| << | Contents | >> |
Apologetic
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 34
[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.
[34] Viz. in the de Monog.
[35] It looks strange to see Tertullian’s works referred to as consisting of “about thirty short treatises” in Murdock’s note on Moshiem. See the ed. of the Eccl. Hist. by Dr. J. Seaton Reid, p. 65, n. 2, Lond. and Bel. 1852.
[36] This last qualification is very specially observable in Dr. Kaye.
[37] In his article on Tertullian in Smith’s Dict. of Biog. and Myth.
[38] Referred to apparently in de Pudic. ad init.–Tr.
[39] The de Præscr. is ref. to in adv. Marc. i.; adv Prax. 2; de Carne Christi, 2; adv. Hermog. 1.
[40] Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2, 14; Scorp. 5; de Anima, 21. The only mark, as the learned Bishop’s remarks imply, for fixing the date of publication as Montanistic, is the fact that Tertullian alludes, in the opening sentences, to B. i. Hence B. ii. could not, in its present form, have appeared till after B. i. Now B. i. contains evident marks of Montanism: see the last chapter, for instance. But the writer speaks (in the same passage) of B. ii. as being the treatise, the ill fate of which in its unfinished condition he there relates—at least such seems the legitimate sense of his words—now remodelled. Hence, when originally written, it may not have been Montanistic.—Tr.
[41] Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2, 17, 45; comp. cc. 18, 21.
[42] Ref. to in de Carn. Chr. 7.
[43] Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2.
[44] See the beginning and end of the de Carne Christi.—Tr. Ref. to in adv. Marc. v. 10.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0207 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page