| << | Contents | >> |
Apologetic
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 23
[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.
[29] Antignostikus, p. 424 (Bohn’s tr., ed. 1851).
[30] See Judg. ix. 2 sqq.
[31] See 2 Kings 14.9.
[32] Here, again, our limits forbid a discussion; but the allusion to the Rhone having “scarcely yet lost the stain of blood” which we find in the ad. Natt. i. 17, compared with Apol. 35, seems to favour the idea of those who date the ad. Natt. earlier than the Apology, and consider the latter as a kind of new edition of the former: while it would fix the date of the ad. Natt. as not certainly earlier than 197, in which year (as we have seen) Albinus died. The fatal battle took place on the banks of the Rhone.
[33] In c. 7.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0207 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page