| << | Contents | >> |
Apologetic
Show All Footnotes & Jump to 45
[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.
[45] In c. 4 Tertullian speaks as if he had already refuted all the heretics.
[46] Ref. to in de Jej. c. 1.
[47] Ref. to in de Idolol. 13; in de Cult. Fem. i. 8. In the de Cor. 6 is a reference to the Greek tract de Spectaculis by our author.
[48] Archdeacon Evans, in his Biography of the Early Church (in the Theological Library), suggests that the success which the Apology met with, or at least the fame it brought its author, may have been the occasion of Tertullian’s visit to Rome. He rejects entirely the supposition that Tertullian was a presbyter of the Roman church; nor does he think Eusebius’ words, καὶ τῶν μάλιστα ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης λαμπρῶν (Eccl. Hist. ii. 2. 47 ad fin., 48 ad init.), sufficiently plain to be relied on. One thing does seem pretty plain, that the rendering of them which Rufinus gives, and Valesius follows, “inter nostros” (sc. Latinos) “Scriptores admodum clarus,” cannot be correct. That we find a famous Roman lawyer Tertullianus, or Tertyllianus, among the writers fragments of whom are preserved in the Pandects, Neander reminds us; but (as he says) it by no means follows, even if it could be proved that the date of the said lawyer corresponded with the supposed date of our Tertullian, that they were identical. Still it is worth bearing in mind, especially as a similarity of language exists, or has been thought to exist, between the jurist and the Christian author. And the juridical language and tone of our author do seem to point to his having—though Mr. Evans regards that as doubtful—been a trained lawyer.—Tr.
[49] Kaye, as above. Pref. to 2d ed. pp. xxi. xxii. incorporated in the 3d ed., which I always quote.
[50] i.e., four years after Kaye’s third.
[51] See Pref. 2d ed. p. xix. n. 9.
[52] It being from that book that the quotations are taken which make up the remainder of the tract, as Semler, worthless as his theories are, has well shown.
[53] “Sæculi” or “of the world,” or perhaps “of heathenism.”
[54] Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 18.
[55] P. 952, tom. iii. Opp. ed. Bened.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0207 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page