that See in making new articles of Faith. (6) Nor in its Schism with the East. (7) When it restores St. Peter’s Doctrine and Holiness, to the Latin Churches, there will be no quarrel about pre-eminence. Meantime, Rome’s fallibility is expressly taught in Romans 11:18–21.

IV.

(The Apostles, cap. xxv. p. 254.)

Nothing less than a new incarnation of Christ and a new commission to new apostles can give us anything new in religion. This præscription is our Catholic answer to the Vatican oracles of our own time. These give us a new revelation, prefacing the Gospels (1) by defining the immaculate conception of Mary in the womb of her mother; and (2) adding a new chapter to the Acts of the Apostles, in defining the infallibility of a single bishop.

Clearly, had Tertullian known anything of this last dogma of Latin Novelty, he would not have taken the trouble to write this treatise. He would have said to heretics, We can neither discuss Scripture nor Antiquity with you. Rome is the touchstone of dogma, and to its bishop we refer you.

V.

(Truth and Peace, cap. xliv. p. 265.)

The famous appeal of Bishop Jewel, known as “the Challenge at Paul’s Cross,” which he made in a sermon preached there on Passion Sunday, a.d. 1560, is an instance of “Præscription against heresies,” well worthy of being recalled, in a day which has seen Truth and Peace newly sacrificed to the ceaseless innovations of Rome. It is as follows:—“If any learned man of all our adversaries, or, if all the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic doctor or father; or out of any old general Council; or out of the Holy Scriptures of God;[1] or, any one example of the primitive Church, whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved, that—

1. There was any private mass in the whole world at that time, for the space of six hundred years after Christ; or that—

2. There was then any communion ministered unto the people under one kind; or that—

3. The people had their common prayers, then, in a strange tongue that they understood not; or that—

4. The bishop of Rome was then called an universal bishop, or the head of the universal Church; or that—

5. The people was then taught to believe that Christ’s body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally or naturally in the Sacrament; or that—

6. His body is, or may be, in a thousand places or more, at one time; or that—

7. The priest did then hold up the Sacrament over his head; or that—

8. The people did then fall down and worship it with godly honour; or that—

9. The Sacrament was then, or now ought to be, hanged up under a canopy; or that—

10. In the Sacrament after the words of consecration there remaineth only the accidents and shews, without the substance of bread and wine; or that—

11. The priest then divided the Sacrament in three parts and afterwards received himself, alone; or that—

12. Whosoever had said the Sacrament is a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ’s body, had therefore been judged a heretic; or that—

13. It was lawful, then, to have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or five masses said in one Church, in one day; or that—

14. Images were then set up in churches to the intent the people might worship them; or that—

15. The lay people was then forbidden to read the word of God, in their own tongue:

“If any man alive be able to prove any of these articles, by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of the Scriptures, or of the old doctors, or of any old General Council, or by any Example of the Primitive Church; I promise, then, that I will give over and subscribe unto him.”

All this went far beyond the concession of præscription which makes little of any one saying of any one Father, and demands the general consent of Antiquity; but, it is needless to say that Jewel’s challenge has remained unanswered for more than three hundred years, and so it will be to all Eternity.

With great erudition Jewel enlarged his propositions and maintained all his points. See his works, vol. I., p. 20 et seqq. Cambridge University Press, 1845.

[1] It must be remembered that an appeal to Scripture lies behind Tertullian’s Præscription: only he will not discuss Holy Scripture with heretics.

Scripture Index

Every Scripture reference identified in this book, sorted in canonical Bible order. Tap a reference to jump to the verse where it appears.

Romans
Romans 11:18–21Elucidations
1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 11:16Elucidations
Titus
Titus 3:10–11Elucidations
1 Peter
1 Peter 2:4–5Elucidations

Colophon

The Prescription Against Heretics
by Tertullian.

This edition was produced by
Royal Archives.

The cover features
Rostov the Great
by Nicholas Roerich, Public collection, which is in the public domain.

The text is set in Palatino and Georgia.

The first edition of this ebook was released on
August 16, 2026.

Table of Contents

- Title Page

- Copyright

- The Prescription Against Heretics

- Chapter 1
- Chapter 2
- Chapter 3
- Chapter 4
- Chapter 5
- Chapter 6
- Chapter 7
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- Chapter 10
- Chapter 11
- Chapter 12
- Chapter 13
- Chapter 14
- Chapter 15
- Chapter 16
- Chapter 17
- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Chapter 20
- Chapter 21
- Chapter 22
- Chapter 23
- Chapter 24
- Chapter 25
- Chapter 26
- Chapter 27
- Chapter 28
- Chapter 29
- Chapter 30
- Chapter 31
- Chapter 32
- Chapter 33
- Chapter 34
- Chapter 35
- Chapter 36
- Chapter 37
- Chapter 38
- Chapter 39
- Chapter 40
- Chapter 41
- Chapter 42
- Chapter 43
- Chapter 44

- Elucidations

- Elucidations

- Scripture Index

- Colophon