Appearance      Marker   

 

<<  Contents  >>

Anti-Marcion

Footnotes

Show All Footnotes

Show All Footnotes & Jump to 7765

Introduction, by the American Editor.

[7755] 1 Tim. ii. 5.

[7756] Gen. iii. 22.

[7757] In this apostrophe to the soul, he censures Marcion’s heresy.

[7758] Compare the De Carne Christi.

[7759] See the De Præscript. Hæret. ch. xxxviii. supra, for instances of these diverse methods of heresy. Marcion is mentioned as the mutilator of Scripture, by cutting away from it whatever opposed his views; Valentinus as the corrupter thereof, by his manifold and fantastic interpretations.

[7760] See the Adv. Valentinianos, supra.

[7761] Joel ii. 28-29; Acts ii. 17-18. [See last sentence. He improves upon St. Peter’s interpretation of this text (as see below) by attributing his own clear views to the charismata, which he regards as still vouchsafed to the more spiritual.]

[7762] We follow Oehler’s view here, by all means.

[7763] 1 Cor. xi. 19.

I.

[7764] Œuvres, Tom. v. p. 111.

II.

[7765] 2 See Soames’ Anglo Saxon Church, cap. xii. p. 465, and cap. xi. pp. 423–430. See also the valuable annotations of Dr. Routh’s Opuscula, Vol. II. pp. 167–186.

VII. Against Praxeas;

[7766] The error of Praxeas appears to have originated in anxiety to maintain the unity of God; which, he thought, could only be done by saying that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were one and the same. He contended, therefore, according to Tertullian, that the Father himself descended into the virgin, was born of her, suffered, and was in a word Jesus Christ. From the most startling of the deductions from Praxeas’ general theory, his opponents gave him and his followers the name of Patripassians; from another point in his teaching they were called Monarchians. [Probable date not earlier than a.d. 208].

[7767] [Elucidation I.]

Chapter I.—Satan’s Wiles Against the Truth. How They Take the Form of the Praxean Heresy. Account of the Publication of This Heresy.

[7768] Matt. iv. 3.

[7769] Matt. 4.6.

[7770] Ps. xci. 11.

[7771] John viii. 44.

[7772] 1 Cor. xiii. 3.

[7773] Probably Victor. [Elucidation II.]

[7774] Had admitted them to communion.

[7775] “The connection renders it very probable that the hic quoque of this sentence forms an antithesis to Rome, mentioned before, and that Tertullian expresses himself as if he had written from the very spot where these things had transpired. Hence we are led to conclude that it was Carthage.”—Neander, Antignostikus, ii. 519, note 2, Bohn.

 

 

 

10 per page

 

 

 Search Comments 

 

This page has been visited 0697 times.

 

<<  Contents  >>