One question still remains to be considered: What was the precise nature of the pretensions of Montanus? The two passages, quoted by Epiphanius from his Prophecies, would at first sight lead us to suppose that he gave himself out to be God the Father. Some writers have thought that he pretended to be the Holy Ghost, who was incarnate in him, as the Word was in Jesus. Mosheim appears at different times to have held different opinions on the subject. In his 34 work de Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum, he thus speaks of Montanus: "Homo nullius nominis, minime malus, naturâ tristis, debilisque judicii, morbo quodam animi in tantam incidebat amentiam, ut Spiritum Sanctum seu Paracletum illum qui animaverat Apostolos Jesu Christi, divinitus sibi obtigisse contenderet ad res futuras maximi momenti prædicandas, et morum vitæque disciplinam, priori ab Apostolis traditâ sanctiorem et meliorem, tradendam." But in his 35 Ecclesiastical History, he gives the following account of the pretensions of Montanus: "Montanus pretended to be the Paraclete or Comforter, whom the Divine Saviour, at his departure from the earth, promised to send to his dis34 Sæculum secundum, c. 66.

35 Century II. c. 5. p. 237, note.

ciples to lead them into all truth. Neither have they," he adds, "who inform us that Montanus pretended to have received from above the same Spirit or Paraclete, which formerly animated the Apostles, interpreted with accuracy the meaning of this Heretic. It is, therefore, necessary to observe here, that Montanus made a distinction between the Paraclete promised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy Spirit that was shed upon them on the day of Pentecost; and understood by the former a Divine Teacher, pointed out by Christ under the name of Paraclete or Comforter, who was to perfect the Gospel by the addition of some doctrines omitted by our Saviour, and to cast a full light upon others which were expressed in an obscure and imperfect manner, though for wise reasons which subsisted during the ministry of Christ. This Paraclete, Montanus represented himself to be." It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the former statement is directly at variance with the latter, which Mosheim professes to have collected from an attentive perusal of Tertullian's writings. As my own perusal of the same writings has conducted me to the conclusion, that the former, not the latter, is the correct representation of the pretensions advanced by Montanus, I shall proceed to state the reasons on which my opinion is founded.

Mosheim refers to no particular passage. Let us first turn to the commencement of the Treatise de Virginibus velandis, which contains the fullest and most connected account of Tertullian's notions respecting the Paraclete. Having laid down what he calls the immutable rule of faith respecting the Father and the Son, Tertullian goes on to say "that those parts of the Christian dispensation, which relate to the life and conversation of Christians, admit of change and improvement. On this very account our Lord sent the Paraclete; to the end, that as the weakness of man's nature rendered him incapable of bearing the whole truth at once, the Christian rule of life might by degrees be carried to perfection by him, who was substituted in the place of the Lord, i. e. the Holy Spirit. was directed by the in his nature: under the Law and Prophets he was in his infancy: under the Gospel in his youth: but now, through the Paraclete, he has reached the state of perfect manhood." In this passage the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit are clearly identified.

36

Man, in his earliest state,

fear of God implanted

36 Ab illo vicario Domini, Spiritu Sancto. Tertullian's notion was that, when our Lord ascended into heaven, he sent the Holy Spirit to carry on the Gospel Dispensation. Thus in the Tract de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 13. Misisse vicariam vim Spiritûs Sancti, qui credentes agat; and again, c. 28, Neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius.

We will now proceed to the Tract de Monogamiâ; in which Tertullian is endeavouring to establish the superior sanctity of a life of celibacy, and contending that the Apostle's words, "It is better to marry than burn," imply only a permission granted in condescension to the infirmities of human nature.37 66 Whether then," he proceeds, "we look to the grounds on which the permission was granted, or to the preference given to a state of celibacy (in the preceding words of St. Paul It is good for a man not to touch a woman'), the evident tendency of the Apostle's reasoning is to do away the permission to marry. This being so, why may not the same Spirit, coming after the days of the Apostles at the appropriate time (there being, according to the Preacher, a time for all things) for the purpose of leading Christians into all truth-why may not, I say, the same Spirit have imposed a final and complete restraint upon the flesh; and called men away from marriage, not indirectly, but openly? especially as St. Paul's argument, that

37

c. 3. Igitur si omnia ista obliterant licentiam nubendi, &c. It should be observed, that Tertullian's professed object, in the second and third chapters of the Tract de Monogamiâ, is to shew, that although the injunctions of the Paraclete were new and burthensome to human weakness, Christ had prepared the minds of his followers to expect that such would be their character. Compare c. 14.

'the time is short,' is much more forcible now that 160 years have elapsed since he wrote his Epistle. Had such been the injunction of the Paraclete, ought you not thus to have reasoned with yourself? This is in truth the ancient discipline, exhibited in the flesh and will of the Lord (who was not married) and afterwards in the recommendations and examples of his Apostles. This is the holiness to which we were originally destined. The Paraclete introduces no new doctrine: he now definitively enjoins that of which he before gave warning: he now requires that for which he has hitherto been content to wait. Reflect upon these observations, and you will easily be convinced that it was competent to the Paraclete to limit man to a single marriage; since he might (in perfect consistency with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles) have forbidden marriage altogether: and if you rightly understand the will of Christ, you will admit it to be credible that the Paraclete would curtail a liberty which might with propriety have been wholly taken away. Nay, you will acknowledge that, in this case also, the Paraclete is your advocate; since he has not imposed upon your weakness the obligation of absolute and undeviating continence." Surely the fair inference to be deduced from the comparison of