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
makes no mention of the Nazarenes as a sect ; only incidentally observing , that the Christians were so called by the Jews . Once also he speaks of " Hebrew Christians . ' * The Gnostic heresy having spread very widely at the end of the second century , Tertullian , as might be expected , was much occupied in opposing jts progress . Mosheim traces Gnosticism , in all its various forms , to the Oriental philosophy , as their common source ; and arranges all the sects of the Gnostics under two principal divisions , the Egyptian and the Asiatic . Tertullian does not seem to have thought of this division or of this origin ;
he repeatedly charges the Gnostics with borrowing from Pythagoras and Plato and other Greek philosophers . The learned Professor does not deem it necessary to inquire " into the reality of an alleged connexion between
the Oriental and Platonic philosophies , " or to decide between the ancient Presbyter and the modern ecclesiastical historian . We have no hesitation in preferring , on this subject , the authority of the latter ; and in recommending that part of his " Commentaries on the Affairs of the Christians , " &c , which relates to the Gnostics , as peculiarly interesting and valuable . Of Elxai , whom Mosheim mentions as the head of the Asiatic branch ,
Tertullian takes no notice ; and even Saturninus he mentions but once . Of Cerdo he says no more than that Marcion borrowed from him . But against Marcion , the head of one of the Asiatic sects , he composed five books , which have come down to us . Of the first of these our author has given a full and accurate analysis , and of the other four he adds some interesting notices .
With the fourth and fifth books against Marcion , is connected an inquiry of considerable importance in the criticism of the New Testament , and bearing also strongly upon the question relating to the origin of the three first gospels ; namely , the charge brought by Tertullian and other ancient fathers against Marcion , of having adulterated the Gospel of Luke
and the Epistles of Paul . The learned Professor , perhaps rightly , declines entering into any investigation of this curious and certainly difficult subject . He does not deny or question the justice of the charge : he seems to admit it ; and in justification refers the reader to some " valuable remarks in the introduction to Dr . Schleiermacher's work" on the Gospel of Luke . The able author of that introduction declares that " Professor Hahn has settled
the matter so as to satisfy every impartial inquirer that the ancient opinion is correct . " We are impatient to see the work he so strongly recommends ; but in the mean time , we must continue to acquiesce in the modern opinion , influenced by the arguments of Gi iesbach and Loeffler ; to neither of whom the translator of Schleiermacher refers . Scarcely any of the Gnostics belonging to the Egyptian branch , excepting Valentinus , are mentioned by Tertullian . Against the Valentinians he composed expressly a treatise ; which , however , " is little more than a translation of the first book of the work of Irseneus against the Gnostics . "
Of this treatise the Professor has g iven an ample summary , exhibiting the whole of the absurd system maintained b y the Egyptian heresiarch . Among the heresies of the second century , according to Mosheim , were the tenets of Praxeas , Aitemon , and Theodotus : -as heresies , therefore , they are treated by our author , W ithout justly exposing ourselves to the charge of cavilling , we might dispute the propriety of this classification , as it has been tful ty proved that the Gnostics were the only heretics in the early ages of Christianity : and as it has not been , nor ever can be , proved that the distinguishing tenets of Praxeas , Aitemon and Theodotus , were not those of
Untitled Article
516 Review .- ^ -Dr . Kaye ' s TeHulliaii ,
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1827, page 516, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1798/page/44/
-