Anf-02 vi.iv.i.xi Pg 5.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.i.xi Pg 6.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.i.xi Pg 14.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.vi.viii Pg 2.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.vi.viii Pg 4.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.vi.xv Pg 12.1
Anf-03 v.iii.vii Pg 18
Col. ii. 8. The last clause, “præter providentiam Spiritus Sancti,” is either Tertullian’s reading, or his gloss of the apostle’s οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν—“not after Christ.”
He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,”1927 1927
Anf-03 iv.xi.iii Pg 5
Col. ii. 8.
This admonition about false philosophy he was induced to offer after he had been at Athens, had become acquainted with that loquacious city,1510 1510
Anf-03 v.iv.vi.xix Pg 26
Col. ii. 8.
it would be tedious, and the proper subject of a separate work, to show how in this sentence (of the apostle’s) all heresies are condemned, on the ground of their consisting of the resources of subtle speech and the rules of philosophy. But (once for all) let Marcion know that the principle term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, implying that the Lord is stupid and indifferent;6081 6081 “Dominum inferens hebetem;” with which may be compared Cicero (De Divin. ii. 50, 103): “Videsne Epicurum quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Stoici…qui negat, quidquam deos nec alieni curare, nec sui.” The otiose and inert character of the god of Epicurus is referred to by Tertullian not unfrequently; see above, in book iv. chap. xv.; Apolog. 47, and Ad Nationes, ii. 2; whilst in De Anima, 3, he characterizes the philosophy of Epicurus by a similar term: “Prout aut Platonis honor, aut Zenonis vigor, aut Aristotelis tenor, aut Epicuri stupor, aut Heracliti mæror, aut Empedoclis furor persuaserunt.”
wherefore he refuses to say that He is an object to be feared. Moreover, from the porch of the Stoics he brings out matter, and places it on a par with the Divine Creator.6082 6082 The Stoical dogma of the eternity of matter and its equality with God was also held by Hermogenes; see his Adv. Hermogenem, c. 4, “Materiam parem Deo infert.”
He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,—a truth which none of the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold.6083 6083 Pliny, Nat. Hist. vii. 55, refers to the peculiar opinion of Democritus on this subject (Fr. Junius).
But how remote is our (Catholic) verity from the artifices of this heretic, when it dreads to arouse the anger of God, and firmly believes that He produced all things out of nothing, and promises to us a restoration from the grave of the same flesh (that died) and holds without a blush that Christ was born of the virgin’s womb! At this, philosophers, and heretics, and the very heathen, laugh and jeer. For “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise”6084 6084
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 2
VERSE (8) - De 6:12 Mt 7:15; 10:17; 16:6 Php 3:2 2Pe 3:17
