On Fasting.

 Chapter I.—Connection of Gluttony and Lust.  Grounds of Psychical Objections Against the Montanists.

 Chapter II.—Arguments of the Psychics, Drawn from the Law, the Gospel, the Acts, the Epistles, and Heathenish Practices.

 Chapter III.—The Principle of Fasting Traced Back to Its Earliest Source.

 Chapter IV.—The Objection is Raised, Why, Then, Was the Limit of Lawful Food Extended After the Flood?  The Answer to It.

 Chapter V.—Proceeding to the History of Israel, Tertullian Shows that Appetite Was as Conspicuous Among Their Sins as in Adam’s Case.  Therefore the R

 Chapter VI.—The Physical Tendencies of Fasting and Feeding Considered.  The Cases of Moses and Elijah.

 Chapter VII.—Further Examples from the Old Testament in Favour of Fasting.

 Chapter VIII.—Examples of a Similar Kind from the New.

 Chapter IX.—From Fasts Absolute Tertullian Comes to Partial Ones and Xerophagies.

 Chapter X.—Of Stations, and of the Hours of Prayer.

 Chapter XI.—Of the Respect Due to “Human Authority ” And of the Charges of “Heresy” And “Pseudo-Prophecy.”

 Chapter XII—Of the Need for Some Protest Against the Psychics and Their Self-Indulgence.

 Chapter XIII.—Of the Inconsistencies of the Psychics.

 Chapter XIV.—Reply to the Charge of “Galaticism.”

 Chapter XV.—Of the Apostle’s Language Concerning Food.

 Chapter XVI.—Instances from Scripture of Divine Judgments Upon the Self-Indulgent And Appeals to the Practices of Heathens.

 Chapter XVII.—Conclusion.

Chapter XI.—Of the Respect Due to “Human Authority;” And of the Charges of “Heresy” And “Pseudo-Prophecy.”

But all these (instances) I believe to be unknown to those who are in a state of agitation at our proceedings; or else known by the reading alone, not by careful study as well; in accordance with the greater bulk of “the unskilled”88    Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 16. among the overboastful multitude, to wit, of the Psychics.  This is why we have steered our course straight through the different individual species of fastings, of xerophagies, of stations:  in order that, while we recount, according to the materials which we find in either Testament, the advantages which the dutiful observances of abstinence from, or curtailment or deferment of, food confer, we may refute those who invalidate these things as empty observances; and again, while we similarly point out in what rank of religious duty they have always had place, may confute those who accuse them as novelties:  for neither is that novel which has always been, nor that empty which is useful.

The question, however, still lies before us, that some of these observances, having been commanded by God to man, have constituted this practice legally binding; some, offered by man to God, have discharged some votive obligation.  Still, even a vow, when it has been accepted by God, constitutes a law for the time to come, owing to the authority of the Acceptor; for he who has given his approbation to a deed, when done, has given a mandate for its doing thenceforward.  And so from this consideration, again, the wrangling of the opposite party is silenced, while they say:  “It is either a pseudo-prophecy, if it is a spiritual voice which institutes these your solemnities; or else a heresy, if it is a human presumption which devises them.”  For, while censuring that form in which the ancient economies ran their course, and at the same time drawing out of that form arguments to hurl back (upon us) which the very adversaries of the ancient economies will in their turn be able to retort, they will be bound either to reject those arguments, or else to undertake these proven duties (which they impugn):  necessarily so; chiefly because these very duties (which they impugn), from whatsoever institutor they are, be he a spiritual man or merely an ordinary believer, direct their course to the honour of the same God as the ancient economies.  For, indubitably, both heresy and pseudo-prophecy will, in the eyes of us who are all priests of one only God the Creator and of His Christ, be judged by diversity of divinity:  and so far forth I defend this side indifferently, offering my opponents to join issue on whatever ground they choose.  “It is the spirit of the devil,” you say, O Psychic.  And how is it that he enjoins duties which belong to our God, and enjoins them to be offered to none other than our God?  Either contend that the devil works with our God, or else let the Paraclete be held to be Satan.  But you affirm it is “a human Antichrist:”  for by this name heretics are called in John.89    See 1 John ii. 18, 29; 2 John 7–10.  And how is it that, whoever he is, he has in (the name of) our Christ directed these duties toward our Lord; whereas withal antichrists have (ever) gone forth (professedly teaching) towards God, (but) in opposition to our Christ?  On which side, then, do you think the Spirit is confirmed as existing among us; when He commands, or when He approves, what our God has always both commanded and approved?  But you again set up boundary-posts to God, as with regard to grace, so with regard to discipline; as with regard to gifts, so, too, with regard to solemnities:  so that our observances are supposed to have ceased in like manner as His benefits; and you thus deny that He still continues to impose duties, because, in this case again, “the Law and the prophets (were) until John.”  It remains for you to banish Him wholly, being, as He is, so far as lies in you, so otiose.

CAPUT XI.

0968B Omnia autem ista credo ignota eis, qui ad nostra turbantur, aut sola forsitan lectione, non etiam intentione comperta, secundum majorem vim imperitorum, apud gloriosissimam scilicet multitudinem Psychicorum. Propterea per singulas direximus species jejunationum, xerophagiarum, stationum, ut dum recensemus secundum utriusque Testamenti paraturam, quantum proficiant recusati, vel recisi, vel retardati pabuli officia, eos retundamus qui haec velut vacantia infirmant. Item dum pariter ostendimus quo semper in ordine fuerint religionis, eos revincamus qui haec ut nova accusant; nec novum enim quod semper, nec vacuum quod utile. Sed et illud in medio est, quaedam ex his officiis a Deo homini imperata, legem constituisse; quaedam ab homine Deo oblata, 0968C votum expunxisse; tamen et votum, cum a Deo acceptatum est, legem in posterum facit , per auctoritatem acceptatoris, exinde enim faciendum mandavit, qui factum comprobavit. Itaque et hic in alia specie altercatio diversae partis obducitur, cum dicunt, aut pseudoprophetia est si spiritalis vox solemnia ista constituit; aut haeresis, si humana praesumptio adinvenit. Eam enim formam reprehendentes qua et vetera decucurrerunt, et ex ea retorquentes quae adversarii veterum adversus illa poterant retractare; aut et illa recusare debebunt , aut certe ista suscipere necessario, maxime cum et ista, a quocumque institutore sint, sive spiritali, sive tantum fideli, eidem Deo 0969A currant, cui et vetera. Indubitate enim et haeresis et pseudoprophetia divinitatis diversitate judicabuntur apud nos omnes unici Dei Creatoris et Christi ejus antistites, adeoque indifferenter hanc partem defendo, illis offerens in quo velint gradum figere. Spiritus diaboli est, dicis, o Psychice. Et quomodo Dei nostri officia indicit, nec alii offerenda quam Deo nostro? Aut contende diabolum cum Deo facere nostro, aut Satanas Paracletus habeatur. Sed hominem Antichristum adfirmas; hoc enim vocantur haeretici nomine penes Joannem. Et quomodo quisquis ille est in Christo nostro, haec erga Dominum nostrum officia disposuit, cum et Antichristi erga Deum adversus nostrum processerint Christum? Quo itaque putas laterum confirmatum apud nos spiritum, cum 0969B imperat, an cum probat quae Deus noster et imperavit semper et probavit? Sed rursus palos terminales figitis Deo, sicut de gratia, ita de disciplina; sicut de charismatibus, ita et de solemnibus; ut proinde officia cessaverint, quemadmodum et beneficia ejus, atque ita negetis usque adhuc eum munia imponere, quia et hic Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem: superest ut totum auferatis, quantum in vobis tam otiosum.