Tertullian offering a similar apology for the extravagance of 17an opinion which he undertakes to refute, and affirming with great solemnity that he had himself heard it advanced. Semler 175 grounds another argument in support of his theory, on the fact, that a considerable portion of the third book against Marcion, is repeated almost word for word in the Treatise against the Jews. But the difficulties arising out of this fact are not greater on the supposition that Tertullian was the real author of both the works, than on the supposition that they were composed by others in his name. I know no reason why an author should be precluded from repeating the same arguments in the same words, when an occasion presents itself on which they are equally applicable. Such was the case which we are now considering. Both Marcion and the Jews denied, though on different principles, that Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Old 174 The opinion was proposed in the form of a dilemma. The Apostles did not receive Christian baptism, inasmuch as they were baptized with the baptism of John. Either, therefore, the Apostles have not obtained salvation, or Christian baptism is not of absolute necessity to salvation. After stating the opinion, Tertullian adds, Audivi, Domino teste, ejusmodi, ne quis me tam perditum existimet, ut ultrò exagitem, libidine styli, quæ aliis scrupulum incutiant, c. 12. 175 Section ix. Testament. Both, therefore, were to be refuted by shewing that the prophecies respecting the Messiah were actually accomplished in him; and this is the object of the two passages in which we find so close a resemblance. When Tertullian had the argument ready stated and arranged to his hand, it would surely have been an egregious waste of time to amuse himself in varying the language: especially as the passages in question consist entirely of expositions of Prophecies. He does, however, make such alterations as the difference of the circumstances under which he is writing appears to require. It should be observed, that the Treatise adversus Judæos is expressly quoted by 176 Jerome, as the work of Tertullian. It would be foreign from the immediate object of this volume, to discuss the reasons assigned by Semler for asserting, that the works now extant under the names of Justin and Irenæus contain manifest plagiarisms from Clemens Alexandrinus, and that they are consequently spurious. He admits that they are quoted as genuine by 178Eusebius; and this circumstance alone will probably, in the opinion 176 In his Comment on the ninth chapter of Daniel. 177 Section xiv. xv. xvi. 178 Hist. Eccl. L. v. c. 8. L. iv. c. 18. of sober critics, outweigh a thousand conjectures unsupported by positive evidence. I have devoted so much time to the examination of Semler's Dissertation, not on account of 179 its intrinsic value, which I am far from estimating highly, but out of regard to the distinguished place which has been assigned him among Biblical critics. His object evidently is to destroy the authority of Justin, Irenæus, and Tertullian: but he does not fairly and openly avow it; he envelopes himself in a cloud, and uses a dark mysterious language, designed to insinuate more than it expresses. The reader finds his former opinions unsettled, yet is not told what he is to substitute in their place; and is thus left in a disagreeable state of doubt and perplexity. Had Semler contented himself with saying, that Tertullian, in his Tract against the Valentinians, had done nothing more than copy the statements of preceding writers, and consequently could not be deemed an independent witness to the tenets of those Heretics-had he said, with respect to our author's writings 179 The most valuable part of Semler's Dissertation is, in my opinion, that which relates to Tertullian's quotations from Scripture, and to the Latin Version from which he derived them; to this I shall perhaps recur hereafter. in general, that the natural vehemence of his temper betrayed him into exaggeration, and caused him to indulge in a declamatory tone, which renders it often difficult to determine to what extent his expressions are to be literally understood, and his statements received as matters of fact-had Semler even gone further, and contended that there was reasonable ground for suspecting that 180 Irenæus and Tertullian had, either through ignorance or design, occasionally misrepresented the opinions of the Gnostics, and imputed to them absurdities and extravagances of which they were never guilty-had he confined his assertions within these limits, they would probably have met with the concurrence of all who are conversant with the subject. But when he proceeds, upon surmises such as we have been now considering and in opposition to the unanimous voice of Ecclesiastical antiquity, to denounce the writings of Irenæus and Tertullian as the offspring of fraud and imposture-as the productions of men who had combined together for the purpose of palming forgeries on the world-he overleaps the bounds of sober and rational criticism, and opens a door to universal incredulity. 180 We should always bear in mind, that far the greater portion of the work of Irenæus is extant only in a barbarous Latin translation, which lies under heavy suspicions of interpolation. CHAP. II. ON THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. HAVING in the preceding chapter laid before the reader an account of the Life and Writings of Tertullian, we shall now proceed, in conformity with the arrangement adopted by Mosheim, to collect from his works such passages as serve to illustrate the external history of the Church during the period in which he flourished. 'In the first place then, he bears explicit testimony to the wide diffusion of Christianity in his day. To refute the charges of disloyalty and disaffection to the Emperors which had been brought against the Christians, he thus appeals to the patience with which they bore the injuries and cruelties inflicted on them. 2" Not," he says, "that we are 2.66 1 Obsessam vociferantur civitatem: in agris, in castellis, in insulis Christianos: omnem sexum, ætatem, conditionem, etiam dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen quasi detrimento mærent, Apology, c. 1. 2 Quid tamen de tam conspiratis unquam denotâstis, &c.? Apology, c. 37. A |