PL 2 · cols. 263–266

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, Liber primus

Editors' preface

Q. SEPT. FLOR. TERTULLIANI ADVERSUS MARCIONEM LIBRI QUINQUE

The Five Books of Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian against Marcion

SYNOPSIS HISTORICA.

Historical Synopsis.

Murcio Synope in Ponto natus est circa annum 148, imperante Antonino. Hic initio vitae castitatem prae se ferens monachorum instituta professus est, parente natus catholicae communionis episcopo. Postea, cum virginem adamasset ea abusus est. Ob hunc igitur incestum Ecclesia ab ipso parente pulsus est, viro cum primis religioso, ac veritatis amore flagrantissimo, et in episcopalis muneris administratione praestantissimo. Cui cum Marcio diu, multumque supplicasset, ac poenitentiam postulasset, a patre precibus nullis obtinuit. Romam itaque se contulit, et seniores adiens, qui ab apostolorum discipulis edocti, adhuc supererant ut in, communionem admitteretur, frustra petiit. Quamobrem exstimulatus invidia, ac ira percitus, illis dixit : Ecclesiam vestram ego dissociabo, in eamque schisma sempiternum immittam; et discedens, ad impostoris Cerdonis haeresim confugere in animum induxit (S. Epiphanus, haeres, 42). Cerdonis haec erant dogmata: Deum legis conditorem alium esse a Patre Domini nostri Jesu Christi; hunc bonum fuisse illum malum; Jesum Christum veram nostraeque consubstantialem carnem non assumpsisse, nec de virgine Maria natum fuisse. DUPIN.

Marcion was born at Sinope in Pontus about the year 148, in the reign of Antoninus. At the beginning of his life, making a show of chastity, he professed the monastic institutes, being the son of a bishop of the catholic communion. Afterwards, having fallen in love with a virgin, he abused her. For this incest, therefore, he was driven out of the Church by his own father, a man religious above all others, burning with the love of truth, and most excellent in the administration of the episcopal office. Although Marcion entreated him long and much, and asked for penance, he obtained nothing from his father by any prayers. He therefore betook himself to Rome, and approaching the elders who, taught by the disciples of the apostles, still survived, he sought in vain to be admitted into communion. Wherefore, goaded by envy and stirred by anger, he said to them: "I will divide your Church, and cast into it an everlasting schism"; and departing, he resolved to take refuge in the heresy of the impostor Cerdo (St Epiphanius, Heresies, 42). These were the doctrines of Cerdo: that the God who founded the Law is other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; that the latter was good, the former evil; that Jesus Christ did not assume true flesh, consubstantial with ours, and was not born of the Virgin Mary. DUPIN.

Opus adversus Marcionem conscripsit Tertullianus, postquam in Montanistarum errorem lapsus est, ut apparet ex illis verbis (cap. 29, lib. I) : Nubendi jam modus ponitur, Paracleto auctore, unum in fide matrimonium praescribitur, et dum novas prophetias commemorat, et de quibusdam revelationibus loquens scribit (lib IV, cap. 22) : De quo inter nos, et Psychicos quaestio est; quae profecto distinctio, communionis designat diversitatem. Haec tamen minime impediunt quin opus istud Tertulliani optimum dici queat, et veluti thesaurus antiquioris theologiae. Primum opusculum hoc eodem de argumento exaraverat, sed currenti, ut aiunt, calamo, quod postea (lib. IV, cap. I) pleniore positione resciderat, sed et istud fraude fratris apostatae sibi supreptum dicit; quam jacturam ut repararet, hocce tertium elucubravit anno XV Severi imperatoris, a Christi Natali 207. LUMPER.

Tertullian wrote the work against Marcion after he had fallen into the error of the Montanists, as appears from these words (Book I, chapter 29): "A measure is now set on marrying; by the authority of the Paraclete one marriage in the faith is prescribed"; and when he mentions new prophecies, and, speaking of certain revelations, writes (Book IV, chapter 22): "About which there is a question between us and the Psychics"; and this distinction certainly marks a difference of communion. Yet these things by no means prevent this work of Tertullian from being called excellent, and as it were a treasury of the more ancient theology. He had first drafted a little work on this same subject, but with a running pen, as they say, which afterwards (Book IV, chapter I) he had rescinded by a fuller statement; and he says that this too was stolen from him by the fraud of an apostate brother. To repair this loss he composed this third [work] in the fifteenth year of the emperor Severus, in the year 207 from the Birth of Christ. LUMPER.

TOTIUS OPERIS CONSPECTUS.

Survey of the Whole Work.

Primo itaque loco Dei unitatem et singularitatem ostendit, cum impossibile evincat duo dari suprema entia: Qui enim duo potuit admittere, idem et plura; post duo enim multitudo, unione jam excussa, numerus autem divinitatis summa ratione constare debet. Porro Marcion, ut bina sua adstrueret principia, dicebat Creatorem esse culpandum, quippe qui malorum auctor dicendus foret, inquiente Scriptura (Isa. XLV, 7) : Ego formans pacem, et creans malum. At Tertullianus ostendit impium esse, blasphemum et temerarium de Deo dicere (cap. 3, n. 4) : Sic non debuit Deus, et sic magis debuit. Deinde Creatoris bonitatem patefacit in omnibus ejus operibus elucescentem, ac praesertim in primi hominis efformatione ac creatione. Deinde divinae justitiae in malorum punitione necesssitatem ostendit, ad malos coercendos et ad

In the first place, then, he shows the unity and singularity of God, since he proves that it is impossible for two supreme beings to be granted: "For whoever could admit two, could likewise admit more; for after two comes multitude, unity being now shaken off; but the number of the divinity must stand by the highest reason." Further, Marcion, to establish his two principles, said that the Creator was to be blamed, since He would have to be called the author of evils, for the Scripture says (Isa. 45:7): "I, forming peace and creating evil." But Tertullian shows that it is impious, blasphemous and rash to say of God (chapter 3, n. 4): "Thus God ought not to have done, and thus He rather ought to have done." Then he lays open the goodness of the Creator shining forth in all His works, and especially in the forming and creation of the first man. Then he shows the necessity of divine justice in the punishment of the wicked, for restraining the wicked and for

Editors' notes and page, col. 263

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 136)

(60) ‹anchor: probatur omnia a Deo› · call in col 264

Probaretur iidem contra omnes.

"Probaretur" (would be proved): the same [editors], against all [the rest].

(printed under page 136; Q3: text taken from the full-width Variae lectiones line set below, whose left half, under col 263, Q3's images do not show)

(61) ‹anchor: quo est ipse› · call in col 264

Al. quod est ipse.

Another reading: "quod est ipse" (which he himself is).

(printed under page 136)

(62) ‹anchor: documentum artis suae› · call in col 264

Documentis Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

"Documentis" (by specimens, plural): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 136)

Editors' prose

SYNOPSIS HISTORICA.

HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS.

Marcion was born at Sinope in Pontus about the year 148, in the reign of Antoninus. At the beginning, making a show of chastity of life, he professed the institutes of the monks, being the son of a father who was a bishop of the catholic communion. Afterwards, having fallen in love with a virgin, he abused her. For this incest, therefore, he was driven from the Church by his own father, a man religious above most, burning most ardently with the love of truth, and most outstanding in the discharge of the episcopal office. Though Marcion besought him long and much and asked for penance, he obtained nothing from his father by any prayers. He therefore betook himself to Rome and, approaching the elders who, taught by the disciples of the apostles, still survived, sought in vain to be admitted to communion. Wherefore, goaded by envy and stirred by anger, he said to them: 'I will divide your Church, and cast into it an everlasting schism'; and, departing, he resolved to take refuge in the heresy of the impostor Cerdo (St Epiphanius, Heresies, 42). These were the dogmas of Cerdo: that the God who founded the law is other than the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; that the latter was good, the former evil; that Jesus Christ did not take true flesh, consubstantial with ours, nor was born of the Virgin Mary. Dupin.

Tertullian wrote the work Against Marcion after he had fallen into the error of the Montanists, as appears from these words (ch. 29, book I): 'Now a measure is set to marrying, the Paraclete being its author; one marriage in the faith is prescribed'; and while he mentions 'new prophecies', and, speaking of certain revelations, writes (book IV, ch. 22): 'Concerning which there is a question between us and the Psychics'; which distinction certainly marks a difference of communion. These things, however, by no means prevent this work of Tertullian from being called excellent, and as it were a treasury of the more ancient theology. He had first written a little work on this same subject, but with a running pen, as they say, which he afterwards (book IV, ch. I) 'had rescinded with a fuller exposition'; but he says that this too was stolen from him 'by the fraud of an apostate brother'; to repair which loss he worked out this third one in the fifteenth year of the Emperor Severus, in the year 207 from the Nativity of Christ. Lumper.

TOTIUS OPERIS CONSPECTUS.

CONSPECTUS OF THE WHOLE WORK.

In the first place, then, he shows the unity and singularity of God, since he proves it impossible that two supreme beings should be granted: 'For he who could admit two could likewise admit more; for after two comes multitude, unity being now shaken off; but the number of the Godhead ought to stand on the highest reason.' Further, Marcion, in order to establish his two principles, said that the Creator was to be blamed, since He would have to be called the author of evils, as Scripture says (Isa. 45:7): 'I form peace, and create evil.' But Tertullian shows that it is impious, blasphemous and rash to say of God (ch. 3, n. 4): 'God ought not to have done thus, and ought rather to have done thus.' Next he makes plain the goodness of the Creator shining forth in all His works, and above all in the forming and creation of the first man. Next he shows the necessity of divine justice in the punishment of evils, for restraining the wicked and for

Variae lectiones.

Variant readings.

60 Probaretur iidem contra omnes. 61 Al. quod est ipse. 62 Documentis Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

60 "Probaretur" [would be proved]: the same [editors], against all [the rest]. 61 Others read "quod est ipse". 62 "Documentis": Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

Commentarius.

Commentary.

[(95), continued] quemadmodum et investigabile hic significat, quod investigari non potest. Meminisse autem debemus Tertullianum in reddendis Graecis duriusculum esse. Id quod in superioribus libris indicavimus. Erat autem haec vox vulgo fortassis usitatior. Nos vim Graeci vocabuli, quod est ἀνεξερεύνητα attendentes, inventibilia aliquando legendum putavimus. RHEN. — Ininventibilia judicia ejus, etc. In Graeco est ἀνεξερεύνητα, hoc est impervia et incomprehensibilia, ut vulgus legit. Porro parum interest si legas investigabiles aut ininvestigabiles, utrumque enim reddi potest ex Graeco ἀνεξιχνίαστοι. LE PR.

[(95), continued] just as "investigabile" here too signifies what cannot be investigated. We ought, moreover, to remember that Tertullian is somewhat harsh in rendering Greek words, as we have pointed out in the preceding books. This word, however, was perhaps more commonly used in ordinary speech. Attending to the force of the Greek word, which is ἀνεξερεύνητα, we thought that "inventibilia" should at one point be read. RHEN. — "His judgements are unfindable [ininventibilia]", etc. In the Greek it is ἀνεξερεύνητα, that is, impassable and incomprehensible, as the common text reads. Further, it makes little difference whether you read "investigabiles" or "ininvestigabiles", for either can be rendered from the Greek ἀνεξιχνίαστοι. LE PR.

Page

running head: OPERUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA (initial O cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A probatur omnia a Deo ex nihilo facta
old-edition numerals: 240 after ‹idem et plura;› (Adversus Marcionem front matter, full width, this column's half); 239 before ‹SYNOPSIS HISTORICA› stands in col 263's half
other: page shared with PL002/adversus_hermogenem; this file is a copy of its notes (QA keeps this unit's own)

PL 2:265

avertenda peccata, quae contra Dei mandatum et voluntatem admittuntur (lib. II, cap. 13) : Non enim sufficiebat bonum per semetipsum commendari, nisi vis aliqua praeesset timendi, quae bonum etiam nolentes appeteret, et custodire impelleret. Effrenis igitur peccandi libertas panditur peccatoribus, dum illis Deus proponitur, qui igne et tartaro punire nequit, et qui timeri non potest, et nolit (cap. 16). Quanto malum injustitia; tanto bonum justitia; bona igitur severitas, quia justa, si bonus judex, id est justus. Item caetera bona, per quae opus bonum currit bonae severitatis, sive ira, sive aemulatio, sive saevitia, Dei videlicet volitiones, quas nos hisce vocibus significamus, omnes tamen humanas a Deo passiones procul ablegantes. Cum tamen philosophi, eorumque sectatores haeretici, ne Deum inducerent sive passionibus obnoxium, sive mutabilem, et ex consequente corruptibilem et mortalem, omnino insensibilem fingebant (cap. 16). Bene, reponebat Tertullianus, quod Christianorum est, etiam mortuum Deum credere, et tamen vivere in aevo aevorum. Stultissimi, qui de humanis divina praedicant, ut, quoniam in homine corruptoriae conditionis habentur hujusmodi passiones, idcirco et in Deo ejusdem status existimentur. In quibus verbis apparet Tertulliani aevo constantem fuisse et ratam de Christi divinitate, ac trium personarum unitate, doctrinam. Dein, suum prosequens sermonem, subdit : Discerne substantiam, et suos ei distribue sensus tam diversos, quam substantiae exigunt, licet vocabulis communicare videantur. Nam et dexteram, et oculos, et pedes Dei legimus; non ideo tamen humanis comparabuntur, quia de appellatione sociantur... Prior bonitas Dei secundum naturam, severitas posterior secundum causam (cap. 13, 14). Primum igitur malum peccatum, quod poena subsecuta est, quae malum est; at alterius generis mala, scilicet quibus rependuntur, caeterum suo nomine bona, quia justa, et bonorum defensoria, et delictorum inimica, atque in hoc ordine Deo digna.

averting sins, which are committed against the commandment and will of God (Book II, Chapter 13): For it was not enough for the good to be commended by itself, unless some power of fear were set over it, which would make even the unwilling seek the good, and drive them to keep it. Unbridled liberty of sinning, then, is laid open to sinners, while a God is set before them who cannot punish with fire and Tartarus, and who cannot be feared, and would not wish to be (Chapter 16). As much as injustice is evil, so much is justice good; severity, therefore, is good, because it is just, if the judge is good, that is, just. Likewise the other things are good through which the good work of good severity runs, whether anger, or jealousy, or fierceness, that is, God's volitions, which we signify by these words, while nevertheless banishing all human passions far from God. Yet when the philosophers, and the heretics who followed them, so as not to present God as either subject to passions or mutable, and in consequence corruptible and mortal, feigned Him altogether insensible (Chapter 16), Tertullian replied: It is well that it belongs to Christians to believe even that God died, and yet that He lives to the age of ages. Most foolish are those who judge of divine things from human ones, so that, because in man passions of this kind are held to belong to a corruptible condition, they are therefore reckoned to be of the same state in God too. In these words it appears that in Tertullian's age the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, and of the unity of three persons, was constant and settled. Then, pursuing his discourse, he adds: Distinguish the substance, and assign to it its own senses, as diverse as the substances require, although they seem to share their names. For we read also of the right hand, and the eyes, and the feet of God; yet they will not on that account be compared with human ones, because they are joined in name... The goodness of God is prior according to nature, severity posterior according to cause (Chapters 13, 14). The first evil, therefore, is sin, which punishment followed, which is an evil; but evils of the other kind, namely those by which [sins] are repaid, are otherwise good in their own name, because they are just, and defenders of good things, and enemies of offences, and in this order worthy of God.

Ut vero mali originem detegat, humani libertatem arbitrii constituit Tertullianus, dicens : In quo hoc ipsum imago et similitudo Dei deputaretur, arbitrii scilicet libertas et potestas. At imago semper est originali inferior, et opus inferius artifice, propterea natura sua defectibile (cap. 10); et sicut Deus homini vitae statum induxit, ita homo mortis statum adtraxit, et idem de angelo dicendum; Deus enim angelum fecit, qui seipsum in daemonem commutavit. Et hoc pacto objectionem solvit, ad accusandum Creatorem ex hominis et angelorum lapsu desumptam; nimirum vel inscitiae et ignorantiae, si peccatum utriusque non praenovit; vel malitiae, qui, cum praeviderit, non impedivit. Nam Deus et fidem et gravitatem suam in omni opere servare debebat; conservavit igitur opus, quale condiderat, id est libero praeditum arbitrio (cap. 7). Si enim semel homini permiserat arbitrii libertatem et potestatem, utique fruendas eas ex ipsa institutione permiserat : posse autem peccare est hujus libertatis consectarium, quod Deus permisit cum adjunctis suis, peccatis scilicet et suppliciis, quae omnia postea in suae gloriae ostensionem convertit.

But to uncover the origin of evil, Tertullian establishes the freedom of human choice, saying: Wherein this very thing would be reckoned the image and likeness of God, namely the freedom and power of choice. But an image is always inferior to the original, and the work inferior to the craftsman, and therefore by its own nature liable to fail (Chapter 10); and as God brought upon man the state of life, so man drew upon himself the state of death, and the same must be said of the angel; for God made an angel, who changed himself into a demon. And in this way he answers the objection drawn from the fall of man and of the angels for accusing the Creator: namely, either of want of knowledge and ignorance, if He did not foreknow the sin of each, or of malice, if, though He foresaw it, He did not prevent it. For God was bound to keep His faithfulness and His seriousness in every work; He therefore preserved the work as He had founded it, that is, endowed with free choice (Chapter 7). For if He had once granted man freedom and power of choice, He had certainly granted them to be enjoyed from their very institution: but to be able to sin is a consequence of this freedom, which God permitted with its attendants, namely sins and punishments, all of which He afterwards turned to the display of His glory.

Postea ad Messiae missionem et incarnationem progrediens, dicit (lib. III, cap. 3) Christum non ex solis virtutibus credendum fuisse, sed ex praeviis prophetarum de illo vaticiniis; siquidem dictum erat, multos venturos, et signa facturos et virtutes magnas edituros, nec ideo tamen admittendos. Ubi et illud animadvertit a prophetis (cap. 5) ideo futura interdum pro jam transactis enuntiari, quia apud Deum non sit differentia temporis, apud quem uniformem statum temporum dirigit aeternitas, et divinationi propheticae familiare est quod prospicit, dum prospicit jam visum, atque ita jam expunctum, id est omni modo futurum demonstrare. Ut vero ostenderet Deum verum hominem fuisse, non umbratilem et phantasticum, dicit, si in Christo non fuisset vera humanitas, nec credendam in eo veram divinitatem (cap. 8) : Nam si in Christo non erat quod videbatur, et quod erat mentiebatur, caro nec caro, homo nec homo, proinde Deus Christus, nec Deus. Cur enim non etiam Dei phantasma portavit? An credam ei de interiore substantia, qui sit de exteriore frustratus? Verum autem hominem fuisse, omnia ostendunt quae de eo in Evangeliis scripta leguntur, videlicet et tetigisse, et tactum ab aliis fuisse; scriptum est enim tangendo infirmos eos liberasse, a peccatrice tactos ejus pedes ac perfuso unguento delibutos, nec non passum, mortuum, et spiritum ab eo emissum, et post resurrectionem se carnem et ossa habere demonstrasse, jubendo ut eum tangerent et palparent; alioquin, si veram non habuisset carnem, nec passus, nec mortuus fuisset, propterea nec resurrexisset; proinde inanis est fides nostra, inanis et praedicatio apostolorum, qui falsi Dei testes invenirentur.

Then, proceeding to the sending and incarnation of the Messiah, he says (Book III, Chapter 3) that Christ was to be believed not from His mighty works alone, but from the prophets' earlier prophecies about Him; since it had been said that many would come, and would do signs and perform great mighty works, and yet were not on that account to be admitted. There he also observes (Chapter 5) that future things are sometimes announced by the prophets as already past, because with God there is no difference of time, with Whom eternity governs a uniform state of the times, and it is familiar to prophetic divination to show what it foresees, while it foresees it, as already seen, and so already accomplished, that is, as in every way to come. But to show that God was a true man, not shadowy and phantasmal, he says that if there had not been true humanity in Christ, neither would true divinity be believed in Him (Chapter 8): For if in Christ there was not what was seen, and what was there He was falsifying, flesh and not flesh, man and not man, then Christ was God and not God. For why should He not also have borne a phantasm of God? Shall I believe Him about the inner substance, who has deceived us about the outer? But that He was a true man is shown by everything that is read written of Him in the Gospels: namely, that He both touched and was touched by others; for it is written that by touching the sick He freed them, that His feet were touched by a sinful woman and anointed with poured ointment, and also that He suffered, died, and gave up the spirit, and after the resurrection showed that He had flesh and bones, bidding them touch and handle Him; otherwise, if He had not had true flesh, He would neither have suffered nor died, and therefore would not have risen either; and then our faith is empty, empty too the preaching of the apostles, who would be found false witnesses of God.

Marcionitae objiciebant carnem assumere indignum fuisse Christo, eam enim terrenam substantiam, stercoribus infertam, cloacam uterum virginis appellabant, et partus immunda et pudenda tormenta, et puerperii spurcos, noxios, ludicros exitus late persequebantur (cap. 11). At haec omnia dicit Tertullianus sanctissima ac reverenda esse opera naturae, quae tamen cum Marcio indigna Deo ostenderet, nihil tamen proficiet; nam non erit indignior morte nativitas et cruce infantia et natura poena et carne damnatio. Si vere ista passus est Christus, minus fuisset nasci (cap. 10). Caeterum, si ad certum spectemus, nulla substantia digna est quam Deus induat. Quodcunque induerit ipse, dignum facit, absque mendacio tamen; et ideo quale est ut dedecus existimaverit veritatem potius quam mendacium carnis? Verum, cum praenuntiatum foret de Christo, eum opprobriis saturandum et confusione operiendum, adeo ut vermis appareret et non homo, erubescere oportebat (lib. IV, cap. 21) ut dedecore ejus salus nostra constaret;

The Marcionites objected that it had been unworthy of Christ to assume flesh, for they called it an earthly substance, stuffed with dung; they called the Virgin's womb a sewer, and they pursued at length the unclean and shameful torments of childbirth, and the filthy, harmful, laughable issues of the lying-in (Chapter 11). But Tertullian says that all these are most holy and venerable works of nature, and that even if Marcion were to show them unworthy of God, he will nevertheless gain nothing; for birth will not be more unworthy than death, nor infancy than the cross, nor nature than punishment, nor flesh than condemnation. If Christ truly suffered these things, to be born was the lesser thing (Chapter 10). Moreover, if we look at what is certain, no substance is worthy for God to put on. Whatever He Himself puts on, He makes worthy, yet without falsehood; and so how could He have thought the truth of the flesh a disgrace rather than its falsehood? But since it had been foretold of Christ that He would be filled with reproaches and covered with confusion, so that He would appear a worm and no man, it was fitting that He blush (Book IV, Chapter 21) so that our salvation might consist in His disgrace;

Editors' notes and page, col. 265

Footnotes

(none)  (printed under page 137)

Page

running head: 265 ADVERSUS MARCIONEM. 266
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: 241 after "quae" (para 1, "quod poena subsecuta est, quae"); 242 at the start of the paragraph "Marcionitae objiciebant"
other: EDITORS' MATTER (not Tertullian's): an editors' prefatory analysis of Tertullian's doctrine in Adversus Marcionem, printed ACROSS THE FULL PAGE (cols 265-266 as one text block, no column split); set here whole, once; c266_a.md carries no separate text. Lines read by joining the left-half crops (c265_*) with the right-half crops (c266_*) on their overlap. The piece begins mid-sentence ("avertenda peccata") from the page before col. 265 and continues after col. 266: the unit's first lines lie before 265. Printer's signature "PATROL. II." and "9" at page foot (out). Italics of the print are not marked (unit rule: no italic markup). UNSURE: "proficiet" (future, where "proficeret" might be expected) kept as printed; "Marcio" is a regular Latin form of Marcion.

PL 2:266

Editors' notes and page, col. 266