have been written as a defence of the general adoption of the Pallium at that period, by the Christians of Carthage; or perhaps of its adoption by himself in particular, because he deemed it more suitable to the Christian cha racter.

The only work, which supplies positive evidence of its date, is the first Book against Marcion. In 62 c. 15. Tertullian says, that he is writing in the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Severus, or the year 207. There is also positive evidence in this book that the author was, when he wrote it, a believer in the prophecies of Montanus.

In a passage from the 64 Tract de Monogamiâ, already referred to, Tertullian says, that 160

omnes exuvias et peplos augusta vestis, superque omnes apices et titulos sacerdos suggestus; deduc oculos, suadeo, reverere habitum unius interim erroris tui renuntiatorem, c. 4. sub fine. And again, Sed ista pallium loquitur. "At ego jam illi etiam divinæ Sectæ ac Disciplinæ commercium confero." Gaude pallium, et exulta; melior jam te Philosophia dignata est, ex quo Christianum vestire cœpisti, c. 6.

62 Ad decimum quintum jam Severi Imperatoris.

63 Sed etsi nubendi jam modus ponitur, quem quidem apud nos Spiritalis Ratio, Paracleto Auctore, defendit, unum in Fide matrimonium præscribens, c. 29.

64 c. 3. See note 37.

years had elapsed since St. Paul addressed his first Epistle to the Corinthians. Pamelius in consequence assigns the year 213 as the date of the tract, conceiving that the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written in 53. But in the first place, learned men are not agreed respecting the exact date of the Epistle, some fixing it as late as 59; and in the next, it is highly probable that Tertullian did not speak with precision, but used round numbers. In the first Address ad Nationes our author says, “in one place that 250 years, in another that 300 years had not yet elapsed since the birth of Christ: it is evident, therefore, that in neither instance did Tertullian mean to express the precise number.

Unable to discover in the works themselves any marks by which their dates may be precisely ascertained, later critics have been content to divide them into two classes; those written before Tertullian adopted the errors of Montanus, and those written afterwards. But even on this point a diversity of opinions subsists, and the commentators are not agreed to which of the two classes each work belongs. Unless indeed the tract contains some

65 The first number occurs in c. 7. the second in c. 9.

allusion to the Paraclete or to the New Prophecy, we are not warranted in positively asserting that it was written by a Montanist; nor does the absence of all such allusion justify a contrary inference. The subject of the tract might afford its author no opportunity of disclosing his belief in the inspiration of Montanus; while on the other hand the mere fact, that one of the tenets maintained by that Heresiarch occurs in a particular work, is not of itself sufficient to prove that Tertullian, when it was written, was professedly a Montanist. There were in that age, as in most ages, of the Church, two parties, the advocates of a milder and of a severer discipline. In the latter class would be many, whose opinions respecting the course of life to be pursued by a Christian would not differ widely from those of Montanus; although they might give no credit to his pretended revelations from heaven. The natural disposition of Tertullian would incline him to the more rigid side; yet it is probable that a gradual change was effected in his sentiments, and that, as he advanced in years, they continually assumed a harsher and more uncompromising character. Such is the usual progress of opinion, and we know that on two points at least this change actually took place in his case the readmission of penitents into

the Church, and the degree of criminality to be attached to a second marriage. As the inclination to the severe discipline of Montanus always existed in Tertullian's mind, and increased by slow and almost imperceptible degrees, it is scarcely possible, in the absence of all external testimony, to draw a well-defined line of separation between the works which were and those which were not composed before his secession from the Church. Having premised these observations respecting the difficulty of arriving at any certainty on the subject, I will proceed to state the result of my own examination of Tertullian's writings.

The Tracts de Pœnitentiâ, de Oratione, and de Baptismo, are allowed by the majority of commentators to have been written, before Tertullian had become a follower of Montanus.

Erasmus doubted the genuineness of the Tract de Pœnitentiâ; partly on account of its superiority in point of style to the acknowledged works of Tertullian, and partly because it contains opinions at variance with those which he has expressed in the Tract de Pudicitiâ. 66 In the former, he expressly

66 See c. 7, 8, 9.

67

says, that all crimes without exception committed after baptism may once, but only once, be pardoned by the Church upon repentance in the latter, he denies that adul terers, as well as idolaters and murderers, can ever be reconciled to the Church. But 68 in the commencement of the Tract de Pudicitiâ he himself alludes to this change in his sentiments, which is also mentioned by Jerome; and the necessary inference from a comparison of the passages is, that the Tract de Pœnitentiâ is genuine, and that it was composed while Tertullian was yet a member of the Church.

69

70 A passage in the fifth Chapter of Hilary's Commentary on St. Matthew implies that Tertullian composed the Treatise de Oratione before he quitted the communion of the

67 See c. 5.

68 c. 1. Erit igitur et hic adversus Psychicos titulus, adversus meæ quoque sententiæ retro penes illos societatem, &c.

69 Epistle to Damasus on the parable of the Prodigal Son: Unde vehementer admiror Tertullianum in eo Libro, quem de Pudicitiâ adversum Pœnitentiam scripsit et sententiam veterem novâ opinione dissolvit, hoc voluisse sentire.

70 De Orationis autem Sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus vir Sanctæ memoriæ liberavit. Quamquam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit; sed consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem.