had on his judgment in his latest writings, it did not vitiate the work against Marcion. With a few trivial exceptions, this treatise may be read by the strictest Catholic without any feel- ing of annoyance. His lapse to Montanism is set down conjecturally as having taken place A.D. 199. Jerome, we have seen, attributed the event to his quarrel with the Roman clergy, but this is at least doubtful; nor must it be forgotten that Tertullian's mind seems to have been peculiarly suited by nature ' to adopt the mystical notions and ascetic principles of Montanus. It is satisfactory to find that, on the whole, "the authority of Tertullian," as the learned Dr. Burton says, *' upon great points of doctrine is considered to be little, if at all, affected by his becoming a Montanist." {^Lectures oti Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 234.) Besides the different works which are expressly mentioned in the notes of this volume, recourse has been had by the translator to Dupin's Hist. Eccl. Writers (trans.), vol. i. pp. 69-86; Tillemont's Memoires Hist. Eccl. iii. 85-103; Dr. Smith's Greek and Roman Biography, articles "Marcion" and "Tertullian;" Schaff's arti- cle, in Herzog's Cyclopedia, on "Tertullian;" Munter's Primordia Eccl. Africatm, pp. 1 18-150; Robertson's Church Hist. vol. i. pp. 70-77; Dr. P. Schaff's Hist, of Christian Church (New York, 1859, pp. 51 1-5 19), and Archdeacon Evans* Biography of the Early Church, vol. i. (Lives of "Marcion," pp. 93-122, and "Tertullian," pp. 325-363). This last work, though of a popular cast, shows a good deal of research and learning, ex-, pressed in the pleasant style of the once popular author of The Rectory of Vale Head. The* translator has mentioned these works, because they are all quite accessible to the general reader, and will give him adequate information concerning the subject treated in the present volume.
To this introduction of Dr. Holmes must be added that of Mr. Thelwall, the translator of the Third volume in the Edinburgh Series, as follows: To arrange chronologically the works (especially if numerous) of an author whose own date is known with tolerable precision, is not always or necessarily easy: witness the con- troversies as to the succession of St. Paul's epistles. To do this in the case of an author whose own date is itself a matter of controversy may therefore be reasonably expected to be still less so; and such is the predicament of him who attempts to perform this task for Tertullian. I propose to give a specimen or two of the difficulties with which the task is beset; and then to lay before the reader briefly a summary of the results at which eminent scholars, who have devoted much time and thought to the subject, have arrived. Such a course, I think, will at once afford him means of judging of the absolute impossibility of arriving at definite certainty in the matter; and induce him to excuse me if I prefer furnish- ing him with materials from which to deduce his own conclusions, rather than venturing on an ex cathedra decision on so doubtful a subject.
I. The book, as Dr. Holmes has reminded us,'' of the date of which we seem to have: the in divinity or humanity more practised? For, by a certain wonderful capacity of mind, he attained to and understood alt philos- ot)hy, all the sects of philosophers, all their founders and supporters, all their systems, all sorts of histories and studies. And • for his wit, was he not so excellent, so grave, so forcible, that he scarce ever undertook the overthrow of any position, but either by quickness of wit he undermined, or by weight of reason he crushed it? Further, who is able to express the praises which his style of speech deserves, which is fraught (1 know none like it) with that cogency of reason, that such as it cannot pfersuade, it compels to assent; Whose so many words almost are so many sentences; whose so many senses, so many victories? This know Marcion and Apel- fes, Praxeas and Hermogenes, Jews, Gentiles, Gnostics, and divers others, whose blasphemous opinions he hath overthrown with his many and great volumes, as it had been thunderbolts. And yet this man after ill, this Tertullian, not retaining the Cathcrtic- doctrine— that, Ls, the old faith— hath discredited with his later errorhis worthy writings," etc.— Chap. xxiv. (O.xford trans, chap, xviii.)
• Neander's introduction to his Antignostikus should be read in connection with this topic. He powerfully delineates the dispo- sition of Tertullian and the character of Montanism, and attributes his secession to that sect not to outward causes, but to " his internal congeniality of mind." But, inasmuch as a man's subjective development is very much guided by circumstances, it is not necessary, in agreeing with Neander, to disbelieve some such account as Jerome has given us of Tertullian (Neander's A Hti~ gnostikus, etc. Bohn's trans., vol. ii. pp. 200-207).
» Introductory Notice to the Aiiti-Marcion, pp. xiii. xiv.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
surest evidence, is adiK Marc. i. This book was in course of writing, as its author himself (c. 15) tells us, " in the fifteenth year of the empire of Severus." Now this date would be clear if there were no doubt as to which year of our era corresponds to Tertullian's fifteenth of Severus. Pamelius, however, says Dr. Holmes, makes it a.d. 208; Clinton, (whose au- thority is more recent and better,) 207.
2. Another book which promises to give some clue to its date is the de Pallio.' The writer uses these phrases: " praesentis imperii triplex virtus;" " Deo tot Aiigustis in urtum favente;" which show that there were at the time three persons unitedly bearing the title Augusti — not Casarcs only, but the still higher Augusfi; — while the remainder of that con- text, as well as the opening of c. i, indicates a time of peace of some considerable duration; a time of plenty; and a time during and previous to which great changes had taken place in the general aspect of the Roman Empire, and some particular traitor had been discovered and frustrated. Such a combination of circumstances might seem to fix the date with some degree of assurance. But unhappily, as Kaye reminds us,'' commentators cannot agree as to who the three Augusti are. Some say Severus, Caracalla, and Albinus; some say Severus, Caracalla, and Geta. Hence we have a difference of some twelve years or thereabouts in the computations. For Albinus was defeated by Severus in person, and fell by his own hand, in a.d. 197; and Geta, Severus' second son, brother of Caracalla, was not associated by his father with himself and his other son as Augustus until a.d. 208, though he had received the title of Casar ten years before, in the same year in which Caracalla had received that of Augustus.^ For my own part, I may perhaps be allowed to say that I should incline to agree, like Salmasius, with those who assign the later date. The limits of the present Introduction forbid my entering at large into my reasons for so doing. I am, however, supported in it by the authority of Neander.-* In one point, though, I should hesitate to agree with Oehler, who appears to follow Salmasius and others herein, — namely, in under- standing the expression " et cacto et rubo subdolse familiaritatis convulso " of Albinus. It seems to me the words might with more propriety be applied to Plautianus; and that in the word "familiaritatis" we may see (after Tertullian's fashion) a play upon the meaning, with a reference not only to the long-standing but mischievous ifitimacy which existed between Severus and his countryman (perhaps fellow-townsman) Plautianus, who for his harshness and cruelty is fitly compared to the prickly cactus. He alludes likewise to the alliance which this ambitious prcetorian praefect had contrived to contract with the. family of the emperor, by the marriage of his daughter Plautilla to Caracalla, — an event which, as it turned out, led to his own death. Thus in the '■'rubo" there may be a reference to the ambitious and conceited " bratnble" of Jotham's parable, ^ and perhaps, too, to the " thistle " of Jehoash's.* If this be so, the date would be at least approximately fixed, as Plautianus did not marry his daughter to Caracalla till a.d. 203, and was himself put to death in the following year, 204, while Geta, as we have seen, was made Augustus in 208.
3. The date of the Apology, however, is perhaps at once the most contested, and the most strikingly illustrative of the difficulties to which allusion has been made. It is not surprising that its date should have been more disputed than that of other pieces, inasmuch as it is the best known, and (for some reasons) the most interesting and famous, of all our author's productions. In fact, the dates assigned to it by different authorities vary from Mosheim's 198 to that suggested by the very learned Allix, who assigns it to 217.'
' In the end of Chapter Second.
2 Ecci. Hist, illust. from Tertuliian's IVritings, p. 36 sqq. (ed. 3, Lond. 1845).
3 See Kaye, as above. * A ntignostikus, p. 424 (Bohn's tr., ed. 1851).
5 See Judg. ix. 2 sqq. *• See 2 Kings (4 Kings in LXX. and Vulg.) xiv. 9.
7 Here, again, our limits forbid a discussion; but the allusion to the Rhone having " scarcely yet lost the stain of blood " which we find in the ad. Natt. i. 17, compared with Apol. 35, seems to favour the idea of those who date the ad. Natt. earlier than the lO INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
4. Once more. In the tract de Monogamia (c. 3) the author says that since the date of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians "about 160 years had elapsed." Here, again, did we only know with certainty the precise date of that epistle, we could ascertain ''^ about'* the date of the tract. But (a) the date of the epistle is itself variously given, Burton giving it as early as a.d. 52, Michaelis and Mill as late as 57; and {b) Tertullian only says, " Armis circiter clx. exinde productis;" while the way in which, in the ad Natt., within the short space of three chapters, he states first' that 250, and then (in c. 9) that 300, years had not elapsed since the rise of the Christian name, leads us to think that here again' he only desires to speak in round numbers, meaning perhaps more than 15b, but less than 170.
These specimens must suffice, though it might be easy to add to them. There is, how- ever, another classification of our author's writings which has been attempted. Finding the hoplessness of strict chronological accuracy, commentators have seized on the idea that peradventure there might be found at all events some internal marks by which to determine which of them were written before, which after, the writer's secession to Montanism. It may be confessed that this attempt has been somewhat more successful than the other. Yet even here there are two formidable obstacles standing in our way. The first and greatest is, that the natural temper of Tertullian was from the first so akin to the spirit of Montanism, that, unless there occur distinct allusions to the " New Prophecy," or expressions specially connected with Montanistic phraseology, the general tone of any treatise is not a very safe guide. The second is, that the subject-matter of some of the treatises is not such as to afford much scope for the introduction of the peculiarities of a sect which professed to differ in discipline only, not doctrine, from the church at large.
Still the result of this classification seems to show one important feature of agreement between commentators, however they may differ upon details; and that is, that considerably the larger part of our author's rather voluminous productions^ must have been subsequent to his lamented secession. I think the best way to give the reader means for forming his own judgment will be, as I have said, to lay before him in parallel columns a tabular view of the disposition of the books by Dr. Neander and Bishop Kaye. These two modern writers, having given particular care to the subject, bringing to bear upon it all the advan- tages derived from wide reading, eminent abilities, and a diligent study of the works of preceding writers on the same questions,* have a special right to be heard upon the matter in hand; and I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that, for calm judgment, and minute acquaintance with his author, I shall not be accused of undue partiality if I express my opinion that, as far as my own observation goes, the palm must be awarded to the Bishop. In this view I am supported by the fact that the accomplished Professor Ramsay,^ follows Dr. Kaye's arrangement. I premise that Dr. Neander adopts a threefold division, into: 1. Writings which were occasioned by the relation of the Christians to the heathen, and refer to their vindication of Christianity against the heathen; attacks on heathenism; the sufferings and conduct of Christians under persecution; and the intercourse of Christians with heathens: 2. Writings which relate to Christian and church life, and to ecclesiastical discipline: 3. The dogmatic and dogmatico-controversial treatises. And under each head he subdivides into: Apology, and consider the latter as a kind of new edition of the former: while it would fix the date of the aif. Natt. as not cer tainly earlier than 197, in which year (as we have seen) Albinus died. The fatal battle took place on the banks of the Rhone.
' In c. 7. » V^iz. in the de Monog.
3 It look-s strange to see TertuUian's works referred to as consisting of "about thirty short treatiies" in Murdock's note on Moshiem. See the ed. of the Eccl. Hist, by Dr. J. Seaton Reid, p. 65, n. 2, Lond. and Bel. 1852.
•4 This last qualification is very specially observable in Dr. Kaye...5 In his article on Tertullian in Smith's Diet, of Bicg. and Myth.
INTRODUCTORY NOTK.
I I thus leaving no room for what Kaye calls " works respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced.'"' For the sake of clearness, this order has not been followed in the table. On the other side, it will be seen that Dr. Kaye, while not assuming to speak with more than a reasonable probability, is careful so to arrange the treatises under each head as to show the order, so far as it is discoverable, in which the books under that head were pub- lished; i.e., if one book is quoted m another book, the book so quoted, if distinctly referred to as already before the world, is plainly anterior to that in which it is quoted. Thus, then, we have: I.
De Pcenitentia.
2.
De Oratione.
5- Ad Uxorem ii.
6.
7.
Ad Martyres. De Patientia.
8. 9- De Spectacuiis. De Idololatria lO.
II. Ad Nationes i. ii.
Apologeticus.
De Testimonio Animse.
De Prsescr. Haereticorum.
De Cult. Fern. i.
De Cult. Fem. ii.
2. Montanist.
21. Adv. Marc. i. ii, iii. iv De Anlma.
De Carne Christi.
De Res. Cam.
De Cor. Mil.
De Virg. Vel.
De Ex. Cast.
De Monog. De Jejuniis. De Pudicitia, De Pallio.
Scorpiace. Ad Scapulam Adv. Valentinianos.
Adv. Hermogenerru Adv. Praxeam.
Adv. Judaeos.
De Fuga in Persecutione.
V.
Kaye.
I. P7-C- Montanist (probably).
1. De Poenitentia.'
2. De Oratione.
3. De Baptismo.
4. Ad Uxorem i.
5. Ad Uxorem ii.
6. Ad Martyres.
7. De Patientia.
8. Adv. Judseos.
g. De Prsescr. Hsereticorum.'
2. Montanist (certainly).
10. Adv. Marc. i.
11. Adv. Marc, ii.3 12. De Anima.'* 13. Adv. Marc. iii.
14. Adv. Marc, iv.s 15. De Carne Christi.* 16. De Resurrectione Carnis.'
17. Adv. Marc. v.
18. Adv. Praxeam.
19. Scorpiace.® 20. De Corona Militis.
21. De Virginibus Velandis.
22. De Exhortatione Castitatis.
23. De Fuga in Persecutione.
24. De Monogamia.9 25. De Jejuniis.
26. De Pudicitia.
3. Montanist (probably), 27. Adv. Valentinianos.
28. Ad Scapulam.
29. De Spectacuiis. '° 30. De Idololatria.
31. De Cultu Feminarum i.
32. De Cultu Feminarum ii.
4. Works respecting ivhich nothing certain can be pronounced.
33. The Apology."
34. Ad Nationes i.
35. Ad Nationes ii.
36. De Testimonio Animas.
37. De Pallio.
38. Adv. Hermogenem.
I Referred to apparently in de Pudic. ad init. — Tr.
=* The de Prcescr. is ref. to in adv. Marc, i.; adz>. Prax. 2; de Carne Christi., 2; adv. Herntog. 1.
3 Ref. to in de Res. Cam. 2, 14; Scorp. 5; de Anima, 21. The only mark, as the learned Bishop's remarks imply, for fixing the date of publication as Montanistic, is the fact that TertuUian alludes, in the opening sentences, to B. i. Hence B. ii. could not, in its present form, have appeared till after B. i. Now B. i. contains evident marks of Montanism: see the last chapter, for instance. But the writer speaks (in the same passage) of B. ii. as being the treatise, the ill fate of which in its unfinished condition he there relates — at least such seems the legitimate sense of his words — noiv remodelled. Hence, ivhen originally xvritten, it may not have been Montanistic. — Tr. 4 Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2, 17, 45; comp. cc. 18, 21. 5 Ref. to in de Cam. Chr. 7.
6 Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2. 7 See the beginning and end of the de Carne Christi. — Tr. Ref. to in adzi. Marc. v. lo.
* In c. 4 TertuUian speaks as if he had already refuted all the heretics. 9 Ref. to in de/ej. c. i.
•o Ref. to in de Idolol. 13; in de Cult. Fem. i. 8. In the de Cor. 6 is a reference to the Greek tract de Spectacuiis by our author.
" Archdeacon Evans, in his Biography 0/ the Early Church (in the Theological Library), suggests that the success which the 12 INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
A comparison of these two lists will show that the difference between the two great au- thorities is, as Kaye remarks, " not great; and with respect to some of the tracts on which we differ, the learned author expresses himself with great diffidence. ' ' ' The main difference, in fact, is that which affects two tracts upon kindred subjects, the de Spectaculis, and Idolola- tria, the de Cultu Feminarum (a subject akin to the other two), and the adv. JudcBos. With reference to all these, except the last, to which I believe the Archdeacon does not once refer, the Bishop's opinion appears to have the support of Archdeacon Evans, whose learned and interesting essay, referred to in the note, appears in a volume published in 1837. Dr. Kaye's Lectures, on which his book is founded, were delivered in 1825. Of the date of his first edition I am not aware. Dr. Neander's A?ifignostikus also first appeared in 1825. The preface to his second edition bears date July i, 1849.= As to the adv. Judaos, I confess I agree with Neander in thinking that, at all events from the beginning of c. 9, it is spurious. l.i it be urged that Jerome expressly quotes it as Tertullian's, I reply, Jerome so quotes it, I iielieve, when he is expounding Daniel. Now all that the adv. Jud. has to say about Darnel ends with the end of c. 8. It is therefore quite compatible with the fact thus stated to rec- ognize the earlier half of the book as genuine, and to reject the rest, beginning, as it happens, just after the eighth chapter, as spurious. Perhaps Dr. Neander's Jewish birth and training peculiarly fit him to be heard on this question. Nor do I think Professor Ramsay (in the article above alluded to) has quite seen the force of Kaye's own remarks on Neander. 3 What he does say is equally creditable to his candour and his accuracy; namely: " The instances alleged by Dr. Neander, in proof of this position, are undoubtedly very remarkable; but if the concluding chapters of the tract are spurious, no ground seems to be left for asserting that the genuine portion was posterior to the third Book against Marcion,* — and none, consequently, for asserting that it was written by a Montanist." With which remark I must draw these observations on the genuine extant works of Tertullian to a close.
The next point to which a brief reference must be made is the lost works of Tertullian, lists of these are given both by Oehler and by Kaye, viz.: 1. A Book on Aaron's Robes: mentioned by Jerome, Epist. 128, ad Fabiolam de Veste Sacerdotali (tom. ii. p. 586, Opp. ed. Bened.).
2. A Book on the Superstition of the Age.^ 3. A Book on the Submission of the Soul.
4. A Book on the Flesh and the Soul.
Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are known only by their titles, which are found in the Index to Tertul- lian's works given in the Codex Agobardi; but the tracts themselves are not extant in the MS., which appears to have once contained — 5. A Book on Paradise, named in the Index, and referred to in de Anitfia 55, adv. Marc. iii. 13; and 6. A Book on the Hope of the Faithful: also named in the Index,' and referred to adv.
Af>ology met with, or al least the fame it brought its author, may have been the occasion of Tertullian's visit to Rome. He rejects entirely the supposition that Tertullian was a presbyter of the Roman church; nor does he thinU Eusebius" words, «coi ritv IxaKitrra in'i 'Pii>nT)« Aaf^irpwc (Eccl. Hist. ii. 2. 47 ad fin., 48 ad intt.), sufficiently plain to be relied on. One thing does seem pretty plain, that the rendering of them which Rufinus gives, and Valesius follows, "inter nostros" (sc. Latinos) " Scriptores adraodum clarus," cannot be correct. That we find a famous Roman lawyer Tertullianus, or Tertyllianus, among the writers fragments of whom are preserN'cd in the Pandects, Neander reminds us; but (as he says) it by no means follows, even if it could he proved that the fUite of the Siiid lawyer corresponded with the supposed date of our Tertullian, that they were identical. Still it is worth bearing in mind, especially as a similarity of language exists, or has been thought to e.xist, between the jurist and the Christian author. And the juridical language and tone of our author do seem to point to his having — though Mr. Evans regards that as doubtful — been a trained lawyer. — Tr.
" Kaye, as above. Pref. to 2d ed. pp. xxi. xxii. incorporated in the 3d ed., which I always quote.
4 It being from that book that the quotations are taken which make up the remainder of the tract, «s Samlcr. worthleu as his theories are, has well shown.
5 Sxculi • " or '■ of the world," or perhaps " of heathenism."
Marc. iii. 24; and by Jerome in his account of Papias,' and on Ezek. xxxvi.;' and by Gennadius of Marseilles. ^ 7. Six Books on Ecstasy, with a seventh in reply to Apollonius:* see Jerome.' See, too, J. A. Fabricius on the words of the unknown author whom the Jesuit Sirmond edited under the name Prcedcstinatus; who gathers thence that " Soter, pope of the City,' and Apollonius, bishop 7 of the Ephesians, wrote a book against the Montanists; in reply to whom Tertullian, a Carthaginian presbyter, wrote." J. Pamelius thinks these seven books were originally published in Greek.
8. A Book in reply to the Apellesites (i.e. the followers of Apelles*): referred to in de Carne Christie c. 8.
9. A Book on the Origin ^ of the Soul, in reply to Hermogenes: referred to in de Anima, 10. A Book on Fate: referred to by Fulgentius Planciades, p. 562, Merc; also referred to as either written, or intended to be written, by Tertullian himself, de Anima, c. 20. Jerome " states that there was extant, or had been extant, a book on Fate under the name cf Minucius Felix, written indeed by a perspicuous author, but not in the style of Minucius Felix. This, Pamelius judged, should perhaps be rather ascribed to Tertullian.
11. A Book on the Trinity. Jerome" says: " Novatian wrote a large volume on the Trinity, as if making an epitome of a work of Tertullian' s, which most men not knoivmg regard it as Cyprian's.'' Novatian 's book stood in Tertullian's name in the mss. of J. Gangneius, who was the first to edit it; in a Malmesbury ms. which Sig. Gelenius used; and Jn others.
12. A Book addressed to a Philosophic Friend on the Straits of Matrimony. Both Kaye and Oehler " are in doubt whether Jerome's words, '^ by which some have been led to conclude that Tertullian wrote some book or books on this and kindred subjects, really imply as much, or whether they may not refer merely to those tracts and passages in his extant writings which touch upon such matters. Kaye hesitates to think that the *' Book to a Phil- osophic Friend" is the same as the de Exhortatione Castitatis, because Jerome says Ter- tullian wrote on the subject of celibacy '*/« his youth;" but as Cave takes what Jerome elsewhere says of Tertullian's leaving the Church " about the middle of his age" to mean his spiritual age, the same sense might attach to his words here too, and thus obviate the Bishop's difficulty.
There are some other works which have been attributed to Tertullian — on Circumcision; on Animals Clean and Unclean; on the truth that God is a Judge — which Oehler likewise rejects, believing that the expressions of Jerome refer only to passages in the A7iti-Marcio>i and other extant works. To Novatian Jerome does ascribe a distinct work on Circumcision,'* and this may (comp. 11, just above) have given rise to the view that Tertullian had written one also.
There were, moreover, three treatises at least written by Tertullian in Greek. They are: 1. A Book on Public Shows. See de Cor. c. 6.
2. A Book on Baptism. See de Bapt. c. 15.
3. A Book on the Veiling of Virgins. See de V. V. c. i.
I Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 18. 2 P. 952, torn. iii. 0pp. ed. Bened.
3 De Ecclesioe dogTnatibus, c. 55.
4 Referred to in Adv. Marc. iv. 22. So Kaye thinks; but perhaps the reference is doubtful. Sec, however, the passage in Dr. Holmes' translation in the present series, with his note thereon. 5 De Scriptt. Eccles. 53, 24, 40.
8 A Marcionite at one time: he subsequently set up a sect of his own. He is mentioned in the adv. otnn. Har. c. 6.
9 Censu. 10 Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 58.
" Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 70. " Oehler speaks more decidedly than Kaye.
•3 Epist. ad Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis, p. 37, torn. iv. Opp. ed. Bened.; adv. Jovin, i. p. 157, torn. iv. Opp. ed. Bened. 14 In the Catal. Scrippt. Eccles.
14- INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
.;Oehler adds that J. Pamelius, in his epistle dedicatory to Philip ii. of Spain, makes mention of a Greek copy of Tertullian in the library of that king. This report, however, since nothing has ever been seen or heard of the said copy from that time, Oehler judges to be erroneous.'
It remains briefly to notice the confessedly spurious works which the editions of Tertul- lian generally have appended to them. With these Kaye does not deal. The fragment, adv. onines Hcereses, Oehler attributes to Victorinus Petavionensis, i.e., Victorinus bishop of Pettaw, on the Drave, in Austrian Styria. It was once thought he ought to be called Pictaviensis, i.e. of Poictiers; but John Launoy "^ has shown this to be an error, Victorinus is said by Jerome to have " understood Greek better than Latin; hence his works are excel- lent for the sense, but mean as to the style."* Cave believes him to have been a Greek by birth. Cassiodorus " states him to have been once a professor of rhetoric. Jerome's state- ment agrees with the style of the tract in question; and Jerome distinctly says Victorinus did write adversus omnes Hcereses. Allix leaves the question of its authorship quite uncer- tain. If Victorinus be the author, the book falls clearly within the ante-Nicene period; for Victorinus fell a martyr in the Diocletian persecution, probably about a.d. 303.
The next fragment^ — " Of the Execrable Gods of the Heathens " — is of quite uncertain authorship. Oehler would attribute it "to some declaimer not quite ignorant of Tertullian's writings," but certainly not to Tertullian himself.
Lastly we come to the metrical fragments. Concerning these, it is perhaps impossible to assign them to their rightful owners. Oehler has not troubled himself much about them; but he seems to regard the Jonah as worthy of more regard than the rest, for he seems to have intended giving more labour to its editing at some future time. Whether he has ever done so, or given us his German version of Tertullian's own works, which, "si Deus ad- jnverit," he distinctly promises in his preface, I do not know. Perhaps the best thing to be done under the circumstances is to give the judgment of the learned Peter Allix. It may be premised that by the celebrated George Fabricius ^ — who published his great work, Poetarutn Veterum Ecclesiasticorum Opera Christiana, etc., in 1564 — the Five Books in Reply to Mar- cion, and the Judgment of the Lord, are ascribed to Tertullian, the Genesis and Sodom to Cyprian. Pamelius likewise seems to have ascribed the Five Books, the Jotiah, and the Sodom^ to Tertullian; and according to Lardner, Bishop Bull likewise attributed the Five Books to him. 7 They have been generally ascribed to the Victorinus above mentioned. Tillemont, among others, thinks they may well enough be his.^ Rigaltius is content to demonstrate that they are not Tertullian's, but leaves the real authorship without attempting to decide it. Of the others the same eminent critic says, " They seem to have been written at Carthage, at an age not far removed from Tertullian's."' Allix, after observing that Pamelius is inconsistent with himself in attributing the Genesis and Sodom at one time to Ter- tullian, at another to Cyprian, rejects both views equally, and assigns the Genesis with some confidence to Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles, whose " floruit " Cave gives cir. 440, a con- temporary of Gennadius, and a copious author. To this it is, Allix thinks, that Gennadius alludes in his Catalogue of Illustrious Men, c. 77.