Against Praxeas — Chapter 1

3

Matt. iv. 3.

4

Ver. 6.

5

Ps. xci. 11.

6

John viii. 44.

7

1 Cor. xiii. 3.

8

Probably Victor. [Elucidation II.]

9

Had admitted them to communion.

10

“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.

11

On the designation Psychici, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 263, note 5, Edin.

12

[This statement may only denote a withdrawal from the communion of the Bishop of Rome, like that of Cyprian afterwards. That prelate had stultified himself and broken faith with Tertullian; but, it does not, necessarily, as Bp. Bull too easily concludes, define his ultimate separation from his own bishop and the North-African church.]

13

Matt. xiii. 30.

Chapter 1

VII.

Against Praxeas;

In Which He Defends, in all Essential Points, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]

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

Notes