In Tertullian the development of nearly 20 years reveals itself distinctly. His earliest po lemics, 'Ad Nationes' and 'Apologeticus,' are assigned to the ,year 197, and his hterary span reaches to 220. Far more brilliant and prolific than Irenmus, indeed a forensic genius, but far less catholic and representative,— he was never canonized, nay, he fell ultimately into Montan ism, a heresy much less rational and more extravagant than any he had so vehemently opposed,—his witness withal to the growth of the Canon-consciousness and the Canon itself is an invaluable supplement to that of Irenaeus.
Tertullian's Terms.— The fierce African pours forth such a deep and rapid torrent of speech that one is often bewildered in its up roar. Some things, however, are heard dis tinctly, and it soon becomes clear that he has gone much beyond the Gallican Bishop. Of terms to denote the Scriptures, Old and New, together and apart, as a whole or in division or even opposition, he has about 30. He uses the word °Scripture) for the Christian writings (De Res. Car. xxvii, 1 and often elsewhere less certainly), but his favorite word is Instru mentum, for which he tells us (in Marc. IV, 1) Testamentum is more in use; he distinguishes two such Instrurnenta (Testamenta), Old and New; he speaks of the °old Scripture) and the °New Testament) (adv. Prax. 15), of the °old instrumentum) and "our rather new apparatus)* (Apol. 47) ; also of the °old instrumenta of legal Scnptures) and °all our apparatus" (Monog. 7). With him instrumentum sig nifies (means of) documentary proof, a sense adopted from the Roman forum or books of law and still approved at the bar; over against the °instrument of Jewish literature' (Cult. I, 3), he sets the °Christian letters) (Prescr. Her. 37) and the °instrument of preaching) (Mod. 1). He has then clearly in mind a body of Christian evidential literature, and it seems remarkable that he still hesitates and rarely applies to it the term °Scripture.) His List.— This New Apparatus, Instru ment, or Testament consists in his mind of two grand divisions: the Evangelic (Marc. IV, 2) and the Apostolic (Resurr. 39), called also °evangelic letters,) °evangelic') (Gospels), and °apostolic letters,) or simply °apostles)) Of these two, the first consists of the Four Gos pels, which, possibly for controversial reasons, he gives in the order John, Matthew, Luke, Mark (Comp. Codex Bezae: Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), the first two being apostles, the others only apostolic. The second comprises the °Instrument of Acts) (Marc. V, 2)— used relatively little, called also °Acts of Apostles," °Scriptures of Apostolics,) °commentary of Luke,)— and the °Apostolic Instrument) proper, or °his own Instrument) i.e., the °Apostle's,) i.e., Paul's, called also simply °Paul"; as well as, thirdly, the °Instrument of John) (Resurr. 38), embracing the Apocalypse and the First Epistle of John. The main division, °Instru ment of Pau1,0 consists primarily of the Ten Epistles, first collected by Marcion (near 140) under the name of °Apostle or Apostolicon) and in this order: Galatians, 1 and 2 Corin thians, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Laodi ceans (Ephesians), Colossians, Philemon, Philip pians ; but the 0auostolic battle-front) (acies), as Tertullian cans it (Mod. 17), was strength
ened by the three Pastorals of Timothy and Titus.
The Dubious.— So much, then, seems to have been not only definitely included but also placed and named in the body of Christian writings recognized as authoritative by Ter tullian and doubtless in the main by the African Church. But there was also a considerable group of writings not yet securely folded within the sacred pale. Of these the Epistle to Hebrews was chief. In his pamphlet on 'Modesty,' having gone through the whole 'discipline of the Apostles properly' (so-called), at the beginning of c. 20 he asuperduces* another 'redundant testimony of a companion of Apostles': 'For there exists also a title Hebrews,' of Barnabas, a man well authenticated by God,' • . . 'and surely the Epistle of Barnabas is More received among churches than that 'apocryphal Shepherd of adulterers"; he then quotes vi, 1, 4-8, almost as we now read them. His other allusions to this Epistle, though numerous, are illusive. Again (Prayer,) 20), with apparent reference to 1 Peter iii, 1-6, he mentions the 'prescrip tion of Peter' as checking with the same mouth, because with the same spirit, as Paul, the glory of garments, etc., yet without any assertion of recognized authority. But this chapter is apparently interpolated, being out of connection • with the context. and absent from some MSS., one of which places here the words, 'End of Tertullian's book on Prayer.* Other allusions are quite unconvincing; per haps Tertullian knew 1 Peter, but only as an appendix 'to his 'Scriptures." Similarly he concludes his defense of the book of Enoch as 'Scripture" with "the fact that Enoch pos sesses testimony in Jude, an apostle*(Fem. Dress, 3), but he does not stress this fact, merely 'adding" it as of seemingly little weight, nor does he certainly use the Epistle, not even v. 25. The second Epistle of John (or the Presbyter) Tertullian may have known but does in no way recognize. The second Epistle of Peter, the third of and that of James doubtless existed in Tertullian's time but lay beyond the utmost border of authority or canonicity, being apparently unknown both to him and to the African Church. We have also seen that he rejected the Shepherd, for dogmatic reasons, as overlenien* in matters of sexual relation, but accepted Enoch. The dates of Tertullian's numerous writings are too uncertain to permit discussion of the develop ment and determination in his own mind of the Canon-idea,— only one positive and absolute datum is to be found: he was writing (Marcion I, 15) in 'the 15th year now of the Emperor Severus' (207-08). However, the growth from the time of Irerinus is obvious and doubtless went on continuously during the 25 years of Tertullian's literary career (197-222).