In a recent video, I presented a defense of Origen of Alexandria—a Greek Church Father ridiculed by many. But today’s video, in which we will once again address a controversial Church father, will greatly differ in its purpose, and this is because we will now cover the famous Latin Christian writer of the 2nd and 3rd century: Tertullian of Carthage. As we now shift from a Greek father to a Latin father, so too does our aim shift with it, and this is due to the fact that Tertullian, although at one time orthodox, truly did embrace heresy at the end of his life. This presents an entirely separate dilemma from the one tackled in the Origen video, in which we exonerated a man who had been misrepresented and slandered, one which forces us to address how we should engage with the writings of a man who later abandoned orthodoxy.
If you are familiar with the videos on our channel, then you already know that we frequently appeal to Tertullian as a witness to apostolic tradition, which greatly frustrates the Cathodox. If you should ever engage in discussion with someone from the Catholic or Orthodox sect, you will soon discover that any mention of Tertullian is liable to be dismissed. The purpose of this video is to demonstrate why we continue to cite Tertullian, despite his fall, and to show that his writings remain a valuable testimony to the faith once delivered to the saints.
Tertullian’s Rise
It seems appropriate before the question is properly treated that we first establish foundational information: we’ll start by briefly introducing who the man was. Tertullian is believed to have lived from roughly 155 AD to 240 AD. The tradition we have received affirms that he was born the son of a pagan centurion in the Roman province of Africa – in a city called Carthage, where he lived for his entire life. I’m sure many of you who are watching this think that this is your very first introduction to this region, however, even if you’ve never heard of Carthage before now, I’m sure you’ve probably heard of a place called “Tatooine.” As an aside, much of the first Star Wars movie was actually filmed in Carthage. So whether you knew it or not, you’ve actually seen this place many times already.
I digress, as for Tertullian’s profession, the prevailing thought is that he was a lawyer, although this isn’t certain. What is certain, however, is that Tertullian was a married man, and that, sometime in adulthood, both he and his wife embraced the Christian faith.
“Tertullian, a presbyter, now at last is ranked as the first among the Latins after Victor and Apollonius, [being] from the province of Africa, of the city of Carthage, with his father [being] a centurion in the Proconsular [administration]. He, of sharp and vehement intellect, flourished especially under the emperors Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, and wrote many volumes, which, because they are known to many, we pass over.” (Jerome, Illustrious Men, Chapter 53)
As he advanced in the Christian discipline, he is said to have composed many writings which were, in former times, praised and celebrated throughout the Churches.
“Can anything be more learned or more pointed than the style of Tertullian? His Apology and his books Against the Gentiles contain all the wisdom of the world.” (Jerome 397 AD, Letter 70.5)
“With marvellous capacity of mind he comprehended all philosophy, and had a knowledge of all schools of philosophers, and of the founders and upholders of schools, and was acquainted with all their rules and observances, and with their various histories and studies. Was not his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade. Every word almost was a sentence; every sentence a victory. This know the Marcions, the Apelleses, the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Heathens, the Gnostics, and the rest, whose blasphemies he overthrew by the force of his many and ponderous volumes, as with so many thunderbolts.” (Vincent of Lerins 434 AD, Commonitorium Chapter 18)
Needless to say, Tertullian earned a reputation for himself as a witty and ferocious champion on behalf of orthodoxy.
The Heresy of Montanus
Elsewhere in Phrygia, not long before Tertullian’s conversion to Christianity, sometime around the year 170 AD, another figure emerged: a Pagan by the name Montanus had recently converted to Christianity, but it wasn’t long before he began introducing heresies. Eusebius tells us that it all began with Montanus indulging in unhinged and erratic behavior while claiming to prophesy new teachings and revelations.
“There first… a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.” (Eusebius c. 300 AD, Church History 5.16.7)
His innovation didn’t end with the mere introduction of a novel mode of prophesying, but he advanced further in his madness, and eventually with all shamelessness he declared himself to be the very Paraclete, that is, the Comforter whom the Lord had promised to send to His Apostles after His ascension. Naturally, he gave himself the authority to overturn many established doctrines in the Church. His frenzied ecstasies and ungoverned outbursts, mingled with superstitious enthusiasm, evidently made him a magnet to women. Two women in particular, Priscilla and Maximilla, abandoned their husbands to follow after Montanus, and were from then on styled his prophetesses.
“For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, boasting that Montanus was the Paraclete, and that the women that followed him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus.” (Eusebius c. 300 AD, Church History 5.14)
“We show that these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca a virgin.” (Apollonius of Ephesus c. 180-210 AD, per Eusebius Church History 5.18.3)
In recent times, there has been an effort made by some scholars to portray the Montanist sect as a harmless group, alleging that their censure as heretics did not occur until the age of Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. This narrative stands in clear contradiction to Church history.
Look, even before the close of the second century, Apollonius of Ephesus rose up and vigorously refuted the Montanists and their so-called “New Prophecy.” And it’s no wonder that Apollonius was the first to attack them, seeing that he lived in Ephesus, which made him a neighbor to Montanus who first planted his tares in Phrygia.
But as the sound of their delusion echoed beyond its birthplace and reached the ears of the wider Church, we quickly see many other early witnesses denouncing them. Such as Hippolytus, who not only describes them as being delusional, but explicitly exposes them as heretical. He also describes how they imposed newly invented fasting days, and that some of them held heretical views about the Trinity.
“But there are others who themselves are even more heretical in nature (than the foregoing) and are Phrygians by birth. These have been rendered victims of error from being previously captivated by (two) wretched women, called a certain Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they supposed (to be) prophetesses. And they assert that into these the Paraclete Spirit had departed; and antecedently to them, they in like manner consider Montanus as a prophet. And being in possession of an infinite number of their books, (the Phrygians) are overrun with delusion; and they do not judge whatever statements are made by them, according to (the criterion of) reason; nor do they give heed unto those who are competent to decide; but they are heedlessly swept onwards, by the reliance which they place on these (impostors). And they allege that they have learned something more through these, than from law, and prophets, and the Gospels. But they magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and every gift of Grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in them something superior to Christ. These acknowledge God to be the Father of the universe, and Creator of all things, similarly with the Church, and (receive) as many things as the Gospel testifies concerning Christ. They introduce, however, the novelties of fasts, and feasts, and meals of parched food, and repasts of radishes, alleging that they have been instructed by women. And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father himself is the Son, and that this (one) came under generation, and suffering, and death. Concerning these I shall again offer an explanation, after a more minute manner; for the heresy of these has been an occasion of evils to many. We therefore are of the opinion, that the statements made concerning these (heretics) are sufficient when we shall have briefly proved to all that the majority of their books are silly, and their attempts (at reasoning) weak, and worthy of no consideration. But it is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to pay attention (either to their volumes or their arguments).” (Hippolytus 230 AD, Refutation of All Heresies 8.12)
In a fragment preserved for us by Pamphilus, we have a passage where Origen raises the question as to whether the Montanists should be categorized as heretics or schismatics. I have met some people in the past who have attempted to build upon this fragment the assertion that Origen judged the Montanists not to be heretical, but only schismatic. But is that Origen’s answer to the question he puts forward? No! As anyone with eyes can clearly see, Origen doesn’t get around to answering the question before the fragment ends. But why would someone who wants to defend the Montanists, or at least soften the sentence against them, ever appeal to this? What would be accomplished even if someone could prove they’re schismatics rather than heretics, when both are condemned alike? And further, Origen’s attitude could hardly be described as neutral: he explicitly states that they follow false prophets! Do you suppose that Origen would tolerate following false prophets? Moreover, Origen was known to enjoy Hippolytus’ writings, and I see no good reason to assume that Origen contradicts the earlier statements made by Hippolytus.
“Now some have asked whether those who are called the κατὰΦρύγας (Kataphrygians) ought to be identified as a heresy or a schism. They follow after false prophets and say: ‘Do not approach me, because I am clean; for I do not take a wife, nor is my throat an open grave, but I am a Nazarene of God and drink no wine as they do.’” (Fragment of Origen’s Commentary on Titus 250 AD, from Pamphilus’ Defense of Origen 35)
Fortunately for us, history has left no room for doubt, as Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla did us the favor of exposing themselves to be false prophets with their practice of Christmongering. Apollonius recounts these things plainly, testifying that they would gladly accept gold and silver in exchange for their services. In this they stood condemned by the rule handed down from the Apostles themselves, who declared with authority, “if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.”
“(Montanus) provided salaries for those who preached his doctrine… Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money? When therefore I see the prophetess receiving gold and silver and costly garments, how can I avoid reproving her?” (Apollonius of Ephesus c. 180-210 AD, per Eusebius Church History 5.18.2-4)
We also know that the Montanists invented heretical commandments concerning marriage, forbidding laity to remarry after the death of his/her spouse, contrary to Apostolic teaching. In the early Church, remarriage would be condoned only if the spouses had died, but the Montanists invented their own rules concerning this by never allowing anyone to take a new spouse.
“We, while we do not encourage them, yet allow second marriages, since Paul bids the younger widows to marry. They suppose a repetition of marriage a sin so awful that he who has committed it is to be regarded as an adulterer.” (Jerome 385 AD, Letter 41.3)
And the final error of the Montanists which I intend to include in my list, is their practice of rejecting the repentance of apostates, murderers and fornicators. These sins should never be treated lightly, they are some of the worst crimes a person can commit resulting in immediate spiritual death, but nevertheless, the Church has always taught that it’s possible for a man to repent and be redeemed. After a man commits a mortal sin, it’s not as if the problem is resolved by a simple apology, but years of penance would ensue before the person was restored. The Montanists, however, in their pride and severity, shut the door of a second repentance which Christ left open.
“Again they (Montanists) close the doors of the Church to almost every fault, while we read daily, ‘I desire the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ and ‘Shall they fall and not arise, says the Lord,’ and once more ‘Return ye backsliding children and I will heal your backslidings.’” (Jerome 385 AD, Letter 41.3)
We have now listed what I think to be the most significant sins of the Montanists: their blasphemies about the Trinity; their habitual practice of Christmongering; their baseless decrees concerning remarriage; and lastly, their merciless exclusion of the penitent from the opportunity of restoration.
But if there be any still who doubt whether or not the Montanists really were heretics, despite all of the testimony I have produced, and you still think that an innocent little group of Christians were unjustly condemned retroactively centuries later, then I present to you, perhaps, my most important and compelling witness: Tertullian himself!
“Other heretics swell the list who are called Cataphrygians, but their teaching is not uniform. For there are (of them) some who are called Cataproclans; there are others who are termed Catæschinetans. These have a blasphemy common, and a blasphemy not common, but peculiar and special. The common blasphemy lies in their saying that the Holy Spirit was in the apostles indeed, the Paraclete was not; and in their saying that the Paraclete has spoken in Montanus more things than Christ brought forward into (the compass of) the Gospel, and not merely more, but likewise better and greater. But the particular one they who follow Æschines have; this, namely, whereby they add this, that they affirm Christ to be Himself Son and Father.” (Tertullian 200 AD, Against all Heresies Chapter 7)
In 200 AD, Tertullian explicitly called the Montanists heretics and blasphemers. Let this demonstration suffice to definitively establish that the Montanists were not slandered by posterity, but that they truly were heretics.
Tertullian’s Fall
Now that we have introduced Tertullian and established that the Montanists were heretical, the only thing left for us to prove is that Tertullian really did join this heretical sect. Once again, let no one hasten to object, as though the testimony of later writers were untrustworthy, or that the report of his defection was nothing more than the slander of enemies. Let the man himself make it clear: not many years later, we see Tertullian, by his own hand, confirm the very thing others reported of him.
“Concerning these the paraclete also expressly says, by Prisca the prophetess: Lumps of flesh they are, and the flesh they hate.” (Tertullian 208 AD, On the Resurrection of the Body 11)
“Also, through the holy prophetess Prisca it is preached like this: that the holy minister should know how to serve in holiness. ‘For cleansing brings harmony,’ she says, ‘and they see visions, and those who bow their faces downward also hear clear voices—both helpful and hidden ones.’ If this dulling (of the spirit) happens even when someone has just one marriage and is involved in physical acts, how much more does it happen when someone enters a second marriage?” (Tertullian c. 204-212 AD, Exhortation to Chastity 10)
Jerome records that sometime when Tertullian was middle-aged he fell away from the Church, joining the Montanists. Jerome then lists some of the books Tertullian wrote as he grew under the influence of Montanism, but the most flamingly heretical books he wrote closer to the end of his life were quickly lost to time – evidently not worthy of being copied.
“(Tertullian) having remained a presbyter of the Church until middle age, later, through envy and insults from the clergy of the Roman Church, fell away to the doctrine of Montanus and, in many books, mentioned the New Prophecy. In particular, however, he wove together volumes against the Church: on chastity, on persecution, on fasting, on monogamy, on ecstasy (six books), and a seventh, which he composed against Apollonius. He is said to have lived to a very old age and to have produced many works that no longer exist.” (Jerome, Illustrious Men, Chapter 53)
Tertullian went on to live to an old age, and is said to have departed this life in outward peace, never facing the fate of a martyr. However, although his physical body rested without suffering violence, his soul departed at variance with the unity of the Church. Augustine writes that he eventually became disgruntled with the Montanists and eventually turned on them as well! He says that Tertullian stormed off and formed his own little group. However, it should be noted that some scholars believe that Augustine mistakenly connected this group to Tertullian merely because it happened to be located in Africa (where Tertullian lived). In any case, it’s clear that he either died in Montanus’ brand of foolishness or his own brand of foolishness.
“Therefore, the reason Tertullian became a heretic was not for this, but because in joining the Cataphrygians, whom he had earlier demolished, he also began to condemn, contrary to Apostolic teaching, second marriage as debauchery. Later, having separated from them too, he established congregations of his own.” (Augustine c. 428 AD, To Quodvultdeus On Heresies Chapter 86)
What a sad and pitiful end for a man who was at one time considered a champion for Christian orthodoxy. To see such a wise and knowledgeable man effeminately demean himself to the ramblings of manic women! To see a pure “prayer be turned to sin.” This will at first discourage anyone who learns that someone so highly respected fell away: but is that what we should take away from Tertullian’s demise? Should we make it an opportunity for self-pity and discouragement? No, instead we should take this as a stern reminder that no matter how wise or clever someone appears to be, this doesn’t protect them if they later become prideful and conceited. And we should be thankful that the Church at this time was accountable, not allowing a man to introduce novelties no matter how popular he was.
In the end, there’s no greater witness to Tertullian’s fall than Tertullian, he himself tells you he has sided with those he previously acknowledged to be heretics and blasphemers, and he himself reveals the doctrines he later reversed on. He tragically speaks of himself when he said years before his fall:
“No one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end.” (Tertullian c. 197-200 AD, Prescription Against Heretics Chapter 3)
Should Anyone Read Tertullian?
But now we finally arrive at the central issue which this video aims to address: how ought we to engage the writings of one who, at one time orthodox, eventually fell into heresy? Are his writings still worth reading? Can we appeal to Tertullian as a source?
Before I present the answer, I’d like to propose another question: if a man falls away from the faith, is it always the case that he never sincerely believed and was never at any point truly orthodox? Certain Protestants, unwilling to admit the possibility of forfeiting salvation, retreat to this sort of reasoning. But those in the Catholic and Orthodox sects do admit that a man can lose salvation. If we agree that you can lose it, then we must necessarily agree that you originally had it. So why do the Cathodox groan and complain anytime Tertullian is mentioned alongside several other witnesses? If Tertullian fell, then that means he at one time stood strong in the faith; and if he became a heretic, then that means he at one time was orthodox.
I’ll acknowledge, because of Tertullian’s fall, that we must approach his writings with discernment, and that we must be mindful of the reasons he later fell away, particularly when we read those later books he wrote under the influence of Montanism. There’s no escaping the fact that Tertullian’s subsequent error has cast a shadow over the body of his work, which undermines the authority, as Hilary of Poitiers said, especially his singular authority.
“And although Tertullian wrote a most competent volume on this matter, the subsequent error of the man has undermined the authority of his commendable writings.” (Hilary of Poitiers c. 356 AD, Commentary on Matthew 5.1)
However, I think that our caution should be rational, and we should target our suspicion toward statements made by Tertullian which are related to the matters with which he later disagreed with the Church. For example, earlier we mentioned one point of contention which caused Tertullian to split from the Church, which was whether a Christian who commits a mortal sin has any hope for repentance, we should always treat this subject with caution when we encounter it in Tertullian’s writings. I already warned people about this in the previous videos we made on infant baptism, where I pointed out that Tertullian’s beliefs about repentance explain why he suggested that both infants and unmarried persons should delay baptism.
People have a habit of contextualizing the past around the present, but some do this to an irrational degree: they will assume with no evidence that a person who changes course was two-faced the entire time. Granted, there are cases where people lie and were never sincere, but it’s also possible for a person to change from one state to another. We’re capable of turning from corrupt to pure, and we’re likewise capable of turning from pure to corrupt.
But before anyone makes the assumption that I’ve offered nothing more than my own worthless opinion, let’s now turn to Church history: our earliest example is Cyprian, who became the Bishop of Carthage not long after the time of Tertullian. How does Cyprian, a man recognized as a Saint by both the Catholic and the Orthodox sect, treat the works of Tertullian? According to Jerome, Cyprian never let a day pass by without reading Tertullian, and it’s reported that Cyprian would request for the books to be brought to him by saying, “Bring me the master.” Clearly Cyprian saw great value in Tertullian’s old books!
“I myself saw a certain man, Paul of Concordia, which is a town of Italy, an old man, who said that, when he was a very young man, he had seen blessed Cyprian, then of great age, at Rome, and that Cyprian used to say to him that he never let a single day pass without reading Tertullian, often saying to him, “Bring me the master,” evidently referring to Tertullian.” (Jerome c. 392-393 AD, Illustrious Men, Chapter 53)
Next, Pacian of Barcelona, also recognized as a Saint by the Catholic and Orthodox sect, in this passage begins by appealing to Cyprian, and then he goes on to appeal to Tertullian, when he was still orthodox, as a witness of the truth.
“Read, therefore, my Cyprian with more care. Read the whole Epistle on the Lapsed; read another which he wrote to Antonianus, in which Novatian is pressed by examples of all sorts. Then thou wilt learn what he pronounced as to the healing of penitents; Cyprian, I say, who is opposed to you, and adhered to the Catholic laws. Tertullian after he had fallen into heresy, (for you have taken much from this source,) you may hear himself, in his Epistle, and that same which he published when a Catholic, confess that the Church can forgive sins.” (Pacian of Barcelona 375 AD, Epistle 3)
Next, the prominent historian and translator, Rufinus of Aquileia, also appeals to Tertullian’s writing to give more credit to his argument.
“If anyone wants to know in more detail how they (the heretics) have contaminated the Acts of the Apostles or the Epistles, how they have gnawed away at them, how they have stained them in every respect, whether by adding impious things or by removing what is pious, he will become acquainted with this in very great detail in the books of Tertullian which he wrote against Marcion.” (Rufinus c. 397-400 AD, On the Falsification 9)
And now we move on to Jerome, recognized as a Doctor by the Catholic and a Saint by the Orthodox, who frequently appeals to Tertullian as a witness to strengthen the credibility of his arguments. And as if anyone were to argue that only some high-authority figure or someone in ecclesiastical office is capable of safely reading Tertullian’s writings, we have a passage from Jerome where he recommends one of Tertullian’s writings to Eustochium, a lay-woman.
“If you want to know from how many vexations a virgin is free and by how many a wife is fettered you should read Tertullian to a philosophic friend, and his other treatises on virginity, the blessed Cyprian’s noble volume, the writings of Pope Damasus in prose and verse, and the treatises recently written for his sister by our own Ambrose.” (Jerome 384 AD, Letter 22.22)
In another letter, where Jerome responds to a question he was asked, he replies by saying that Tertullian has already answered this question. I would like to point out that the book which Jerome refers to in this letter is “On Monogamy,” which he classified elsewhere as a book Tertullian wrote while under Montanist influence.
“Your second question is discussed by Tertullian in his books on Monogamy where he declares that the children of believers are called holy because they are as it were candidates for the faith and have suffered no pollution from idolatry.” (Jerome 400 AD, Letter 85.5)
Here, Jerome goes so far as to call Tertullian, “one of our own writers.” We can expect the Cathodox to roll their eyes at this, but they need to get over it. When a man labors to make a product under his employer, both he and the product belong to the employer, and in the same way, for as long as Tertullian labored to make books under the Church, both he and his book belong to the Church.
“Well does one of our own writers say: the philosophers are the patriarchs of the heretics.” (Jerome 415 AD, Letter 133.2)
And in his Commentary on Daniel, Jerome appeals to Tertullian’s book “Against the Jews.”
“We may learn what Tertullian had to say on the subject by consulting the book which he wrote against the Jews (Contra Judaeos), and his remarks may be set forth in brief…” (Jerome c. 407 AD, Commentary on Daniel)
Before we move on from Jerome, I’d like to address one passage I know of which I expect someone to use to justify disregarding all of Tertullian: when Jerome was refuting Helvidius, he mentions that Helvidius uses a section from one of Tertullian’s books to make his claims more credible, but Jerome then quickly dismisses the argument by stating that Tertullian did not belong to the Church.
*Note: Someone may appeal to the following passage from Jerome to justify disregarding all of Tertullian, but this would force you to ignore all of the other times where Jerome appeals to Tertullian to support a claim. It must be that Jerome was feeling lazy or frustrated and didn’t want to fully address his opponent.
“Thinking himself (Helvidius) to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness… Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.” (Jerome 383 AD, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19)
*Note: In the following passage, Jerome quotes from the exact same book from Tertullian which Helvidius was using to support his own claims, Jerome quotes the book here to support the interpretation he gives.
“They point out in addition that the morning-star Lucifer fell and was reduced to nothing, even though he used to send light to all the peoples on earth. That very learned man Tertullian speaks elegantly about this when he refutes Apelles and his virgin Philumene, the latter of whom some wicked angel of a diabolical bent had possessed—this is the angel, he writes, whom the Apostle had proclaimed, by the prophetic foresight of the Holy Spirit, to be accursed, long before Apelles had been born.” (Jerome 386 AD, Commentary on Galatians 1.8-9)
Next, we move on to Augustine, and although he doesn’t appeal to a particular writing from Tertullian, he does tell us that everyone was still reading Tertullian’s writings and describes his writings as eloquent.
“The Tertullianists take their name from Tertullian, whose many eloquent works are still read.” (Augustine c. 428-429 AD, To Quodvultdeus, On Heresies Chapter 86)
We know from Gennadius that Commodianus followed Tertullian as an authority, grouping him with the likes of Lactantius and Papias.
“(Commodianus) following Tertullian, Lactantius and Papias as authorities he adopted and inculcated in his students good ethical principles…” (Gennadius 495 AD, De Viris Illustribus Chapter 15)
And then Cassiodorus, in his Chronicon, calls Tertullian the most celebrated Christian writer.
“Under these consuls Tertullian the African, is considered the most celebrated christian writer.” (Cassiodorus 519 AD, Chronicon)
And lastly, I have one more thing I would like to bring forward for those who belong to the Catholic sect, which is sure to shock you: The official Catechism of the Catholic Church appeals to Tertullian 14 times. The following example is easily the most significant instance where the Catechism quotes Tertullian because it calls him a Church father.
“Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as ‘the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1446)
Furthermore, I frequently see both Catholic and Orthodox websites quote Tertullian, like this article from Catholic.com which appeals to Tertullian for ancient testimony about purgatory:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-roots-of-purgatory
It seems obvious from this that the Catholic is certainly without excuse, but the Orthodox is without excuse all the same (the earlier witnesses already provided are more than sufficient). I hope you appreciate that it’s a rare thing for early writers to refer to one another in this way, and the fact that we have as many people appealing to Tertullian by name as we do is remarkable. There were many other writers who are clearly copying Tertullian word for word, but I chose not to mention them here only because they didn’t appeal to Tertullian by name.
But let this settle the matter regarding Tertullian. We have demonstrated that it continued to be a widespread practice throughout the Church to read Tertullian’s writings long after his death, and so we do nothing new or unusual when we appeal to him as a witness as they did.
Must Sources Agree Completely?
This subject opens up a broader question, not limited only to Tertullian, whether it’s ever appropriate to draw from a source that isn’t completely aligned with the truth. And if, by referring to a passage from a source which opposes us in other places, does this automatically mean we are guilty of “picking and choosing?”
Not only will the Church fathers often quote the words of ancient philosophers, but Paul himself does so on occasion, despite the fact that the Philosophers would disagree with Paul in many respects. Is the Apostle in error for bringing forward the words of a man he isn’t in complete agreement with?
“It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said: Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.” (Titus 1:12)
There are a few reasons we may bring up a source that doesn’t completely agree with us. It may be, for instance, that we are speaking with one who holds the source in high regard, and by citing it we aim to convict him with his own authority. Or perhaps we are trying to help someone understand a new idea, and so we appeal to something they’re already very familiar with. Or maybe our minds fail to form a more eloquent way of expressing a thought. Or it could be, as in the case with Tertullian’s writings, that they at one time did agree with us before turning hostile in other respects.
Someone may accuse us of arbitrarily “picking and choosing” in the way that we often cite the post-nicene writers on this channel. However, depending on the exact instance, many of the reasons just now mentioned may rightly be used in response. Oftentimes we will cite them for the sake of the Cathodox, who typically have more respect for the Post-Nicene writers than the Ante-Nicene.
It should also be stated that the Post-Nicene of the 4th and 5th centuries, who we often make mention of, only deviated in some respects from the Ante-Nicene, but still retained many of the Apostolic traditions. Although they deviated from the Ante-Nicene Church in a few respects, they still largely maintained a direct continuity with the Church of the first 3 centuries. In fact, the men of that immediate post-Nicene period, in several key respects, have more in common with the Ante-Nicene Christians than they do with the modern-Cathodox. So if we should ever make use of the Post-Nicene writings, we are often doing so either because the Cathodox treat them as an authority or because we wish to demonstrate that an ancient teaching was still preserved even long after Nicaea.
It’s a powerful thing to demonstrate that even at the time novelties began to be introduced to the Church, there were still many doctrines which were considered undisputed and undeniable. In instances like this, we are essentially saying, “EVEN the people who first deviated in some respects didn’t go THIS far!” It’s crazy for us in the present to deny teachings and practices which were not even opposed centuries after Nicaea.
In conclusion, let the matter rest here: that many continued to draw from the well of Tertullian’s writings long after his departure, and that, with careful discernment, there’s no wrong necessarily committed in all instances when one appeals to the testimony of another who does not agree with him in all things. And I would like to add one final word: although I will not deny the reality of Tertullian’s disgraceful end, even though it pains me to know that someone I have grown to admire and love when he was orthodox fell away, for my part, if it means anything, I continue to pray that the good works he has posthumously achieved through his surviving writings are of some benefit to him on the day of Judgement.