| << | Contents | >> |
Apologetic
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 18
[8] Valesius, however, supposes the historian’s words τῶν μάλιστα ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης λαμπρῶν to mean, that Tertullian had obtained distinction among Latin writers.
[9] See De Præscript. Hæretic. xxx.
[10] De Pœnitentia, i. Hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus, cæci, sine Domini lumine, naturâ tenus norunt; De Fuga in Persecutione, vi. Nobis autem et via nationum patet, in quâ et inventi sumus; Adv. Marcionem, iii. 21. Et nationes, quod sumus nos; Apolog. xviii. Hæc et nos risimus aliquando; de vestris fuimus; also De Spectac. xix.
[11] [Kaye, p. 9. A fair view of this point.]
[12] These notes of Bishop Kaye may be found, in their fuller form, in his work on Tertullian, pp. 8–12.
[13] Book i., chap. xv.
[14] Jerome probably took this date as the central period, when Tertullian “flourished,” because of its being the only clearly authenticated one, and because also (it may be) of the importance and fame of the Treatise against Marcion.
[15] So Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. 204; or 208, Pamelius, Vita Tertull.
[16] In his treatise, De vera ætate ac doctrina script. Tertulliani, sections 28, 45.
[17] De Præscript. Hæret. xxx.
[18] Comp. Adv. Marcionem, iv. 4.
[19] I., Adv. Hæret. xlii. 1.
[20] Dr. Burton’s Lectures on Eccl. Hist. of First Three Centuries, ii. 105–109.
[21] Or versions.
[22] Tertullianus.
[23] Vincentius Lirinensis, in his celebrated Commonitorium, expresses the opinion of Catholic churchmen concerning Tertullian thus: “Tertullian, among the Latins, without controversy, is the chief of all our writers. For who was more learned than he? Who in divinity or humanity more practised? For, by a certain wonderful capacity of mind, he attained to and understood all philosophy, all the sects of philosophers, all their founders and supporters, all their systems, all sorts of histories and studies. And for his wit, was he not so excellent, so grave, so forcible, that he scarce ever undertook the overthrow of any position, but either by quickness of wit he undermined, or by weight of reason he crushed it? Further, who is able to express the praises which his style of speech deserves, which is fraught (I know none like it) with that cogency of reason, that such as it cannot persuade, it compels to assent; whose so many words almost are so many sentences; whose so many senses, so many victories? This know Marcion and Apelles, Praxeas and Hermogenes, Jews, Gentiles, Gnostics, and divers others, whose blasphemous opinions he hath overthrown with his many and great volumes, as it had been thunderbolts. And yet this man after all, this Tertullian, not retaining the Catholic doctrine—that is, the old faith—hath discredited with his later error his worthy writings,” etc.—Chap. xxiv. (Oxford trans. chap. xviii.)
[24] Neander’s introduction to his Antignostikus should be read in connection with this topic. He powerfully delineates the disposition of Tertullian and the character of Montanism, and attributes his secession to that sect not to outward causes, but to “his internal congeniality of mind.” But, inasmuch as a man’s subjective development is very much guided by circumstances, it is not necessary, in agreeing with Neander, to disbelieve some such account as Jerome has given us of Tertullian (Neander’s Antignostikus, etc. Bohn’s trans., vol. ii. pp. 200–207).
[25] Introductory Notice to the Anti-Marcion, pp. xiii., xiv.
[26] In the end of Chapter Second.
[27] Eccl. Hist. illust. from Tertullian’s Writings, p. 36 sqq. (ed. 3, Lond. 1845).
[28] See Kaye, as above.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0207 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page