Tertullian was born in Carthage in the vicinity of 150 to 155 AD. He grew up in a pagan household and later may have become a lawyer in Rome. He was converted to Christianity around the age of forty and, subsequently, turned all of his legal expertise toward writing in defense of the faith. He kept this up, but then, in about 207, he became a Montanist. It is not known when Tertullian died.
Tertullian was a prolific author. His works range from apologies addressed to pagans, to arguments against heretics, to practical and moral works. In the latter category, there is a marked shift toward moralism after he converts to Montanism. Tertullian’s writing style was somewhat terse and tinged with sarcasm throughout. In many cases, he would coin his own words in order to capture a thought; thereby becoming the primary contributor to Ecclesiastical Latin. The negative side of this is that his writing is sometimes obscure. Although he came up with some of the formulations that would later be used in the church’s definitions of orthodoxy, there is some question as to whether he invested them with the same definition. Tertullian never wrote just to practice his technique, but always had a specific purpose mind.
Perhaps the best example of Tertullian’s knowledge of Roman jurisprudence is found in The Prescription against Heretics. The argument does not try to refute specific heresies as such; rather, it is a matter of legal procedure. A prescription was a strategy used by the defense in which objection was made to the form in which the plaintiff wished to pursue the case. If successful, the case could be thrown out of court. In the case of orthodox Christianity vs. heresy, the form in question was the use of Scripture. The heretics were interpreting Scripture in a manner contrary to the accepted teaching of the church. Normally, at this point, the debate should have become a matter of hermeneutics or exegesis. But Tertullian prevents it from getting this far by arguing that Scripture belongs only to the church. The heretic has no right to use it in the first place.
The Prescription is an ingenious argument; nevertheless, from our post-Reformation perspective, it may appear to beg the question. Why couldn’t the Roman Catholic Church have used this argument against the Reformers? The answer, I believe, can be found by observing the nature of either side. Despite the overemphasis that is present today on the sufficiency of the individual in scriptural interpretation, this was not the intent of the Reformers. They were interpreting Scripture in line with the teaching of the historic, catholic church. Neither present day individualists nor second century heretics do this.
As to the church, there is no identity between the church of Tertullian’s day and the Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century. Tertullian did appeal to apostolic tradition in support of his argument; however, this was a tradition that was rooted in scripture. The Reformers protested against an organization that had formed a body of tradition alongside scripture. Such tradition, not arising from the only legitimate doctrinal source, must fall prey to Tertullian’s prescription. It is interesting to note that Tertullian had to abandon this strategy after he became a Montanist.
One of the aforementioned phrases that would later come to express the orthodox view of the trinity is “one in substance, three in person.” It is found in Against Praxeas. Praxeas was a monarchial modalist. He believed that there was only one person in the Godhead who manifested himself in different ways. God’s ability to rule, that is, his monarchy, is dependent on his unity. Multiple persons, so said Praxeas, destroyed this unity. Tertullian disagreed and ably demonstrated why. Nevertheless, what he presented in support of the unity of the Godhead may not be so clear.
The question goes to a debate over Tertullian’s use of the word “substance.” Was he using it in the metaphysical sense commonly associated with orthodoxy; or, as some have argued, was he using the term in a legal sense? Here, substance is property and the right to use it. Insofar as Tertullian is arguing against Praxeas’ view of monarchy, the comparison is drawn to the Emperor, whose substance is the Empire. The Emperor is able to share this substance, and, consequently, his rule with his son. Under this view, the divine Father and Son would be no different. Not only is it possible for more than one person to share a single substance, it is also possible for the same person to have more than one substance.
We do need to exercise caution here. Even if the case can be made that Tertullian had this legal view of substance, it does not follow that this goes beyond a mere illustration. We do not need to conclude that Tertullian thought of godness as something accidentally owned by the three persons of the trinity. Nevertheless, despite a desire to give Tertullian the benefit of the doubt, I do find myself wondering to what extent an unorthodox view of the trinity might have led to his conversion to Montanism. Montanus claimed to be the incarnation of the Holy Spirit. I cannot see how agreement with this is orthodox.
Another problematic doctrine of Tertullian’s was traducianism. This is the idea that the soul derived from the souls of the parents. Actually, the doctrine itself, although wrong, is not that bad. This was, until the Middle Ages, the majority report of the church to explain original sin. The problem lay in the Stoic philosophy behind this doctrine. Tertullian, according to Gonzalez, believed that both the soul and God were corporeal beings. If this is, indeed, the case, then, going back to Tertullian’s views on substance, he would have to conceive of deity as a property owned by the three persons of the trinity. His phrase, “distinct but not separate,” would not have the same orthodox flavor that we might like.
I do not accept the usual criticisms of Tertullian’s irrationalism. His statements need to be understood in context. And, normally, I would give the orthodox sounding things he says every benefit of the doubt. However, for me, his conversion to Montanism calls much of his previous writing into question. He may have provided some invaluable language and formulations for later orthodoxy, but I am still left wondering what he really meant.
Posted by kcourter at julho 9, 2004 5:19 PM