1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Tertullian Adversus Praxeas 25.1

NB: the Latin word "substantia" doesn't exactly translate to the English "substance", as it much better translates to the English "hypostasis" or "essence" in the biblical context.

In respect of the normative hypostasis rendition of substantia, Tertullian may be taken as positing that Jesus [the man] and his Father share one hypostasis, but this is contrary to biblical doctrine, where Heb 1:3 says that the Son is the imprint or facsimile of the hypostasis of God. In this biblical sense, hypostasis conveys the idea of subsistence or being.

Marius Victorinus concedes that there is another Greek word in vogue amongst Trinitarians, which is Gk. ousia (substance proper) and he explores the relevance of this word and its usage in the context of hypostasis and also ploutos (riches) in p.202ff Theological Treatises on the Trinity (Early Church Father 069).

The Father and Son share one one nature (Gk. physis) 2 Pet 1:4, and - at least in heaven - one form (Gk. morphē) Phil 2:6 and many other things (all the properties of God cf. Jn 1:1c).

From what I can gather, ousia is defined by Marius as hypostasis with a form. Thus every hypostasis has a corresponding ousia. The problem (for Tertullian and also for orthodox Trinitarians) then is that is different hypostases do not share the same ousia, but only the same form (morphe) and nature (physis) &etc. In Marius's view it is possible to conceive of the hypostasis of God as either ploutos or ousia provided the referent is God.

Obviously this needs more research, but I don't think Tertullian was ever justified in asserting the Father and the (heavenly) Son as comprising more than one divine form, nature, riches, throne &etc. To confound their subsistences, i.e. their hypostases, as Tertullian does, was philosophically and theologically wrong (just my working hypothesis at present).

I think this is what you may be looking for.

Notice Tertullian's sense of time and change of doctrine in the text below, i.e. his word's

  • (novare) "to make new"
  • (nove) "new"
  • (iam) "now"
  • Contrasted with ("retro") "formerly"


Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Translation By Alexander Souter, 1920

Chapter 31.2(A)


"Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum..."

"God wished to make the mystery [Lit., "the sacrament"] new in such a manner that He should be believed to be "ONE" in a new way through the Son and the Spirit..." (Souter)

Chapter 31.2(B)

"...ut coram iam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum praedicatus non intellegebatur.”

"...in order that God might now be known openly, in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times [Lit , "before" "formerly"] was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit...” (Holmes)

Or:

"...who was not understood even when he was preached by the Son and the Spirit." (Google Translate)​
 
Notice how he says this way/manner of believing God as "one" was not understood even when (i.e. "formerly" in the time of the Apostles) preached by the Son! o_O
 
Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 13.5


"Nos enim, qui et tempora et causas, Scripturarum per Dei gratiam inspicimus, maxime Paracleti non hominum discipuli, duos quidem definimus, Patrem et Filium, et iam tres cum Spiritu Sancto, secundum rationem oeconomiae [οἰκονυμία] quae facit numerum"

"Indeed, for we ourselves, through God's undeserved kindness, who also pay particular attention to [Or: “are looking into” “carefully examine” “investigate”] the times [Or: “the peculiar seasons”] and events of the Scriptures, who are especially [Or: “the leading” “the greatest” “cheifly” “most eminently”] disicples of the Paraclete, not of men, we define at least two, the Father and the Son, but even now three, with [Or: "with the addition of"] the Holy Spirit, which is according to our reasoning of the economy, which is what makes this number [possible]..."​
 
Last edited:
I think this is what you may be looking for.

Notice Tertullian's sense of time and change of doctrine in the text below, i.e. his word's

  • (novare) "to make new"
  • (nove) "new"
  • (iam) "now"
  • Contrasted with ("retro") "formerly"


Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Translation By Alexander Souter, 1920

Chapter 31.2(A)


"Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum..."

"God wished to make the mystery [Lit., "the sacrament"] new in such a manner that He should be believed to be "ONE" in a new way through the Son and the Spirit..." (Souter)

Chapter 31.2(B)

"...ut coram iam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum praedicatus non intellegebatur.”

"...in order that God might now be known openly, in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times [Lit , "before" "formerly"] was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit...” (Holmes)

Or:

"...who was not understood even when he was preached by the Son and the Spirit." (Google Translate)​
121-8d7f85f39f.jpg

Souter (Ending of Against Praxeas)

You have highlighted that these words of Tertullian are very difficult to conceptualize. I am not clear they are readily intelligible! Indeed such could be said of Tertullian's whole thesis. Tertullian distinguishes "unus deus" from "qui tres unum sunt, non unus" which seems to be a logical contradiction in terms if the three are really unus deus. But if the Father alone is "deus" it could be intelligible. Yet deus is said to have special appellations and personas/persons (plural) suggesting that for Tertullian, deus is not limited to the Father, but includes the Son and the Spirit; and whose (heavenly) appellations and personas/persons being now distinguishable and severable engender the theology of the three divine witnesses of the Comma.

_________________

Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum..."
"Thus.God.wished.to novate/renew/refresh.the mystery.so that.newly.[as]one[(God)].[he]should be believed.through.the Son.and.the Spirit...."

i.e. "Thus God wished to refresh the mystery, so that (as) one (God) (he) should be newly credited through the Son and the Spirit...."

"...ut coram iam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum praedicatus non intellegebatur.”
...so that.in person/face to face/personally/publicly/openly.now.God.in.his.special.appellations.and.characters/personalities/personas/persons.should be known."qui et"="also known [as]/who though".formerly.through.the Son.and.the Spirit.having been announced.was not comprehended.

i.e. per Souter.
 
Last edited:
This is Montanism ("the New Prophecy") at work here.

"...make the mystery [Lit., "the sacrament"] new in such a manner that He should be believed to be "one" in a new way..."

"It is in this manner that God wills to make new [Or: “to renovate” “to change”] the sacrament,
so that He might [Or: “should”] be believed as “one” in a new manner through the Son and the Spirit."​

He's saying he is a "disciple of the Paraclete" here.

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 13.5


"Nos enim, qui et tempora et causas, Scripturarum per Dei gratiam inspicimus, maxime Paracleti non hominum discipuli, duos quidem definimus, Patrem et Filium, et iam tres cum Spiritu Sancto, secundum rationem oeconomiae [οἰκονυμία] quae facit numerum"

"Indeed, for we ourselves, through God's undeserved kindness, who also pay particular attention to the times and events of the Scriptures, who are especially disciples of the Paraclete, not of men, we define at least two, the Father and the Son, but even now three, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, which according to our reasoning of the economy, is what makes this number [possible]..."​

It's obvious what he means by saying that.



Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 1


"...not having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla [...] We indeed, on our part, subsequently withdrew from the carnally-minded
on our acknowledgment and maintenance of the Paraclete..."
 
This is Montanism ("the New Prophecy") at work here.

"...make the mystery [Lit., "the sacrament"] new in such a manner that He should be believed to be "one" in a new way..."

"It is in this manner that God wills to make new [Or: “to renovate” “to change”] the sacrament,
so that He might [Or: “should”] be believed as “one” in a new manner through the Son and the Spirit."​

He's saying he is a "disciple of the Paraclete" here.

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 13.5


"Nos enim, qui et tempora et causas, Scripturarum per Dei gratiam inspicimus, maxime Paracleti non hominum discipuli, duos quidem definimus, Patrem et Filium, et iam tres cum Spiritu Sancto, secundum rationem oeconomiae [οἰκονυμία] quae facit numerum"

"Indeed, for we ourselves, through God's undeserved kindness, who also pay particular attention to the times and events of the Scriptures, who are especially disciples of the Paraclete, not of men, we define at least two, the Father and the Son, but even now three, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, which according to our reasoning of the economy, is what makes this number [possible]..."​

It's obvious what he means by saying that.



Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 1


"...not having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla [...] We indeed, on our part, subsequently withdrew from the carnally-minded
on our acknowledgment and maintenance of the Paraclete..."
All of which has to be considered against the formal statement of unity of Paul in Eph 4:4-6:

4 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

So unity is by reason of "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." There can only ever be one of each as the requirement for validity is "through and in God the Father" which precludes multiplicity.

This does seem to conform with Tertullian's thesis above. However problems remain, as I have highlighted with his "tres unum sunt" argument, unless we are judging it too harshly in the light of subsequent theological development. Perhaps he didn't really mean to equate unus deus with tres unum sunt, but to allow them as different concepts within his system. Whatever he meant by it, it was very badly argued, and throught out, and eisegesis.

Having considered Tertullian's statements above, again, I believe his emphasis is on "the special appellations and characters personas/persons" by which unus deus should be known face-to-face, rather than on a novated concept of unus deus.

One thing that is wrong with his thesis is to promote the Paraclete as his "Lord." The only "Lord" is Christ. This seems to be a separatist argument, and a heretical argument (and greatly offended the Catholics).
 
Last edited:
All of which has to be considered against the formal statement of unity of Paul in Eph 4:4-6:

4 "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

So unity is by reason of "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." There can only ever be one of each as the requirement for validity is "through and in God the Father" which precludes multiplicity.

This does seem to conform with Tertullian's thesis above. However problems remain, as I have highlighted with his "tres unum sunt" argument, unless we are judging it too harshly in the light of subsequent theological development. Perhaps he didn't really mean to equate unus deus with tres unum sunt, but to allow them as different concepts within his system. Whatever he meant by it, it was very badly argued, and throught out, and eisegesis.

Having considered Tertullian's statements above, again, I believe his emphasis is on "the special appellations and characters personas/persons" by which unus deus should be known face-to-face, rather than on a novated concept of unus deus.

One thing that is wrong with his thesis is to promote the Paraclete as his "Lord." The only "Lord" is Christ. This seems to be a separatist argument, and a heretical argument (and greatly offended the Catholics).

Yes. It offended many for centuries to come.
 
Tertullian theology has many other run-ins with the Catholics. I'm no expert on it, but it seems to include subordination of the the Son, and the Holy Spirit to "God the Father," and Tertullian's usage of deus to refer to the Father, which we glean from the above passages just referred to.

Although, per Wiki (of Tertullian): "the Son could also be referred to as God, when referred to apart from the Father, because the Son, though subordinate to God, is entitled to be called God "from the unity of the Father" in regards to being formed from a portion of His substance." (deduced from Adv. Praxean Cap. 19).

I think there is a logical problem with the above, which lies in the words "apart from the Father." "Unity" is one thing, whereas "being formed from a portion of His substance" is a separate and not necessarily meritorious argument (its also a polytheistic argument). Also these are not obvious corollaries. The latter is mere conjecture. I don't believe the Son is ever referred to as "God" in the Greek other than in the context of unity on the heavenly throne, (e.g. John 1:1c), excepting only the denotation of the Son's agency of the Father per Old Testament diction (cf. Jn 20:28 & John 10:34-36 etc).

As I have mentioned before, Tertullian's word "substantia" likely translates to the Greek word "hypostasis" rather than "ousia." The formation of the Word's hypostasis is beyond knowing, and not even a legitimate proposition. This suggests that Tertullian likely implied that unity of Christ with the Father is the real justification for the application of "deus" to the Son (Jn 1:1c), which would have antagonized the Catholics.

Also Per Wiki: "As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical.""

So Tertullian isn't all bad, but not seen as sufficiently Catholic to be forgiven his "sins" by them.

Other Montanus-sourced foibles of Tertullian included not being allowed to flee from persecution, and prohibition on re-marriage. For these he could justly be censured.
 
Tertullian theology has many other run-ins with the Catholics. I'm no expert on it, but it seems to include subordination of the the Son, and the Holy Spirit to "God the Father," and Tertullian's usage of deus to refer to the Father, which we glean from the above passages just referred to.

Although, per Wiki (of Tertullian): "the Son could also be referred to as God, when referred to apart from the Father, because the Son, though subordinate to God, is entitled to be called God "from the unity of the Father" in regards to being formed from a portion of His substance." (deduced from Adv. Praxean Cap. 19).

I think there is a logical problem with the above, which lies in the words "apart from the Father." "Unity" is one thing, whereas "being formed from a portion of His substance" is a separate and not necessarily meritorious argument (its also a polytheistic argument). Also these are not obvious corollaries. The latter is mere conjecture. I don't believe the Son is ever referred to as "God" in the Greek other than in the context of unity on the heavenly throne, (e.g. John 1:1c), excepting only the denotation of the Son's agency of the Father per Old Testament diction (cf. Jn 20:28 & John 10:34-36 etc).

As I have mentioned before, Tertullian's word "substantia" likely translates to the Greek word "hypostasis" rather than "ousia." The formation of the Word's hypostasis is beyond knowing, and not even a legitimate proposition. This suggests that Tertullian likely implied that unity of Christ with the Father is the real justification for the application of "deus" to the Son (Jn 1:1c), which would have antagonized the Catholics.

Also Per Wiki: "As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical.""

So Tertullian isn't all bad, but not seen as sufficiently Catholic to be forgiven his "sins" by them.

Other Montanus-sourced foibles of Tertullian included not being allowed to flee from persecution, and prohibition on re-marriage. For these he could justly be censured.

It appears what Hippolytus said (Book 8, Chapter 12, “Refutation of All Heresies") was true, that the Montanists ("Phrygians") thought (imagined) they had learned something greater than the law, the Prophets (OT revelation) and even of Christ and, by implication, the Apostles (NT revelation).

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 2.1


"...Nos vero et semper, et nunc magis ut instructiores per Paracletum, deductorem scilicet omnis veritatis, unicum quidem Deum credimus,
sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam οἰκονομίαν dicimus..."

“We, however, and as always, especially now since we have received a superior education through the Paraclete, who is the Guide [Or: “the Escort” “the Leader”] (naturally of course [Or: “you can be sure of this” “self evidently”]) of all of the truth, we certainly believe that there is only [one] God [Lit., “a sole God” “an only God”] who, nevertheless, is subject to [Lit., “under”] a system of distribution [Or: “a/the dispensation”] which we call οἰκονομίαν [Or: “which we refer to as οἰκονομίαν”].”​
 
Last edited:



Hippolytus of Rome (circa. 170-236 A.D./C.E.)

"Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (= Philosophumena)"

Book 8, Chapter 12 (MacMahon) or Chapter 19 (Legge)

Greek Text by Duncker and Schneidewin, Dieterich, 1859

Page 436


“Ἕτεροι δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ αἱρετικώτεροι τὴν φύσιν, Φρύγεςτὸ γένος, προληφθέντες ὑπὸ γυναίων ἠπάτηνται, Πρισκίλλης τινὸς καὶ Μαξιμίλλης καλουμένων, ἃς προφήτιδας νομίζουσιν, ἐν ταύταις τὸ παράκλητον πνεῦμα κεχωρηκέναι λέγοντες, καί τινα πρὸ αὐτῶν Μοντανὸν ὁμοίως δοξάζουσιν ὡς προφήτην, ὧν βίβλους ἀπείρους ἔχοντες πλανῶνται, μήτε τὰ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν λελαλημέναλόγῳ κρίναντες, μήτε τοῖς κρῖναι δυναμένοις προσέχοντες, ἀλλ᾿ ἀκρίτως τῇ πρὸς αὐτοὺς πίστει προσφέρονται, πλεῖόν τι δι᾿ αὐτῶν φάσκοντες [ὡς] μεμαθηκέναι ἢ ἐκ Νόμου καὶ Προφητῶν καὶ τῶν Εὐαγγελίων. Ὑπὲρ δὲ Ἀποστόλους καὶ πᾶν χάρισμα ταῦτα τὰ γύναια δοξάζουσιν, ὡς τολμᾶν πλεῖόν τι Χριστοῦἐν τούτοις λέγειν τινὰς αὐτῶν γεγονέναι. Οὗτοι τὸν μὲν Πατέρα τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πάντων κτίστην ὁμοίως τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ ὁμολογοῦσι καὶ ὅσα τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μαρτυρεῖ, καινίζουσι δὲ νηστείας καὶ ἑορτὰς καὶ ξηροφαγίας καὶ ῥαφανοφαγίας φάσκοντες ὑπὸ τῶν γυναίων δεδιδάχθαι. Τινὲς δὲ αὐτῶντῇ τῶν Νοητιανῶν αἱρέσει συντιθέμενοι τὸν Πατέρα αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν λέγουσι, καὶ τοῦτον ὑπὸ γένεσιν καὶ πάθος καὶ θάνατον ἐληλυθέναι. Περὶ τούτων αὖθις λεπτομερέστερον ἐκθήσομαι· πολλοῖς γὰρ ἀφορμὴ κακῶν γεγένηται ἡ τούτων αἵρεσις. Ἱκανὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ τὰ περὶ τούτων εἰρημένα κρίνομεν, δι᾿ὀλίγων τὰ πολλὰ φλύαρα αὐτῶν βιβλία τε καὶ ἐπιχειρήματα πᾶσιν ἐπιδείξαντες ἀσθενῆ ὄντα καὶ μηδενὸς λόγου ἄξια, οἷς οὐ χρὴ προσέχειν τοὺς ὑγιαίνοντα νοῦν κεκτημένους.”
http://cts.perseids.org/read/greekLit/tlg2115/tlg060/perseus-grc1/8.1-8.20

Hippolytus of Rome (circa. 170-236 A.D./C.E.)

“Refutation of All Heresies”

Translated by J.H. MacMahon, 1886

Book 8, Chapter 12 [or 19 (Legge)]


“But there are others who themselves are even more heretical in nature (than the foregoing). and are Phrygians by birth. These have been rendered victims of error from being previously captivated by (two) wretched women, called a certain Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they supposed (to be) prophetesses. And they assert that into these the Paraclete Spirit had departed; and antecedently to them, they in like manner consider Montanus as a prophet. And being in possession of an infinite number of their books, (the Phrygians) are overrun with delusion; and they do not judge whatever statements are made by them, according to (the criterion of) reason; nor do they give heed unto those who are competent to decide; but they are heedlessly swept onwards, by the reliance which they place on these (impostors). And they allege that they have learned something more through these, than from law, and prophets, and the Gospels. But they magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and every gift of Grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in them a something superior to Christ. These acknowledge God to be the Father of the universe, and Creator of all things, similarly with [Greek ὁμοίως (i.e. ὅμοιος) “similar” contrasted to ὁμός “same”] the Church, and (receive) as many things as the Gospel testifies concerning Christ. They introduce, however, the novelties of fasts, and feasts, and meals of parched food, and repasts of radishes, alleging that they have been instructed by women. And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father himself is the Son, and that this (one) came under generation, and suffering, and death. Concerning these I shall again offer an explanation, after a more minute manner; for the heresy of these has been an occasion of evils to many. We therefore are of opinion, that the statements made concerning these (heretics) are sufficient when we shall have briefly proved to all that the majority of their books are silly, and their attempts (at reasoning) weak, and worthy of no consideration. But it is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to pay attention (either to their volumes or their arguments).”
http://home.newadvent.org/fathers/050108.htm


Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 2.1


"...Nos vero et semper, et nunc magis ut instructiores per Paracletum, deductorem scilicet omnis veritatis, unicum quidem Deum credimus,
sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam οἰκονομίαν dicimus..."

“We, however, even as we always have, especially now since we have received a superior education through [Or: "we possess the superior teaching through" "we have been better instructed through" ] the Paraclete, who is the Guide [Or: “the Escort” “the Leader”] (naturally of course [Or: “you can be sure of this” “self evidently”]) of all of the truth, we certainly believe that there is only [one] God [Lit., “a sole God” “an only God”] who, nevertheless, is subject to [Lit., “under”] a system of distribution [Or: “a/the dispensation”] which we call οἰκονομίαν [Or: “which we refer to as οἰκονομίαν”].”


Hippolytus of Rome (circa. 170-236 A.D./C.E.)

“Philosophumena, or Refutation of All Heresies”

Book 8, Chapter 19 [or 12 (MacMahon)], Pages 113-114

Translated by F. Legge, 1921


“But there are others also very heretical by nature, Phrygians by race, who have fallen away after being deceived by certain women, Priscilla and Maximilla by name, whom [Page 420 (Cruice)] they imagine to be prophetesses. Into these they say the Spirit Paraclete has entered and they likewise glorify [even] above these one Montanus as a prophet. Having endless [Page 114] books of their own, they are not judging what is said in them according to reason, nor giving heed to those capable of judgment ; but, carried along heedlessly by the faith that they have in them, imagine that they learn more through them than from the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels. They glorify these wenches above Apostles and every grace, since some of them dare to say that there are those among them who have become greater than Christ, They confess that God is the Father of the universals, and the Creator of all things in the same way [Greek ὁμοίως (i.e. ὅμοιος) “similar” as contrasted to ὁμός “same”] as [does] the Church, and also [confess] whatever the Gospel testifies concerning Christ. But they innovate in the matter of feasts and fasts and the eating of vegetable food and roots, thinking that they have learned this from the women. And some of them, agreeing with the heresy of the Noetians, say that the Father is the Son, and that He by being born, underwent [Page 421 (Cruice)] both suffering and death. Concerning these, I shall later explain more minutely : for to many their heresy has become the starting-point of evils. We judge then that what has been said is sufficient, we having proved briefly to all that their many absurd books and attempts are feeble and not worth consideration, whereto those of sound mind need pay no heed.”​
 
Last edited:
Tertullian certainly lacks humility, and I guess was impressed with the boldness of the Montanists, and that they seemed to produce results, which he likely envied and desired to replicate. However he doesn't seem to have been a "rank and file" Montanist (he was far too clever for that). This is an interesting article which briefly alludes to Tertullian's Montanism. I would credit the last para. cited below (i.e. "Dunn convincingly demonstrates Tertullian’s inconsistent hermeneutical methods and use of historical context; Tertullian’s theological points about scriptural exegesis were “situational and relative”) as applicable also to his "tres unum sunt" eisegesis as the constitution of God. Tertullian does appear "blinkered" in so many ways, but in other ways, entirely sensible: a real mixture of light and darkness.

___________________________

Article: To Flee or Not to Flee? Matthew 10:23 and Third Century Flight in Persecution Author: Ruth Sutcliffe

.
.
.
The traditional assumption that Tertullian became a Montanist around 20654 has been replaced with a consensus that Tertullian was influenced by Montanist literature55 but was not a schismatic Montanist.56 The supposition that Montanists, as opposed to “orthodox Christians,” were vigorous voluntary martyrs57 has been refuted,58 along with a convenient justification for Tertullian’s later delegitimisation of flight.59 Voluntary martyrdom was not exclusively “heretical,” but part of the normal spectrum of “orthodoxy.”60 Furthermore, the equation of Tertullian’s references to the Paraclete, spiritual inspiration or (new) prophecy with Montanist theology overlooks the influence of prophecy, visions and the influence of the Spirit on the third century African church.61 As Wilhite notes, more work needs to be done to recognise Tertullian’s consistency and independence of thought in both his “pre-Montanist” and “Montanist” periods.62

Nevertheless, Tertullian saw the Paraclete as essential for enabling Christians to embrace martyrdom, rather than flee from cowardice.63 If he was blinkered, it was to the possibility that the Spirit might also direct a Christian to flee, as Cyprian asserted. Moss observes that Tertullian initially attributed persecution to the devil’s deception, but later saw it as originating in the will of God, and therefore good.64 Nevertheless, Tertullian consistently exalted martyrdom.65 God provided, against post-baptismal sin, the “last means of succour, the fight of martyrdom and the baptism of blood, thereafter free from danger.”66 To flee is to imperil one’s salvation because it is a denial, not an imitation, of Christ. God demands of his saints “in martyrdom that death which he exacted even of his Christ.”67 Martyrdom is a means to “buy back the whole favour of God,”68 procuring indulgence by the payment of one’s own blood. “For all sins are forgiven to this action... when we are condemned by you [the Romans] we are acquitted by God.”69 The greater the conflict and suffering, the greater the reward.70 Martyrdom alone will ensure immediate transport to Paradise.71

But must we necessarily look to a change in Tertullian’s theology as an explanation for his dealings with Mt 10:23? Tertullian was an accomplished rhetor, writing not as an exegete, but as a polemicist. Putting it bluntly, Tertullian would do whatever it took to win an argument.72 He adopted rhetorical strategies designed to convince his hearer/reader that his position was correct and his opponent’s was not.73 In so doing, he could act for either the defence or the prosecution.74 Dunn convincingly demonstrates Tertullian’s inconsistent hermeneutical methods and use of historical context; Tertullian’s theological points about scriptural exegesis were “situational and relative.75
.
.
.


"Tertullian's Scriptural Exegesis in de praescriptione haereticorum" by Geoffrey D. Dunn
 
For Tertullian, the divine mystery is the mystery of the economy! But Eric Osborne does not think Tertullian was a subordinationist. Others (i.e. Catholics) do. (Another mystery.) "Tertullian's account of the generation of the Logos, republished an anachronism." (I should say Tertullian is off his trolley at this point cf. Jn 1:1a - "In the Beginning was the Word"). I conclude Tertullian doesn't understand Hebrew theology, and doesn't grasp the limitations on mankind imposed by it. He seeks to transcend the revelation by human reason. He answers heresy with heresy, perhaps, although some of what he says is reasonable where it closely follows scripture.

Personally I think the truth is quite difficult to get at, with such contradictory positions being taken. (Osborn may be a Tertullian apologist.)

_____________________________

From Tertullian, First Theologian of the West (Eric Osborn) 1997,

p 121 (i) The necessity of the economy

"Monarchy and economy must go together. There is indeed only
one God, but the rule of faith declares the economy of salvation
through father, son and spirit. Praxeas argues that monarchy
requires the identity of father, son and spirit. Tertullian claims that
the economy distributes unity into trinity so that the three are one
in quality, substance and power (status, substantia, potestas), but
distinct in sequence, aspect and manifestation (gradus, forma, species)
(Prax. 2.4).
This Tertullian calls the mystery of the economy.

"Trinity has to do with the internal disposition of the Godhead.
Economy in Paul, Irenaeus and Tertullian has to do with the plan
of salvation; a consideration of this plan causes Irenaeus16 and
Tertullian to see economy in God. The trinitarian problem is clarified
by Tertullian through a comparison of the relation between father and son,
which is similar to that between thought and speech. Tertullian uses different terms
to describe the relation. The father utters (edere) the son who derives
(decurrere, derivatio) from the fath"
.
.
.
p.133 (v) Criticisms of Tertullian
.
.
.
"Criticism of TertulIian' s doctrine of the trinity has measured him against other formulations and either applauded or
bewailed his achievement." To many he seems to have anticipated Nicaea and late developments. To others he has
succumbed to extreme subordinationism." We mus take some samples of this criticism, to show thaI it falls short of
finality as much as does TertulIian

Is he subordinationist? The equality of the three persons and the unity of subtantia, status and potestas is his central
theme (Prax. 2; Mar. 4.25; res. 6). The distinction in gradus, forma and species (Prax. 2) points to nothing more
than distinction of persons and order of procession. (says Eric Osborn repudiating the Catholics).
.
.
.
Tertullian, others claim, lived within the world of second century apologetic, and meets the Monarchian challenge with
an account of the generation of the Logos, which republished an anachronism. Perhaps we have here another example
of the logic of apologetic which answers diverse objections from a store of arguments which may not be coherent with
one another.
 
Last edited:
Hippolytus of Rome (circa. 170-236 A.D./C.E.)

"Refutatio Omnium Haeresium (= Philosophumena)"

Book 10, Chapter 21-22 (MacMahon) or Chapter 25-26 (Legge)

Greek Text by Duncker and Schneidewin, Dieterich, 1859

Page 528

“Οἱ δὲ Φρύγες ἐκ Μοντανοῦ τινος καὶ Πρισκίλλης καὶ Μαξιμίλλης τὰς ἀρχὰς τῆς αἱρέσεως λαβόντες, προφήτιδας τὰ γύναια νομίζοντες καὶ προφήτην τὸν Μοντᾶνον, τὰ δὲ περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχῆς καὶ δημιουργίας ὀρθῶς λέγειν νομίζουσι, καὶτὰ περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν οὐκ ἀλλοτρίως προσειλήφασιν, σὺν δὲ τοῖς προειρημένοις σφάλλονται, ὧν τοῖς λόγοις ὑπὲρ τὰ εὐαγγέλια προσέχοντες πλανῶνται, νηστείας καινὰς καὶ παραδόξους ὁρίζοντες. [22.] Ἕτεροι δὲ αὐτῶν τῇ τῶν Νοητιανῶν αἱρέσει προσκείμενοιτὰ μὲν περὶ τὰ γύναια καὶ Μοντᾶνον ὁμοίως δοκοῦσι, τὰ δὲ περὶ [τὸν] τῶν ὅλων Πατέρα δυσφημοῦσιν, αὐτὸν εἶναι Υἱὸν καὶ Πατέρα λέγοντες, ὁρατὸν καὶ ἀόρατον, γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον, θνητὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον· οὗτοι τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἀπὸ Νοητοῦ τινος λαβόντες.”
http://cts.perseids.org/read/greekLit/tlg2115/tlg060/perseus-grc1/10.10-10.29

Hippolytus of Rome (circa. 170-236 A.D./C.E.): “The Phrygians, however, derive the principles of their heresy from a certain Montanus, and Priscilla, and Maximilla, and regard these wretched women as prophetesses, and Montanus as a prophet. In respect, however, of what appertains to the origin and creation of the universe, the Phrygians are supposed to express themselves correctly; while in the tenets which they enunciate respecting Christ, they have not irrelevantly formed their opinions. But they are seduced into error in common with the heretics previously alluded to, and devote their attention to the discourses of these above the Gospels, thus laying down regulations concerning novel and strange fasts. [22.] But others of them, being attached to the heresy of the Noetians, entertain [Greek ὁμοίως] similar opinions to those relating to the silly women of the Phrygians, and to Montanus. As regards, however, the truths appertaining to the Father of the entire of existing things, they are guilty of blasphemy, because they assert that He is Son and Father, visible and invisible, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These have taken occasion from a certain Noetus to put forward their heresy.” - (Book 10, Chapter 21-22 [or (Legge)], “Refutation of All Heresies,” Translated by J.H. MacMahon, 1886)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050110.htm

Hippolytus of Rome (circa. 170-236 A.D./C.E.): “But the Phrygians take the beginnings of their heresy from one Montanus and Priscilla and Maximilla, thinking [Page 168] the wenches prophetesses and Montanus a prophet. But [Page 506 (Cruice)] they are considered to speak rightly in what they say about the beginning and the fashioning of the All, and they receive not otherwise the things about the Christ. But they stumble with those aforesaid to whose words they erringly give heed rather than to the Gospels, and they prescribe new and unusual fasts. [26.] But others of them approaching the heresy of the Noetians think [Greek ὁμοίως] in like manner concerning the wenches and Montanus, but blaspheme the Father of the universals saying that He is at once Son and Father, seen and unseen, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These take their starting-points from one Noetus.” - (Book 10, Chapter 25-26 [or 21-22 (MacMahon)], Pages 167-168, “Philosophumena, or Refutation of All Heresies,” Translated by F. Legge, 1921)
 
For Tertullian, the divine mystery is the mystery of the economy! But Eric Osborne does not think Tertullian was a subordinationist. Others (i.e. Catholics) do. (Another mystery.) "Tertullian's account of the generation of the Logos, republished an anachronism." (I should say Tertullian is off his trolley at this point cf. Jn 1:1a - "In the Beginning was the Word"). I conclude Tertullian doesn't understand Hebrew theology, and doesn't grasp the limitations on mankind imposed by it. He seeks to transcend the revelation by human reason. He answers heresy with heresy, perhaps, although some of what he says is reasonable where it closely follows scripture.

Personally I think the truth is quite difficult to get at, with such contradictory positions being taken. (Osborn may be a Tertullian apologist.)

_____________________________

From Tertullian, First Theologian of the West (Eric Osborn) 1997,

p 121 (i) The necessity of the economy

"Monarchy and economy must go together. There is indeed only
one God, but the rule of faith declares the economy of salvation
through father, son and spirit. Praxeas argues that monarchy
requires the identity of father, son and spirit. Tertullian claims that
the economy distributes unity into trinity so that the three are one
in quality, substance and power (status, substantia, potestas), but
distinct in sequence, aspect and manifestation (gradus, forma, species)
(Prax. 2.4).
This Tertullian calls the mystery of the economy.

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Translation By Peter Holmes, 1870

Chapter 1


"...not having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla [...] We indeed, on our part, subsequently withdrew from the carnally-minded
on our acknowledgment and maintenance of the Paraclete..."​


When you read this next section you can understand better Tertullian's sense of "now" and the "stages" or "steps" in history and Scripture "revelation" (Montanist "revelation").


Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

De Virginibus Velandis

"On the Veiling of Virgins"

Translation By the Rev. S. Thelwall, 1870

Chapter 1.5-10

"...the grace of God, to wit, operating and advancing even to the end. [6] For what kind of (supposition) is it, that, while the Devil is always operating and adding daily to the ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or else have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent the Paraclete was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar [Or: “Substitute” “Deputy” “Viceregent” “Proxy” “Under-Servant” (Latin “vicario” = dative or ablative of Latin “vicarius”)] of the Lord, the Holy Spirit. [7] "Still," He said, "I have many things to say to you, but ye are not yet able to bear them: when that Spirit of truth shall have come, He will conduct you into all truth, and will report to you the supervening (things)." But above, withal, He made a declaration concerning this His work. [8] What, then, is the Paraclete's administrative office but this : the direction of discipline, the revelation of the Scriptures, the reformation of the intellect, the advancement toward the "better things"? Nothing is without stages of growth: all things await their season. In short, the preacher says, "A time to everything." [9] Look how creation itself advances little by little to fructification. First comes the grain, and from the grain arises the shoot, and from the shoot struggles out the shrub: thereafter boughs and leaves gather strength, and the whole that we call a tree expands: then follows the swelling of the germen, and from the germen bursts the flower, and from the flower the fruit opens: that fruit itself, rude for a while, and unshapely, little by little, keeping the straight course of its development, is trained to the mellowness of its flavor. [10] So, too, righteousness - for the God of righteousness and of creation is the same - was first in a rudimentary state, having a natural fear of God: from that stage it advanced, through the Law and the Prophets, to infancy; from that stage it passed, through the Gospel, to the fervor of youth : ( now ), through the Paraclete, it is settling into maturity. [11] He will be, after Christ, the only one to be called and revered as "Master" ; for He speaks not from Himself, but what is commanded by Christ. He is the only Prelate, because He alone succeeds Christ. They who have received Him set truth before custom. They who have heard Him prophesying even to the present time, not of old, bid virgins be wholly covered." (Emphasis and note on Vicar added by me)

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 2.1


“We, however, even as we always have, especially now since we have received a superior education through the Paraclete, who is the Guide (naturally of course) of all of the truth, we certainly believe that there is an only God who, nevertheless,
is subject to a system of distribution which we call οἰκονομίαν.”

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversum Praxeam

Chapter 8.5


“As for us [...] because “I and the Father, we are one.” [John 10:30] This will be the Truth's [Greek προβολη] emanation,
the Guardian of the unity
[Or: "of the one-ness"], by which we declare that the Son is an emanation from the Father,
but he is not separated from Him, just as the Paraclete teaches...”

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 13.5


"Indeed, for we ourselves, by the Grace of God, who also pay particular attention to the times and events of the Scriptures, who are especially disciples of the Paraclete, not of men, we define at least two, the Father and the Son, but even now three, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, which according to our reasoning of the economy, is what makes this number [possible]..."

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 30.5


“This one in the meantime has become the recipient of the gift that came from the Father, which he poured forth, the Holy Spirit, the third name of the Divinity, and the third stage [Lit., “the third step”] of the Divine Majesty, the Preacher of a unified monarchy, but also the Interpreter of the economy for anyone who will permit admittance to his sermons of the New Prophecy, even the Guide of all of the truth, which consists in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with the Christian mystery [Lit., "sacrament"]...”

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Translation By Alexander Souter, 1920

Chapter 31.2(A)


"God wished to make the mystery [Lit., "the sacrament"] new in such a manner that He should be believed to be
"one" in a new way
through the Son and the Spirit..."

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Translation By Peter Holmes, 1870

Chapter 31.2(B)


"...in order that God might now be known openly, in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times [Lit , "before" "formerly"]
was not plainly understood, though declared through the Son and the Spirit...”​
 
Last edited:
Many do become apologists for Tertullian's Montanism. They try to whitewash it's clear connection to Tertullian's Montantist interpretation (eis-egesis) of the "now, three" and "believe God to be one in a new manner" via "a system of distribution which we call οἰκονομίαν” which he says comes from "the Interpreter of the οἰκονομίαν" and from "his sermons of the New Prophecy, even the Guide of all of the truth" (i.e. whom he openly "acknowledged" to be Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla in Chapter 1) espoused in Adversus Praxeam.
 
Many do become apologists for Tertullian's Montanism. They try to whitewash it's clear connection to Tertullian's Montantist interpretation (eis-egesis) of the "now, three" and "believe God to be one in a new manner"

Were you criticizing this as Montanist-charis-mania?

Two key words/terms in Tertullian's argumentation were μοναρχία "monarchy", "the rule of/by One single person", and the familial term οἰκονομίαν, denoting a system of household management or administration (i.e. involving the headship principle, with the Father as the Head).

And is this position about Monarchy from Tertullian Montanist-charis-mania?

And I did ask you this before, but you gave a non-answer.
 
Tertullian ... Other Montanus-sourced foibles of Tertullian included not being allowed to flee from persecution, and prohibition on re-marriage.

I believe Tertullian did not allow for divorce for the purpose of "remarriage" (adultery.) There are many different elements here, from different writings, and in fact I find Tertullian on the liberal side. Your position and concern is unclear.
 
Especially since I am asking for your opinion.

Tertullian of Carthage (circa.145-225 A.D./C.E.)

Liber Adversus Praxeam

Chapter 13.5


"Indeed, for we ourselves, by the Grace of God, who also pay particular attention to the times and events of the Scriptures, who are especially ;) disciples of the Paraclete, not of men, we define at least two, the Father and the Son, but even now three, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, which according to our reasoning of the (οἰκονομίαν) economy is what makes this number [possible]..."​
 
Last edited:
Back
Top