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
the apostles themselves ; or at least more nearly allied to them than those of the reputedly orthodox believers in the second century . But waving this , it is remarked by the Professor , that " we find ho notice of Aitemon and Theodotus in Tertullian ' s writings . " Against Praxeas , who had
offended him by the part he took against Montanism at Rome , he wrote a large treatise . Of this treatise our author has given a very full account , not only that he may illustrate , according to the professed design of his work , the doctrine of the second century , but also , as is evident , that he may , if possible , identify the creed of the Established Church with that of the Carthaginian Presbyter , on the important subject of the Trinity . ¦
Praxeas , we have reason to think , was a strict Unitarian . « He asserted , " says LaTdner , * ' the Unity of God , and denied a real Trinity . He contended that by the Word was to be understood the wisdom , the will , the power , the voice or command of God ; not a distinct personal substance . He held Jesus to be a man , and said that God was with him in a superior and more intimate manner than with any other man or prophet whatever ; but it was not a personal union . " He was charged by Tertullian with
maintaining that the Father , Son , and Holy Spirit , were one and the same ; and consequently , that the Father was born and suffered . The j ustice of this charge may be doubted ; it is indeed certain that Praxeas expressly denied the latter part of it . And as to the former part of it , the representation which Tertullian gives of the doctrine of Praxeas may have arisen , as Beausobre conjectures , " from his misapprehending what the Unitarians said concerning the Father and the Son being one , and concerning the
Father being in Jesus and doing the works , as our Saviour expresses himself . " Unhappily we have no work by Praxeas to which we can refer ; and we know that Tertullian , as the Professor candidly allows , could draw consequences from the opinions of an opponent , which the opponent disavowed . ( See note 284 , p . 569 . ) In refutation of these notions , however , Tertullian undertakes to prove the perfect distinction of the three persons of the Trinity . But the majority of Christians " major pars credentium > " as
Tertullian allows , were believers in the strict unity of God , and were alarmed at the notion of three persons in the Godhead . They adhered to the monarchy , and could not reconcile their minds to the economy for which the orthodox fathers were then contending . He was not a little embarrassed , therefore , while maintaining against Praxeas the distinct personality of the
Father , the Son , and the Spirit , to make this notion appear consistent with the doctrine of the divine unity . He was also perplexed , as all who main- , tain similar opinions ever have been and ever must be , to interpret , upon his principles , those numerous plain passages of Scripture which speak of the Father as the only true God , and of Jesus as one in all respects like those in whose service he lived and died . No wonder , therefore , if we
find , as we certainly do find in this treatise , much perversion of Scripture language , great confusion of ideas , and many contradictions and inconsistencies which no ingenuity can reconcile : no wonder that sp good a reasoner , and so candid and fair a judge as the Right Rev . Professor shews himself to be , should warn his readers in the course of his remarks on this treatise , . tfiat he undertakes only to state , not always to explain or comprehend Tertullian ' s notions . See note 199 , p . 538 . From the detailed account of this important treatise , our author thinks that he has sqfficienUy proved that Tertullian maintained a real Trinity ; or , in the words of . the first Article , that " in the unity of the Godhead there bet
Untitled Article
Review—Dr . Kayet Tertullian . 517
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), July 2, 1827, page 517, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1798/page/45/
-