On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
rome ' s Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers . ' This account is not so full and satisfactory as might be wished and leaves , us in uncertainty whether he was born of Gentile or -Christian parents , and whether he officiated as Presbyter at Carthage or at Rome . It has , indeed , been doubted whether Jerome was correct in calling him a Presbyter : this doubt , however , would probably liever have been felt , but for the fact , which is undeniable , that he was a
married man ; a fact which all the ingenuity of Catholic writers cannot reconcile with the doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy . Hie most remarkable incident in the life of Tertullian was his secession from the Church , in consequence of his having adopted the errors of Montanus ; the true cause of which , as the learned Professor justly observes , «* is to be found , not in thd failure of his attempts to obtain the see either of Rome or Carthage , but in
the constitution and temper of bis mind , to which the austere doctrines and practice of the new Prophet were perfectly congenial . " ^ P . 36 . ) As he wrote many of his works after bis secession , and some of them in direct opposition to the Catholic Church , it is necessary that they who study his writings should form just notions of the tenets and pretensions of Montanus . An inquiry into these , therefore , constitutes an important part of the present chapter ; in the course of which some errors into which both Mosheim and
Lardner have fallen respecting the nature and extent of the inspiration to which that Heresiareh laid claim are corrected . Though the pretensions and the tenets of Montanus may have been in some respects less absurd than they have usually been represented , yet they If ere so manifestly groundless and unreasonable as to render it a matter of Astonishment that any one who , like Tertullian , had been well instructed in the learning of the age , and had the writings of evangelists and apostles , the words of truth and soberness , in his hands , should be induced to
acknowledge afrid adopt them . The learned Professor , therefore , could not fail to anticipate the objection which he states , and endeavours , perhaps not without success , to obviate , in the following passage : tc * What reliance , ' it may be asked , * can we p lace upon the judgment , er even upon the testimony of Tertullian , who could be deluded into a belief of the extravagant pretensions of Montanus ? Or What advantage can the theological student oerive from reading the works of so credulous and
superstitious an author ? ' These are questions easily asked , and answered without hesitation by men who take the royal road to theological knowledge : who either through want of the leisure , or impatient of the labour , requisite for the examination of the writings of the Fathers , find it convenient to conceal their ignorance under an air of contempt . Thus a hasty and unfair sentence Of condemnation has been passed upon tfye Fathers , and their works have fallen into unmerited disrepute . The sentence is hasty , because it bespeaks great ignorance of human nature , which often presents the curious phenomenon of an union of the most opposite qualities in the same mind ; of
vigour , acuteness and discrimination on stome subjects , with imbecility , dullness rind bigotry on others . The sentence is unfair , because it condemns the fathers f pr faults , which were those o £ the iage : of the elder PBny and Marcus iVntoninufj , as welt as of Tertwttian . It is , j&oreoyer , 'wnfiwr , because the perspni * wfco argue tfius in tii © ca ^ of th ® Fa ^ Jty ^ ps , ar # ue ' differentl y in other cases , Wjtfcout intending * to . compare the ffeirtle . the amiable , the accomcapes , , vy ^ out intend ^ to comp are the gentle , * thq amiable , the
accomfy $ ke& peneloh , wifl * t ) ie harsh , tfiefary , tm unpolished tertullian , or to cfyis tlve , syfyltua ^ reveres of Madame Cfuyon wtfh the extravagancies of JVfonymt \ s tind Ms prophetesses , It may tie remarjee ^ , that the predilection of Feheten fifr tm nolfofcs of « he myfrtites "betrayed a rfientft ! weakness , ( fifferhig in decree rather than in kind from that which led Tertullian to the-adoption < d # MontjuiiflUL Wk do mofc , hDwiever , tm * dc tmnffl of tlri » weakness in Fenelon ,
Untitled Article
266 Review . —Dr . ~ KxtyeH Tertullian .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1827, page 266, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1795/page/34/
-