TERTULLIAN ON FAITH AND REASON

INTRODUCTION One of the first and still-alive problems that bothered Christian thinkers was the relationship between faith and reason Cf. William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy (Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002), p. 113. and this is the crux of the whole discourse on Early Christian Philosophy. The role of philosophy in regards to religion contains a lot of grey area. However, there was a debate in the early Church about the role of philosophy and how it should be applied to the budding religion of Christianity. St. Justin Martyr and Tertullian both took up this cause and rivalled each other on this issue; Justin Martyr advocated the use of philosophy in religion, while Tertullian argued against it. This classical problem Of a possible relationship between faith and reason. has lingered from antiquity down to the medieval ages and even among philosophers of religion in modern times. Although this problem epochally changes its shape, even in contemporary times, the question of whether or not there is a relationship between faith and reason still raises its head as it poses a great, indispensable and timely concern to the Church’s life. To this effect, varied questions have been and are being asked concerning a possible synergistic harmony of both faith and reason: Is the Christian faith rational? Is there a relationship between faith and reason? Can both faith and reason be coherently held as routes to the truth? Should a person of faith dance and dine with the speculations of “pagan philosophy and philosophers in the first place”? From the aforementioned questions, and many others, this paper sets out to periscope and expose Tertullian’s view and stand point on the relationship between faith and reason. And to achieve this goal, this paper would attempt a conceptual clarification of faith and reason; Tertullian’s view of philosophy (as a background to his argument on faith and reason); his position on the discourse of faith and reason; and an evaluation/contemporary relevance of the relationship between faith and reason. And then as a means of recapitulation, we shall conclude. A CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION OF FAITH AND REASON Faith and reason have always been difficult matters to reconcile for the Christian Church and sometimes they are perceived as realities which lurk horns and are in perpetual dissension as viewed by Tertullian. On the one hand, there is the expectation involved in Christianity of a reality that has not yet fully manifest itself and there is the world Christians see. These expectations often conflict with each other, leading often to some sort of existential angst. FAITH- The word “faith” has a Latin etymology. It is from the Latin word “fides”, meaning faith, trust, belief, and so on. It is also defined by The New Catholic Encyclopedia as “belief in God and acceptance of His revelation as true.” C. H. Pickar, “Faith”, William J. McDonald (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 1967 edition. Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America, p. 792. Tertullian, in the prescription Against Heresies, views faith as “the submission of our will to the Divine authority.” Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994), p. 245. Even in scriptures, we see St. Paul defining faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Heb. 11:1 (Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version). It is to this effect that Hoitenga distinguishes the three elements of Biblical faith as seen in the life of Abraham: Trust, Belief, and Obedience –a volitional-emotional, an intellectual, and a moral element. Cf. Dewey J. Hoitenga, Faith and Reason from Plato to Platinga: An Introduction to Reformed Epistemology (New York: State University of New York Press, 1991), p. 38. It should however be noted that many scholars make use of the term “faith” interchangeably with “theology” as it applies to “Christianity”. REASON- Just like faith, reason also has a Latin etymology. It is from the Latin word “ratio” which means ‘the ability to reason, abstract, comprehend, reflect, and so on. Owing to this, Platenga describes reason as “just the human faculty whereby we know what we know in science and everyday life.” Alvin Plantinga, “A Response to Pope John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio”, Book and Culture: A Christian Review, (July/August 1999), http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/1999/julaug/9b4032.html?paging=off. It is further an active human capacity for knowing the truth. Cf. J. E. Creighton, “Faith and Inference”, William J. McDonald (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 1967 edition. Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America, p. 263. It is once more pertinent to highlight, here, that the term “reason” is used sometimes interchangeably with “philosophy”. As against this understanding, Tertullian, asseverates that Christian Gnosticism is a fusion of Greek Philosophy and Christianity and in his prescription Against Heretics, describes reason (that is Philosophy) as being “the material of the world's wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God...” Cf. Susanna Krizo, When Dogmas Die: The Return of Biblical Equality (USA: Creation House, 2009), p.79. With this little understanding of the notions of faith (theology or Christianity) and reason (philosophy), it will thus be appropriate now to relate in the subsequent paragraphs Tertullian’s arguments on the fusion of both faith and reason, and its consequences. This then would show in what camp, in the discourse of faith and reason, Tertullian could be placed. But first, what does Tertullian conceived about philosophy (reason)? TERTULLIAN ON PHILOSOPHY: The starting point of Tertullian’s age long disavowal, critique and detestation against philosophy could be traced to the apparent fact that Tertullian himself had a substantial and qualitative knowledge of philosophy, and the ills of its speculations or rational acts. It is these ills which he spotted that ultimately tantamounted into the displeasured appellative in which Tertullian nicknamed Greek philosophers as “those patriarchs of all heresy”. Tertullian, “Against Hermogenes”, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994), p.482. For in another place, while describing philosophy, he had described philosophers as instigators, promulgators and protagonists of heresies. It thus would be no surprise that, from his writings, he vehemently opposed and negated philosophy and the philosophers. As such, turning to his Prescription Against Heretics, he there describes philosophy saying: These are “the doctrines” of men and “of demons” produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom...for philosophy it is which is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 246. He further expressed his strong feelings of detest towards philosophy and the works of the Greek philosophers in his Ad Nationes when he writes that: “Now, pray tell me, what wisdom is there in the hankering after conjectural speculations? What proof is afforded to us, notwithstanding the strong confidence of its assertions, by the useless affectation of a scrupulous curiosity, which is tricked out with an artful show of language? It therefore served Thales of Miletus right, when, star-gazing as he walked with all the eyes he had, he had the mortification of falling into a well...His fall, therefore, is a figurative picture of the philosophers; of those, I mean, who persist in applying their studies to a vain purpose, since they indulge a stupid curiosity on natural objects, which they ought rather (intelligently to direct) to their Creator and Governor.” Tertullian, “Ad Nationes II”, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994), p. 113. He continued in his Apologia, in addressing the various speculations of philosophers on some basic subject matters (like the nature of the world, the nature of God, and the nature of the soul). Here, Tertullian advises that: Nor need we wonder if the speculations of the philosophers have perverted the older Scriptures. Some of their brood, with their opinions, have even adulterated our new-given Christian revelation, and corrupted it into a system of philosophic doctrines. Tertullian, “The Apology”, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994), p. 52. It is thus apparently against such views which Tertullian conceived that he stood to warn the Christians, more obviously in the Prescription Against Heretics, against the grave dangers of philosophy and the philosophers (in their relationship to the doctrine of faith). TERTULLIAN ON FAITH AND REASON: Tertullian was a lawyer who converted to Christ sometime around the year A.D. 197. It was he who asked the famous questions, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the academy and the Church?” Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 246. These somewhat striking rhetorical questions of Tertullian, though have been interpreted by so many scholars to mean different things, could however be the summary of Tertullian’s position on the discourse of faith and reason: for it expressly relates that there is no relationship between faith and reason; the Platonic Academy and by extension Greek Philosophy which Athens represents is in no way connected or related to the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles which Jerusalem refers to. Therefore, just as Athens (the intellectual centre of philosophy) and Jerusalem (the spiritual home of Christianity) are separated by hundreds of miles geographically, so pagan philosophy and faith (the Christian Gospel) lurk horns, are in perpetual enmity and are miles apart spiritually and thus can never meet. Cf. William F. Lawhead, The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy, p. 116. Tertullian's major distinction was to create a metaphorical contrast between Athens, the home of pagan Greek philosophy, and Jerusalem, the central locale of divine revelation. Tertullian was convinced that the Christian faith and human wisdom were polar opposites as earlier evinced. It was his conviction that God had revealed His plan of salvation in Scripture alone; to posit of and accept an admixture of scripture and the philosophy of the pagans could only bastardize and distort God's message. But does this mean that Tertullian believed that human wisdom is irrational? Let's look at the evidence. Tertullian further strengthens this view when he adds that: Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic and dialectic composition...with our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our faith, there is nothing which we ought to believe besides Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 246. The philosopher A. C. Grayling seems to support the idea of the variance between faith and reason, though on the contrary, when he defined faith as “the negation of reason; for reason is the faculty of proportioning judgement to evidence, after first weighing the evidence.” Erik J. Wielenberg, God and the Reach of Reason: C. S. Lewis, David Hume and Bertrand Russell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 153. Also, Bertrand Russell saw faith as an irrational activity when he expressed that: “I think faith is a vice, because faith means believing a proportion when there is no good reason for believing it.” Erik J. Wielenberg, God and the Reach of Reason: C. S. Lewis, David Hume and Bertrand Russell, p. 154. Arguing further, Tertullian highlights some points at which philosophy is at variance with the Doctrine of Faith: the opinion that the soul dies as held by the Epicureans; the denial of the restoration of the body as taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; and the equation of matter to God as seen in the postulations of Zeno. Coupled with the numerous questions asked by philosophers, Tertullian warns that Christians be on their guard against such cancerous doctrines capable of infecting and infesting the faith. Cf. Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 246. Tertullian, in the discourse about the truth as it were, holds that philosophers corrupt it (the Truth), while the Christians graciously maintain it since they have a great concern for salvation: The truth which philosophers, these mockers and corrupters of it, with hostile ends merely affect to hold, and in doing so deprave, caring for nought but glory, Christians both intensely and intimately long for and maintain in its integrity, as those who have real concern about their salvation; So that we (both the Christians and philosophers) are like each other neither in our knowledge nor in our ways... Tertullian, “The Apology”, p. 51. For Tertullian, the revelation by God is very important, and is the only real source of truth. Tertullian is not ignorant of the scriptures when backing up his argument. He makes a citation of Paul’s letter to the Colossians, wherein Paul cautions the Church there against philosophy lest they be taken in by it and act in ways contrary to the wisdom of the spirit. The wisdom of the Spirit is further evidenced by the Rule of Faith and for Tertullian, this Rule, and not any sort of philosophical training, should be the basis for Christian instruction. The Rule of Faith consists of things that Tertullian believes to be divine revelation. There is no need for any sort of philosophy when one has the revelations of Christ, because there is nothing that man has made that can supplement it. Man has no need to question what God and Christ have handed down for his benefit, and by questioning revelation, or by applying philosophy to it, one is lead down into heretical views. For these reasons Tertullian writes his famous lines, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between Heretics and Christians?” With these, he established that Christians need no philosophy for enlightenment. This he further did when he exhorted them to seek Christ, and that, solely from the Scriptures where salvation is sure to be found. Thus, the scriptures is itself sufficient. Cf. Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 247. However, in seeking, they should seek only that which Christ has taught, and that this seeking and searching has to be on insofar as it is yet to be found or until it is found. But then, the success in finding has to be in believing (faith) and not in rational methods. Cf. Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 248. Even then, the seeking and searching has to be done within the embrace of the faith devoid of philosophical methods. For in his words: No man gets instructions from that which tends to destruction (philosophy). No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our seeking, therefore, be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own, and concerning that which is our own –that, and only that, which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith. Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 249. Sequel to this, he stresses that Christian faith has nothing to do with rational belief; for it is better to remain in ignorance, rather than acquiring a knowledge of what ought not to be known, because the knowledge of all that is needed to be known has been attained –the rule of faith: for “your faith has saved you;” Lk 18:24 (Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version). noting that there is clearly nothing to be gained by reading the writings of the pagans (philosophers). Hence, to know nothing in opposition to the rule of faith is to know all things. The scriptures is a compendium of necessary and important knowledge. Cf. Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 250. It is glaringly apparent that Tertullian strongly asseverates that philosophy is not a link to Reason and to Christ, but it is in fact, the instigator of heresy. For him, even before the coming of Christ, philosophy was foolish, rash and not worthy of being applied to God. Furthermore, now that Christ has come and delivered the truth to the world, philosophy is even more useless than before. He says that philosophy has produced several heretics, such as Marcion and Valentinus, and as a result, Tertullian is truly fearful and stringently affirms that further study in philosophy for Christians will only force more people to stray from the path of truth. Obviously, from the argument thus far, Tertullian, without doubt, is a paradigmatic exponent of the position that substitutes revelation for reason. Human reason as it flourishes in culture is, for him and his kind, not only inadequate because it does not lead to a knowledge of God and the truth necessary, but that it is also erroneous and deceptive. Cf. Arthur W. Klem, “Tertullian: Victim of Caricature”, Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society vol. 5, no. 4 (Fall 1962), p. 103. Furthermore, in The Soul’s Testimony, Tertullian argues that a Christian should have nothing to do with the literature and teachings of the pagans, including even the works of philosophers who argue that there is only one God. Simply put, the Christian whose only concern should be to keep what he has believed can gain nothing from the philosopher’s art of building up and pulling down beliefs. All such an art can do is propose reasons for pulling down the Christian’s rule of faith. As such, “Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense and understanding...to know nothing but the Word of God.” Christopher E. Reyes, In His Name (Bloomington: Author House, 2010), p. 215. A further declaration of philosophy as malignant and inimical to Christian faith, by Tertullian, is seen in his Prescription Against Heretics when he writes: Unhappy Aristotle! Who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions – embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing!...When the Apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost”. Tertullian, “The Prescription Against Heretics”, p. 246. Tertullian again stretches his argued distinction between Christians and philosophers, with respects to moral behaviour and conduct in general, when in his Apologia he writes: But if we (Christians) challenge you (philosophers) to comparison in the virtue of chastity, I turn to a part of the sentence passed by the Athenians against Socrates, who was pronounced a corrupter of youth. The Christian confines himself to the female sex. I have read also how the harlot Phryne kindled in Diogenes the fire of lust, and how a certain Speusippus, of Plato’s school, perished in the adulterous act. The Christian husband has nothing to do with any but his own wife. Democritus, in putting out his eyes, because he could not look on women without lusting after them, and was pained if his passion was not satisfied, owns plainly, by the punishment he inflicts, his incontinence. But a Christian with grace-healed eyes is sightless in this matter; he is mentally blind against the assaults of passion. Tertullian, “The Apology”, p. 51. On a final note, Tertullian agrees that some Christians strayed from the discipline of faith. But then, they are no longer counted as Christians. For the Christian (unlike the philosophers (Plato) who allows himself to be bought by Dionysius for his belly’s sake, Aristippus in the purple, with all his great show of gravity, and with Hippias having being put to death laying plots against the state), he would never attempt such things with every ounce or fibre of his being, even when persecution was scattering abroad with every atrocity. Cf. Tertullian, “The Apology”, p. 51. Hence, as Tertullian would wish to conclude his argument, we relate thus questioning that: Where is there any likeness between the Christian and the philosopher? Between the disciple of Greece and of heaven? Between the man who objects his fame, and whose object is life? Between the talker and the doer? Between the man who builds up and the man who pulls down? Between the friend and the foe of error? Between one who corrupts the truth, and one who restores and teaches it? Between its chief and its custodian? Tertullian, “The Apology”, p. 51. Again, “what indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians?” To these Tertullian would likely answer: none is there and none should be created, for none exists. However, the strong detest for Philosophy and philosophers which Tertullian has thus far expressed, turning to his Treatise on the Soul, though arguing at the beginning that “it is not to the philosophers that we resort for information about the soul but God,” Tertullian, “A Treatise on the Soul”, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994), p. 181. he relies first on arguments from the stoics in explaining the “corporeal nature of the soul”, before turning to the Gospel. Cf. Tertullian, “A Treatise on the Soul”, p. 184-185. Does this in anyway, however, then suppose that Tertullian is somewhat inconsistent in his radical arguments against philosophy and philosophers (especially Greek philosophy), or that in his thoughts are possible traits of self-contradiction? EVALUATION AND CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE However the beautiful arguments posed by Tertullian about Christian faith and belief without philosophical support, as have been related in some of his writings from the preceding paragraphs, one might dare to say that his views were quite on the extreme, moralistic and idealistic, thereby reducing reason to somewhat a ‘sin’ (since it corrupts), is cancerous and destructive. If such a view is to be taken as it is presented, the obvious result would be two opposing extremes: Fideism –“the exclusive and basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason and utilised especially in the pursuit of philosophical or religious truth.” Alvin Plantinga, “Reason and Belief in God”, in Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstoff (eds.), Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), p. 87. ; and Atheism –a persistent way of life of one who lives without God; the conscious and consistent exclusion of God from one’s life; a philosophical view of the universe as closed and self-contained system, existing and intelligible in and of itself. Cf. J. P. Reid, “Atheism”, William J. McDonald (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 1967 edition. Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America, p. 1000-1001. It is for such an extremism of faith leading to fideism that zealously drove Tertullian to becoming a heretic himself (for it has been related that he later in his life became heretical in his later teachings when he adopted Montanism); and the emphasis of reason without faith leading to Atheism that led to Friedrich Nietzsche’s postulation that “God is dead...” Friedrich Nietzsche, “The Gay Science” In Walter Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoyevskv to Sartre (New York: New American Library, 1975), p. 126. Also, if faith and reason are both not employed in contemporary discourses, teachings, or learning about God, the resultant effect would not be different from either of two cases: On the one hand, faith alone would make a theologian. A Christian or student would believe without understanding in the truth which God has revealed through Jesus Christ. And on the other hand, reason alone would lead to an understanding without believing the truth revealed in Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding, contemporary Christian scholars have made efforts to synthesize both faith and reason or theology and philosophy, and further showing how positive to contemporary living the relationship could be of help. To this, John Paul II, in his encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio, related that “faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.” John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14th September, 1998), p. 1. He went further to strongly assert that “the study of philosophy and theology is fundamental and indispensable to the structure of theological studies and to the formation of candidates for the priesthood;” John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14th September, 1998), p.62. and by extension, the balanced spiritual formation of the life of every Christian. Still more, the encyclical, explaining the Intellectus Fidei of St. Anselm, relates that: The priority of faith is not in competition with the search which is proper to reason. Reason in fact is not asked to pass judgement on the contents of faith, something of which it would be incapable, since this is not its function. Its function is rather to find meaning, to discover explanations which might allow everyone to come to a certain understanding of the contents of faith. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14th September, 1998), p.42. Basically stressed here is the notion that reason helps in the understanding of the contents of the Christian faith and belief. In the same vein of exhortation, Lumen Fidei teaches that “faith broadens the horizons of reason to shed greater light on the world which discloses itself to scientific investigation.” Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter Lumen Fidei (29th June, 2013), #34. Also, a positive view of the relationship between faith and reason could have a powerful implication for how the Christian engages the society with the Gospel. This could be effective when all life is not viewed with the mentality of Sola Scriptura or Sola Rationale. Without compromising the Christian values, the Christian parent could listen to a piece of music with the children or even go out to the movies to view a movie, and afterwards sit down to discuss its moral message. Rather than explicitly criticising literature, philosophy, music or even movies, we could sit down to extract the moral messages contained in it and apply it to our own spirituality and Christian up-building. Furthermore, it could be found in the emulable and commendable thoughts of St. Augustine the effect of a positive relationship between faith and reason. For Augustine, faith is a reliable guide in our search for wisdom. It checks our pride, and it invites us always to deepen our understanding. Pride kills the intellectual life. Without humility before the truth, there can be no progress in wisdom and understanding. Cf. Montague Brown, “Faith and Reason in Anselm: Two Models”, St. Anselm Journal, vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 2004), p. 12. Obviously we see, faith and reason is not and should not to be taken as two extremes. For “both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God...; Hence, there can be no contradiction between them.” John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14th September, 1998), #43. CONCLUSION From the foregoing arguments, it could be seen that Tertullian, from the various works of his consulted, does not favour any sort of harmony between faith and reason which is seen in the likes of Augustine, Justin Martyr, Thomas Aquinas and John Paul II. For him, reason should not be employed in the discourse of faith or in the Christian’s daily search for the Truth nor should they make use of the literatures or writings of these men who are for him keen on destroying the faith. The summary of his view point on the discourse of faith and reason could be termed “sola fides” (only faith: for such is all-sufficient for salvation). Undoubtedly, his views and writings are beset with lots of contradictions. Tertullian’s view is vociferously contradictory so much so that the contradiction is visible to the blind and audible to the deaf. The contradiction is seen in Tertullian’s postulation of a rule to be abided by when the postulation itself doesn’t abide by the same rules which was the greatest critique levelled against the logical positivists. For instance, he stringently adumbrates that no recourse whatsoever should be made to philosophy in explaining the scriptures but 85% of his writings on the relationship between faith and reason makes recourse to both philosophy and the scriptures indirectly implying and avowing that they both possess an intrinsic character of complementarity. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Texts Tertullian. “The Prescription Against Heretics.” In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994, pp. 243-268. ________. “Against Hermogenes.” In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994, pp. 477-502. ________. “Ad Nationes II”, in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994), p. 129-147. ________. “The Apology.” In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994, pp. 17-60. ________. “The Soul’s Testimony.” In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994, pp. 175-180. ________. “A Treatise on the Soul.” In Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (eds.), Anti-Nicene Fathers vol. 3. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994, pp. 181-235. Secondary Texts Brown, Montague. “Faith and Reason in Anselm: Two Models.” St. Anselm Journal, vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 2004), pp. 10-21. Creighton, J. E. “Faith and Inference.” William J. McDonald (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5. Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America, 1967, s.v. Hoitenga, Dewey J. Faith and Reason from Plato to Platinga: An Introduction to Reformed Epistemology. New York: State University of New York Press, 1991. John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio. , 1998. Klem, Arthur W. “Tertullian: Victim of Caricature.” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 5, no. 4 (Fall 1962), p. 103-108. Lawhead, William F. The Voyage of Discovery: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002. Nietzsche, Friedrich. “The Gay Science.” In Walter Kaufmann (ed.), Existentialism from Dostoyevskv to Sartre. New York: New American Library, 1975, pp. 126. Pickar, C. H. “Faith”, William J. McDonald (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5. Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America, 1967, s.v. Pope Francis. Encyclical Letter Lumen Fidei. Enugu: St Paul Publication, 2013. Plantinga, Alvin. “Reason and Belief in God.” In Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstoff (eds.), Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983, pp. 16-93. ____________. “A Response to Pope John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio”, Book and Culture: A Christian Review, (July/August 1999), http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/1999/julaug/9b4032.html?paging=off. Reid, J.P. “Atheism.” William J. McDonald (ed.), New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5. Washington D.C: The Catholic University of America, 1967, s.v. Reyes, Christopher E. In His Name. Bloomington: Author House, 2010. Wielenberg, Erik J. God and the Reach of Reason: C. S. Lewis, David Hume and Bertrand Russell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. CONTACT INFORMATION: E-mail Address: Michael.okpala@yahoo.com. 13