I already downloaded the paper. I will get back with you on this lively active-voiced writer that has some gems to gleam. Sounds interesting and thank you for it.
"The third explanation is: ‘Or was it because He was Himself Father, Son, Spirit, for that reason, showing Himself to be plural, He spoke in a plural way to Himself?’ The trinitarian reader may jump at this as the best answer, but to Tertullian it can only be a heretical, ‘monarchian’ mis-reading. (In ch. 10-11 he’s at length refuted the ‘monarchian’ idea that God made himself his own Son.) He rejects this third explanation in favour of a fourth: that God is at this time working together with two others to create the human race, and so he speaks to these two ‘as with servants and eyewitnesses’."
"With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses."
"In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance — in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it. For, indeed, He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second. But still He did issue the command, although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself. "
Thank you for sharing that interesting paper. I have no problem at all saying Tertullian doesn't quite match the modern Trinitarian formula, but I find the paper somewhat disingenuous. The Tuggster can be quite biased without seeming to be aware of it. Look at this quote from the paper when talking about Tertullian's explanations for "Let us make man":
And there is a an extremely poorly marked footnote. But when I chased down the original quote, is that all Tertullian actually said in that passage? Did he really just drop it and leave it at that?
And later says that man is actually the image of Christ instead of the Father. He goes on even further:
I don't count Tuggy's citation an accurate and full accounting of Tertullian's words. If I were to be somewhat uncharitable, I would even label it as a dishonest representation. Tuggy is often just using his own worded interpretations with the implication of "Trust me, bro, I'm saying what he said." It's always best to use more direct quotations.
Do I think Tertullian was equal to a modern Trinitarian?
No, not quite.
Do I think Tertullian really qualified as a Unitarian?
No, I do not.
Although he has logical inconsistencies he does clearly differentiate three persons who have divine traits. But he also kind of makes some of the Son's divine attributes a bit gimpy. It's natural to go to the ECF and try to "claim" them for your group to bolster support. In the end, he was neither a modern Trin. or Uni. but his own brand. And we can argue about which different emphases seem closer.
But let's do it honestly.