Tertullian: A Theological Analysis

 Introduction

 

            Tertullian is a fascinating character of history. The writings he has left have been impactful and theologically relevant throughout time. The goal is to understand him as a theologian and to ascertain if his love of Montanism spurred theological changes and what that meant for his “orthodoxy.”[1] Obviously, orthodoxy was something that had yet to be nailed down precisely at this point in the Church’s development. However, this did not stop the early Church Fathers from arguing against and declaring some teachings as heretical. It is against this backdrop where this study finds itself. At bottom, the essential conclusion is to find if Tertullian’s “ecstatic” shift affected his fundamental beliefs to the point where he would be deemed a heretic.

            Montanism is what drew Tertullian. The reasons for this are speculated constantly in the literature. With that said, how did the teachings of “The New Prophecy” change or manipulate the strong and vocal defender of catholic faith, Tertullian?[2] It is this question that is of importance here and this paper will seek to survey the scholarly literature as well as Tertullian’s writings on the matter. This endeavor will consist of a theological evaluation of pre- and post-Montanist writings from Tertullian. The primary focus will be on Tertullian, but some cursory remarks will be covered about Montanism, this will allow a proper background for the reader to better understand the theological landscape in which Tertullian was writing.

 

The Consistent Themes of Tertullian

            Prior to embarking on any discussion of theological thoughts, one must understand Tertullian before he made any religious decisions. Tertullian was not born a Christian nor did he grow up in a Christian household. In fact, he grew up in a pagan home and received a classical pagan education.[3] Tertullian had a “keen” intellect and was quite skilled at rhetoric.[4] What is interesting about Tertullian is though he was very intelligent, he found himself far more concerned with the practical matters of life.[5] Not only did he desire to find answers and to defend the faith against heretics, he also wanted to ground the faith in something useful (more on this point below).

            From the very beginning of Tertullian making the philosophical and religious shift to Christian belief, he has held that the holy Scriptures are authoritative over life. This high view of Scripture comes from his idea that they are the “voice of the Holy Spirit.”[6] When evaluating the writing of Tertullian, this is a theme that the researcher will find throughout his works. This is true for both his pre-Montanist period and post-Montanist conversion. This is an important point to notice when trying to figure out if there were any significant theological changes in Tertullian’s thinking or theology. As noted above, this is more about discovering whether or not Tertullian had a major break from what could be considered “orthodoxy” for the time or if the changes experienced in his day were akin to a modern-day denominational shift.

            The regula fidei is another feature within Tertullian’s works. This is a fundamental aspect to determine between false teachers and those who are of the natural flock of God. This “rule of faith” would be based or is the equivalent to what scholars today call creeds.[7] Neufeld offers some insights of the functions of homologia (could be viewed as pre-creeds or the seeds of the written creeds) which point to the grounding aspects in the life of the early Church. Neufeld notes that it was used in confirming faith in early believers and was commonly used in a baptistic setting.[8] This early form of creeds (again, pre-creed) was also used to refute heresy or confirm apostolic teachings.[9] Tertullian’s use of this rule of faith shows his intention to stay connected to the apostles and thereby unified to what the Church has intended to teach from the beginning. This feature, much like the authority of Scripture, can be found throughout his writings both before and after his conversion to Montanism. Understanding Tertullian and his intentions of maintaining a nearness with the apostles and with Christ can help understand his shift in thinking and his desire to uphold certain particulars.

            Tertullian does seem to be concerned (as stated above) with a certain particular, Christian holiness. Christian holiness is the idea that each Christian has an obligation to uphold the moral standards of what it means to be Christian. It is not that Tertullian believes (strictly speaking) that salvation depends solely on a person’s holiness or works. But he does seem to think that living a carnal, yet professing Christian life is not a feasible option.[10] This point does seem to be incredibly important as progressing through an understanding of Tertullian and what he finds important to the Christian life. Not only does holiness play an important role in the perception of the Christian to the pagan world but it is also a physical representation of Christ (who is no longer physically present) to unbelievers. Holiness is a feature of the intentional indwelling of the Holy Spirit and is directly linked to Tertullian’s pneumatology. If the Christian is to live by the spirit, then the obvious results of this should be holiness.

            Prior to Tertullian’s “conversion” to Montanism, he had an interesting and somewhat unclear pneumatology. This is not to say that it was non-existent or that he was heretical but rather he had his certain position taken from various resources. At base, Tertullian’s pneumatology appears to be based heavily on Pauline writing.[11] Wilhite suggests that in both Tertullian’s early and later works he exhibits both a binitarian and trinitarian flavor. These flavors depend heavily on the context of the conversation. Tertullian uses Paul to discover the distinction between the flesh and the spirit. Interestingly, though he uses Pauline thought in formulating the basic structure of his theology, he tends to use Johannine language in expressing this theology.[12] Tertullian takes a preference to referring to the Spirit of God as the Paraclete (from John), this is both in his early and later writings. The distinction in the use of the word spiritus makes for dynamics in Tertullian’s expression of the unity in the Godhead. At some points in his writing, he seems to be binitarian (spiritus equals impersonal force) and trinitarian (spiritus equals a personal and distinct person).[13] Functionally, this shows that Tertullian had at the very least, thought deeply about his pneumatology in his early years, even if it is not developed with the amount of academic rigor one would expect from a modern academic.

            Christian holiness (as mentioned above) is something that is important to Tertullian. Holiness is connected to repentance because it is through individual repentance that we intend to grow in holiness. When the sinner repents (turns away) from the sin they have been committing or committed, they are choosing to live holy and there is a depth of meaning in this turning away. Tertullian holds a vehement view of those who seek to circumvent or to shame this aspect of Christian faith. This is another area that has continuity in the writings of Tertullian. For example,

But if they acted as men who had any part in God, and thereby in reason also, they would first weigh well the importance of repentance, and would never apply it in such a way as to make it a ground for convicting themselves of perverse self-amendment. In short, they would regulate the limit of their repentance, because they would reach (a limit) in sinning too—by fearing God, I mean. But where there is no fear, in like manner there is no amendment; where there is no amendment, repentance is of necessity vain, for it lacks the fruit for which God sowed it; that is, man’s salvation.[14]

           

Tertullian is writing about how repentance has almost been highjacked in the name of sin. He is highly concerned for the practical matters of individuals living within the Church and doing so by living in sin. This issue is so deep there is almost an immediate concern for the salvation of the person. For the purposes of this writing, this particular treatise was written prior to Tertullian’s conversion to Montanism (again, if this indeed happened). Compare the above text to a passage from a later work,

            Such and so great futilities of theirs wherewith they flatter God and pander to themselves, effeminating rather than invigorating discipline, with how cogent and contrary (arguments) are we for our part able to rebut,--(arguments) which set before us warningly the “severity” of God, and provoke our own constancy? Because, albeit God is by nature good, still He is “just” too.[15]

 

After reviewing both of these selections, it is easy to see that there is a consistency for Tertullian and Christian holiness. Tertullian indicates that this is not just an individual issue, but it strikes at the heart of who God is by his very nature. The above selection is from On Modesty which was written after his conversion to Montanism.[16] Montanism prided itself on its stricter moral code. Discipline was a key feature for this movement which could be indicative as to why Tertullian was later drawn towards it. “Now ‘discipline was the key to the significance of the New Prophecy; that was what the Paraclete brought fresh to the Church, together with a right understanding of the Scriptures.”[17] What Trevett points out here is telling, the New Prophecy (i.e., Montanism) had a strict moral code and adhering to this code was by the enabling of the Holy Spirit. Expansion of the function of the Paraclete will be developed below.

Themes of Departure in Tertullian

            The first section looked at what Tertullian thought throughout time. These are the things which he consistently taught in his writings and did not change much or drastically throughout his life. This section will seek to find any departures of teaching. The things that may have changed or morphed over the course of his life in such a way as to constitute a new view. By no means is this an easy feat because Tertullian tends to use hyperbole and ironic language to convey a teaching. Tertullian’s thought can get lost in his use of rhetoric to the point of potentially misunderstanding what he believes and the points he may be trying to make.

            From the beginning, Tertullian could be seen as an avid supporter of the power of the Church. There were stipulations to what constituted a church or the Church. For example, each Church needed to have some connection to apostolic roots, be that in their own area or by being connected to a church with apostolic roots (Achaia has Corinth, Macedonia has Philippi).[18] Tertullian staunchly defended the Church against attack in his Apologeticum which is where he listed some of the basic functions of the Church. The Church has a common religious profession, unity in discipline, common hope, united prayer, and helps the poor and orphaned.[19] The Church also had Christ at the center, has apostolic origin, and strongly adheres to the teachings of the apostles and Scripture. The Spirit is strongly connected to his view of the Church because it is based on apostolicity and Scripture, for Tertullian the scriptures are the voice of the Spirit. However, over time his view slowly changed. This change probably has several motivating factors but suffice it to say at this point, Tertullian’s shifting view of the Holy Spirit is of primary importance here. As mentioned above, Tertullian’s concern with Christian holiness and the laxity within the Church would have been motivating factors for calling into question the authority of the Church.

            The work that highlights Tertullian’s ecclesiology is his later writing De Puditicia (On Modesty). The Church has the role of discipline (similar to his earlier writings). The Church are sheep, with Christ as the shepherd, focuses on sound interpretation of Scripture, and the Spirit is the main stay indicator of it. Tertullian states,

            For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in ‘three.’ And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted ‘a Church,’ from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly ‘the Church,’ it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servants; God Himself, not the priest’s.[20]

 

This selection deals with a concern of Tertullian about the Church forgiving those who commit egregious sins. It is a telling passage of where he stands as far as the power of the Church and where the Church was going during his time. When looking at this, one can see how he pushes the focus back towards the Spirit and Christ/ God as the central aspects of the Church. Of course, he openly admits that the Church has the power to forgive sins, but it is through the power of God (there are other factors in his thinking here). Speaking anachronistically, it appears the spirit of the protestant reformers emerged backwards in time here. This is not to say that Tertullian is a protestant, but he stated in a preemptive fashion what is to come.

            Another passage that shows Tertullian’s thinking with where the power for forgiving sins comes from is found in the same writing as above but just a couple paragraphs later, he writes,

            Let it suffice to the martyr to have purged his own sins: it is the part of ingratitude or of pride to lavish upon others also what one has obtained at a high price. Who has redeemed another’s death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. Similarly, you who emulate Him in condoning sins, if you yourself have done no sin, plainly suffer in my stead. If, however, you are a sinner, how will the oil of your puny torch be able to suffice for you and for me?...If the Lord set so much store by the proof of His power as to reveal thoughts, and so impart health by His command, lest He should not be believed to have the power of remitting sins; it is not lawful for me to believe the same power (to reside) in anyone, whoever he be, without the same proofs.[21]

 

Tertullian is striking straight to the heart of the problem he saw in the Church, forgiveness of sins can only be found in Christ alone, through his power alone because all others are imperfection. He was making a strong theological point because he desired to see the Church possess the mind of Christ. Interestingly, Tertullian in his earlier thought did not have much to say about the Spirit within the structure of the Church.[22] This can mean that he did not see the Spirit at all in the structure or that he simply did not seek to clarify his thoughts on the matter. In either case, Tertullian does appear to believe that there is a universal priesthood of all believers, and that the Edict (mentioned above) was an ecclesiastical overreach by the bishop he was writing about. However, later, Tertullian does add more to the function of the Spirit within the Church. He does state that in his local Church some women would have prophetic visions and they would wait until after the service to hear and test these visions. It was tested against Scripture and the power of the Spirit, which is central in Montanist thinking. This clarification in the role of the Spirit does seem to be a change but due to the lack of specific writing by Tertullian in his earlier years.

            When thinking about Tertullian’s ecclesiology, it would be difficult not to mention his extensive use of imagery. Each image used by Tertullian explains, in some sense, different aspects of the Church or how he views certain functions of the Church or how it fits within theology (as he understood it). This should not confuse readers into thinking that there is always some deeper meaning behind every image. However, there is some significance in the specific images used. Examples of images used by Tertullian in describing the Church are: Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, a coffer/ chest, ship, Spirit, Christ, Body, Mother, school, sect, bride, virgin, and Trinity.[23]

            Prominent in Tertullian’s ecclesiology is the view of the Church as the body of Christ. This is significant because the Church can be seen as taking part in or as an “extension” of the incarnation and that it is the continued representation of Christ on earth (until his return).[24] Tertullian has a high view of the Church and makes that clear by speaking of the Church in these terms. This can also be seen as a motivating factor in fighting against the laxity of the Church leadership. Having this image in mind points to why Tertullian often states that salvation is not found outside of the Church. The Church is not the path to salvation per se but is where salvation is effective. This is made more clear when one thinks about (referenced above) when Tertullian writes that only God has the power to forgive sins. If only God can forgive sins and there is no salvation outside of the Church, this must mean that God, through Christ, is found within the apostolic Christian Church.

            The above is not necessarily a deviation in teaching from Tertullian’s earlier works but is more of an evolution. He thinks of the Church as “properly and principally the Spirit.”[25] Where Tertullian would strictly seek apostolic succession in finding a fundamental church, adding the Spirit he inserts another point of verification, the witness of the Holy Spirit.[26] Once Tertullian made his move more in the direction of the New Prophecy, this focus of the Spirit’s witness comes to the fore. It is not that this view was not already present in his earlier works but it is better viewed as an evolution of thought. This change in view can also be attributed to his vehement disdain for episcopal pardons for egregious sins. By this, it was almost a way of separation between a strict episcopal structure to one where the witness of the Spirit trumps it (in some sense). The true Church is one that adheres as firmly as it can to Christian discipline because it is a representation of the body of Christ, and nothing is more holy than that of Christ.

Evaluation and Conclusion

            The evidence pinning theological changes in Tertullian on Montanism is scant. This is not to suggest that there is zero evidence to support such a claim but rather that his theological shifting can be explained by different and better means. Montanism (in the beginning) was not a schismatic movement.[27] Initially, the evidence suggests that Montanism was a movement within the Church. Tertullian held to sound doctrine (considering his time and place) throughout much of his life. As he aged, there were apparent changes in his thinking and theology. The process of growing older typically results in more clear statements about what one thinks, which could account for many theological changes in Tertullian’s thought. Even examining Tertullian’s writings, it is not difficult to see that he considered himself part of the catholic community. If one could project themselves back in time and tell Tertullian that he was not part of the Catholic Church, this would have been met with an undoubtedly confused look and an ensuing argument.

            All things being equal, Montanism probably did have effects (even if minor or maybe illuminating). In his later works, Tertullian does refer to the Holy Spirit as Paraclete. This (as noted above) does not indicate significant theological changes but does point to his probable immersion within that community. If anything can be said about Tertullian, it is that he was and always will be a staunch defender of the Church. His use of particular language that was not in vogue within the community does not indicate he must have been separated. It could simply be a difference in culture and community. As noted throughout this discourse, Tertullian had morally high standards when it came to living the Christian life (Christian holiness). This was not a new teaching, and moral rigor can be seen throughout the church community, stretching back to Christ himself. The primary difference is what does moral discipline do for the believer and why are Christian’s motivated to conduct themselves in such a way. With the Church being represented as the body of Christ, Tertullian saw this as a strong motivation to keep it pure. Perfection is the goal, not the demand! For Tertullian, every step of the Christian is one towards eternity; it is hard-fought preparation for glory and to stand as one who finished the race.

            Due to the laxity, Tertullian saw within the Church, this was surely a motivational element that factored into his accepting and promoting the morally rigorous New Prophecy in town. The focus was centered on Christ and the Holy Spirit. As noted throughout, the Spirit played a role in Tertullian’s writings but grew and developed as he aged and met the Montanist movement. One of Tertullian’s most orthodox-sounding statements about the Trinity can be found in one of his later writings (Adversus Praxean). Ferguson writes, “Against Praxeas is more expressly Trinitarian—One God the Father; who sent his Son to be born of the virgin, to suffer, die, be buried, raised, sitting at the right hand of the Father, coming to judge all, and the sender of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete; who is the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”[28] It appears that Tertullian was faithful to Christ and the Church in doctrine. A caveat should be added; in his later writings (more near his death), he did take it upon himself to make attacks against the Church. The motivation for such conduct could be speculated on but is somewhat outside the purview of this particular work.

            Based on this brief summation of Tertullian’s life and work, it should be clear that he did not participate in a schism within the Church. Heretic is a label that is probably an overstatement of the facts and the situation. Tertullian sought to uphold Scripture, Christ, the Church, the people, sound teaching, and Christian holiness. It would be a disservice to him and history to suggest that he did not faithfully complete those goals. It would be equally wrongheaded to suggest that Tertullian was nothing but a heretic who fell out of Christ’s grace. With all history, things tend to be far more muddled and opaque than most people allow. Judgment of the past should be carefully considered before making any rash claims. Tertullian went through some theological changes, but not all changes were negative. Depending on ones modern theological persuasion, many of his changes can be viewed as positive and more orthodox. Tertullian’s wit and tough standards would not allow changes to be made easily (by Montanism or any other thing). Campenhausen said it best, “As a Montanist Tertullian did not become other than he had always been.”[29] Tertullian sought after truth and defended it as well as anyone. Based on the evidence and personal reflection, the Church should rest easy knowing that Christ was central, and Tertullian must have heard; well done, my good and faithful servant.

Bibliography

Brent, Allen. “Tertullian on the Role of the Bishop.” In Tertullian and Paul. Edited by Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013

 

Butler, Rex D. The New Prophecy and “New Visions”:Evidence of Montanism in The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2006

 

Campenhausen, Hans Von. The Fathers of the Church Vol II. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1960

 

Ferguson, Everett. “Tertullian, Scripture, Rule of Faith, and Paul.” In Tertullian and Paul, Edited by Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite, 24-33. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013

 

Neufeld, Vernon H. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963

 

Trevett, Christine. Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010

 

Quasten, Johannes. Patrology Vol II. Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 1983

 

Rankin, David. Tertullian and the Church. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995

 

Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol III. Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1885

 

Robert, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol IV. Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1885

 

Wilhite, David E. “The Spirit of Prophecy: Tertullian’s Pauline Pneumatology.” In Tertullian and Paul, Edited by Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013

 

---

[1] Note: orthodox beliefs were in flux during this time and this point is understood. By stating “orthodoxy,” it is the position of this paper that the goal is to understand if he would still be considered Christian, as it would have applied to the context. This is contrasted against those who were declared heretics among the Fathers (Arius for example).

[2] Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), chapter 1. The phrase “New Prophecy” is used throughout her text. It is simply a designation for the first 60 years of the movement. The typical moniker (Montanism) is used by Trevett for everything after this fact (stated these guidelines on page 2).

[3] Johannes Quasten, Patrology Vol II (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 1983), 246. Note: some of the material in this text has been superseded by newer research in the field. All references taken from this text, to the best of this authors intentions, have not been changed by current scholarship.

[4] Hans Von Campenhausen, The Fathers of the Church Vol II, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1960), 5-6.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Everett Ferguson, “Tertullian, Scripture, Rule of Faith, and Paul,” in Tertullian and Paul, eds. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), 22.

[7] During research, nothing has been found that would suggest Tertullian would have viewed the rule of faith as creed, at least in the sense that we use it today. However, there seems to be an understanding that this rule is a fundamental, early, and basic component of Christian faith as passed down by Christ, through the Apostles. With this definition in mind, this would equate to our modern understanding of the word “creed.”

[8] Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963), 144-146.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Tertullian, De Idololatria; Tertullian, De Ieiunio Adversus Psychicos. Tertullians references to Christian living can be, in some sense, seen throughout his writing. However, in these listed works it is the primary focus. In these writings he can be seen essentially stating that Christian living (or sinning) can lead to the “devouring of salvation.” This statement seems to imply the ability to lose salvation. This is why he finds it an incredibly important feature of Christian faith, holiness.

[11] David E. Wilhite, “The Spirit of Prophecy: Tertullian’s Pauline Pneumatology,” in Tertullian and Paul, eds. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), Ch. 3.

[12] Ibid. Wilhite notes that Tertullian’s theology is influenced by Paul but in the language of John. There are further distinctions in the different uses of the word spiritus but this goes slightly beyond the intended direction of this paper.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol III (Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1885), Part 3, Ch. 1 (On Repentance, Ch 2). This resource lacked pagination. Tertullian is writing here about how repentance should be viewed. This is a pre-Montanist writing but shows his position on the matter. The goal here is to compare/ contrast a later writing in a similar vein to understand any shift in thinking.

[15] Alexander Robert and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol IV (Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1885), Part 4, Ch. 7 (On Modesty, Ch 2). This resource lacks pagination. In this passage, Tertullian is concerned with the attitude of the church towards sin. In this case, it pertains to an edict that stated repentance was no longer necessary for adultery and fornication. Tertullian seems to view this as a direct attack on Christian holiness, God’s love, and God’s justice.

[16] “The Works of Tertullian,” last modified May 19, 2021, https://www.tertullian.org/works.htm. This work was referenced for discovering when Tertullian wrote his different works. It was used to determine the above referenced works by Tertullian were pre or post-Montanism.

[17] Trevett, Montanism, 119.

[18] Tertullian, De Praescriptione Haereticorum, chapter 36. Translated version accessed via the ANF work. Tertullian was making a list of how each church can find a place where the apostles had setup churches and where they can get their teaching/ authority from.

[19] Tertullian, Apologeticum, chapter 39. Translated version accessed via the ANF work.

[20] Tertullian, De Puditicia, chapter 21. ANF.

[21] Ibid, 22. ANF.

[22] Allen Brent, “Tertullian on the Role of the Bishop,” in Tertullian and Paul, eds. Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite (New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), Ch. 7. States in a comparative analysis between Cyrpian, Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, that they (except Cyprian) held to a non-sacerdotal form of church structure. More or less, they held to the universal priesthood of all believers with one bishop who presided over them in teaching.

[23] David Rankin, Tertullian and the Church (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 64-65. Rankin points out how these different images point to some thought in Tertullian. He has separate sections in his book that covers each image in detail and the potential meaning intended by Tertullian or the situation in which each image was used.

[24] Ibid, 73.

[25] Ibid, 77 and Tertullian, De Pudicitia, 21, 16.

[26] Ibid, 78-80. Rankin is pointing out that due to the laxity of the Church or how they have handled certain indulgences, he added the Spirit as part of the verification process in assessing a true church.

[27] Rex D. Butler, The New Prophecy and “New Visions”:Evidence of Montanism in The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 26. Butler states that there is no evidence of schism in the “early decades of the third century” nor was Tertullian “estranged totally” from the Catholic Church after his shift to Montanism.

[28] Ferguson, “Tertullian,” 24. Justification for noting Against Praxeas as being a Post-Montanist writing comes from https://www.tertullian.org/works.htm.

[29] Campenhausen, Fathers, 31.