PL 2 · cols. 267–308

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, Liber primus

Book I

et quoniam homo non erubuerat lapidem et lignum adorans, eadem constantia non confusus de Christo pro impudentia idololatriae satis Deo fuerat per impudentiam fidei. Addit notum omnibus compertumque fui⟨s⟩se, Christum natum ex familia David, cum adhuc apud Judaeos tribuum et familiarum dis⟨t⟩inctio custodiretur (lib. IV, cap. 7), et in censu reperiretur Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum Dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt. Se Filium hominis appellavit, dum sibi potestatem tribuit peccata dimittendi, ut patesceret verum Deum simul esse, et hominem verum : neque enim mentiri posset Christus, ut se Filium hominis pronuntiaret, si non vere erat; nec peccata dimittere, si verus Deus non fuisset, hominem proinde fuisse illum quem Danielis prophetia consecutum praenuntiabat judicandi potestatem. Verum de Christi regno loquens Tertullianus, apertissime ostendit se Chiliastarum opinioni adhaesisse, quod mirum non esse debet perpendenti et Montanitarum visionibus fidem adhibuisse.

and since man had not blushed to worship stone and wood, by the same steadfastness, unashamed of Christ, he had made satisfaction to God for the shamelessness of idolatry through the shamelessness of faith. He adds that it was known and established to all that Christ was born of the family of David, since the distinction of tribes and families was still kept among the Jews (Book IV, Chapter 7), and that He was found in the census of Augustus, which the Roman archives keep as the most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity. He called Himself the Son of Man while He attributed to Himself the power of forgiving sins, so that it might be plain that He was at once true God and true man: for Christ could not lie, so as to declare Himself the Son of Man, if He were not truly so; nor could He forgive sins if He had not been true God; and therefore He was that man whom the prophecy of Daniel foretold as having received the power of judging. But in speaking of the kingdom of Christ, Tertullian shows most openly that he adhered to the opinion of the Chiliasts, which ought not to seem strange to one who considers that he also gave credence to the visions of the Montanists.

Ut rerum Creatorem accusarent Marcionitae, eo praesertim utebantur artificio et dolo, quo Novum Testamentum Veteri opponebant; et si quae sive in lege, sive in prophetis vel dura vel abjectiora occurrebant, parvi penderent et ceu contemptibilia exaggerarent. At Tertullianus illa duo Testamenta non a diverso prodiisse auctore patefaciebat, sed ab uno eodemque, qui tamen diverso se gessit modo juxta humani generis statum et conditionem. Primo enim Deus nonnisi tenuiora pollicitus est praemia, veluti arrhabones sublimium divitiarum, quas illis reservavit. Divitias praestare Deo non incongruens dicit, per quas multa inde opera justitiae et dilectionis administrantur, sicut et alia terrena bona data et promissa in Veteri Testamento; quae non minus quam coelestia ad Creatorem coeli et terrae distribuere et elargiri pertinet. Objecta quoque diluit desumpta ex Israelitarum furto, quod in Aegyptios Deo jubente commisisse videntur Hebraei, et alia ex praeceptorum contradictione deprompta, uti quando illis vetuit facere similitudinem omnium quae sunt in coelo, et in terra, et in aquis, et simul jussit serpentis aenei ut effigiem efformarent, et Cherubim et Seraphim aurea in arcae figuratum exemplum, ubi dicit imagines solius idololatriae causa prohiberi. Sic et talionis legem ideo datam dicit, ut commissio injuriae metu vicis statim occursurae, repastinaretur et licentia retributionis prohibitio esset provocationis.

To accuse the Creator of the world, the Marcionites used above all this artifice and deceit, that they set the New Testament against the Old; and whatever harsh or rather lowly things they met, whether in the law or in the prophets, they made light of and exaggerated as contemptible. But Tertullian made plain that those two Testaments had not come forth from different authors, but from one and the same, Who nevertheless conducted Himself in a different manner according to the state and condition of the human race. For at first God promised only slighter rewards, as pledges of the sublime riches which He reserved for them. To bestow riches is not unbecoming to God, he says, since through them many works of justice and love are thence carried out, as also with the other earthly goods given and promised in the Old Testament; and it belongs to the Creator of heaven and earth to distribute and lavish these no less than heavenly ones. He also dissolves the objections drawn from the theft of the Israelites, which the Hebrews seem to have committed against the Egyptians at God's command, and others drawn from a contradiction between the precepts, as when He forbade them to make a likeness of anything that is in heaven, and on earth, and in the waters, and at the same time commanded them to fashion the image of a bronze serpent, and the golden Cherubim and Seraphim on the ark as a figured pattern, where he says that images were forbidden only on account of idolatry. So too he says that the law of retaliation was given so that the committing of injury might be rooted out by fear of a requital at once to follow, and the licence of retribution be a prohibition of provocation.

Ridebant haeretici et aspernabantur quae in Veteri Testamento abjectiora videbantur, cujusmodi sunt cruenta sacrificia, ablutionum negotiosae scrupulositates et ciborum delectus. Haec autem omnia a Deo fuerunt praestituta, ut istis legalibus disciplinis occurrentibus ubique, ne ulli momento vacarent a Dei respectu.... : ut nihil de arcanis attingam significantiis, legis spiritualis scilicet et propheticae et in omnibus pene argumentis figuratae. Si lex, scribit, aliquid cibis detrahit, et immunda pronuntiat animalia, quae aliquando benedicta sunt, consilium exercendae continentiae intellige, et frenos impositos illi gulae agnosce, quae cum panem ederet angelorum, cucumeres et pepones Aegyptiorum desiderabat. Agnosce simul et comitibus gulae, libidini scilicet atque luxuriae prospectum.... : proinde ut et pecuniae ardor restingueretur ex parte, de qua victus necessitate causatur, pretiosorum ciborum ambitio detracta est; postremo, ut facilius homo ad jejunandum Deo formaretur...., sacrificiorum quoque onera, et operationum, et ablutionum negotiosas scrupulositates nemo reprehendat....; sed illam Dei industriam sentiat qua populum pronum in idololatriam et transgressionem, ejusmodi officiis religioni suae voluit adstringere, quibus superstitio saeculi agebatur, ut ab ea avocaret illos. Sed in ipsis commerciis vitae et conversationis humanae domi ac foris, ad usque curam vasculorum omnifariam distinxit, ut istis legalibus disciplinis occurrentibus ubique, ne ulli momento vacarent a Dei respectu.... Ad hoc beneficium, non onus legis adjuvandum prophetas ordinavit, docentes Deo digna, auferre nequitias de anima, exquirere judicium, et caetera, qua religionis essentiam et perfectionem in virtute et bonis operibus locatam evincunt. Longius progreditur in hac exponenda doctrina, et in lege praeceptam probat caritatem, et injuriarum veniam, reservata Deo vindicta, quae necessaria est, ut scelesti homines in ordine contineantur. Addit Christum conditionaliter nunc fecisse divortii prohibitionem, si ideo quis dimittat uxorem, ut aliam ducat. Denique hanc circa fidem regulam tradit, nihil temere credendum, temere porro credi, quodcumque sine originis agnitione creditur. LUMPER.

The heretics laughed at and spurned the things in the Old Testament that seemed rather lowly, such as the bloody sacrifices, the busy scrupulosities of washings, and the choice of foods. But all these were appointed beforehand by God, so that, with these disciplines of the law meeting them everywhere, they might at no moment be free of regard for God.... : not to touch at all on their hidden meanings, of a law, that is, which is spiritual and prophetic and figurative in almost all its matters. If the law, he writes, withdraws something from foods, and declares unclean animals which were once blessed, understand a design of exercising continence, and recognize a bridle put upon that gluttony which, while it ate the bread of angels, longed for the cucumbers and melons of the Egyptians. Recognize at the same time that provision was made against the companions of gluttony too, namely lust and luxury.... : so that the burning for money also might be quenched in part, the part in which it pleads the necessity of food, the craving for costly foods was taken away; lastly, so that man might more easily be trained to fast to God...., let no one find fault with the burdens of the sacrifices also, and of the ceremonies, and the busy scrupulosities of the washings....; but let him perceive that diligence of God by which He willed to bind a people prone to idolatry and transgression to His own religion by offices of the kind in which the superstition of the world was busied, so as to call them away from it. But in the very dealings of human life and conduct at home and abroad, even to the care of vessels, He made distinctions in every way, so that, with these disciplines of the law meeting them everywhere, they might at no moment be free of regard for God.... To help this benefit of the law, not burden, He appointed prophets, teaching things worthy of God: to take away wickedness from the soul, to seek judgement, and the rest, which prove that the essence and perfection of religion are set in virtue and good works. He goes further in expounding this teaching, and proves that love was commanded in the law, and the pardon of injuries, vengeance being reserved to God, which is necessary so that wicked men may be held in order. He adds that Christ now made the prohibition of divorce conditional, if anyone puts away his wife for this purpose, that he may marry another. Lastly he hands down this rule concerning faith: that nothing is to be believed rashly, and that whatever is believed without knowledge of its origin is rashly believed. LUMPER.

LIBER PRIMUS.

BOOK ONE.

ARGUMENTUM.

ARGUMENT.

Cum prius opusculum suum ADVERSUS MARCIONEM pleniore postea compositione rescidisset Tertullianus, et eam frater quidam deinde apostata mendosissimum exhibuisset, necessitas illi facta est emendationis, et innovationis occasio aliquid adjicere persuasit; unde in quinque libros opus istud excrevit, quorum primi libri argumentum hic damus.

When Tertullian had afterwards cancelled his earlier little work AGAINST MARCION by a fuller composition, and a certain brother, later an apostate, had then put that out in a most faulty state, the necessity of emending it fell upon him, and the occasion of a new edition persuaded him to add something; whence this work grew into five books, of which we give here the argument of the first book.

I. In primis itaque post invectivam in Marcionem Ponticum, quod nuptias abstulerit, Evangelia corroserit,

I. First of all, then, after an invective against Marcion of Pontus, because he did away with marriage and gnawed at the Gospels,

Editors' notes and page, col. 267

Footnotes

(none)  (printed under page 138)

Page

running head: 267 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 268
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: 243 after "uti quando illis (2) vetuit"; 244 after "postremo,"

PL 2:268

et Deum quem invenerat, exstincto lumine fidei amiserit; jam destinandum haereticum docet; quia, deserto quod prius fuerat, id postea sibi elegerit quod retro non erat; sicuti latius libro DE PRAESCRIPTIONIBUS ADVERSUS HAERETICOS sustinuerit.

and, the light of faith being put out, lost the God whom he had found, he now teaches that he is to be marked down as a heretic, because, having deserted what he had been before, he afterwards chose for himself what had not been before; as he maintained at greater length in the book ON THE PRESCRIPTIONS AGAINST HERETICS.

II. Deinde, duos deos illum attulisse; Creatorem, id est nostrum; et suum ac Cerdonis informatoris sui; illum malum, hujus vero bonum.

II. Next, that he brought in two gods: the Creator, that is, ours; and his own and that of Cerdo his instructor; the former evil, the latter good.

III. Verum, Christianam veritatem districte pronuntiasse : Deum, si unus non sit, non esse, eo quod

III. But that Christian truth has declared strictly: God, if He is not one, is not, because

Editors' notes and page, col. 268

Page

running head: 267 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 268
marginal letters: (none)
old-edition numerals: (none in this column's own text; 243, 244 fall in the full-width text set in c267_a.md)
other: EDITORS' MATTER (not Tertullian's): the continuation of the ARGUMENTUM to Book I. The full-width end of Lumper's analysis and the full-width title "LIBER PRIMUS." at the top of this page are set once in c267_a.md. "roserit" at the head of this column completes "corroserit", set whole at the end of c267_a.md. Ends mid-sentence ("eo quod"), continuing in col. 269.

PL 2:269

summus magnus sit, cui nihil adaequari possit.

is the supreme great, to which nothing can be made equal.

IV. Non posse etiam duo summa magna; etiam distincta suis finibus consistere.

IV. That there cannot even be two supreme greats, even [if] distinct and standing within their own boundaries.

V. Si enim duo summa magna, etiam plura admitti debere, cum Valentino, qui usque ad t⟨r⟩iginta aeonum fetus, examen divinitatis effudit.

V. For if there are two supreme greats, more too must be admitted, along with Valentinus, who poured out a swarm of divinity as far as the offspring of thirty aeons.

VI. Atque adeo, non modo duo pares, sed nec dispares deos posse constitui.

VI. And so not only two equal gods, but not even unequal gods can be established.

VII. Neque vero illi patrocinari nomen Dei, etiam aliis permissum in Scripturis; quia idcirco eis non competit possessio summi magni.

VII. Nor indeed does the name of God, which is granted to others too in the Scriptures, plead his cause; because the possession of the supreme great does not for that reason belong to them.

VIII. Porro haeresim Marcionitarum vel inde probari, quod novum Deum faciant, cum verus Deus aeternus sit.

VIII. Moreover, that the heresy of the Marcionites is proved even from this, that they make a new God, whereas the true God is eternal.

IX. Idque, etiamsi solum agnitione novum dicant, quod Deus ignotus esse non potuerit, neque incertus.

IX. And this even if they call him new only in being recognized, because God could not have been unknown, nor uncertain.

X. Sed a primordio semper agnitus; quippe quem anima et conscientia, etiam ethnica, noverit.

X. But [He has been] always recognized from the beginning, inasmuch as the soul and the conscience, even of the heathen, has known Him.

XI. Proinde, cum Dei sint omnia, si nihil creavit, deum non esse quem Marcion statuit.

XI. Accordingly, since all things are God's, if he created nothing, the one whom Marcion sets up is not a god.

XII. Ut autem illum deum esse confiteri possemus, sine causa tamen esse eum deber⟨e⟩mus argumentari, qui rem non haberet, cum res causa sit ut sit aliquid.

XII. But even if we could confess that he is a god, we should nevertheless have to argue that he exists without reason, since he would have no work, as the work is the reason why something exists.

XIII. Neque vero opus esse parum dignum Deo mundum; ipsis testimoniis philosophorum probat.

XIII. Nor indeed is the world a work too little worthy of God; he proves this by the very testimonies of the philosophers.

XIV. Imo etiam minutiora animalia aut juvare aut laedere; et nec aquam Dei creatoris reprobari a deo Marcionis, qua suos abluit: nec oleum, quo suos ungit: nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat (hoc est praesens ostendit) in sacramentis.

XIV. Indeed, that even the smaller animals either help or harm; and that the water of God the Creator is not rejected by Marcion's god, since he washes his own with it; nor the oil, with which he anoints his own; nor the bread, by which he represents his very body (that is, shows it present) in the sacraments.

XV. Deinde addit, deo Marcionis non esse suum coelum et mundum (de quo latius infra lib. V), tum quod ad quindecimum usque Severi imperatoris annum (quo haec scripsisse se auctor indicat) nulla talis substantia comperta sit, tum quod alioqui novem deos assignare censebitur Marcion.

XV. Then he adds that Marcion's god has no heaven and world of his own (on which more fully below, Book V), both because up to the fifteenth year of the emperor Severus (in which the author indicates that he wrote these things) no such substance has been discovered, and because otherwise Marcion will be judged to assign nine gods.

XVI. Neque illum esse invisibilia sola operatum (sicuti latius etiam dicto lib. V, infra), sed ejusdem esse auctoris visibilia et invisibilia.

XVI. Nor that he has made invisible things only (as [is shown] more fully also in the said Book V, below), but that visible and invisible things are of the same author.

XVII. Et vero non sufficere illi deo unum opus liberationis hominis, cum etiam per alia opera severus Deus protulerit in notitiam.

XVII. And indeed that the one work of the liberation of man is not enough for that god, since the true God has brought Himself forth into knowledge through other works as well.

XVIII. Revelatum item illum non recte dici, qui neque natura ex operibus, nec doctrina ex praedicationibus revelatus sit.

XVIII. Likewise that he is not rightly called revealed, who has been revealed neither by nature from works, nor by teaching from preachings.

XIX. Neque etiam in Christo Jesu tum quod is revelatus sit plus centum quindecim annis ante

XIX. Nor even in Christ Jesus, both because He was revealed more than a hundred and fifteen years before

Editors' notes and page, col. 269

Footnotes

(printed under page 139)

Page

running head: 269 LIB. I ADV. MARCIO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A summus magnus sit; B quod Deus ignotus esse; C Marcionis, qua suos abluit; D XVIII. Revelatum item
old-edition numerals: 245 after esse suum
other: column text is the numbered argument (summary) of Book I, arguably editorial, set as the column's running text; "triginta" printed with a damaged r, "deberemus" with a damaged e (looks like c), "nihil" with a damaged i (set without brackets); "severus" printed hyphenated seve-/rus across a line end, sense requires "se verus", translated as intended; full-width line "Commentarius." above the foot notes not set; the editors' commentary notes (1) and (2) at this page's foot are called in col. 270 and set in n270.md; right column (270) cut off and not set

PL 2:270

deum Marcionis, qui sub Antonino; tum, quod praecesserit separationem illam Legis et Evangelii, quam in antithesibus Marcion primus commentus est.

the god of Marcion, who [appeared] under Antoninus; then, because it preceded that separation of the Law and the Gospel which Marcion first devised in the Antitheses.

XX. Frustra autem obstrepi ab diversa parte, quod Marcion regulam non innovarit, sed retro adulteratam recurarit, exemplo Pauli, qui Petrum reprehenderit, quia in illo solum conversationem reprehenderit, non fidem Creatoris.

XX. But that it is clamoured in vain from the opposing side that Marcion did not innovate the rule, but restored it after it had formerly been adulterated, following the example of Paul, who rebuked Peter; because in him he rebuked only his conduct, not faith in the Creator.

XXI. Stetisse itaque semper fidem in Creatorem et in Christum ejus, non modo sub apostolis, sed et in apostolicis Ecclesiis : apud quas Christus, non alterius dei quam Creatoris ostenditur.

XXI. That faith in the Creator and in His Christ has therefore always stood firm, not only under the apostles, but also in the apostolic Churches: among which Christ is shown to be of no other god than the Creator.

XXII. Jam vero naturaliter bonum dici non posse deum Marcionis, qui ab initio homini lapso non succurrerit.

XXII. Now, that the god of Marcion cannot be called good by nature, since he did not succour man from the beginning when he had fallen.

XXIII. Neque rationabiliter bonum, eo quod homini (juxta Marcionem a se alieno) succurrere voluerit.

XXIII. Nor good according to reason, in that he willed to succour man, a stranger to him (according to Marcion).

XXIV. Neque perfecte bonum, quod, juxta Marcionem, animam solam salvet, non carnem, quae tamen apud illum tinguitur, de nuptiis tollitur, et in confessione nominis saevitiam patitur.

XXIV. Nor perfectly good, because, according to Marcion, he saves the soul alone, not the flesh, which nevertheless with him is baptized, is taken out of marriage, and suffers cruelty in confessing the name.

XXV. Proinde, Deum non sola bonitate censendum.

XXV. Therefore, that God is not to be reckoned by goodness alone.

XXVI. Verum de judicio quoque, qui vindicet peccata, et damnet.

XXVI. But by judgement also, as One Who avenges sins and condemns them.

XXVII. Alioqui peccatoribus nullum timorem fore.

XXVII. Otherwise there would be no fear for sinners.

XXVIII. Et sic etiam stare non posse fidei sacramentum baptisma, quod remissio est delictorum, absolutio mortis, regeneratio, consecutio Spiritus sancti, signat denique et lavat : quae conferre non potest, nisi qui a primordio creavit hominem, et animam ei contulit, et pro peccato ad mortem damnavit.

XXVIII. And that thus, too, baptism, the sacrament of faith, could not stand, which is the remission of offences, release from death, regeneration, the obtaining of the Holy Spirit, and which, lastly, seals and washes: things which none can confer but He Who in the beginning created man, and bestowed a soul on him, and condemned him to death for sin.

XXIX. Postremo Marcionis haeresim impugnat, qua tingui nolebat nisi virgines et caelibes, tum quod conjugium benedixerit Deus, tum quod, si nuptiae non sint, sanctitas erit nulla : imo hoc erit sementem totum generis humani compescere.

XXIX. Lastly, he attacks the heresy of Marcion by which he would have none baptized but virgins and the unmarried, both because God blessed marriage, and because, if there are no marriages, there will be no holiness: indeed, this would be to check the whole seed of the human race.

XXX. Denique, epilogo brevi lectorem ad sequentes libros praeparat. PAM.

XXX. Finally, with a short epilogue he prepares the reader for the books that follow. PAM.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

CHAPTER I.

Si quid retro gestum est nobis adversus Marcionem, jam hinc viderit. Novam rem adgredimur ex vetere. Primum opusculum quasi properatum pleniore postea compositione rescideram. Hanc quoque nondum exemplariis suffectam, fraude

If anything was done by us against Marcion before, from now on let it look to itself. We are undertaking a new thing out of an old one. My first little work, as having been hurried, I had afterwards cancelled by a fuller composition. This too, before it had yet been supplied in copies, by the fraud

Editors' notes and page, col. 270

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: jam hinc viderit› · call in col 270

Si quid retro gestum est nobis adversus Marcionem, jam hinc viderit. Disertissime abdicat quidquid adversus Marcionem ante hosce libros composuerat. Id vero fuisse versuum aliquid, minime esse putandum ostendimus, praefatione ad poemata quae valgo Tertulliani nomine adversus Marcionem inscripta pro Septimianis obtrudi solent. RIG.

Whatever was done by us against Marcion before, let it look to itself from now on. He most expressly disowns whatever he had composed against Marcion before these books. That this was some piece of verse is by no means to be supposed, as we have shown in the preface to the poems which, inscribed "against Marcion" under Tertullian's name, are commonly foisted on us as Septimius's. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 139)

(2) ‹anchor: opusculum quasi properatum› · call in col 270

Primum opusculum quasi properatum. Inchoatum et rude, qualia Origeni et Quintiliano, atque etiam Tullio quaedam excidisse in lib. ad Herennium, refert Hieronymus, comm. in Abdiam: « Si hoc ille, tam de libris ad Herennium, quam de rhetoricis, quos ego vel perfectissimos puto, ad comparationem senilis peritiae dicere potuit, quanto magis ego libere profitebor et illud fuisse puerilis ingenii, et hoc maturae senectutis. In libris quoque contra Marcionem Septimius Tertullianus hoc idem passus est: et Origenes in Cantic. canticorum, et Quintilianus in duodecim libris Institutionis Oratoriae. » ID.

The first little work, as it were hurried. Begun and rough, such as Jerome, in his commentary on Obadiah, reports that certain things escaped from Origen and Quintilian, and even from Tully in the books To Herennius: "If he could say this, both of the books To Herennius and of the rhetorical books, which I for my part think most perfect, by comparison with the skill of his old age, how much more freely shall I profess that the one was the work of a boy's wit and this of ripe old age. In the books against Marcion too Septimius Tertullian suffered the same thing; and Origen in the Song of Songs, and Quintilian in the twelve books of the Institutio Oratoria." THE SAME [Rigaltius].

(printed under page 139)

Page

running head: [cut at left] I ADV. MARCIONEM. 270
marginal letters: A deum Marcionis, qui sub Antonino; B succurrerit. (beside "deum Marcionis, qui ab initio ... succurrerit"); C XXVIII. Et sic etiam stare non posse fidei sa-; D Si quid retro gestum est nobis adversus Marcio-
old-edition numerals: 246 before "XXV."

PL 2:271

tunc fratris, dehinc apostatae, amisi; qui forte descripserat quaedam mendosissime, et exhibuit frequentiae. Emendationis necessitas facta est. Innovationis ejus occasio aliquid adjicere persuasit. Ita stylus iste nunc de secundo tertius, et de tertio jam hinc primus, hunc opusculi sui exitum necessario praefatur, ne quem varietas ejus in disperso reperta confundat. Pontus qui dicitur Euxinus, natura negatur, nomine illuditur. Caeterum, hospitalem Pontum nec de situ aestimes: ita ab humanioribus fretis nostris, quasi quodam barbariae suae pudore secessit. Gentes ferocissimae inhabitant, si tamen habitatur in plaustro. Sedes incerta, vita cruda, libido promiscua et plurimum nuda, etiam cum abscondunt, suspensis de jugo pharetris indicibus, ne temere quis intercedat. Ita nec armis suis erubescunt. Parentum cadavera, cum pecudibus caesa, convivio convorant. Qui non ita decesserint, ut escatiles fuerint. maledicta mors est. Nec feminae sexu mitigantur secundum pudorem: ubera excludunt, pensum securibus faciunt; malunt militare, quam nubere. Duritia de coelo quoque. Dies nunquam patens: sol nunquam libens; unus aer, nebula; totus annus, hibernum; omne quod flaverit, Aquilo est; liquores ignibus redeunt, amnes glacie negantur, montes pruina exaggerantur. Omnia torpent, omnia rigent: nihil illic nisi feritas calet, illa scilicet quae fabulas scenis dedit, de sacrificiis Taurorum, et amoribus Colchorum, et crucibus Caucasorum. Sed nihil tam barbarum ac triste

then a brother, afterwards an apostate, I lost; he had happened to copy out certain parts most faultily, and put it forth to the public. The need for correction arose. The occasion of its renewal persuaded me to add something. Thus this writing, now the third instead of the second, and from here on the first instead of the third, of necessity states at its outset this outcome of its little work, lest its variety, found scattered about, should confuse anyone. The Pontus which is called Euxine is contradicted by its nature, mocked by its name. Moreover, you would not reckon the Pontus hospitable even from its situation: so far has it withdrawn from our more civilized straits, as if from a certain shame at its own barbarism. Most ferocious peoples inhabit it, if indeed one can be said to dwell in a wagon. Their abode is unsettled, their life raw, their lust promiscuous and for the most part exposed, even when they hide it, with quivers hung from the yoke as signs, lest anyone rashly intrude. Thus they do not blush even at their own weapons. The corpses of their parents, slaughtered together with the cattle, they devour at a banquet. For those who have not died in such a way as to be fit for eating, it is a cursed death. Nor are the women softened by their sex in the direction of modesty: they cut away their breasts, they do their day's spinning with axes; they prefer to go to war rather than to marry. There is harshness from the sky as well. The day is never clear: the sun never willing; the one air is fog; the whole year is winter; whatever wind has blown is the North Wind; liquids return to their state only by fires, rivers are denied by ice, mountains are heaped higher with frost. All things are numb, all things are stiff: nothing there is warm except savagery, that, namely, which has given plots to the stage, about the sacrifices of the Taurians, and the loves of the Colchians, and the crosses of the Caucasus. But nothing so barbarous and sad

Editors' notes and page, col. 271

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 1 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 271 (inferred) Quemquam Rhen.

"Quemquam" ("anyone"): Rhenanus.

2 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 271 (inferred) Pontus igitur, qui Euxinus Rhen.

"Pontus igitur, qui Euxinus" ("the Pontus, then, which [is called] Euxine"): Rhenanus.

3 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 271 (inferred) Natura omitt. Rhen.

"Natura" ("by nature") is omitted by Rhenanus.

4 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 271 (inferred) Ne quis temere Jun. ut indicibus notentur, ne quis Rhen.

"Ne quis temere" ("lest anyone rashly"): Junius; "ut indicibus notentur, ne quis" ("that they may be marked with indexes, lest anyone"): Rhenanus.

5 ‹anchor: sol nunquam libens› · call in col 271 Liquens Wouwer. liber Fran.

"Liquens" ("clear"): Wouwer; "liber" ("free"): Franeker edition.

6 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Laciniatur alii.

"Laciniatur" ("is fringed / cut into strips"): others.

7 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible ille Semler.

"ille" ("that"): Semler.

8 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Illis vel illi alii.

"Illis" or "illi" ("to/for those" or "those"): others.

Commentarius. (printed under page 140)

(3) ‹anchor: tunc fratris dein apostatae› · call in col 271 (inferred)

Tunc fratris dein apostatae. Marcionis, qui frater fuit quandiu vere Christianus. Liquet ex verbis antecedentibus Tertullianum adversus Marcionem scripsisse. LE PR.

Of one then a brother, afterwards an apostate. Of Marcion, who was a brother as long as he was truly a Christian. It is clear from the preceding words that Tertullian had written against Marcion. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 140)

(4) ‹anchor: exhibuit frequentiae› · call in col 271 (inferred)

Exhibuit frequentiae. Hoc est, emisit in vulgus Sic in Apologetico frequentias montium dixit feras montium incolas. ID.

He exhibited to the crowd. That is, he put it out to the public. So in the Apology he called the wild beasts that live in the mountains the crowds of the mountains. THE SAME [Le Prieur].

(printed under page 140)

(5) ‹anchor: in disperso reperta confundat› · call in col 271 (inferred)

Ne quem varietas ejus in disperso reperta confundat. Hoc frustra metueret de versibus, si quos adversus Marcionem scripsisset. Nam illi satis sese ab hoc styli genere secernunt procul. RIG.

Lest its variety, found scattered about, confuse anyone. He would have had no reason to fear this about verses, had he written any against Marcion; for they set themselves well apart from this kind of style. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 140)

(6) ‹anchor: Euxinus, natura negatur› · call in col 271 (inferred)

Pontus qui dicitur Euxinus, natura negatur. Sic emendavimus, suadente veterum exemplarium scriptura hujusmodi, Pontus qui igitur Euxinus. Voluerat Pithoeus, Pontus qui a Graecis Euxinus. Nihilominus tamen probari potest vulgata lectio, Pontus igitur qui Euxinus natura negatur nomine illuditur. RIG. — Euxinus, natura negatur. Etenim fallit mendacio cognominis, cum ob ingenium loci ac feritatem naturae, ἄξενος dici debeat. RIG. — Cum dici debuerit inhospitalis, unde Ovid.: Quem tenet Euxini mendax cognomine Pontus. LE PR.

The Pontus called Euxine is belied by its nature. So we have emended, prompted by the reading of the old copies, which runs: Pontus qui igitur Euxinus. Pithou had wanted Pontus qui a Graecis Euxinus ("the Pontus which the Greeks call Euxine"). Nevertheless the common reading can still be approved: Pontus igitur qui Euxinus natura negatur nomine illuditur ("the Pontus, then, which is called Euxine, is denied by nature and mocked by its name"). RIGALTIUS. — Euxine, belied by its nature. For it deceives with a lying surname, since from the character of the place and the savagery of its nature it ought to be called ἄξενος ("inhospitable"). RIGALTIUS. — Since it ought to have been called inhospitable; whence Ovid: "Whom the Pontus holds, Euxine by a lying name." LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 140)

(7) ‹anchor: gentes ferocissimae inhabitant› · call in col 271 (inferred)

Gentes ferocissimae inhabitant. Gentes illae fuere Sarmatae, Geloni, Massagetae et genus universum populorum hamaxobiorum, de quibus eorumque feritate horrescunt historiae. ID.

Most savage nations inhabit it. Those nations were the Sarmatians, the Geloni, the Massagetae and the whole race of wagon-dwelling peoples, at whom and at whose savagery the histories shudder. THE SAME [Le Prieur].

(printed under page 140)

(8) ‹anchor: nec armis suis erubescunt› · call in col 271 (inferred)

Ita nec armis suis erubescunt. Haec enim turpis et propatulae Veneris suae signa prostituunt. RIG.

So they do not blush even at their arms. For these openly display the marks of their shameful and public lust. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 140)

(9) ‹anchor: sol nunquam libens› · call in col 271

Sol nunquam libens. Sic habet vetus exemplar. Dicas hanc regionem a sole haud libenter aspici, tam male illic lucet. RIG.

The sun never willing. So the old copy has it. You would say this region is looked on by the sun with no good will, so poorly does it shine there. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 140)

(10) ‹anchor: liquores ignibus redeunt› · call in col 271

Liquores ignibus redeunt. In Pontica illa feritate, inquit, « Omne quod flaverit Aquilo est. » Itaque liquores omnes gelu concrescunt, nec nisi suppositis ignibus redeunt, hoc est, resolvuntur in liquores. ID.

Liquids come back only by fire. In that savagery of Pontus, he says, "every wind that blows is the North wind." So all liquids set hard with frost, and come back only when fires are put under them, that is, they are dissolved into liquids again. THE SAME [Rigaltius].

(printed under page 140)

Page

running head: 271 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: A tunc fratris, dehinc apostatae; B de jugo pharetris indicibus; C Taurorum, et amoribus Colchorum; D (6) Pontus qui dicitur Euxinus (in the Commentarius, not set)
old-edition numerals: 947 after promiscua

PL 2:272

apud Pontum quam quod illic Marcion natus est, Scytha tetrior, Hamaxobio instabilior, Massageta inhumanior, Amazone audacior; nubilo obscurior, hieme frigidior, gelu fragilior; Istro fallacior, Caucaso abruptior. Quidni? penes quem verus Promethaeus Deus omnipotens blasphemiis lancinatur. Jam et bestiis illius barbariae importunior Marcion. Quis enim tam castrator carnis castor, quam qui nuptias abstulit? quis tam comesor mus ponticus, quam qui Evangelia corrosit? Nae tu, Euxine, probabiliorem feram philosophis edidisti, quam Christianis. Nam illa canicula Diogenes hominem invenire cupiebat; lucernam meridie circumferens: Marcion Deum quem invenerat, exstincto lumine fidei suae amisit. Non negabunt discipuli ejus primam illius fidem nobiscum fuisse, ipsius litteris testibus: ut hinc jam destinari possit haereticus, qui, deserto quod prius fuerat, id postea sibi elegerit quod retro non erat. In tantum enim haeresis deputabitur quod postea inducitur, in quantum veritas habebitur quod retro et a primordio traditum est. Sed alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus haereticos, etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sint de praescriptione novitatis. Nunc quatenus admittenda congressio est, interdum, ne compendium praescriptionis, ubique advocatum, diffidentiae deputetur. Regulam adversarii prius praetexam, ne cui lateat in qua principalis qu⟨ae⟩stio dimicatura est.

in Pontus than that Marcion was born there, fouler than a Scythian, more unstable than a Hamaxobian, more inhuman than a Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon; darker than cloud, colder than winter, more brittle than ice; more deceitful than the Ister, more precipitous than the Caucasus. Why not? Since with him the true Prometheus, God Almighty, is mangled by blasphemies. Marcion is more troublesome even than the beasts of that barbarous land. For what beaver is so great a castrator of the flesh as he who has abolished marriage? What Pontic mouse is so great a gnawer as he who has gnawed away the Gospels? Truly, Euxine, you have brought forth a beast more acceptable to philosophers than to Christians. For that little dog Diogenes wished to find a man, carrying a lamp about at midday: Marcion, having extinguished the light of his faith, has lost the God Whom he had found. His disciples will not deny that his first faith was with us, his own letters being witnesses: so that from this point he may already be marked out as a heretic who, having deserted what he had been before, afterwards chose for himself what had not been there before. For heresy will be reckoned to be that which is introduced later, just as truth will be held to be that which was handed down before and from the beginning. But another little book will sustain this step against heretics, who are to be refuted even without examination of their doctrines, on the ground that they are such by the prescription of novelty. Now, insofar as engagement must at times be admitted, lest the short cut of prescription, appealed to everywhere, be reckoned as diffidence, I shall first set out the rule of the adversary, so that it may be hidden from no one on what principal question the battle is to be fought.

Editors' notes and page, col. 272

Footnotes

(11) ‹anchor: illic Marcion natus est› · call in col 272 (inferred)

Quam quod illic Marcion natus est. Tetra licet et horribilia sint quae de Ponto Euxino adjacentibusque populis feruntur, nihil tamen tetrius aut horribilius cogitari potest quam quod ibi natus fuerit Marcion. LE PR.

Than that Marcion was born there. Foul and horrible though the things told of the Euxine Pontus and its neighbouring peoples may be, nothing fouler or more horrible can be thought of than that Marcion was born there. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 140)

(12) ‹anchor: Amazone audacior› · call in col 272 (inferred)

Amazone audacior. Vulgo Amazonia. Scribendum ut est in exemplari, Amazona. Amazonam dicit, ut Sirenarum pro Sirenum, et Synopae pro Cynopes, Vide Apologeticum. RIG.

Bolder than an Amazon. The common text has Amazonia. We must write, as it stands in the copy, Amazona. He says Amazona as one says Sirenarum for Sirenum, and Synopae for Cynopes. See the Apology. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 140)

(13) ‹anchor: illa canicula Diogenes› · call in col 272 (inferred)

Nam illa canicula Diogenes, etc. Cynicus ille Diogenes dictus ob libertatem quam in carpendis tum hominibus, tum etiam diis absumebat. Pariter Apolog., cap. 14. « Romanus Cynicus Varro trecentos Joves, » etc., ut scilicet Graeco Diogeni Romanum opponeret. LE PR.

For that little dog Diogenes, etc. That Diogenes was called the Cynic ("dog") for the licence he spent in carping both at men and even at the gods. Likewise in the Apology, ch. 14: "the Roman Cynic Varro [brings in] three hundred Joves," etc., so as, no doubt, to set a Roman against the Greek Diogenes. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 140)

(14) ‹anchor: hunc gradum sustinebit› · call in col 272 (inferred)

Sed alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit, etc. Citat hic haud dubie modo dictum librum de Praescriptionibus adversus haereticos; quippe quo docuit revincendos haereticos, sine tractatu doctrinarum, de Praescriptione novitatis. PAM.

But another little book will hold this position, etc. Here he is without doubt citing the book just mentioned, On the Prescriptions against Heretics, in which he taught that heretics are to be refuted, without discussion of their doctrines, on the prescription of novelty. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 140)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 272
marginal letters: A apud Pontum quam quod illic; B bunt discipuli ejus primam; C est.; D centibusque populis feruntur (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 248 after litteris

PL 2:273

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

Duos Ponticus deos affert, tanquam duas symplegadas naufragii sui: quem negare non potuit, id est Creatorem, id est nostrum, et quem probare non poterit, id est suum: passus infelix hujus praesumptionis instinctum, de simplici capitulo Dominicae pronuntiationis, in homines non in deos disponentis exempla illa bonae et malae arboris, quod neque bona malos, neque mala bonos proferat fructus (Matth. VIII, 18): id est, neque mens vel fides bona, malas edat operas, neque mala bonas. Languens enim (quod et nunc multi, et maxime haeretici) circa mali quaestionem, « unde malum? » et obtusis sensibus ipsa enormitate curiositatis, inveniens Creatorem pronuntiantem (Isa. LXV, 7): Ego sum qui condo mala; quanto ipsum praesumpserat mali auctorem, et ex aliis argumentis, quae ita persuadent perverso cuique, tanto in Creatorem interpretatus malam arborem malos fructus condentem, scilicet mala; alium deum praesumpsit esse debere in partem bonae arboris bonos fructus. Et ita in Christo quasi aliam inveniens dispositionem, solius et purae benignitatis, ut diversae a Creatore, facile novam et hospitam argumentatus est divinitatem in Christo suo revelatam, modicoque exinde fermento totam fidei massam haeretico acore decepit. Habuit et Cerdonem quemdam informatorem scandali hujus; quo facilius duos deos caeci perspexisse se existimaverunt. Unum enim non integre viderant. Lippientibus etiam singularis lucerna numerosa est. Alterum igitur deum, quem confiteri cogebatur, de malo infamando destruxit: alterum, quem commentari connitebatur, de bono proferendo construxit. Has naturas quibus disposuerit articulis, per ipsas responsiones nostras ostendimus.

The man from Pontus brings forward two gods, like the two Symplegades of his own shipwreck: one whom he could not deny, that is, the Creator, that is, ours, and one whom he will not be able to prove, that is, his own; the unhappy man having suffered the impulse of this presumption from a simple passage of the Lord's pronouncement, which applies to men, not to gods, those examples of the good and the bad tree, that neither does the good [tree] bring forth bad fruits, nor the bad good ones (Matt. 8:18): that is, neither does a good mind or faith produce bad works, nor a bad one good ones. For, ailing (as many do even now, and especially heretics) over the question of evil, "Whence is evil?", and with his senses blunted by the very enormity of his curiosity, finding the Creator declaring (Isa. 65:7): I am He who establishes evils; the more he had presumed Him to be the author of evil, also from other arguments which so persuade every perverse person, the more he interpreted, with reference to the Creator, the bad tree establishing bad fruits, namely evils; he presumed that there must be another god on the side of the good tree, [bearing] good fruits. And so, finding in Christ as it were another disposition, one of sole and pure benevolence, as differing from the Creator, he easily argued for a new and foreign divinity revealed in his Christ, and thereupon with a little leaven he corrupted the whole lump of the faith with heretical sourness. He also had a certain Cerdo as the instructor of this scandal; whereby they more easily supposed that they, blind as they were, had perceived two gods. For they had not seen the one entire. To those with bleary eyes even a single lamp is manifold. The one god, therefore, whom he was compelled to confess, he destroyed by defaming Him in respect of evil; the other, whom he strove to devise, he built up by setting him forth in respect of good. By what articles he has arranged these natures, we show through our very replies.

Editors' notes and page, col. 273

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 9 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 273 (inferred) Id est omitt. Latin.

"Id est" ("that is") is omitted by Latinius.

10 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 273 (inferred) Praenuntiationis alii.

"Praenuntiationis" ("of the foretelling"): others.

11 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 273 (inferred) Praenuntiantem alii.

"Praenuntiantem" ("foretelling"): others.

12 ‹anchor: haeretico acore› · call in col 273 Acrore Semler cod. Pithoei.

"Acrore" ("sharpness"): Semler, Pithou's manuscript.

13 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 274 (inferred) Est Jun.

"Est" ("is"): Junius.

14 ‹anchor: esse, id est› · call in col 274 Id et Jun. Venet. Reg.

"Id et" ("that and"): Junius, the Venice edition, the Regius manuscript.

15 ‹anchor: id eum› · call in col 274 Iidem Semler. idem Fran.

"Iidem" ("the same", plural): Semler; "idem" ("the same"): Franeker edition.

16 ‹anchor: Deus non est,› · call in col 274 Et inscr. Semler.

"Et" ("and") is inserted by Semler.

Commentarius. (printed under page 141)

(15) ‹anchor: duos Ponticus deos affert› · call in col 273 (inferred)

Duos Ponticus deos affert. Argumentum hujus capitis his verbis indicat auctor: De duobus diis Marcionis, quod praecipue tractatur his primo et secundo libris adversus Marcionem. De quo etiam B. Justinus apolog., II. PAM.

The man of Pontus brings in two gods. The author marks the subject of this chapter with these words: On the two gods of Marcion, which is treated chiefly in these first and second books Against Marcion. On which see also Blessed Justin, Apology II. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 141)

(16) ‹anchor: duas symplegadas naufragii sui› · call in col 273 (inferred)

Tanquam duas symplegadas naufragii sui. Symplegadas sunt duo scopuli, seu mavis rupes in mari ad Bosphorum Thracium. Dicuntur petrae Cyneae ab Appollonio Rhod., lib. I Argon. et Cyaneae symplegades ab Euripide in Medea. LE PR.

Like two Symplegades of his own shipwreck. The Symplegades are two reefs, or if you prefer rocks, in the sea at the Thracian Bosporus. They are called the Cynean rocks by Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica book I, and the Cyanean Symplegades by Euripides in the Medea. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 141)

(17) ‹anchor: passus hujus praesumptionis instinctum› · call in col 273 (inferred)

Passus hujus praesumptionis instinctum. Sic principio libri de Virginibus velandis: « Proprium tam negotium passus meae opinionis. » RIG.

Having undergone the prompting of this presumption. So at the beginning of the book On the Veiling of Virgins: "having undergone a matter so proper to my opinion." RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 141)

(18) ‹anchor: circa mali quaestionem› · call in col 273 (inferred)

Circa mali quaestionem, unde malum. Hoc est, languentes circa mali quaestionem. Quaestio autem illa est: Unde malum? ID.

About the question of evil, whence evil comes. That is, ailing over the question of evil. And that question is: whence is evil? THE SAME [Rigaltius].

(printed under page 141)

(19) ‹anchor: ego sum qui condo mala› · call in col 273 (inferred)

Ego sum qui condo mala. Vatic. II ms. cod. creo, et paulo post creantem pro condentem. Sed illud legitur alibi ab auctore, non solum lib. de Fuga in persecut,. sed etiam lib. II adv. Marc. PAM.

I am he who frames evils. The second Vatican manuscript has creo ("I create"), and a little later creantem for condentem. But the former is read elsewhere in the author, not only in the book On Flight in Persecution but also in Book II Against Marcion. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 141)

(20) ‹anchor: haeretico acore decepit› · call in col 273

Totam fidei massam haeretico acore decepit. Proprie, decepit. Est enim perfidia quaedam in aceti nequitia,

He spoiled the whole lump of the faith with heretical sourness. Decepit is the proper word: for there is a kind of treachery in the badness of vinegar,

(printed under page 141)

(21) ‹anchor: Cerdonem quemdam› · call in col 273

Habuit et Cerdonem quemdam. Cerdonis discipulus Marcion magistri doctrinam adhuc adauxit, sicque pessimi magistri optimus fuit discipulus et imitator. LE PR.

He had also a certain Cerdo. Marcion, Cerdo's disciple, enlarged his master's doctrine still further, and so was the best disciple and imitator of the worst of masters. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 141)

Page

running head: 273 LIB. I ADV. MARCIO (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹Duos Ponticus deos affert›; B ‹(Isa. LXV, 7) : Ego sum qui condo mala›; C ‹existimaverunt. Unum enim non integre viderant.›; D ‹cundo libris adversus Marcionem (in the Commentarius)›
old-edition numerals: 249 after ‹alium› (at line start)

PL 2:274

CAPUT III.

Chapter III.

Principalis itaque, et exinde tota congressio, de numero: an duos deos liceat induci, si forte poetica et pictoria licentia et tertia jam haeretica. Sed veritas Christiana districte pronuntiavit: Deus, si non unus est, non est: quia dignius credimus non esse, quodcunque non ita fuerit ut esse debebit. Deum autem ut scias unum esse debere, quaere quid sit Deus, et non aliter invenies. Quantum humana conditio de Deo definire potest, id definio quod et omnium conscientia agnoscet: Deum, summum esse magnum, in aeternitate constitutum, innatum, infectum, sine initio, sine fine. Hunc enim statum aeternitati censendum, quae summum magnum Deum efficiat, dum hoc est in Deo ipsa, atque ita et caetera; ut sit Deus summum magnum, et forma, et ratione, et vi, et potestate. Cum de isto conveniat apud omnes (nemo enim negabit Deum summum magnum quid esse, nisi qui poterit Deum imum, modicum quid, e contrario pronuntiare, ut Deum neget auferendo quod Dei est), quae erit jam conditio ipsius summi magni? nempe ut nihil illi adaequetur, id est, ut non sit aliud summum magnum, quia si fuerit, adaequabitur. et si adaequabitur, non erit jam summum magnum, eversa conditione, et, ut ita dixerim, lege quae summo magno nihil sinit adaequari. Ergo unicum sit necesse est, quod fuerit summum magnum, par non habendo, ne non sit summum magnum. Ergo non aliter erit quam per quod habet esse, id est unicum omnino. Proinde Deus cum summum magnum sit, recte veritas nostra pronuntiavit: Deus, si non unus est, non est. Non quasi dubitemus esse Deum, dicendo: Si non unus, non est; sed quia quem confidimus esse, id eum definiamus esse quod si non est, Deus non est, summum

The principal contest, therefore, and hence the whole of it, is about number: whether it is permissible to introduce two gods, if perchance by poetic and pictorial licence, and now a third, heretical one. But Christian truth has strictly pronounced: God, if He is not one, is not; because we believe it more fitting that whatever has not been as it ought to be does not exist. But so that you may know that God ought to be one, ask what God is, and you will find it not otherwise. So far as the human condition can define concerning God, I define that which the conscience of all will also acknowledge: that God is the supreme great, established in eternity, unborn, unmade, without beginning, without end. For this state must be reckoned to eternity, which makes God the supreme great, while it itself is this in God, and so too the rest; so that God is the supreme great in form, in reason, in might and in power. Since there is agreement about this among all (for no one will deny that God is something supreme great, except one who could pronounce, on the contrary, that God is something lowest and small, so as to deny God by taking away what is God's), what then will be the condition of the supreme great itself? Namely, that nothing be made equal to it, that is, that there be no other supreme great, because if there were, it would be made equal. and if it is made equal, it will no longer be the supreme great, its condition being overturned, and, so to speak, the law which permits nothing to be made equal to the supreme great. Therefore it is necessary that whatever is the supreme great be unique, by having no equal, lest it not be the supreme great. Therefore it will not exist otherwise than by that through which it has being, that is, as entirely unique. Accordingly, since God is the supreme great, our truth has rightly pronounced: God, if He is not one, is not. Not as though we doubt that God exists, by saying: If not one, He is not; but because Him Whom we trust to exist we define as being that which, if He is not, He is not God, the supreme

Editors' notes and page, col. 274

Footnotes

(22) ‹anchor: poetica et pictoria licentia› · call in col 274 (inferred)

Si forte poetica et pictoria licentia. Quoniam concessa omnia videntur pictoribus atque poetis, eadem licentia Marcion uti velle se significat, ut impietatem in Deum astruat. Neque de nihilo hic picturae facit mentionem; nam, ut alio loco monuimus, Appelles et Hermogenus professione pictores fuerunt, antequam ad turbandam Ecclesiam animum appellerent. ID.

If perhaps by poetic and painterly licence. Since everything seems to be allowed to painters and poets, Marcion signals that he means to use the same licence to build up impiety against God. Nor does he mention painting here for nothing; for, as we noted in another place, Apelles and Hermogenes were painters by profession before they turned their minds to troubling the Church. THE SAME [Le Prieur].

(printed under page 141)

(23) ‹anchor: Deum summum esse magnum› · call in col 274 (inferred)

Deum summum esse magnum. Pulchra Dei definitio, quantum, ut verbis auctoris praecedentibus utar, « humana conditio de Deo definire potest. » Similiter autem dixit infra cap. 7: « Hanc nempe Dei substantiam invenies solam innatam, infectam, solam aeternam, et universitatis conditricem. » Et supra lib. ad Hermogenem cap. 7: « Deum aeternum, sive innatum, omnibus majorem et sublimiorem, nec natum nec factum, sine initio, sine fine. » PAM.

That God is the supreme great. A fine definition of God, as far as, to use the author's preceding words, "the human condition can define concerning God." He said the like below, ch. 7: "This substance of God, you will find, alone is unborn, unmade, alone eternal, and maker of the universe." And above, in the book To Hermogenes, ch. 7: "God eternal, or unborn, greater and loftier than all, neither born nor made, without beginning, without end." PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 141)

Page

running head: I ADV. MARCIONEM. (cut at left edge; column number 274)
marginal letters: A CAPUT III.; B Deo ipsa, atque ita et caetera; C gnum. Ergo non aliter erit; D sicque pessimi magistri (in the Commentarius at page foot)
old-edition numerals: 250 after summum

PL 2:275

scilicet magnum. Porro, summum magnum unicum sit necesse est. Ergo et Deus unicus erit. Non aliter Deus, nisi summum magnum; nec aliter summum magnum, nisi parem non habens; nec aliter parem non habens, nisi unicus fuerit. Certe quemcumque alium Deum induxeris, non alia poteris eum forma tueri Deum, quam ut et illi proprium divinitatis ascripseris, sicut aeternum, ita et summum magnum. Duo ergo summa magna quomodo consistent, cum hoc sit summum magnum, par non habere? par autem non habere, cum uni competat, in duobus esse nullo modo possit.

great, that is. Moreover, the supreme great must necessarily be unique. Therefore God too will be unique. God is not [God] otherwise than as the supreme great; nor is [anything] the supreme great otherwise than as having no equal; nor does [anything] have no equal otherwise than if it is unique. Certainly, whatever other God you introduce, you will be able to defend him as God under no other form than by ascribing to him too the property of divinity, that just as he is eternal, so he is also the supreme great. How then will two supreme greats subsist, when this is what the supreme great is, to have no equal? But to have no equal, since it belongs to one, can in no way exist in two.

CAPUT IV.

Chapter IV.

Sed argumentabitur quilibet, posse et duo summa magna consistere distincta atque disjuncta in suis finibus, et utique advocabit exemplum: Regna terrarum tanta numero, et tamen summa magna in suis quibusque regionibus, et putabit utique humana divinis conferenda. Jam ergo, si huic argumentationi locus dabitur, quid prohibet, non dico et tertium et quartum deum inducere, verum tot jam numero quot et gentium reges? De Deo agitur, cujus hoc principaliter proprium est, nullius exempli capere comparationem. Hoc natura ipsa, si non aliquis Isaias, vel ipse per Isaiam Deus concionabitur: Cui me similabitis (Isa. XL, 25)? Divinis forsitan comparabuntur humana? Deo non ita: aliud enim Deus, aliud quae Dei. Denique, qui exemplo uteris regis, quasi summi magni, vide ne jam non possis eo uti. Rex enim, etsi summum magnum est in suo solio usque ad Deum, tamen infra Deum: comparatus autem ad Deum, excidet jam de summo magno translato in Deum. Hoc si ita, quomodo uteris ejus rei exemplo ad Dei comparationem, quae, dum ad comparationem accedit, amittitur? Quid nunc, si nec inter reges plurifarium videri potest summum magnum, sed unicum et singulare: apud eum scilicet qui rex regum ob summitatem magnitudinis et

But someone will argue that two supreme greats can also subsist, distinct and separate within their own boundaries, and he will of course bring forward an example: the kingdoms of the earth, so many in number, and yet supreme greats each in its own regions; and he will of course think that human things are to be compared with divine. Now then, if room is given to this argument, what prevents one from introducing, I do not say a third and a fourth god as well, but as many in number as there are kings of the nations? It is a question of God, Whose principal property this is, to admit the comparison of no example. Nature itself, if not some Isaiah, or God Himself through Isaiah, will proclaim this: To whom will you liken Me (Isa. 40:25)? Will human things perhaps be compared with divine? Not so with God: for God is one thing, the things that are God's another. Finally, you who use the example of a king, as of a supreme great, see that you are not now unable to use it. For a king, although he is the supreme great on his own throne up to God, is nevertheless below God; but when compared with God, he will at once fall from the supreme great, which is transferred to God. If this is so, how do you use the example of that thing for a comparison with God, which, as soon as it comes to the comparison, is lost? What now, if not even among kings can the supreme great be seen in many places, but [only as] one and singular: namely with Him Who, King of kings because of the supremacy of [His] greatness and

Editors' notes and page, col. 275

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 17 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 275 (inferred) Cum non Wouw.

"Cum non" ("since not"): Wouwer.

18 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 275 (inferred) Cum neglig. Semler.

"Cum" ("since") is disregarded by Semler.

19 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 275 (inferred) Ubique Seml.

"Ubique" ("everywhere"): Semler.

20 ‹anchor: Deo non ita› · call in col 275 Nostra Rhen. Dei nostro Seml.

"Nostra" ("ours"): Rhenanus; "Dei nostro" ("of God, to our"): Semler.

21 ‹anchor: summo magno translato› · call in col 275 Translatio coet. amn.

"Translatio" ("transfer"): all the rest.

22 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 275 (inferred) In inser. Seml.

"In" ("in") is inserted by Semler.

23 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 275 (inferred) Quia Seml.

"Quia" ("because"): Semler.

24 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 275 (inferred) Ex abest Venet. Rig.

"Ex" ("from") is absent in the Venice edition and Rigaltius.

25 ‹anchor: Bython› · call in col 276 Bythin Seml. Bythun Fran.

"Bythin": Semler; "Bythun": Franeker edition.

26 ‹anchor: Sigen: cum› · call in col 276 Tum Latin. Semler.

"Tum" ("then"): Latinius, Semler.

27 ‹anchor: tanquam Aeneiae› · call in col 276 Aeoniae Fran. Paris. Aeoneiae Seml.

"Aeoniae": Franeker and Paris editions; "Aeoneiae": Semler.

28 ‹anchor: post› · call in col 276 Potest Rhen.

"Potest" ("can"): Rhenanus.

Commentarius. (printed under page 142)

(24) ‹anchor: cui me similabitis› · call in col 275

Cui me similabitis? Paulo aliter legitur Isaiae 40, Cui assimilastis Dominum, juxta LXX, aut Deum, juxta versionem B. Hieronymi? Et certe ex hoc loco didicisse Sibyllam Deum dicere immensum et infinitum, tradit Clemens Alexandr., lib. III Strom., et post eum Eusebius, lib. XIII de Praepar. Evang. Graece, ubi docet, quae pulchre dicta sunt a philosophis, ex prophetarum ea libris mutuasse. PAM.

To whom will you liken me? Isaiah 40 reads a little differently: To whom have you likened the Lord? according to the Septuagint, or God, according to Blessed Jerome's version. And certainly it was from this place that the Sibyl learned to call God immeasurable and infinite, as Clement of Alexandria relates, Stromata book III, and after him Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel book XIII, in Greek, where he teaches that what the philosophers said finely they borrowed from the books of the prophets. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 142)

Page

running head: 275 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S[...] (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A mum scilicet magnum. Porro; B Sed argumentabitur quilibet; C Deus, aliud quae Dei; D (24) Cui me similabitis (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 251 after summum

PL 2:276

subjectionem caeterorum graduum, quasi culmen dominationis excipitur? Sed etiam alterius formae reges, qui singulares in unione imperii praesunt, si minutalibus, ut ita dixerim, regnis undique conferantur in examinationem, qua constet quis eorum praecellat in substantiis et viribus regni, in unum necesse est summitas magnitudinis eliquetur, omnibus gradatim per comparationis exitum de magnitudinis summa expressis et exclusis. Adeo etsi in disperso multifariam videtur summum magnum, suis viribus et sua natura et suo statu unicum est. Proinde, cum duo dii conferantur, ut duo reges et duo summa magna, in alterum concedat necesse est unio summi magni, ex sententia comparationis, qua summum ex victoria sua constat, superato aemulo alio magno, non tamen summo; atque ex defectione aemuli, solitudinem quamdam de singularitate praestantiae suae possidens, unioum est. Ineluctabilis iste complexus in hoc sententiam constringit, aut negandum Deum esse summum magnum, quod nemo patietur sapiens, aut nulli alii communicandum.

subjection of the other ranks, is taken as the summit of dominion? But also kings of another form, who preside singly in the unity of an empire, if, with their petty kingdoms, so to speak, they are brought together from every side into an examination by which it may be established which of them excels in the substance and strength of the realm, the summit of greatness must necessarily be distilled into one, all the others being step by step squeezed out and excluded from the summit of greatness by the outcome of the comparison. Thus, although the supreme great seems to be scattered about in many ways, in its own powers and its own nature and its own state it is unique. Accordingly, when two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme greats, the unity of the supreme great must necessarily pass to one of them, by the verdict of the comparison, by which the supreme is established through its own victory, the rival having been overcome as another great, yet not supreme; and through the failure of the rival, possessing a certain solitude from the singularity of its pre-eminence, it is unique. This inescapable dilemma constrains the argument to this: either it must be denied that God is the supreme great, which no wise man will allow, or it must be shared with no other.

CAPUT V.

Chapter V.

Aut quae ratio duo summa magna composuit? Primo enim exigam cur non plura, si duo? quando locupletiorem oporteret credi substantiam divinitatis, si competeret et numeris. Honestior et liberalior Valentinus, qui simul ausus est duos concipere, Bython et Sigen: cum usque ad triginta aeonum fetus, tanquam Aeneiae scrophae, examen divinitatis effudit. Quaecunque ratio plura summa magna non patitur admitti, eadem nec duo, ut ipsa plura post unum; post unum enim, numerus. Quae potuit duo admitterre, eadem potuit et plura; post duo enim, multitudo, unione jam excessa. Denique, apud nos vis rationis istius ipso termino plures deos credi non sinit, quod nec duos, illa regula unum Deum sistens, qua Deum id esse oporteat cui nihil adaequetur, ut summo magno; unicum

Or what reason has put together two supreme greats? For first I shall demand why not more, if two? since the substance of divinity ought to be believed the richer if it extended to numbers as well. More honourable and more generous was Valentinus, who, as soon as he had dared to conceive two, Bythos and Sige, poured out a swarm of divinity, a brood of as many as thirty aeons, like the sow of Aeneas. Whatever reason does not allow several supreme greats to be admitted does not allow two either, since two are themselves several, coming after one; for after one comes number. The reason that could admit two could likewise admit more; for after two comes multitude, unity being by then left behind. Finally, among us the force of that reason, by its very limit, does not allow many gods to be believed, because it does not allow two either, that rule establishing one God by which God must be that to which nothing is made equal, as to the supreme great; but that is unique

Editors' notes and page, col. 276

Footnotes

(25) ‹anchor: liberalior Valentinus› · call in col 276

Honestior et liberalior Valentinus. Alludit ad 30 divinitatis aeones Valentini, de quibus latissime lib. adv. Valentin.; quibus derivat Auctor novam vocem, cum subjungit, « tanquam Aeoniae scrophae, » allucens ad scrophae foecunditatem, quae nonnunquam ad trecenos usque peperisse legitur porcos. Illud enim antiquissimum fuisse scribitur a M. Varrone lib. II de Re rustica, cap. 4, quod sus Aeneae Lavinii 30 porcos pepererit albos. Atqui recte dicit: « Post unum enim numerus; » et mox: « Duo enim multitudo, unione jam excessa; » quia unitas non numerus, sed principium est numerorum. ID.

Valentinus was more decent and more generous. He alludes to the thirty aeons of Valentinus's godhead, of which he treats most fully in the book Against the Valentinians; from them the author derives a new word when he adds "like an Aeonian sow," alluding to the fruitfulness of the sow, which we read sometimes farrowed as many as three hundred piglets. For M. Varro, On Agriculture book II, ch. 4, writes that it was a very ancient tale that the sow of Aeneas at Lavinium bore thirty white piglets. And he rightly says: "for after one comes number"; and soon after: "for two is a multitude, unity being already passed"; because unity is not a number but the beginning of numbers. THE SAME [Pamelius].

(printed under page 142)

(26) ‹anchor: triginta aeonum (26)› · call in col 276

Usque ad triginta aeonum foetus, tanquam Aeneiae scrophae. Sic emendavimus quod vulgo legebatur, tanquam Aeoniae scrophae. In codice Pithaeano scribitur. Aeoneiae. Omnino legendum, Aeneiae alludit enim ad illam Aeneae scropham, quae, ut est apud Virgilium.: Littoreis ingens inventa sub ilicibus sus / Triginta capitum foetus enixa jacebat. Eadem menda in illo Hieronymi, in Epistolam ad Galatas: « quos Aeneia fetus scropha generavit? « Nam vulgo legitur, Aeonia. In mss. scriptum reperi, Enegia, quod est, Aeneia. Juvenalis in VI Sat.; Atque eadem scropha Niobe foecundior alba. RIG.

Up to a brood of thirty aeons, like the sow of Aeneas. So we have emended the common reading, like an Aeonian sow. In Pithou's manuscript it is written Aeoneiae. We must certainly read Aeneiae, for he alludes to that sow of Aeneas which, as it stands in Virgil: "On the shore, under the holm-oaks, a huge sow was found, lying there, delivered of a litter of thirty head." The same fault occurs in that passage of Jerome on the Epistle to the Galatians: "what litters the sow of Aeneas bore"; for the common text reads Aeonia, but in manuscripts I found written Enegia, that is, Aeneia. Juvenal in Satire VI: "and the same woman more fruitful than the white sow, than Niobe." RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 142)

Page

running head: [left part cut off] PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 276
marginal letters: A subjectionem caeterorum graduum; B lo alio magno, non tamen summo; C Bython et Sigen; D mox : « Duo enim multitudo (beside commentary at page foot)
old-edition numerals: 252 after plura

PL 2:277

autem sit, cui nihil adaequetur. Jam nunc, duo summa magna, duo paria, cui emolumento deputarentur? quid interfuit numeri, cum duo paria non differant uno? Una enim res est quae eadem in duobus est. Etiamsi plura essent paria, tantumdem omnia unum fuissent, nullo inter se differendo, qua paria. Porro, si neutrum ex duobus altero distat, jam ut ambo summa magna, qua dei ambo, neutrum plus altero praestat, nullam rationem numeri sui ostendunt, praestantiam non habentes. Numerus autem divinitatis summa ratione constare deberet, vel quoniam et cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur. Ecce enim, duos intuens deos tam pares quam duo summa magna, quid facerem? si ambos colerem vererer ne, abundantia officii, superstitio potius quam religio existimaretur; quia duos tam pares, et in altero ambos, possem in uno demereri: hoc ipsum testimonio praestans parilitati et unitati eorum, dum alterum in altero venerarer, dum in uno mihi duo sunt. Si alterum colerem, aeque recogitarem, ne suffundere viderer numeri vanitatem, sine differentia supervacui; hoc est, tutius censerem neutrum colendum, quam alterum cum scrupulo colendum, aut ambos vane.

to which nothing is made equal. Now then, two supreme greats, two equals: to what advantage would they be assigned? What difference would number have made, when two equals do not differ from one? For a thing which is the same in two is one thing. Even if there were more equals, all would just as much have been one, differing in nothing among themselves, inasmuch as they are equals. Further, if neither of the two stands apart from the other, so that both are supreme greats, inasmuch as both are gods, neither surpasses the other; they show no reason for their number, since they have no pre-eminence. But the number of the divinity ought to rest on the highest reason, if only because its worship too would be brought into uncertainty. For see: looking upon two gods as equal as two supreme greats, what should I do? If I worshipped both, I should fear lest, through excess of duty, it be reckoned superstition rather than religion; because two so equal, and both in the one, I could win over in one, by this very thing bearing witness to their parity and unity, while I venerated the one in the other, while in one there are two for me. If I worshipped one, I should equally reflect lest I seem to cast shame upon the emptiness of a number superfluous for lack of difference; that is, I should judge it safer that neither be worshipped than that one be worshipped with misgiving, or both in vain.

CAPUT VI.

Chapter VI.

Sic adhuc videmur disputare, quasi Marcion duos pares constituat. Nam dum defendimus Deum summum magnum unicum credi oportere, excludentes ab eo parilitatem, tanquam de duobus paribus de his retractavimus: nihilominus tamen, docendo pares esse non posse secundum summi magni formam, satis confirmavimus duos esse non posse. Alioquin certi Marcionem dispares deos constituere, alterum judicem, ferum, belli potentem; alterum mitem, placidum, et tantummodo bonum atque optimum; dispiciamus aeque et hanc partem, an diversitas saltem duos capiat, si parilitas capere non potuit. Porrro et hic eadem regula summi magni patrocinabitur nobis utpote quae totum statum vindicet divinitatis. Conveniens enim et quodammodo injecta manu detinens adversarii sensum non negantis Creatorem Deum, justissime praescribo illi diversitati locum non esse inter eos qui ex aequo deos confessus, non potest facere diversos: non

Thus far we seem to argue as though Marcion set up two equal gods. For while we maintain that the supreme great God must be believed to be unique, excluding parity from Him, we have treated of these matters as though of two equals; nevertheless, by teaching that they cannot be equal according to the form of the supreme great, we have sufficiently established that there cannot be two. But since we are certain that Marcion sets up unequal gods, the one a judge, fierce, mighty in war, the other mild, gentle, and solely good and most excellent, let us examine this side equally, whether diversity at least admits two, if parity could not. Further, here too the same rule of the supreme great will be our advocate, inasmuch as it claims for itself the whole standing of divinity. For confronting and, as it were, laying hands upon and holding fast the mind of the adversary, who does not deny that the Creator is God, I most justly rule against him that there is no place for that diversity among those whom, having confessed them gods on equal terms, he cannot make diverse: not

Editors' notes and page, col. 277

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 29 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 277 (inferred) Nulla conjic. Seml.

"Nulla" ("none"): Semler's conjecture.

30 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 277 (inferred) A se Paris.

"A se" ("from itself"): Paris edition.

31 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 277 (inferred) Quae alii.

"Quae" ("which"): others.

32 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 277 (inferred) Forte testimonium Edd.

Perhaps "testimonium" ("testimony"): the editors.

33 ‹anchor: an diversitas saltem› · call in col 277 Leg. saltem.

Read "saltem" ("at least").

34 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 278 (inferred) Convertere Franeq.

"Convertere" ("to turn"): Franeker edition.

35 ‹anchor: deos dijudicabit› · call in col 278 Dijudicavit Rhen.

"Dijudicavit" ("he judged", perfect): Rhenanus.

Commentarius. (printed under page 143)

Page

running head: 277 LIB. I ADV. MARCI[ONEM] (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A cum autem sit, cui nihil; B religio existimaretur; quia duos; C ab eo parilitatem, tanquam; D deos confessus, non potest (D stands between this line and the one above)
old-edition numerals: 253 after judicem,
other: "Ecce" has a damaged initial that looks like B; "secundum" has a blurred c; set as Ecce and secundum
other: the full-width headings "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" are cut off at the edge and are not set; the variant readings and the editors' commentary at the page foot are not set

PL 2:278

quia non et homines licet sub eadem appellatione diversissimos esse, sed quia Deus non erit dicendus, quia nec credendus, nisi summum magnum. Cum ergo summum magnum cogatur agnoscere quem Deum non negat, non potest admitti ut summo magno aliquam ascribat diminutionem, qua subjiciatur alii summo magno: desinit enim, si subjiciatur. Non est autem Dei desinere de statu suo, id est: de summo magno. Nam et in illo deo potiore periclitari poterit summum magnum, si depretiari capit in Creatore. Ita, cum duo dii pronuntiantur duo summa magna, necesse est neutrum altero aut majus sit aut minus, neutrum altero aut sublimius aut dejectius. Nega deum, quem dicis deteriorem: nega summum magnum, quem credis minorem. Deum vero confessus, utrumque duo summa magna confessus es. Nihil alteri adimes, aut alteri adscribes. Agnoscens divinitatem, negasti diversitatem.

because it is not permissible for men too, under the same appellation, to be very different, but because God will not be called [God], since He will not be believed [God] either, unless [He is] the supreme great. Since, therefore, he is compelled to acknowledge as the supreme great Him whom he does not deny to be God, it cannot be admitted that he should ascribe to the supreme great some diminution by which it would be subjected to another supreme great: for it ceases [to be such], if it is subjected. But it is not [proper] to God to fall from His state, that is, from the supreme great. For in that better god too the supreme great will be able to be put in peril, if it admits of depreciation in the Creator. Thus, when two gods are pronounced two supreme greats, it is necessary that neither be either greater or less than the other, neither either loftier or lowlier than the other. Deny that he is god whom you call inferior; deny that he is the supreme great whom you believe lesser. But having confessed him God, you have confessed both to be two supreme greats. You will take nothing from the one, nor ascribe anything to the other. In acknowledging the divinity, you have denied the diversity.

CAPUT VII.

Chapter VII.

Tentabis ad haec de nomine Dei concutere retractatum, ut passivo, et in alios quoque permisso, quia scriptum sit (Psal. LXXII, 1): Deus deorum stetit in ecclesia deorum; in medie autem deos dijudicabit. Et (Ibid. 6): Ego dixi: Vos dti estis; nec tamen idcirco eis competat possessio summi magni, quia dei cognominentur, ita nec Creatori. Respondebo et stulto, qui nec hoc recogitaverit, ne tantumdem et in deum Marcionis possit retorqueri ut et illum deum, nec ideo tamen summum magnum probatum, sicut nec angeli aut homines Creatoris. Si communio hominum conditionibus praejudicat, quanti nequam servi regum uominibus insultant, Alexandri, et Darii, et Holofernis? nec tamen ideo regibus, id quod sunt detr⟨a⟩hetur. Nam et ipsa idola gentium dei vulgo; sed deus nemo ea re qua deus dicitur. Ita ego non nomini Dei, nec sono, nec notae nominis hujus, summum magnum in Creatore defendo, sed ipsi substantiae, cui nomen hoc contingit. Hanc inveniens solam innatam, infectam, solam aeternam et universitatis conditricem; non nomini, sed statui, nec appellationi, sed conditioni ejus summum magnum et adscribo et vindico. Et ideo quia

You will attempt, in answer to these points, to shake [my argument] by reconsidering the name of God, as being common and allowed to others as well, because it is written (Ps. 81:1): The God of gods stood in the assembly of the gods; and in the midst He will judge the gods. And (ibid. 6): I said: You are gods; and that nevertheless the possession of the supreme great does not belong to them on that account, because they are named gods, so neither does it belong to the Creator. I shall answer even the fool, who has not considered this either, that just as much can be turned back against the god of Marcion, that he too is [called] god, and yet not on that account proved to be the supreme great, just as neither are the angels or the men of the Creator. If community of names prejudges conditions, how many worthless slaves insolently flaunt the names of kings, of Alexander, and Darius, and Holofernes! Yet not on that account will that which they are be taken away from the kings. For even the very idols of the nations are gods in common speech; but none is god by the fact that he is called god. So it is not for the name of God, nor for its sound, nor for the mark of this name, that I defend the supreme great in the Creator, but for the very substance to which this name belongs. Finding this alone unborn, unmade, alone eternal and the maker of the universe, it is not to its name but to its state, not to its appellation but to its condition that I both ascribe and claim the supreme great. And therefore because

Editors' notes and page, col. 278

Footnotes

(27) ‹anchor: depretiari capit creatore› · call in col 278 (inferred)

Si depretiari capit creatore, Sic verbum, capit, usurpat saepius, sicut Graeci ἐνδέχεται. Hic tantum valet, ac si dicas: Si conceditur, si datur, ut Creator depretietur. Sic lib. II: « Quia si caperet hoc jure. » RHEN.

If it admits of the Creator's being cheapened. He often uses the verb capit in this way, as the Greeks use ἐνδέχεται ("it is possible"). Here it means as much as if you said: if it is granted, if it is allowed, that the Creator be cheapened. So in Book II: "because if it admitted of this by right." RHENANUS.

(printed under page 143)

(28) ‹anchor: in alios quoque permisso› · call in col 278

Ut passivo et in alios quoque permisso. Hic aperte seipsum interpretatur, ostendens quid intelligat per passivum, cum dicit, et (pro id est) in alios quoque permisso. Nam passivum illi commune significat et promiscuum, ab adverbio passim. Supra dixit in fine de carne Christi: Alium caeteris passivum, ignobilem, hoc est vulgarem, obscurum. RHEN. — In conciliis africanis passiva corpora martyrum dicebantur, id est, promiscua, τυχοντα. SEML.

As being common and allowed to others too. Here he plainly interprets himself, showing what he means by passivum when he says and (for that is) allowed to others too. For passivum means to him common and indiscriminate, from the adverb passim ("everywhere"). He said above, at the end of On the Flesh of Christ: "another common like the rest, ignoble," that is, ordinary, obscure. RHENANUS. — In the African councils, bodies of martyrs not identified were called passiva, that is, indiscriminate, τυχοντα ("chance ones"). SEMLER.

(printed under page 143)

(29) ‹anchor: Darii, et Holofernis› · call in col 278

Alexandri et Darii et Holofernis. In cod. Pithoei legitur, et Olofernae, ut haec sint in secundo casu nomina servorum Alexandri, Darii, Olofernae: quae scriptura Tertulliani esse videtur, Dixit Olofernae, quemadmodum Cynopae et Syrenarum, in Apolog. RIG.

Of Alexander and Darius and Holofernes. In Pithou's manuscript we read et Olofernae, so that these names of slaves, Alexandri, Darii, Olofernae, are in the genitive case; and this reading seems to be Tertullian's. He said Olofernae as he said Cynopae and Syrenarum in the Apology. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 143)

Page

running head: I ADV. MARCIONEM.
marginal letters: A quia non et homines; B minorem. Deum vero; C recogitaverit, ne tantumdem; D mum magnum et adscribo
old-edition numerals: 254 after id
other: scripture reference printed LXXII (reading uncertain) for Vulgate Psalm 81, translated as Ps. 81; "medie" faint italic, could be "medio"; "detr⟨a⟩hetur" has a damaged letter; "capit" kept as printed (admits of); the cut-off fragments of column 277 at the left edge are not set; the Variae lectiones and Commentarius at the page foot are omitted

PL 2:279

deus jam vocari obtinuit substantia cui adscribo, nomini me adscribere putas; quia necesse est per nomen ostendam cui adscribam substantiae; scilicet qua constat qui Deus dicitur, et summum magnum ex substantia, non ex nomine deputatur. Denique hoc et Marcion suo deo vindicans secundum statum, non secundum vocabulum vindicat. Id ergo summum magnum quod Deo adscribimus ex substantiae lege, non ex nominis sorte, contendimus ex pari esse debere in duobus, qui ea substantia constant qua Deus dicitur: quia in quantum dii vocantur, id est summa magna, substantiae scilicet merito innatae et aeternae, ac per hoc magnae et summae, in tantum non possit summum magnum minus et deterius alio summo magno haberi. Si summi magni felicitas et sublimitas et integritas stabit in deo Marcionis, stabit aeque et in nostro: si non et in nostro, aeque nec in Marcionis. Ergo nec paria erunt duo summa magna, quia prohibet disposita jam regula summi magni, comparationem non sustinentis; nec disparia, quia et alia summi magni regula occurrit, diminutionem non admittens. Haesisti, Marcion, in medio Ponti tui aestu: utrinque te fluctus veritatis involvunt. Nec pares, nec dispares deos sistere potes. Duo enim non sunt, quod pertineat proprie ad numeri retractatum. Quanquam tota materia de duobus diis dimicetur, his interim lineis eam clusimus, intra quas de singularibus jam proprietatibus congrediemur.

the substance to which I ascribe [it] has already obtained the right to be called god, you think that I am ascribing [it] to the name; because it is necessary that through a name I show to which substance I am ascribing [it]; namely, the substance by which He who is called God exists, and the supreme great is reckoned from the substance, not from the name. In short, Marcion too, when he claims this for his god, claims it according to his condition, not according to his designation. That supreme great, then, which we ascribe to God by the law of His substance, not by the chance of a name, we contend must be present on equal terms in two beings who consist of that substance by which [one] is called God: because in so far as they are called gods, that is, supreme greats, namely by merit of a substance unborn and eternal, and through this great and supreme, to that extent one supreme great cannot be held to be less and inferior than another supreme great. If the felicity and sublimity and integrity of the supreme great will stand firm in Marcion's god, it will stand firm equally in ours as well; if not in ours as well, then equally not in Marcion's. Therefore the two supreme greats will be neither equal, because the rule of the supreme great already laid down forbids it, since it does not admit comparison; nor unequal, because another rule of the supreme great confronts us, which does not admit diminution. You are stuck, Marcion, in the middle of the surge of your own Pontus: on both sides the waves of truth engulf you. You can set up the gods neither as equal nor as unequal. For they are not two, which pertains properly to the treatment of number. Although the whole matter is fought out concerning two gods, we have for the present enclosed it within these lines, within which we shall now engage concerning the particular properties.

CAPUT VIII.

Chapter VIII.

Primo, supercilio stuporem suum aedificant Marcionitae, quod novum deum proferant, quasi nos veteris Dei pudeat. Inflantur et pueri novis calceis; sed a vetere paedagogo calceati mox vanam

First, the Marcionites build up their stupidity with haughtiness, because they bring forward a new god, as though we were ashamed of the old God. Boys too are puffed up by new shoes; but, once shod by the old tutor, soon, for their vain

Editors' notes and page, col. 279

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 36 ‹anchor: magnae› · call in col 279 Id omitt. Rhen.

"Id" ("it") is omitted by Rhenanus.

37 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 280 (inferred) Ipsum Semler.

"Ipsum" ("itself"): Semler.

38 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 280 (inferred) Jesum Christum alii.

"Jesum Christum" ("Jesus Christ"): others.

39 ‹anchor: novitatis cognitionem› · call in col 280 Forte novitatem cognitionis.

Perhaps "novitatem cognitionis" ("the novelty of the knowledge").

Commentarius. (printed under page 144)

(30) ‹anchor: disposita jam regula› · call in col 279

Disposita jam regula, etc. Posita illa regula seu jacto fundamento de quo tribus sup. cap., duo dii esse non poterunt, quod Ponticus Marcion statuebat. LE PR.

The rule being now laid down, etc. That rule being set, or that foundation laid, of which he spoke in the three chapters above, there cannot be two gods, as Marcion of Pontus held. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 144)

(31) ‹anchor: calceati vanam gloriam› · call in col 280 (inferred)

Calceati vanam gloriam. Sic lib. III adversus Marcionem: « Calceatos praeparationem Evangelii pacis. » Et lib. de Corona: « Calceatus de Evangelii paratura. » RIG.

Shod with vainglory. So in Book III against Marcion: "shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace." And in the book On the Crown: "shod with the readiness of the gospel." RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 144)

(32) ‹anchor: ne Saturnum quidem› · call in col 280 (inferred)

Ne Saturnum quidem, etc. Ex novitate deorum falsitatem demonstrat, id vero Apolog. 10 cap. tractavit: « Proinde Saturnum, inquit, repentino adventu utique coelitem contigit dici. Nam et terrae filios vulgus vocat, quorum genus incertum est. Taceo quod ita rudes adhuc homines agebant, ut cujuslibet novi viri adspectu, quasi divino commoverentur. » Nullius rei parabilior erat annona quam deorum apud ethnicos. Nullus autem Saturno superior iis ferebatur. Virg. VII Aeneid. Primus ab aethereo venit Saturnus olympo, / Arma Jovis fugiens et regnis exul ademptis. LE PR.

Not even Saturn, etc. From the newness of the gods he proves their falsity; and he treated this in the Apology, ch. 10: "So it came about," he says, "that Saturn, from his sudden arrival, was called a heavenly one. For the common people call those whose family is unknown sons of the earth too. I say nothing of how rude men still were then, so that at the sight of any new man they were moved as if by something divine." Among the heathen no commodity came cheaper than gods; and none was reckoned among them higher than Saturn. Virgil, Aeneid VII [rather VIII]: "First from heavenly Olympus came Saturn, fleeing the arms of Jove, an exile from his lost kingdom." LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 144)

Page

running head: 279 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S[...] (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹deus jam vocari obtinuit›; B ‹haberi. Si summi magni felicitas›; C ‹Primo, supercilio stuporem›; D ‹beside the commentary line "pacis. » Et lib. de Corona", in the notes›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the calls 36 (after "magnae") and (30) (after "regula") are visible in this column; the calls 37, 38, (31) and (32) are not in col. 279 and must stand in the upper part of col. 280 (not in these images); the notes printed under page 144 whose calls are in col. 280 are kept here as first set, except (33) and (34), which are in n280.md.

PL 2:280

gloriam vapulabunt. Novum igitur audiens deum in vetere mundo et in vetere aevo, et sub vetere Deo ignotum, inauditum, quem tantis retro saeculis neminem, et ipsa ignorantia antiquum, quidam Jesus Christus, et ille in veteribus nominibus novus revelaverit, nec alius antehac; gratias ago huic gloriae eorum, maximo adjutorio ejus hinc jam haeresim probaturus, novae scilicet divinitatis professionem. Haec erit novitas, quae etiam ethnicis deos peperit, novo semper ac novo titulo consecrationis cujusque. Quis deus novus, nisi falsus? Ne Saturnum quidem tanta hodie antiquitas deum probabit, quia et illum novitas aliquando produxerit, cum primum consecravit. At enim viva et germana divinitas, nec de novitate, nec de vetustate, sed de sua veritate censetur. Non habet tempus aeternitas; omne enim tempus ipsa est. Quod facit, pati non potest. Caret aetate, quod non licet nasci. Deus, si est vetus, non erit: si est novus, non fuit. Novitas initium testificatur, vetustas finem comminatur. Deus autem tam alienus ab initio et fine est, quam a tempore, arbitro et metatore initii et finis.

glory, they will take a beating. So, hearing of a new god in an old world and in an old age, and under an old God, a god unknown, unheard of, who through so many ages past was no one, and ancient in that very ignorance, whom a certain Jesus Christ, He too new among ancient names, has revealed, and no other before Him: I give thanks to this boast of theirs, since with its very great help I shall from here on prove heresy, namely the profession of a new divinity. This will be the novelty which also bore gods for the heathen, by an ever new and new title of each consecration. What new god is there, unless a false one? Not even Saturn will so great an antiquity prove to be a god today, because novelty too once produced him, when it first consecrated him. But living and genuine divinity is assessed neither by novelty nor by antiquity, but by its own truth. Eternity has no time; for it is itself all time. What it makes, it cannot undergo. That which may not be born lacks age. God, if He is old, will not be; if He is new, He was not. Novelty testifies to a beginning, oldness threatens an end. But God is as foreign to beginning and end as to time, He who is the arbiter and measurer of beginning and end.

CAPUT IX.

Chapter IX.

Scio quidem quo sensu novum deum jactitent, agnitione utique; sed et ipsam novitatis cognitionem, percutientem rudes animas, ipsamque naturalem novitatis gratiositatem volui repercutere, et hinc jam de ignoto deo provocare. Utique enim quem agnitione novum opponunt, ignotum ante agnitionem demonstrant. Age igitur, ad lineas rursum et in gradum; persuade deum ignotum esse potuisse. Invenio plane ignotis diis aras prostitutas; sed attica idololatria est: item, incertis diis; sed superstitio Romana est. Porro,

I know indeed in what sense they boast of a new god: in respect of acknowledgement, of course; but I wished to strike back at that very knowledge of novelty, which strikes untrained souls, and at the natural attractiveness of novelty itself, and from here on to issue a challenge concerning the unknown god. For surely the one whom they set forth as new by acknowledgement they show to have been unknown before the acknowledgement. Come then, back to the lines and into position; persuade [me] that a god could have been unknown. I do indeed find altars set out publicly to unknown gods; but that is Attic idolatry: likewise to uncertain gods; but that is Roman superstition. Further,

Editors' notes and page, col. 280

Footnotes

(33) ‹anchor: invenio plane› · call in col 280

Invenio plane, etc. Alludit ad illud Apostoli Act. XVII: Invenio et aram, in qua scriptum erat: ignoto Deo. Quod cum Athenis contigerit, recte atticam idololatriam vocat; atque Graecam inscriptionem fuisse scribit in eum locum OEcumenius ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ, ejus duas causas afferens: alteram quod, cum Atheniensibus missis ad Lacedaemonios auxilii gratia adv. Persas, apparuisset spectrum Panis juxta Partheniam eos accusans quod, se neglecto, alios deos colerent, victoria potiti, ne quid postea simile contingeret, non solum Pani templum erexerint, sed etiam aram ignoto Deo; alteram, quod cum peste laborantibus reliqui dii invocati nihil adjumenti afferrent, intelligentes quemdam esse Deum qui pestem immitteret, Ignoto deo aram inscripserint; quo facto pestis cessaverit. PAM. Inscriptionem arae ita conceptam fuisse notavit Hieronymus, in cap. II. Epist. ad Titum: Diis Asiae, et Europae et Africae, diis ignotis et peregrinis. ID.

I do find, etc. He alludes to the Apostle's words, Acts 17: I found also an altar on which was written: To an unknown God. Since this happened at Athens, he rightly calls it Attic idolatry; and Oecumenius, on that passage, writes that the inscription was in Greek, ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ ("to an unknown God"), giving two reasons for it. One: when the Athenians sent to the Lacedaemonians for help against the Persians, a phantom of Pan appeared near Parthenium, accusing them of neglecting him and worshipping other gods; having won the victory, so that nothing like it should happen again, they raised not only a temple to Pan but also an altar to the unknown God. The other: when they were suffering from plague and the other gods they invoked brought no help, they understood that there was some God who was sending the plague, and inscribed an altar to the unknown god; and when that was done the plague ceased. PAMELIUS. Jerome noted, on chapter 1 [printed II] of the Epistle to Titus, that the altar's inscription was worded thus: To the gods of Asia and Europe and Africa, to the unknown and foreign gods. THE SAME [Pamelius].

(printed under page 144)

(34) ‹anchor: superstitio Romana est› · call in col 280

Item incertis diis; sed superstitio Romana est. Ubi terram movisse senserant, nuntiatumve erat, ferias ejus rei causa edicto imperabant; sed Dei nomen edicere quiescebant, ne alium pro alio nominando, falsa religione populum alligarent: eas ferias si quis polluisset, piaculoque ad hanc rem opus esset, hostiam si Deo, si Deae immolabat. » Agellius, II. cap. 28. Ipse Tertullianus ex Varrone, lib. II. ad Nat. RIG.

Likewise to uncertain gods; but that is Roman superstition. When they had felt the earth move, or it had been reported, they ordered a holiday by edict on that account; but they refrained from proclaiming the name of the god, lest by naming one for another they bind the people with a false religion. If anyone had polluted that holiday and an expiation was needed for it, he sacrificed a victim "to god or to goddess." Aulus Gellius, II, ch. 28. Tertullian himself, from Varro, To the Nations book II. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 144)

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A gloriam vapulabunt; B nec de vetustate; C agnitionem demonstrant; D quid postea simile contingeret (in the commentary at the foot)
old-edition numerals: 255 after in

PL 2:281

incerti dii minus noti, ut minus certi; et proinde ignoti, qua minus certi. Quem titulum incidemus ex duobus deo Marcionis? Utrumque, opinor, et nunc incerto, et retro ignoto. Sicut enim ignotum eum fecit Deus notus Creator, ita et incertum Deus certus. Sed non evagabor uti dicam. Deus si ignotus fuit latuitque, illum regio latebrarum obumbravit, nova utique et ipsa, et ignota, et similiter nunc quoque incerta; certe immensa aliqua, et major indubitate eo quem abscondit. Sed breviter proponam, et plenissime exsequar praescribens Deum ignorari nec potuisse, nomine magnitudinis, nec debuisse, nomine benignitatis, praesertim in utroque praelatiorem nostro Creatore. Sed quoniam animadverto in quibusdam ad formam Creatoris provocari oportere omnis Dei novi et retro ignoti probationem, hoc ipsum ratione fieri a nobis prius commendare debebo, quo constantius utar rationis editae patrocinio. Ante omnia quidem, quale est, ut qui Deum agnosci Creatorem, et priorem de notitia confiteris, non eisdem modis et alium scias tibi examinandum quibus jam in alio didicisti Deum nosse? Omnis res anterior posteriori normam praeministravit. Duo nunc dii proponuntur, ignotus et notus. De noto vacat quaestio: esse eum constat, quia notus non fuisset, nisi esset. De ignoto instat altercatio: potest enim et non esse; quia si esset, notus fuisset. Quod ergo quaeritur quamdiu ignoratur, incertum est quamdiu quaeritur: et potest non esse, quamdiu incertum est. Habes Deum certum, qua notum; et incertum, qua ignotum. Si ita est, ecquid tibi videtur justa ratione defendi, ut ad normam et formam et regulam certorum probentur incerta? Caeterum, si ad hanc causam, et ipsam adhuc incertam, etiam argumenta de incertis adhibeantur, series implicabitur quaestionum, ex ipsorum quoque argumentorum aeque incertorum retractatu, periclitantium de fide per incertum; et ibitur in illas jam indeterminabiles quaestiones, quas Apostolus (I Tim. I, 4) non amat. Sin de certis, et indubitatis, et absolutis regulae, partibus incertis, et dubiis et inexpeditis praejudicabunt plane, in quibus diversitas status invenitur, fortasse an non provocentur incerta ad formam certorum, ut liberata a reliqua comparationis provocatione per diversitatem status principalis. Cum vero duo dii proponuntur, communis est illis status principalis. Quod enim Deus est ambo

uncertain gods [are] less known, as being less certain; and therefore unknown, inasmuch as less certain. Which title, of the two, shall we carve for Marcion's god? Both, I think: uncertain now, and unknown formerly. For just as God the Creator, being known, made him unknown, so also God, being certain, [made him] uncertain. But I will not wander off so far as to say: if God was unknown and lay hidden, a region of hiding-places overshadowed him, itself also new, of course, and unknown, and likewise now also uncertain; surely some immense one, and undoubtedly greater than him whom it hid. But I will briefly set forth, and most fully follow out, laying down by way of prescription that God could not have been unknown, by reason of greatness, nor ought to have been, by reason of goodness, especially one superior in both respects to our Creator. But since I notice that in certain quarters every proof of the new god, formerly unknown, is held to need referring to the form of the Creator, I shall first have to commend this very thing as done by us with reason, so that I may make use the more steadfastly of the support of a reason set forth. Before all else indeed, how is it that you, who acknowledge God the Creator and confess Him as prior in knowledge, should not know that the other too must be examined by you by the same means by which you have already learned, in another, to know God? Every earlier thing has furnished beforehand a norm for the later. Two gods are now proposed, an unknown and a known. Concerning the known there is no question: it is established that He exists, because He would not have been known unless He existed. Concerning the unknown the dispute presses: for he can also not exist; because if he existed, he would have been known. What therefore is sought so long as it is unknown is uncertain so long as it is sought; and it can not exist, so long as it is uncertain. You have a God certain, inasmuch as known; and one uncertain, inasmuch as unknown. If this is so, does it seem to you to be defended by just reason, that uncertain things should be proved by the norm and form and rule of certain things? Moreover, if for this case, itself still uncertain, arguments drawn from uncertain things are also applied, a chain of questions will become entangled, arising from the handling of the arguments themselves, equally uncertain, which are imperilled as to credibility through uncertainty; and one will pass into those questions, now indeterminable, which the Apostle does not love (1 Tim. 1:4). But if certain, undoubted and absolute parts of the rule will plainly prejudge uncertain, doubtful and unresolved parts, in which a difference of state is found, perhaps uncertain things may not be referred to the form of certain ones, as being freed from the remaining claim of comparison through difference of principal state. But when two gods are proposed, the principal state is common to them. For what God is, both

Editors' notes and page, col. 281

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 40 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 281 (inferred) Si abest Fran. Paris.

"Si" ("if") is absent in the Franeker and Paris editions.

41 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 281 (inferred) Et abest Fran. Paris.

"Et" ("and") is absent in the Franeker and Paris editions.

42 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 281 (inferred) Didicistis Rhen.

"Didicistis" ("you have learned"): Rhenanus.

43 ‹anchor: incertum› · call in col 281 In incerto Rhen.

"In incerto" ("in uncertainty"): Rhenanus.

44 ‹anchor: quamdiu incertum› · call in col 281 Id.

The same [reading, "in incerto"].

45 ‹anchor: quod enim Deus est› · call in col 281 Quid enim Deus est? Seml.

"Quid enim Deus est?" ("for what is God?"): Semler.

46 ‹anchor: etiam tantam› · call in col 282 Tanta Semler.

"Tanta" ("so great", agreeing with idolatry): Semler.

47 ‹anchor: idololatria› · call in col 282 Idololatriae Rhen.

"Idololatriae" ("of idolatry"): Rhenanus.

48 ‹anchor: Deum, dicunt› · call in col 282 Et inser. Seml.

"Et" ("and") is inserted by Semler.

Commentarius. (printed under page 145)

(35) ‹anchor: plenissime exaequare praescribens› · call in col 281 (inferred)

Plenissime exaequare praescribens. Cuinam unum Deum esse praescribens, id est, ex usu forensi respondendo ad objecta adversariorum, eademque diluendo. LE PR.

Prescribing to equal it most fully. Prescribing to someone that God is one, that is, in the language of the courts, answering the adversaries' objections and rebutting them. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 145)

(36) ‹anchor: constantissime dirigam› · call in col 281 (inferred)

Itaque constantissime dirigam. Quas in nos rationes contorserunt, retorquebo. Dirigere, est lege agere, sive convenire, et actionem intendere: sic l. I, § Si ego D. si pars haered. petatur: « Et ille quoque dirigat actionem adversus exterum possessorem. » ID.

Therefore I will most steadily direct. The arguments they have hurled at us I will hurl back. Dirigere is to proceed at law, or to sue, and to bring an action: so law 1, § Si ego, of the Digest title "If part of an inheritance is claimed": "and he too may direct an action against an outside possessor." THE SAME [Le Prieur].

(printed under page 145)

Page

running head: 281 LIB. I ADV. MARCIO[NEM] (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹incerti dii minus noti›; B ‹in quibusdam ad formam Creatoris›; C ‹incertum est quamdiu quaeritur›; D ‹plane, in quibus diversitas status›
old-edition numerals: 256 after ‹Creator›; 257 after ‹status›

PL 2:282

sunt; innati, infecti, aeterni. Hic erit status principalis. Caetera viderit Marcion, si in diversitate disposuit; posteriora enim sunt in retractatu; imo nec admittentur, si de principali statu constet. Porro constat quia dii ambo, et ita de quorum statu constat communem esse, cum sub eo ad probationem devocantur: si incerta sunt, ad eorum certorum formam provocanda erunt, cum quibus de communione status principalis censentur, ut proinde et de probatione communicent. Hinc itaque constantissime dirigam Deum non esse qui fit hodie incertus, quia retro ignotus: quando quem constat esse, ex hoc ipso constat quod nunquam fuerit ignotus, ideo nec incertus.

are; unborn, unmade, eternal. This will be the principal state. Let Marcion see to the rest, if he has arranged [them] in diversity; for the later points are under reconsideration; indeed, they will not even be admitted, if there is agreement about the principal state. Moreover, it is agreed that both are gods, and so, concerning those whose state is agreed to be common, when under it they are summoned to proof: if they are uncertain, they will have to be referred to the form of those certain ones with whom they are reckoned in the communion of the principal state, so that they may likewise share also in the proof. Hence, therefore, I shall most steadfastly bring the action that he is not God who becomes uncertain today because he was formerly unknown: since of Him Whom it is agreed exists, from this very fact it is agreed that He was never unknown, and therefore not uncertain either.

CAPUT X.

Chapter X.

Siquidem a primordio rerum, conditor earum cum ipsis pariter compertus est, ipsis ad hoc prolatis, ut Deus cognosceretur. Nec enim si aliquando posterior Moses primus videtur in templo litterarum suarum Deum mundi dedicasse, idcirco a Pentateucho natales agnitionis supputabuntur; cum totus Mosis stylus notitiam Creatoris non instituat, sed a primor⟨d⟩io enarret a paradiso et Adam, non ab Aegypto et Mose recensendam. Denique, major popularitas generis humani, ne nominis quidem Mosis compotes, nedum instrumenti, Deum Mosis tamen norunt, etiam tantam i⟨d⟩ololatria dominationem obumbrante; seorsum tamen illum quasi proprio nomine Deum perhibent, et Deum deorum, et: Si Deus dederit, et: Quod Deo placet, et: Deo commendo. Vide an noverint, quem omnia posse testantur. Nec hoc ullis Mosis libris debent. Ante anima, quam prophetia. Animae enim a primordio conscientia Dei dos est; eadem nec alia et in Aegyptiis, et in Syris et in Ponticis. Judaeorum enim Deum, dicunt animae Deum. Noli, barbare haeretice, priorem Abraham constituere quam mundum. Etsi unius familiae Deus fuisset Creator, tamen posterior tuo non erat, etiam Ponticis ante eum notus. Accipe igitur ab antecessore formam, a certo incertus, a cognito incognitus. Numquam Deus latebit, numquam Deus deerit: semper intelligetur, semper audietur; etiam videbitur quomodo volet. Habet Deus testimonia, totum hoc quod sumus et in quo sumus. Sic probatur et Deus et unus, dum non ignoratur, alio adhuc probari laborante.

For indeed, from the beginning of things, their Founder was discovered together with them, they having been brought forth for this purpose, that God might be known. For it does not follow that, if Moses, coming at some later time, appears to have been the first to dedicate the God of the world in the temple of his writings, the birth of the knowledge [of Him] is therefore to be reckoned from the Pentateuch; since the whole pen of Moses does not institute the knowledge of the Creator, but relates from the beginning that it is to be traced from paradise and Adam, not from Egypt and Moses. Finally, the greater populace of the human race, not even possessing the name of Moses, much less his document, nevertheless know the God of Moses, even while idolatry overshadows so great a dominion; yet they speak of Him apart, as by a proper name, as God, and God of gods, and: "If God grant," and: "What pleases God," and: "I commend to God." See whether they know Him Whom they testify to be able to do all things. Nor do they owe this to any books of Moses. The soul [was] before prophecy. For from the beginning the consciousness of God is the dowry of the soul; the same and no other both among the Egyptians, and among the Syrians and among the Pontics. For it is the God of the Jews Whom souls call God. Do not, barbarous heretic, set Abraham before the world. Even if the Creator had been the God of one family, yet He was not later than yours, being known even to the Pontics before him. Take therefore the pattern from the predecessor: the uncertain [is judged] from the certain, the unknown from the known. Never will God lie hidden, never will God be lacking: always He will be understood, always He will be heard; He will even be seen as He wills. God has as testimonies all this that we are and in which we are. Thus God is proved both [to be God] and to be one, while He is not unknown, while the other still labours to be proved.

Editors' notes and page, col. 282

Footnotes

(37) ‹anchor: popularitas generis humani› · call in col 282

Major popularitas generis humani. Hoc est, gentium consensus, conscientia publica. RIG.

The greater commonalty of the human race. That is, the consent of the nations, the public conscience. RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 145)

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 49 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 283 (inferred) False Rhen. Junius.

"False" ("falsely"): Rhenanus, Junius.

50 ‹anchor: auctoritas accommodata› · call in col 283 Si inserit Seml. si false Rhen.

Semler inserts "si" ("if"); "si false" ("if falsely"): Rhenanus.

51 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Annon? Seml. an Fran.

"Annon?" ("or not?"): Semler; "an" ("or"): Franeker edition.

52 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible False Rhen.

"False" ("falsely"): Rhenanus.

53 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Superiora Ciacon.

"Superiora" ("the things above / earlier"): Chacón.

54 ‹anchor: rem ipsam› · call in col 284 Res ipsa Seml.

"Res ipsa" ("the thing itself"): Semler.

55 ‹anchor: auctoritate formatum› · call in col 284 Formatam Jun.

"Formatam" ("formed", feminine): Junius.

56 ‹anchor: et impudentiae› · call in col 284 Forte imprudentiae Edd.

Perhaps "imprudentiae" ("of imprudence"): the editors.

57 ‹anchor: impudentiae› · call in col 284 Id.

The same [conjecture].

Commentarius. (printed under page 146)

(38) ‹anchor: quando error etiam orbis› · call in col 283 (inferred)

Quando error etiam orbis, etc. Hoc latissime tractavit auctor supra, Apolog. c. 2, etiam vanas illas esse causas comprobans, ob quas « deos orbis terrae praesumpserit, quod aliquid prospexerint humanis utilitatibus. PAM.

Since even the error of the world, etc. The author treated this most fully above, Apology ch. 2 [rather ch. 11], proving that those reasons too are empty for which "the world has presumed them gods, because they have provided something for human needs." PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 146)

(39) ‹anchor: unam saltem cicerculam› · call in col 283

Unam saltem cicerculam, etc. Legunt ms. Vatic. 2 saltim, more veteri, sed nolui immutare. Apte autem metaphora cicerculae utitur, eo quod Triptolemus primus serendi modum tradiderit. Hinc illud auctoris lib. ad Herennium; « Si Triptolemus, cum omnibus semen largiretur. » ID.

At least one little chickpea, etc. The second Vatican manuscript reads saltim, in the old way, but I did not want to change it. He uses the metaphor of the chickpea aptly, because Triptolemus first taught the way of sowing. Hence that line of the author of the books To Herennius: "if Triptolemus, when he was lavishing seed on all." THE SAME [Pamelius].

(printed under page 146)

(40) ‹anchor: prospexerit agnoscendo paraturam› · call not visible

Prospexerit agnoscendo paraturam, Hoc est ornamentum seu creationis praerogativam, qua velut proprio apparatu, propriaque gloria cognosceretur. LE PR.

He should have provided a furnishing by which to be known. That is, an adornment, or the privilege of creation, by which he might be known as by his own apparatus and his own glory. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 146)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L02 and L04 blocked (both columns had already been set aside on the volunteer page) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:284

anne alio proposito et descendit, et praedicavit, et passus resurrexit, quam uti cognosceretur? Et sine dubio, si cognitus est, voluit: nihil enim circa eum fieret, nisi voluisset. Quid ergo tantopere notitiam sui procuravit, ut in dedecore carnis exhiberetur, et quidem majore, si falsae? Nam hoc turpius, si et mentitus est substantiam corporis, qui et maledictum in se Creatoris admisit, ligno suspensus. Quanto honestius per aliqua propriae molitionis indicia cognitionem sui praestruxisset? Maxime adversus eum cognosci habens, apud quem ex operibus ab initio cognitus non erat. Nam et quale est, ut Creator quidem ignorans esse alium super se deum, ut volunt Marcionitae, qui solum se etiam jurans (Isa. XL, 8) adseverabat, tantis operibus notitiam sui armaverit, quam potuerat non ita curas⟨s⟩e secundum singularitatis suae praesumptionem: ille autem sublimior, sciens inferiorem deum tam instructum, nullam sibi, prospexerit agnoscendo paraturam? Quando etiam insigniora et superbiora opera debuisset condidisse, ut Deus ex operibus cognosceretur secundum Creatorem; et ex honestioribus, potior et generosior Creatore.

or did He both descend, and preach, and, having suffered, rise again for some other purpose than that He might be known? And without doubt, if He was known, He willed it: for nothing would have happened concerning Him unless He had willed it. Why then did He so greatly procure the knowledge of Himself as to be displayed in the disgrace of flesh, and indeed a greater [disgrace], if [the flesh was] false? For this is the more shameful, if He both feigned the substance of a body and admitted upon Himself the curse of the Creator, hanging on the tree. How much more honourably would He have prepared the knowledge of Himself beforehand through some tokens of His own contriving? Especially since He had to be known in opposition to him by whom He had not been known from the beginning by works. For what sort of thing is it, that the Creator indeed, not knowing that there was another god above Him, as the Marcionites will have it, He who asserted, even with an oath, that He alone existed (Isa. 40:8), should have armed the knowledge of Himself with such great works, which, according to the presumption of His singularity, He could have taken no such care for; whereas that loftier one, knowing the inferior god to be so well equipped, should have provided for himself no equipment for being recognized? When he ought even to have made more remarkable and more splendid works, so that he might be known as God from his works after the manner of the Creator, and, from more honourable works, as mightier and nobler than the Creator.

CAPUT XII.

Chapter XII.

Caeterum, etsi esse eum possemus confiteri, sine causa esse cum deberemus argumentari. Sine causa enim esset, qui rem non haberet; quia res omnis causa est, ut sit aliquis cujus res sit. Porro, in quantum nihil oportet esse sine causa, id est sine re: quia si sine causa sit, perinde est atque si non sit, non habens rei causam, rem ipsam; in tantum Deum dignius credam non esse, quam esse sine causa. Sine causa enim est, qui rem non habendo, non habet causam. Deus autem sine causa, id est sine re, esse non debet. Ita, quoties ostendo eum sine causa esse, tamquam sit, hoc constituo non esse illum, quia, si fuisset, omnino sine causa non fuisset. Sic et ipsam fidem dico illum sine causa ab homine captare, aliter solito Deum credere ex operum auctoritate formatum, quia nihil tale prospexit, per quod homo Deum didicit. Nam, etsi credunt plerique in illum, non statim ratione credunt, non habentes Dei pignus, opera ejus, Deo digna. Itaque, hoc nomine cessationis et defectionis operum, et impudentiae et malignitatis adfinis est: impudentiae, qua fidem non

But even if we could grant that he exists, we ought to argue that he exists without cause. For he would be without cause who had no matter [to deal with]; because every matter is a cause, so that there may be someone whose matter it is. Further, inasmuch as nothing ought to exist without cause, that is, without matter: because if it exists without cause, it is just as if it did not exist, not having the cause of a matter, the matter itself; to that extent I should more worthily believe that God does not exist than that He exists without cause. For he is without cause who, by having no matter, has no cause. But God ought not to exist without cause, that is, without matter. Thus, whenever I show him to exist without cause, as though he existed, I establish this, that he does not exist, because, if he had existed, he would by no means have existed without cause. So too I say that he seeks faith itself from man without cause, man being otherwise accustomed to believe in God as formed by the authority of works, because he has provided nothing of the kind through which man has learned God. For, although very many believe in him, they do not therefore believe by reason, not having the pledge of God, His works, worthy of God. And so, on this score of the idleness and failure of works, he is akin both to impudence and to malignity: to impudence, by which he seeks a faith not

Editors' notes and page, col. 284

Footnotes

(41) ‹anchor: malignitatis adfinis est› · call in col 284

Et malignitatis affinis est. Particeps malignitatis. Eo enim vocabulo in eo sensu utitur Tullius pro Sylla: « Hujus adfines suspicionis. » ID.

And he is akin to malignity. A sharer in malignity. For Tully uses the word in that sense in the speech for Sulla: "implicated in this suspicion." THE SAME [Le Prieur].

(printed under page 146)

Page

running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 284
marginal letters: A anne alio proposito; B notitiam sui armaverit; C quantum nihil oportet; D ratione credunt
old-edition numerals: 260 after illum,

PL 2:285

debitam sibi captat, cui praestruendae nihil prospexit; malignitatis, qua plures incredulitatis reos fecit, nihil fidei procurando.

owed to him, for the preparing of which he made no provision; [and] of malignity, in that he has made many guilty of unbelief, by providing nothing for faith.

CAPUT XIII.

CHAPTER XIII.

Cum deum hoc gradu expellimus, cui nulla conditio tam propria et Deo digna, quam Creatoris, testimonium praesignarit, narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionistae, convertuntur ad destructionem operum Creatoris. Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum Deo, mundus. Numquid ergo Creator minime Deus? Plane Deus. Ergo nec mundus Deo indignus: nihil etenim Deus indignum se fecit; etsi mundum homini, non sibi fecit, etsi omne opus inferius est suo artifice. Et tamen, si quale quid fecisse indignum est Deo, quanto indignius Deo est, nihil eum omnino fecisse vel indignum, quo posset etiam digniorum auctor sperari! Ut ergo aliquid et de isto hujus mundi indigno loquar, cui et apud Graecos ornamenti et cultus, non sordium nomen est, indignas videlicet substantias ipsi illi sapientiae professores, de quorum ingeniis omnis haeresis animatur, deos pronuntiaverunt, ut Thales aquam, ut Heraclitus ignem, ut Anaximenes aerem, ut Anaximander universa coelestia, ut Strato coelum et terram, ut Zeno aerem et aetherem, ut Plato sidera; quae genus deorum igneum appellat, cum de mundo. Considerando scilicet et magnitudinem, et vim, et potestatem, et honorem, et decorem, opem, fidem, legem singulorum elementorum, quae omnibus gignendis, alendis, conficiendis reficiendisque conspirant, ut plerique physicorum, formidaverunt initium ac finem mundo dare, ne substantiae ejus, tantae scilicet, minus dii haberentur; quas colunt et Persarum Magi, et Aegyptiorum Hierophantae

When we drive out by this step a god for whom no created thing, so proper to him and worthy of God as [the creation] of the Creator, has set its testimony beforehand, the most impudent Marcionites, wrinkling their noses, turn to the demolition of the Creator's works. "To be sure," they say, "a great work and worthy of God, the world!" Is the Creator then by no means God? Plainly He is God. Therefore neither is the world unworthy of God: for God has made nothing unworthy of Himself; even though He made the world for man, not for Himself, even though every work is lower than its maker. And yet, if it is unworthy of God to have made a thing of some sort, how much more unworthy of God is it that he should have made nothing at all, not even something unworthy, from which he might at least be hoped to be the author of worthier things! So then, to say something also about this unworthy thing of this world, which even among the Greeks bears a name of ornament and adornment, not of filth: those very professors of wisdom, from whose wits every heresy draws its life, declared, to be sure, unworthy substances to be gods: as Thales water, as Heraclitus fire, as Anaximenes air, as Anaximander all the heavenly things, as Strato the heaven and the earth, as Zeno the air and the aether, as Plato the stars, which he calls the fiery race of gods, when [speaking] of the world. Considering, namely, both the magnitude and the force and the power, and the honour and the beauty, the help, the faithfulness, the law of the several elements, which conspire for the begetting, nourishing, completing and renewing of all things, like most of the physicists they feared to give the world a beginning and an end, lest its substances, so great as they are, should be held less to be gods; [substances] which the Magi of the Persians and the Hierophants of the Egyptians

Editors' notes and page, col. 285

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 58 ‹anchor: mundo dare› · call in col 285 Constare Seml.

"Constare" ("to be established"): Semler.

59 ‹anchor: quas› · call in col 285 Quos Seml.

"Quos" ("whom", masculine): Semler.

60 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Osirin Paris. Fran.

"Osirin" ("Osiris", accusative): Paris and Franeker editions.

Commentarius. (printed under page 147)

(42) ‹anchor: narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionistae› · call in col 285

Narem contrahentes impudentissimi Marcionistae. Vafre deridentes et naso suspendentes adunco. LE PR.

The most shameless Marcionites, wrinkling their noses. Mocking slyly and hanging things from a hooked nose. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 147)

(43) ‹anchor: apud Graecos› · call in col 285

Notum Pythagorae dictum. Hinc etiam istud Aristotelis in lib. de Mundo: « Universum ipsum commode κόσμον nominaveris, id est, compagem rerum compositam, concinnateque ordine digestam. « EDD. post PAM.

A well-known saying of Pythagoras. Hence also that of Aristotle in the book On the World: "you may fitly call the universe itself κόσμος, that is, a framework of things put together and arranged in harmonious order." THE EDITORS, after PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 147)

(44) ‹anchor: Aegyptiorum Hierophantae› · call in col 285

Et Aegyptiorum Hierophante. ἱεροφάνται dicti, quod sacra ostenderent aut peragerent, genus sacerdotum apud Aegyptios. PAM.

And the Hierophants of the Egyptians. Called ἱεροφάνται because they showed or performed the sacred rites; a class of priests among the Egyptians. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 147)

(45) ‹anchor: Indorum Gymnosophistae› · call not visible

Indorum Gymnosophistae. Apolog. 32. Gymnosophistas Indorum pariter dixerat. Hos vero Aethiopum philosophos fuisse, Brachmanas vero Indorum statuere videtur Sidonius Apoll. ep. 3, l. VIII: « Nunc ad Aethiopum Gymnosophistas, Indorumque Brachmanas, totus lectioni vacans, ea ipse quodammodo peregrinare. » Nec abit ab ea sententia Clemens Alex. Strom. I: παρ' Ἰνδοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν Βραχμάνων, a Brachmanis apud Indos. LE PR.

The Gymnosophists of the Indians. Apology 32. He had likewise spoken of the Gymnosophists of the Indians. But Sidonius Apollinaris, letter 3 of book VIII, seems to hold that these were philosophers of the Ethiopians, and the Brahmans those of the Indians: "now, wholly given to reading, you yourself travel in a manner to the Gymnosophists of the Ethiopians and the Brahmans of the Indians." Nor does Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I, depart from that view: παρ' Ἰνδοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν Βραχμάνων, from the Brahmans among the Indians. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 147)

(46) ‹anchor: leones Mithrae philosophantur› · call not visible

Sicut aridae et ardentis naturae sacramenta leones Mithrae philosophantur. In sacris Mithrae sive Solis adhibebantur leonum simulacra. Erant autem sacramenta, hoc est signa seu mysteria solaris naturae, aridae et ardentis. Tunc enim aestus intenditur fontes et fluvii siccantur, cum ingredi Leonem Sol dicitur. Tunc denique Cereris raptus celebratur, hoc est, messis agitur. Arati Scholiastes, Κόρην γὰρ εἶναι τοὺς καρποὺς λέγουσι, καὶ μητέρα τὴν γῆν· καὶ γὰρ παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις κατὰ τὸν Ἐμφὶ μῆνα, ὅτε ἐν λεόντι γίνεται ὁ ἥλιος, ἡ τῆς Κόρης ἁρπαγὴ τελειοῦται. Proserpinam enim esse fructus dicunt et Matrem terram. Etenim apud Aegyptios mense Emphi, cum in Leone versatur sol, Proserpinae raptus peragitur. Germanicus in Leone: Hunc ubi contigerit Phoebi violentior axis, / Accensa in Cancro jam tum geminabitur aetas; / Tunc lymphae tenues, tunc est tristissima tellus, / Et densas laetus segetes benecondit arator. EDD. EX RIG. — Mithrae philosophantur. Nemo fere est qui nesciat Mithram deum esse Persarum et quidem primum. Hesychius, Μίθρης ὁ πρῶτος ἐν Πέρσαις θεὸς, ubi et Solem esse ait. Pingebatur autem Leonis vultu, animalium ferventissimi, quoniam, ut docet lib., I adv. Jovin. B. Hieronymus, ex aestu libidinis, ad eum modum, quo Erichthonius, genitus est. Unde et hic ardentis naturae voces usurpantur. LE PR.

As the lions of Mithras philosophize as sacraments of a dry and burning nature. In the rites of Mithras, that is, of the Sun, images of lions were used. They were sacraments, that is, signs or mysteries of the sun's nature, dry and burning. For the heat grows fierce, springs and rivers dry up, when the Sun is said to enter Leo. Then too the rape of Ceres [i.e. of her daughter] is celebrated, that is, the harvest is reaped. The scholiast on Aratus: "for they say that Kore is the crops, and the mother is the earth; for among the Egyptians too, in the month Emphi, when the sun comes into Leo, the rape of Kore is performed." For they say Proserpina is the crops and the Mother the earth; and among the Egyptians, in the month Emphi, when the sun is in Leo, the rape of Proserpina is enacted. Germanicus, on Leo: "When Phoebus's fiercer axle reaches him, the season, already kindled in Cancer, will then be doubled; then the streams run thin, then the earth is at its saddest, and the glad ploughman stores away the thick harvest." THE EDITORS, FROM RIGALTIUS. — Of Mithras philosophize. There is hardly anyone who does not know that Mithras is a god of the Persians, indeed the first. Hesychius: "Mithras, the first god among the Persians," where he also says he is the Sun. He was painted with the face of a Lion, the most fiery of animals, because, as Blessed Jerome teaches in Against Jovinian book I, he was begotten from the heat of lust, in the way Erichthonius was. Hence the words of a burning nature are used here too. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 147)

Page

running head: 285 LIB. I ADV. MARCIONEM. 286 (right part cut off in the image; "LIB. I ADV. MARCIO" visible)
marginal letters: A ‹debitam sibi captat›; B ‹quanto indignius Deo est›; C ‹alendis, conficiendis reficiendisque›; D ‹(44) Et Aegyptiorum Hierophante (in the Commentarius)›
old-edition numerals: (none)
note calls in the text: (42) after "Marcionistae", (43) after "apud Graecos", (44) after "Hierophantae" (column end); 58 after "mundo dare", 59 after "quas"
misprints kept as printed: Commentarius (44) lemma "Hierophante" (text: "Hierophantae")

PL 2:286

Indorum Gymnosophistae. Ipsa quoque vulgaris superstitio communis idololatriae, cum in simulacris de nominibus et fabulis veterum mortuorum pudet, ad interpretationem naturalium refugit, et dedecus suum ingenio obumbrat, figurans Jovem in substantiam fervidam, et Junonem ejus in aeriam, secundum sonum Graecorum vocabulorum; item Vestam in ignem et Camenas in aquam, et Magnam Matrem in terram seminalia demessam, lacertis aratam, lavacris rigatam. Sic et Osiris quod semper sepelitur, et in vivido quaeritur, et cum gaudio invenitur, reciprocarum frugum et vividorum elementorum, et recidivi anni fidem argumentatur; sicut aridae et ardentis naturae sacramenta leones Mithrae philosophantur. Et superiores quidem situ aut statu substantias sufficit facilius deos habitas, quam Deo indignas. Ad humilia deficiam. Unus, opinor de sepibus flosculus, non dico de pratis; una cujuslibet maris conchula, non dico de Rubro; una tetraonis pinnula, taceo de pavo, sordidum artificem pronuntiabit tibi Creatorem?

and the Gymnosophists of the Indians worship. Even the common superstition of general idolatry itself, when it is ashamed in its images of the names and fables of the ancient dead, takes refuge in an interpretation of natural things, and veils its disgrace with ingenuity, figuring Jupiter as a fiery substance, and his Juno as an airy one, according to the sound of the Greek words; likewise Vesta as fire and the Camenae as water, and the Great Mother as the earth, reaped of its seeds, ploughed by arms, watered by baths. So too Osiris, in that he is always being buried, and sought in a living one, and found with joy, argues the assurance of the returning fruits and of the living elements, and of the year that comes round again; just as the lions of Mithras philosophize the mysteries of a dry and burning nature. And indeed it is enough that substances superior in position or in state should more readily have been held to be gods than unworthy of God. I will come down to humble things. A single little flower, I suppose, from the hedges, I do not say from the meadows; a single little shell of any sea you like, I do not say of the Red; a single little feather of a grouse, I say nothing of the peacock: will it declare to you that the Creator is a mean craftsman?

CAPUT XIV.

Chapter XIV.

At cum et animalia irrides minutiora, quae maximus artifex de industria ingeniis aut viribus ampliavit, sic magnitudinem in mediocritate probari docens quemadmodum virtutem in infirmitate, secundum Apostolum (II Cor. XII, 9); imitare si potes, apis aedificia; formicae stabula, aranei retia, bombycis stamina: sustine, si potes, illas ipsas lectuli et tegetis tuae bestias, cantharidis venena, muscae spicula, culicis et tubam et lanceam. Qualia erunt majora, cum tam modicis aut juvaris aut laederis, ut nec modicis despicias Creatorem? Postremò, te ibi circumfer, intus ac foris considera

But when you also mock the smaller animals, which the supreme Craftsman has of set purpose enlarged with skills or powers, thus teaching that greatness is proved in smallness just as strength is in weakness, according to the Apostle (2 Cor. 12:9): imitate, if you can, the buildings of the bee, the stalls of the ant, the webs of the spider, the threads of the silkworm; endure, if you can, those very beasts of your bed and of your mat, the poisons of the blister-beetle, the stings of the fly, both the trumpet and the lance of the gnat. What will the greater things be like, when you are either helped or harmed by things so small, that not even in small things should you despise the Creator? Finally, take yourself round there, and consider, within and without,

Editors' notes and page, col. 286

Page

running head: I ADV. MARCIONEM. 286
marginal letters: A Indorum Gymnosophistae; B periores quidem situ; C bombycis stamina; D in Leone versatur sol (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 261 after obumbrat

PL 2:287

hominem. Placebit tibi vel hoc opus Dei nostri, quod tuus dominus ille deus melior adamavit; propter quem in haec paupertina el⟨e⟩menta de tertio coelo descendere laboravit; cujus causa in hac cellula Creatoris etiam crucifixus est. Sed ille quidem usque nunc nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, qua suos abluit; nec oleum, quo suos unguit; nec mellis et lactis societatem, quo suos infantat; nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat; etiam in sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus Creatoris. At tu super magistrum discipulus, et servus s⟨u⟩per dominum, sublimius illo sapis, destruens quae ille desiderat. Volo inspicere si ex fid⟨e⟩ saltem, ut non et ipse quae destrais, appetas. Adversaris coelum, et libertatem coeli in habitationibus captas. Despicis terram, plane inimica jam tuae carnis matricem; et omnes medullas ejus victui extorques. Reprobas et mare; sed usque ad copias ejus, quas sanctiorem cibum deputas. Rosam tibi si obtulero, non fastidies Creatorem Hypocrita, ut apocarteresi probes te Marcionitam, id est repudiatorem Creatoris (nam haec apud vos pro martyrio affectari debuisset, si vobis mundus displiceret), in quamcunque materiam resolveris, substantiam Creatoris uteris. Quanta obstinatio duritiae tuae! depretias in quibus et vivis et moreris.

man. This work of our God, at least, will please you, which that lord of yours, the better god, has loved; for whose sake he took the trouble to come down from the third heaven into these poor little elements; for whose cause he was even crucified in this little cell of the Creator. But he, indeed, has up to now rejected neither the Creator's water, with which he washes his own; nor oil, with which he anoints his own; nor the fellowship of honey and milk, with which he makes his own into infants; nor bread, by which he represents his very own body; needing even in his own sacraments the beggarly things of the Creator. But you, a disciple above the master and a servant above the lord, are more loftily wise than he, destroying what he has need of. I wish to examine whether you do so at least in good faith, so that you do not yourself also seek after the things you destroy. You set yourself against heaven, and yet you catch at the freedom of heaven in your dwellings. You despise the earth, as plainly hostile, though it is the womb of your own flesh; and you wring out all its marrow for your sustenance. You reject the sea too, but only as far as its produce, which you reckon a holier food. If I offer you a rose, you will not disdain the Creator. Hypocrite, though you should prove yourself a Marcionite by starving yourself to death, that is, a repudiator of the Creator (for this ought to have been aspired to among you in place of martyrdom, if the world displeased you), into whatever matter you are dissolved, you will be using the substance of the Creator. How great is the obstinacy of your hardness! You disparage the things in which you both live and die.

CAPUT XV.

Chapter XV.

Post haec, vel ante haec, cum dixeris esse et illi

After these things, or before these things, when you have said that he too has

Editors' notes and page, col. 287

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 61 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 287 (inferred) Inimice Seml.

"Inimice" ("in hostile fashion"): Semler.

62 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 287 (inferred) Hypocritam! ut Seml. hypocrita, muta Rhen.

"Hypocritam! ut" ("a hypocrite! as"): Semler; "hypocrita, muta" ("hypocrite, change"): Rhenanus.

63 ‹anchor: resolveris, substantiam› · call in col 287 Substantia Seml.

"Substantia" ("substance", ablative): Semler.

64 ‹anchor: vacent subsiciva› · call in col 288 Subcisiva Fran. subscidiva, subsciva Rhen.

"Subcisiva": Franeker edition; "subscidiva", "subsciva": Rhenanus.

65 ‹anchor: et tertius aliqui› · call in col 288 Aliquis Paris.

"Aliquis" ("someone"): Paris edition.

Commentarius. (printed under page 148)

(47) ‹anchor: corpus suum repraesentat› · call in col 287 (inferred)

Panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat. Has voces, quibus abutuntur Calvinistae, sic explicat adversus eos Bellarminus: « Verbum repraesentandi ambiguum est: significat enim praesentem rem aliquam facere, sive reipsa, sive in signo aliquo, vel imagine. Ac, ut omittam testimonia Ciceronis, et etiam sanctorum Patrum, qui frequenter utuntur hac voce ad significandum rem aliquam vere et proprie praesentem exhiberi; Tertullianus ipse utriusque significationis exempla praebere potest, lib. IV, in Marcionem, circa medium: « Itaque, inquit, jam repraesentans eum. Hic est Filius meus, » etc., ubi dicit Deum patrem, qui aliquando promiserat Filium, eumdem repraesentasse, cum ait in monte Thabor: Hic est Filius meus; ubi apertissime vocat repraesentare, exhibere reipsa: et in libro contra Praxeam vocat Filium Patris repraesentatorem, quia revera Pater est in Filio. Sed ipse idem in lib. de Poenitentia distinguit adulterium reipsa commissum, ab adulterio per concupiscentiam in mente repraesentato; ubi repraesentare est exhibere non reipsa, sed in imagine. Cum ergo vox ambigua sit, non potest recte ullo modo colligi Tertullianum loqui de repraesentatione in signo, et non in re; imo contra potius, quia magis proprie dicitur repraesentari quod reipsa exhibetur, quam quod solum in signo, probabilius colligetur Tertullianum loqui de repraesentatione, qua reipsa corpus Domini exhibetur. Quare Petrus martyr, lib. contra Gardin., obj. 160, tractans hunc locum Tertulliani, fatetur non posse ex hoc solo loco aliquid certi concludi; sed oportere ex aliis locis venari mentem Tertulliani (De sacr. Euch., II, c. 7). At enim doctissimus cardinalis plura Auctoris nostri refert testimonia, quibus dogma de reali praesentia mirum in modum comprobatur. Vid. praesertim lib. de Resurr. carn., c. 8. EDD.

The bread by which he makes present his own body. These words, which the Calvinists misuse, Bellarmine explains against them thus: "The verb repraesentare is ambiguous: it means to make a thing present, either in reality or in some sign or image. And, to pass over the testimonies of Cicero and also of the holy Fathers, who often use this word to mean that a thing is shown truly and properly present, Tertullian himself can supply examples of both meanings. In Book IV Against Marcion, about the middle, he says: 'and so, now making him present: This is my Son,' etc., where he says that God the Father, who had once promised the Son, made that same Son present when he said on Mount Tabor, This is my Son; where he plainly calls repraesentare showing in reality. And in the book Against Praxeas he calls the Son the one who makes the Father present, because the Father is truly in the Son. But the same author in the book On Repentance distinguishes adultery committed in reality from adultery made present in the mind through desire; where repraesentare is to show not in reality but in an image. Since, then, the word is ambiguous, it cannot rightly be concluded in any way that Tertullian is speaking of making present in a sign and not in reality. Rather the contrary: since what is shown in reality is more properly said to be made present than what is shown only in a sign, it will more probably be concluded that Tertullian speaks of the making present by which the Lord's body is shown in reality. So Peter Martyr, in his book against Gardiner, objection 160, dealing with this passage of Tertullian, admits that nothing certain can be concluded from this passage alone, and that Tertullian's mind must be hunted out from other passages" (On the Sacrament of the Eucharist, II, ch. 7). And indeed the most learned cardinal cites several testimonies of our author by which the dogma of the real presence is wonderfully confirmed. See especially the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 8. THE EDITORS.

(printed under page 148)

(48) ‹anchor: apocarteresi probes› · call in col 287 (inferred)

Ut apocarteresi probes te marcionistam. Etsi odio Creatoris omnibus creatis abstineas, et abdicatis omnibus vitae subsidiis intabescas, tamen in quamcunque materiam membra tua dissolvantur, in aliquam ex substantiis a Deo Creatore conditis resolventur. RIG. — Est autem ἀποκαρτερεῖν Graecis, auctore Suida, cum quis vel inedia, vel laqueo vitam finit, unde ἀποκαρτέρησις. Quod vocabulum in Apolog. quoque usurpat, sic scribens: Lycurgus ἀποκαρτέρησιν optavit, quod leges ejus Lacones emendassent. Caeterum hypocritam hic appellat Marcionem, ut non bona fide, nec ex animo, sed simulate tantum res Creatoris destruentem contemnentemque. RHEN.

To prove yourself a Marcionite by starving yourself to death. Even if, out of hatred of the Creator, you abstain from all created things and waste away having renounced every support of life, still, into whatever matter your limbs are dissolved, they will be resolved into one of the substances made by God the Creator. RIGALTIUS. — Among the Greeks, on Suidas's authority, ἀποκαρτερεῖν is said when someone ends his life by starvation or the noose; hence ἀποκαρτέρησις. He uses this word in the Apology too, writing: "Lycurgus chose ἀποκαρτέρησις (death by starvation) because the Spartans had amended his laws." For the rest, he calls Marcion a hypocrite here as one who destroys and despises the Creator's works not in good faith or from the heart but only in pretence. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 148)

(49) ‹anchor: Dominus a. XII Tiberii› · call in col 287 (inferred)

Ut Dominus a. XII. Tiberii Caesaris. Inter errores Tertulliani hic locus recensetur. De hoc ante disseruimus. Putabat nimirum anno 12 Tiberii Christum praedicandi initium fecisse, et mortem subiisse triennio. LE PR.

As the Lord in the twelfth year of Tiberius Caesar. This passage is counted among Tertullian's errors. We have discussed it before. He evidently thought that Christ began to preach in the twelfth year of Tiberius and underwent death within three years. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 148)

Page

running head: 587 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A dera hominem. Placebit; B coeli in habitationibus captas. Despicis terram; C (not seen); D praesentatorem, quia revera Pater (beside the editors' commentary, not set)
old-edition numerals: 962 after Placebit (reading of the bold figures uncertain)

PL 2:288

conditionem suam, et suum mundum, et suum coelum; de coelo quidem illo tertio videbimus, si et ad apostolum vestrum discutiendum pervenerimus; interim, quaecunque substantia est, cum suo utique deo apparuisse debuerat. At nunc quale est ut Dominus anno XII Tiberii Caesaris revelatus sit, substantia vero ad decimum quintum jam Severi imperatoris nulla omnino comperta sit, quae frivolis Creatoris praecellens utique latere desisset, non latente jam Domino suo et auctore? Et ideo, si ipsa non potuit manifestari in hoc mundo, quomodo Dominus paruit ejus in hoc mundo? Si Dominum cepit hic mundus, cur substantiam capere non potuit, nisi Domino fortasse majorem? Jam nunc de loco quaestio est, pertinens et ad mundum illum superiorem, et ad ipsum Deum ejus. Ecce enim, si et ille habet mundum suum infra se supra Creatorem, in loco utique fecit eum, cujus spatium vacabat inter pedes suos, et caput Creatoris. Ergo et Deus ipse in loco erat, et mundum in loco faciebat; et erit jam locus ille major et Deo et mundo. Nihil enim non majus est id quod capit, eo quod capitur; et videndum ne qua adhuc illic vacent subsiciva, in quibus et tertius aliqui stipare Deus se cum mundo suo possit. Ergo jam incipe deos computare. Erit enim et locus deus, non tantum qua Deo major, sed et qua innatus et infectus; ac per hoc, aeternus, et Deo par; in quo semper Deus fuerit. Dehinc, si et

his own creation, and his own world, and his own heaven; of that third heaven indeed we shall see, if we also come to examining your apostle; meanwhile, whatever the substance is, it ought certainly to have appeared together with its own god. But as it is, what sort of thing is it that the Lord was revealed in the twelfth year of Tiberius Caesar, whereas the substance, up to the fifteenth year now of the emperor Severus, has been found out not at all, though, surpassing as it certainly does the trifles of the Creator, it would have ceased to lie hidden once its Lord and author was no longer hidden? And so, if it could not be made manifest in this world, how did its Lord appear in this world? If this world contained the Lord, why could it not contain the substance, unless perhaps it was greater than the Lord? Now there is the question of place, pertaining both to that higher world and to its God himself. For see: if he too has his world below himself and above the Creator, he certainly made it in a place, whose space lay empty between his feet and the head of the Creator. Therefore God himself too was in a place, and was making the world in a place; and that place will then be greater than both God and the world. For that which contains is in every case greater than that which is contained; and we must see that no leftover plots still lie vacant there, in which some third God too could pack himself in with his world. So now begin to count gods. For place too will be a god, not only in that it is greater than God, but also in that it is unborn and unmade; and by this, eternal, and equal to God, the place in which God has always been. Next, if also

Editors' notes and page, col. 288

Footnotes

(50) ‹anchor: vacent subsiciva› · call in col 288

Ne qua adhuc illic vacent subsiciva. Subsiciva saepe occurrunt apud auctores finium regundorum. Aggenus Urbicus: « Cum autem assignatio in agro assignato fieret, non potuit omnis modus intra quatuor limites veteranis assignari: in ea remansit aliquid, quod a subsecante linea nomen accepit, subsecivum. » RIG.

Lest some leftover plots still lie empty there. Subsiciva occur often in the writers on land boundaries. Aggenus Urbicus: "When an allotment was made in assigned land, the whole measure could not be allotted to the veterans within the four boundary lines; in it something was left over, which took its name, subsecivum, from the cutting line." RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 148)

Page

running head: …UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A conditionem suam, et suum mundum; B nens et ad mundum illum superiorem; C (none seen); D simulate tantum res Creatoris (in the commentary)
old-edition numerals: 263 after coelum; (bold, set as old-edition numeral, unsure)

PL 2:289

ille mundum ex aliqua materia subjacente molitus est, innata, et infecta, et contemporali Deo, quemadmodum et de Creatore Marcion sentit, redigis et hoc ad majestatem loci, qui et deum et materiam, duos deos, clusit. Et materia enim Deus, secundum formam divinitatis, innata scilicet, et infecta, et aeterna. Aut si de nihilo molitus est mundum, hoc et de Creatore sentire cogetur, cui materiam subjicit in substantia mundi. Sod ex materia et ille fecisse debebit; eadem ratione occurrente illi quoque Deo, quae opponeretur Creatori, ut aeque Deo. Atque ita tres interim mihi deos numera Marcionis, Factorem, et Locum, et Materiam. Proinde Creatorem in loco facit, utique eadem conditione censendo; et materiam ei subjicit, utique innatam et infectam, et hoc nomine aeternam, ut Domino. Amplius, et malum materiae deputans, innatum innatae, infectum infectae, et aeternum aeternae, quantum jam hinc deum fecit. Habes igitur in superioribus tres substantias divinitatis, in inferioribus quatuor. His cum accedunt et sui Christi, alter qui apparuit sub Tiberio, alter qui a Creatore repromittitur, manifestam jam fraudem Marcion patitur ab eis qui duos illum deos inferre praesumunt, cum novem assignet, licet nesciens.

that one fashioned the world out of some underlying matter, unborn and unmade and contemporaneous with God, just as Marcion also holds concerning the Creator, you reduce this too to the majesty of the place, which has enclosed both god and matter, two gods. For matter too is God according to the form of divinity, being, namely, unborn, and unmade, and eternal. Or if he fashioned the world out of nothing, he will be compelled to hold this also concerning the Creator, to Whom he subjects matter in the substance of the world. But that one too will have to have made [it] out of matter, since the same reasoning confronts that God as well which would be set against the Creator, as being equally God. And so for the present count up for me three gods of Marcion: the Maker, and the Place, and Matter. Further, he makes the Creator to be in a place, assessing it of course on the same condition; and he places matter beneath Him, unborn of course and unmade, and on that account eternal, as [he does] for the Lord. Moreover, by assigning evil also to matter, unborn to the unborn, unmade to the unmade, and eternal to the eternal, what a great god he has by now made of it! You have, therefore, three substances of divinity in the higher regions, and four in the lower. When their Christs are added to these as well, one who appeared under Tiberius, the other who is promised by the Creator, Marcion now suffers a manifest wrong from those who presume that he introduces two gods, when he assigns nine, albeit unknowingly.

CAPUT XVI.

Chapter XVI.

Non comparente igitur mundo alio, sicut nec Deo ejus, consequens est ut duas species rerum, visibilia et invisibilia, duobus auctoribus deis dividant, et ista suo Deo invisibilia defendant. Quis autem poterit inducere in animum, nisi spiritus haereticus, ejus esse invisibilia qui nihil visibile praemiserit, quam ejus qui visibilia operatus, invisibilium quoque fidem fecerit, cum justius multo sit aliquibus exemplariis annuere, quam nullis? Videbimus et Apostolus (Coloss. I, 16) cui auctori invisibilia deputet, cum et illum exploraverimus. Nunc enim communibus plurimum sensibus et argumentationibus justis, secuturae Scripturarum quoque advocationi fidem sternimus, confirmantes diversitatem hanc visibilium et invisibilium adeo Creatori deputandam, sicuti tota operatio ejus ex diversitatibus constat; ex corporalibus

Since, then, no other world appears, just as neither does its God, it follows that they divide the two kinds of things, the visible and the invisible, between two authors who are gods, and claim these invisible things for their own God. But who could bring his mind to believe, unless a heretical spirit, that the invisible things belong to him who has set forth nothing visible beforehand, rather than to Him Who, having wrought the visible things, has also produced belief in the invisible, since it is much more just to assent to some examples than to none? We shall also see to which author the Apostle (Col. 1:16) assigns the invisible things, when we have examined him too. For now, by common perceptions for the most part and by just arguments, we are laying down a foundation of belief for the advocacy of the Scriptures which is to follow, confirming that this diversity of visible and invisible is so far to be assigned to the Creator, just as His whole work consists of diversities: of corporeal

Editors' notes and page, col. 289

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 66 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 289 (inferred) Et omitt. Seml.

"Et" ("and") is omitted by Semler.

67 ‹anchor: adeo Creatori› · call in col 289 Deo cod. Wouw. a Deo creatori Rhen.

"Deo" ("to God"): Wouwer's manuscript; "a Deo creatori" ("by God, to the Creator"): Rhenanus.

68 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Siccis Rhen.

"Siccis" ("dry"): Rhenanus.

69 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Notant Pamel.

"Notant" ("they mark"): Pamelius.

70 ‹anchor: de beneficiis dignoscetur› · call in col 290 Dei dignoscitur Pamel.

"Dei dignoscitur" ("of God is discerned"): Pamelius.

71 ‹anchor: quaestione deducto› · call in col 290 Deducta Seml. deductis Venet. deductus Gorziensis.

"Deducta": Semler; "deductis": Venice edition; "deductus": the Gorze manuscript.

72 ‹anchor: debuisset, et› · call in col 290 Et neglig. Jun.

"Et" ("and") is disregarded by Junius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 149)

(51) ‹anchor: Scripturarum quoque advocationi› · call in col 289

Scripturarum quoque advocationi. Advocatio proprie est turba patronorum et amicorum, qui alicui in judicio adsunt. Hic accipit pro defensione. Sic in lib. de patientia: » Itaque talibus et advocatio, et risus promittitur pro consolatione. » RHEN.

To the advocacy of the Scriptures too. Advocatio properly is the throng of patrons and friends who stand by someone in court. Here he takes it for defence. So in the book On Patience: "and so to such people both advocacy and laughter are promised by way of consolation." RHENANUS.

(printed under page 149)

Page

running head: LIB. I ADV. MARCI[ONEM] (cut off at right edge), column number 289
marginal letters: A ille mundum ex aliqua materia subjacente molitus; B cit, utique innatam et infectam, et hoc nomine; C Deo ejus, consequens est ut duas species rerum,; D tio ejus ex diversitatibus constat; ex corporalibus
old-edition numerals: 264 after malum

PL 2:290

et incorporalibus, ex animalibus et inanimalibus, ex vocalibus et mutis, ex mobilibus et stativis, ex genitalibus et sterilibus, ex aridis et succidis, ex calidis et frigidis. Sic et hominem ipsum diversitas temperavit, tam in corpore, quam in sensu. Alia membra fortia, alia infirma: alia honesta, alia inhonesta: alia gemina, alia unica: alia comparia, alia disparia. Proinde et in sensu nunc laetitia, nunc anxietas; nunc amor, nunc odium; nunc ira, nunc lenitas. Quod si ita est, ut aemula inter se conditionis universitas ista modulata sit, jam igitur et visibilibus invisibilia debentur, non alteri auctori deputanda, quam cui et aemula eorum, ipsum Creatorem diversum notantia, jubentem quae prohibuit, et prohibentem quae jussit percutientem et sanantem. Cur in hac sola specie uniformem eum capiunt, visibilium solummodo et vitam et mortem, et mala et pacem (Eccli. XI, 14; Isa. XLV, 7)? Et utique, si illa invisibilia majora sunt visibilibus creaturis suo loco magnis, sic quoque congruit ejus esse majora cujus et magna; quia nec magna, nedum majora, ei competant cujus nec modica comparent.

and incorporeal, of animate and inanimate, of vocal and mute, of mobile and stationary, of generative and sterile, of dry and moist, of hot and cold. So too diversity has tempered man himself, in body as much as in feeling. Some members are strong, others weak; some honourable, others dishonourable; some twin, others single; some matched, others unmatched. Accordingly in feeling too there is now joy, now anxiety; now love, now hatred; now anger, now gentleness. But if it is so, that this universe has been modulated out of elements of a nature rivalling one another, then invisible things are owed to the visible ones, and are to be ascribed to no other author than the one to whom their rivals also [are ascribed], marking out the Creator Himself as diverse, commanding what He forbade and forbidding what He commanded, striking and healing. Why in this one respect do they take Him to be uniform, [the author] of visible things only, both of life and death, both of evils and peace (Sir. 11:14; Isa. 45:7)? And certainly, if those invisible things are greater than the visible creatures, which are great in their own place, so too it is fitting that the greater things belong to Him to whom the great ones also belong; since neither great things, still less greater ones, would befit one to whom not even modest things are found to belong.

CAPUT XVII.

Chapter XVII.

Hoc compressi, erumpunt dicere: « Sufficit unicum hoc opus Deo nostro, quod hominem liberavit summa et praecipua bonitate sua, et omnibus locustis anteponenda. » O Deum majorem, cujus tam magnum opus non potuit inveniri, quam in homine dei minoris! Enimvero, prius est ut eum probes esse, per quae Deum probari oportet: per opera, tunc deinde beneficia. Primo enim quaeritur an sit; et ita, qualis sit. Alterum de operibus, alterum de beneficiis dignoscetur. Caeterum, non quia liberasse dicitur hominem, ideo esse eum constat; sed si esse constiterit, tunc et liberasse dicetur; et ut an liberaverit constet; quia potuerit et esse, et non liberasse. Quomodo ergo, quia liberasse dicetur, etiam esse credetur, cum potuerit et esse, et non liberasse? Nunc in isto articulo ab ignoti Dei quaestione deducto, satis constitit tam nihil illum condidisse, quam debuisse condidisse, uti cognosceretur ex operibus; quia, si fuisset, cognosci debuisset, et utique a primordio rerum: Deun enim non decuisset

Pressed hard by this, they burst out saying: « This single work suffices for our God, that he has freed man by his supreme and especial goodness, which is to be preferred to all the locusts. » O greater God, whose so great work could not be found except in the man of a lesser god! But indeed, it comes first that you prove him to exist, by the means by which God must be proved: by works, then afterwards by benefits. For first it is asked whether he exists; and so, of what sort he is. The one will be discerned from works, the other from benefits. Moreover, it is not because he is said to have freed man that it is therefore established that he exists; but if it has been established that he exists, then he will also be said to have freed [man]; and so that it may be established whether he did free [him]; since he could both exist and not have freed [him]. How then, because he will be said to have freed [man], will he also be believed to exist, when he could both exist and not have freed [him]? Now, at this point, drawn away from the question of the unknown God, it has been sufficiently established both that he created nothing and that he ought to have created, so that he might be known from his works; since, if he had existed, he ought to have been known, and certainly from the beginning of things: for it would not have befitted God

Editors' notes and page, col. 290

Footnotes

(52) ‹anchor: erumpunt dicere› · call in col 290

His compressi erumpunt dicere. Marcionitae nimirum, qui Deum Creatorem sugillabant, ut vermium, locustarum, cimicum, etc. creatorem. Arnobius lib. II contra Gentes: « Non enim si negemus, muscas, scarabaeos, cimices, mitedulas, curculiones et tineas Omnipotentis esse opus Regis. » Sed majori adhuc perspicuitate B. Hieronymus in Proemio Comm. ad. Epist. ad Philem: « Quod si non putant eorum esse parva quorum et magna sunt, alterum mihi conditorem, juxta Valentinum, Marcionem et Apellem, formicae, vermium, culicum, locustarum; alterum coeli, terrae, maris et angelorum debent introducere. An potius ejusdem potentiae est ingenium quod majoribus exercueris, etiam in minoribus non negare. » LE PR.

Pressed by these things they burst out saying. The Marcionites, namely, who mocked God the Creator as the creator of worms, locusts, bugs, and so on. Arnobius, Against the Nations book II: "For not if we deny that flies, beetles, bugs, dormice, weevils and moths are the work of the Almighty King." But Blessed Jerome puts it more clearly still in the preface to his commentary on the Epistle to Philemon: "But if they think that the small things do not belong to him to whom the great ones belong, then, according to Valentinus, Marcion and Apelles, they must bring in for me one maker of the ant, of worms, gnats and locusts, and another of heaven, earth, sea and angels. Or rather, it belongs to the same power not to deny in lesser things the skill you have exercised in greater." LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 149)

Page

running head: I ADV. MARCIONEM. (beginning of the head cut off at the left edge of the image)
marginal letters: A ‹et incorporalibus, ex animalibus›; B ‹tem. Cur in hac sola specie›; C ‹jus tam magnum opus›; D ‹et utique a primordio rerum›
old-edition numerals: 265 after ‹capiunt,›

PL 2:291

latuisse. Regrediar necesse est ad originem quoestionis Dei ignoti, ut caeteros quoque ramulos ejus excutiam. Primo enim quaeri oportebit, qui postea se protulerit in notitiam; cur postea, et non a primordio rerum? quibus utique necessarius, qua Deus, et quidem melior quo necessarior, latere non debuit. Non enim potest dici non fuisse aut materiam, aut causam cognoscendi Deum, cum et homo a primordio esset in saeculo, cui nunc subvenit, et malitia Creatoris, adversus quam ut bonus subvenit. Igitur aut ignoravit et causam et materiam suae revelationis necessariae, aut non potuit, aut noluit. Omnia haec Deo indigna, maxime optimo. Sed et hunc locum alibi implebimus, exprobratione serae revelationis, sicut nunc sola demonstratione.

to have lain hidden. I must return to the origin of the question of the unknown God, so that I may shake out its other little branches as well. For first it will have to be asked who it was that afterwards brought himself forth into notice; why afterwards, and not from the beginning of things? To those for whom he was in any case necessary, inasmuch as he is God, and indeed the more necessary the better he is, he ought not to have lain hidden. For it cannot be said that there was neither material nor cause for knowing God, since both man was in the world from the beginning, he whom he now succours, and the malice of the Creator, against which as the good one he succours him. Therefore either he did not know both the cause and the material of his necessary revelation, or he could not, or he would not. All these things are unworthy of God, most of all of the best God. But we shall fill out this topic elsewhere as well, by reproaching the lateness of the revelation, just as now by demonstration alone.

CAPUT XVIII.

Chapter XVIII.

Processerit, age, jam in notitiam quando voluit, quando potuit, quando hora fatalis advenit. Fortasse enim anabibazon ei obstabat, aut aliquae maleficae, aut Saturnus quadratus, aut Mars trigonus. Nam et mathematici plurimum Marcionitae, nec hoc erubescentes, de ipsis etiam stellis vivere Creatoris. Tractandum et hic de revelationis qualitatc, an digne cognitus sit, ut constet an vere; et ita credatur esse, quem digne constiterit revelatum. Digna enim Deo probabunt Deum. Nos definimus Deum primo natura cognoscendum, dehinc doctrina recognoscendum: natura ex operibus, doctrina ex praedicationibus. Sed cui nulla natura est, naturalia instrumenta non suppetunt. Ergo vel praedicationibus revelationem sui debuerat operari; maxime adversus eum revelandus qui et conditionis et praedicationis operibus tot ac tantis, vix tamen hominum fidem impleverat. Quomodo itaque revelatus est? Si

Come now, suppose he has now come forth into notice when he wished, when he could, when the fated hour arrived. For perhaps the anabibazon was obstructing him, or some malefic [stars], or Saturn in quadrature, or Mars in trine. For the Marcionites are very largely astrologers as well, not blushing even at this, that they live by the very stars of the Creator. Here too we must treat of the quality of the revelation, whether he has been known worthily, so that it may be established whether truly; and so let him be believed to exist whom it shall be established was worthily revealed. For things worthy of God will prove God. We define that God is first to be known by nature, then to be recognized by doctrine: by nature from His works, by doctrine from preachings. But to him who has no nature, natural instruments are not available. Therefore he ought at least to have effected the revelation of himself by preachings, especially since he was to be revealed against one who, by works both of creation and of preaching so many and so great, had nevertheless scarcely filled up the faith of men. How then has he been revealed? If

Editors' notes and page, col. 291

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 73 ‹anchor: melior quo› · call in col 291 Qua Jun.

"Qua" ("by which / where"): Junius.

74 ‹anchor: adversus quam ut› · call in col 291 Et Pamel.

"Et" ("and"): Pamelius.

75 ‹anchor: dehinc› · call in col 291 Deinde Pamel.

"Deinde" ("then"): Pamelius.

76 ‹anchor: hominum fidem› · call in col 291 Hominem fide Pamel.

"Hominem fide" ("man with faith"): Pamelius.

77 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Est, si per humanam conjecturam negat Deum Pam. negas, Deum Seml. forte nego Edd.

"Est, si per humanam conjecturam negat Deum" ("it is, if by human conjecture he denies God"): Pamelius; "negas, Deum" ("you deny, God"): Semler; perhaps "nego" ("I deny"): the editors.

78 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Modo inserit. Latin. qui non eum non Pamel.

Latinius inserts "modo" ("only"); "qui non eum non" ("who not him not"): Pamelius.

79 ‹anchor: Marcionis salutem› · call in col 292 Salutis Pamel. salutis conjic. Seml.

"Salutis" ("of salvation"): Pamelius; "salutis": Semler's conjecture.

80 ‹anchor: qui ita voluit› · call in col 292 Valuit conjic. Semler.

"Valuit" ("he prevailed"): Semler's conjecture.

81 ‹anchor: exhalaverit aura› · call in col 292 Aula Jun.

"Aula" ("hall / court"): Junius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 150)

(53) ‹anchor: anabibazon ei obstabat› · call in col 291

Fortasse enim anabibazon ei obstabat. Chronocratorem seu signum ascendens in horoscopo horaque natali, ut tradunt genethliaci, impiissimum genus, qui populo phaleras et simplicibus imponunt suis figmentis et falsitatibus. LE PR.

For perhaps the anabibazon stood in his way. The ruler of the time, or the sign ascending in the horoscope and the hour of birth, as the casters of nativities teach, a most impious tribe, who palm off trappings on the people and impose on the simple with their fictions and falsehoods. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 150)

(54) ‹anchor: mathematici plurimum Marcionitae› · call in col 291

Nam et mathematici plurimum Marcionitae. Praedicabant ii se vivere de stellis, hoc est stellarum motu vitam suam pendere, cum tamen stellarum illarum Creatorem nollent admittere. Hic mathematicorum nomine non tota mathesis damnatur, sed illa tantum superstitio quae, cum non sit pars matheseos (judiciariam dico) inter mathematum partes adoptari vult, quod fieri nequit; cum enim nihil admittant mathematicae disciplinae sine demonstratione, judiciaram rejiciunt, de qua (error enim est pessimus) nulla sit demonstratio. Aliis in locis judiciariam aggressus est; vide de Idololatre. ID.

For the Marcionites are very largely astrologers. They declared that they lived by the stars, that is, that their life hung on the motion of the stars, though they would not admit the Creator of those stars. Under the name of mathematici it is not the whole of mathematics that is condemned here, but only that superstition (judicial astrology, I mean) which, though no part of mathematics, wants to be adopted among its branches; which cannot be, for since the mathematical disciplines admit nothing without demonstration, they reject judicial astrology, of which (for it is the worst of errors) there is no demonstration. He attacked judicial astrology in other places; see On Idolatry. THE SAME [Le Prieur].

(printed under page 150)

(55) ‹anchor: hominum fidem impleverat› · call in col 291

Hominum fidem impleverat. Sic habet exemplar Ursini. Ferri tamen potest vulgata lectio, quae est etiam codicis Pithoeani: « Hominem fide impleverat. « RIG.

He had filled up the faith of men. So Orsini's copy has it. But the common reading can be borne, which is also that of Pithou's manuscript: "he had filled man with faith." RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 150)

Page

running head: 291 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A cuisset latuisse. Regrediar; B monstratione.; C praedicationibus. Sed cui nulla natura est; D figmentis et falsitatibus (in the commentary at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 266 after materiam
misprints kept as printed: quoestionis (for quaestionis); qualitatc (for qualitate)

PL 2:292

per humanam conjecturam, nega Deum alias cognosci posse quam per semetipsum: nec tantum ad formam provocans Creatoris, verum et ad conditionem tam divinae magnitudinis, quam humanae mediocritatis: ne major Deo homo videri possit, qui eum non ultro volentem cognosci, suis viribus quodammodo in publicum agnitionis extraxerit: cum humana mediocritas facilius deos fingere sibi norit secundum totius aevi experimenta, quam verum sectari quem natura jam intelligunt. Alioquin, si sic homo Deum commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non regem, nec imperatorem.

through human conjecture, deny that God can be known otherwise than through Himself: appealing not only to the pattern of the Creator, but also to the condition both of divine greatness and of human mediocrity, lest man should seem greater than God, he who by his own powers has in a manner dragged Him, though not willing of His own accord to be known, out into the public view of recognition; since human mediocrity knows how to fashion gods for itself more readily, according to the experience of every age, than to follow the true one, whom by nature they already understand. Otherwise, if man is thus to devise a God, as Romulus did Consus, and Tatius Cloacina, and Hostilius Pavor, and Metellus Alburnus, and a certain person before this time Antinous, this will be permitted to others; we know Marcion as a ship's master, not as a king, nor as an emperor.

CAPUT XIX.

Chapter XIX.

« Imo, inquiunt Marcionitae Deus noster, etsi non ab initio, etsi non per conditionem, sed per semetipsum revelatus est in Christo Jesu. » Dabitur et in Christum liber, de omni statu ejus; distingui enim materias oportet, quo plenius et ordinatius retractentur. Interim satis erit ad praesentem gradum ita occurrere, ut ostendam Christum Jesum non alterius Dei circumlatorem, quam Creatoris; et quidem paucis. Anno quinto decimo Tiberii, Christus Jesus de coelo manare dignatus est, spiritus salutaris: Marcionis salutem qui ita voluit quoto quidem anno Antonini majoris de Ponto suo exhalaverit aura, canicularis non curavi investigare. De quo tamen constat, Antoninianus haereticus est, sub Pio impius. A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoninum, anni fere centum et quindecim et dimidium anni, cum dimidio mensis: tandum dem temporis ponunt inter Christum et

"Nay," say the Marcionites, "our God, though not from the beginning, though not through the creation, has yet been revealed through Himself in Christ Jesus." A book will also be given over to Christ, concerning His whole state; for the subjects must be distinguished, so that they may be treated more fully and more orderly. Meanwhile it will suffice at the present stage to meet [this] in such a way as to show that Christ Jesus is the bearer about of no other God than the Creator; and that in few words. In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ Jesus deigned to flow down from heaven, the saving spirit: in what year of the elder Antoninus the dog-day breeze breathed out from his Pontus the salvation of Marcion, who so wished it, I have not taken the trouble to investigate. About him, however, it is certain: he is an Antoninian heretic, impious under Pius. Now from Tiberius to Antoninus there are about one hundred and fifteen years and a half, with half a month: just so much time do they place between Christ and

Editors' notes and page, col. 292

Footnotes

(56) ‹anchor: anno Antonini majoris› · call in col 292 (printed "(59)")

Quoto quidem anno Antonini majoris. Quod supra lib. de Praescript. adv. haer. simpliciter dixit, c. 30 Antonini fere principatu, hic explicatur, cum legitur, quoto anno ejus Marcionis Christus incoeperit revelari; de quo aliquid ibi diximus, quasi primum sub Antonino philosopho prodierit Marcion haereticus, quia sub Aniceto. Verum, quia postea comperi Anicetum sedisse Romae annis fere sex ante obitum Antonini Pii, auctori hic assentiri cogor coepisse Marcionem sub Antonino majore, id est Pio, uti mox sequitur, a quo omnes alii aut nomen aut praenomen Antonini mutuati sunt: maxime cum etiam initio Pontificatus Aniceti Romam venisse scribat Polycarpum Eusebius, in Chron., et Hist. Eccl., lib. IV, cap. 13, idem scribat occurrisse ibi Polycarpo Marcionem. PAM.

In what year, indeed, of the elder Antoninus. What he said simply above, in the book On the Prescription of Heretics, ch. 30, about the reign of Antoninus, is explained here, where we read in what year of his Marcion's Christ began to be revealed. We said something about this there, as if the heretic Marcion first appeared under Antoninus the philosopher, because it was under Anicetus. But since I later found that Anicetus sat at Rome for about six years before the death of Antoninus Pius, I am obliged to agree with the author here that Marcion began under the elder Antoninus, that is Pius, as follows shortly after, from whom all the others borrowed the name or forename Antoninus: especially since Eusebius writes, in the Chronicle, that Polycarp came to Rome at the beginning of Anicetus's pontificate, and, in the Church History book IV, ch. 13, writes likewise that Marcion met Polycarp there. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 150)

(57) ‹anchor: Antoninum, anni› · call in col 292

A Tiberio autem usque ad Antoninum anni, etc. Si legeretur anni centum quinque, magis accederet ad veritatem historiae ea lectio, cum tot reperiantur ab anno 15 Tiberii, cujus paulo ante meminit, et a quod haud dubie computum suum incipere statuit, enumerans annos intermedios inter Christum, sicuti subjungit et Marcionem. ID.

From Tiberius to Antoninus, years, etc. If one read a hundred and five years, that reading would come nearer to historical truth, since that many are found from the fifteenth year of Tiberius, which he mentioned a little before, and from which he no doubt determined to begin his reckoning, counting the years that lie between Christ, as he adds, and Marcion. THE SAME [Pamelius].

(printed under page 150)

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (left part cut off at image edge; column number 292)
marginal letters: A per humanam conjecturam; B torem.; C de Ponto suo exhalaverit; D mum sub Antonino philosopho (in the Commentarius, not set)
old-edition numerals: 267 before Imo (bold numeral at head of Caput XIX paragraph; glyph reads like 967, uncertain)

PL 2:293

Marcionem. Cum igitur sub Antonio primus Marcion hunc deum induxerit, sicut probavimus, statim, qui sapis, plana res est. Praejudicant tempora quod sub Antonino primum processit, sub Tiberio non processisse; id est deum Antoniniani imperii, Tiberiani non fuisse; atque ita non a Christo revelatum, quem constat a Marcione primum praedicatum. Hoc nunc ut probem constare, quod superest, ab ipsis adversariis sumam. Separatio Legis et Evangelii, proprium et principale opus est Marcionis: nec poterunt negare discipuli ejus, quod in summo instrumento habent, quo denique initiantur, et indurantur in hanc haeresin. Nam haec sunt antitheses Marcionis, id est contrariae oppositiones; quae conantur discordiam Evangelii cum Lege committere, ut ex diversitate sententiarum utriusque instrumenti, diversitatem quoque argumententur deorum. Igitur, cum ea separatio Legis et Evangelii ipsa sit quae alium Deum Evangelii insinuaverit adversus Deum Legis, apparet ante eam separationem Deum in notitia non fuisse, qui ab argumento separationis innotuit; atque ita non a Christo revelatum, qui fuit ante separationem, sed a Marcione commentatum, qui instituit separationem adversus Evangelii Legisque pacem, quam retro illaesam et inconcussam, ab apparentia Christi usque ad audaciam Marcionis, illa utique ratio servavit, quae non alium Deum et Legis et Evangelii tuebatur, praeter Creatorem, adversus quem tanto post tempore separatio a Pontico immissa est.

Marcion. Since, therefore, it was under Antoninus that Marcion first introduced this god, as we have proved, at once, you who are wise, the matter is plain. The times give a prejudgement that what first came forth under Antoninus did not come forth under Tiberius; that is, that the god of the Antonine reign was not [the god] of the Tiberian; and thus that he was not revealed by Christ, he who, it is established, was first proclaimed by Marcion. In order now to prove that this is established, I shall take what remains from the adversaries themselves. The separation of the Law and the Gospel is the proper and principal work of Marcion; nor will his disciples be able to deny what they hold in their highest document, by which indeed they are initiated and hardened into this heresy. For these are the Antitheses of Marcion, that is, contrary oppositions, which attempt to set the Gospel at variance with the Law, so that from the diversity of the sentiments of each document they may argue a diversity of gods also. Therefore, since it is that very separation of the Law and the Gospel which has insinuated another God of the Gospel against the God of the Law, it is apparent that before that separation the God who became known from the argument of the separation was not known; and thus that he was not revealed by Christ, Who was before the separation, but devised by Marcion, who instituted the separation against the peace of the Gospel and the Law, which, unharmed and unshaken hitherto, from the appearance of Christ up to the audacity of Marcion, that rule of reason assuredly preserved, which upheld no other God of both the Law and the Gospel than the Creator, against Whom, so long a time afterwards, the separation was brought in by the man of Pontus.

CAPUT XX.

Chapter XX.

Huic expeditissimae probationi defensio quoque a nobis necessaria est adversus obstrepitacula diversae partis. Aiunt enim Marcionem non tam innovasse regulam separatione Legis et Evangelii, quam retro adulteratam recurasse. O Christe patientissime Domine! qui tot annis interversionem praedicationis tuae sustinuisti, donec tibi scilicet Marcion subveniret. Non et ipsum Petrum, caeterosque, columnas Apostolatus, a Paulo reprehensos (Galat. II) opponunt, quod non recto pede incederent ad Evangelii veritatem; ab illo certe Paulo, qui adhuc in gratia rudis, trepidans denique ne in vacuum cucurrisset aut curreret (Ibid.), tunc

To this most ready proof a defence too is necessary on our part against the clamourings of the opposing side. For they say that Marcion did not so much innovate the rule by the separation of the Law and the Gospel as restore it after it had previously been adulterated. O Christ, most patient Lord! Who for so many years endured the perversion of Thy preaching, until, forsooth, Marcion should come to Thy aid. Do they not also set against us Peter himself, and the rest, the pillars of the apostleship, rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2), because they were not walking with a straight foot towards the truth of the Gospel? by that Paul, certainly, who, still raw in grace, fearing indeed lest he had run or were running in vain (ibid.), then

Editors' notes and page, col. 293

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 82 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 293 (inferred) Antonini imperii Pamel.

"Antonini imperii" ("of Antoninus's reign"): Pamelius.

83 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 293 (inferred) Primo Seml. Oberth.

"Primo" ("first"): Semler, Oberthür.

84 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 293 (inferred) Indicantur Semler. Oberth.

"Indicantur" ("are indicated"): Semler, Oberthür.

85 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 293 (inferred) Evangelii omitt. Semler.

"Evangelii" ("of the Gospel") is omitted by Semler.

86 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 293 (inferred) Et Deum Paris.

"Et Deum" ("and God"): Paris edition.

87 ‹anchor: tibi scilicet› · call in col 293 Scilicet tibi Pamel. scilicet abest Seml.

"Scilicet tibi" (word order reversed): Pamelius; "scilicet" ("no doubt") is absent in Semler.

88 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Adhuc ut Pamel. adhuc omitt. Semler.

"Adhuc ut" ("still as"): Pamelius; "adhuc" ("still") is omitted by Semler.

89 ‹anchor: Deum et› · call in col 293 In Semler. Oberth.

"In" ("in"): Semler, Oberthür.

90 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Susceptam Rhen.

"Susceptam" ("taken up"): Rhenanus.

91 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Observandam alii.

"Observandam" ("to be observed"): others.

92 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Deprehendens Pamel.

"Deprehendens" ("detecting"): Pamelius.

93 ‹anchor: de hoc ipso› · call in col 294 Ipso omitt. Semler. Oberth.

"Ipso" ("very") is omitted by Semler and Oberthür.

Commentarius. (printed under page 151)

(58) ‹anchor: passivum scilicet convictum› · call in col 293 (inferred)

Passivum scilicet convictum. Id est promiscuum, v. c. 7. SEML.

A common living together, that is. That is, indiscriminate; see ch. 7. SEMLER.

(printed under page 151)

(59) ‹anchor: de Evangelii societate condixerant› · call not visible

De Evangelii societate condixerant. Condixerant, pro convenerant Condicere enim etiam denuntiare est atque constituere. Paulo post restituimus Olim de hoc ipso praedicantis. » RHEN.

They had agreed on the fellowship of the Gospel. Condixerant for convenerant ("had come to an agreement"); for condicere also means to give notice and to appoint. A little later we have restored "who long ago foretold this very thing." RHENANUS.

(printed under page 151)

(60) ‹anchor: sive ille, sic praedicamus› · call not visible

Sive ego, inquit, sive ille, sic praedicamus. Ad verbum transtulit auctor praedicamus, id quod Graece est κηρύσσομεν, quemadmodum et Ambrosius in Comment. et B. August. lib. II, contra Faustum Manich. cap 2 et ipsa quoque syriaca editio emendatiores Latini ms. codices, pro eo quod alii praedicavimus. Quibus etiam consensit auctor infra lib. IV, cap. 4 adversus Marc. PAM.

Whether I, he says, or they, so we preach. The author has rendered word for word praedicamus, which in Greek is κηρύσσομεν ("we preach"), as have Ambrose in his Commentary, Blessed Augustine, Against Faustus the Manichee book II, ch. 2, the Syriac version itself, and the more correct Latin manuscripts, where others have praedicavimus ("we preached"). With these the author also agrees below, Book IV Against Marcion, ch. 4. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 151)

Page

running head: 293 LIB. I ADV. MARCIO (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A Marcionem. Cum igitur sub Antonio primus Mar-; B gelii cum Lege committere, ut ex diversitate sen-; C quem tanto post tempore separatio a Pontico im-; D lo, qui adhuc in gratia rudis, trepidans denique
old-edition numerals: 268 after ante

PL 2:294

primum cum antecessoribus apostolis conferebat. Igitur, si ferventer, ut adhuc neophytus, adversus Judaismum aliquid in conversatione reprehendendum existimavit, passivum scilicet convictum, postmodum et ipse usu omnibus omnia futurus, ut omnes lucraretur, Judaeis quasi Judaeus, et eis qui sub lege, tanquam sub lege (I Cor. IX); tu illam solius conversationis, placiturae postea accusatori suo, reprehensionem suspectam vis haberi etiam de praedicationis erga Deum praevaricatione. Atquin de praedicationis unitate, quod supra legimus, dexteras junxerant, et ipsa officii distributione, de Evangelii societate condixerant; sicut et alibi (I Cor. XV, 11): Sive ego, inquit, sive illi, sic praedicamus. Sed et si quosdam falsos fratres irrepsisse descripsit, qui vellent Galatas ad aliud Evangelium transferre (Galat. I, 7), ipse demonstrat adulterium illud Evangelii, non ad alterius Dei et Christi fidem transferendam, sed ad disciplinam Legis conservandam, habuisse intentionem; reprehendens scilicet illos circumcisionem vindicantes, et observantes tempora, et dies et menses et annos Judaicarum caeremoniarum (Galat. IV, 10), quas jam exclusas agnovisse debuerant, secundum innovatam dispositionem Creatoris, olim de hoc ipso praedicantis per prophetas suos, ut per Isaiam (Isa. XLIII, 19): Vetera transierunt, inquit; ecce nova quae ego nunc facio; et alibi (Jerem. XXXI, 32): Et disponam testamentum, non quale disposui ad patres vestros, cum illos eduxissem de terra Aegypti; sic et per Jeremiam (IV, 4): Renovate vobis novamen novum, et circumcidimini Deo vestro, et circumcidimini praeputia cordis vestri. Hanc ergo circumcisionem jam sistens Apostolus et hoc novamen, illas quoque vetustates caeremoniarum dissuadebat, de quibus idem Conditor earum) quandoque cessaturis profitebatur per Osee (Osee II, 11): Et avertam omnes jucunditates ejus et dies festos ejus et neomenias et Sabbata et omnes caeremonias ejus. Sic enim et per Isaiam (I, 14): Neomenias vestras, et Sabbata, et diem magnum non sustineo; ferias et jejunium et dies festos vestros odit anima mea. Quod si et Creator omnia haec jampridem recusaverat, et Apostolus ea jam recusanda pronuntiabat, ipsa sententia Apostoli, consentanea decretis Creatoris, probat non alium Deum ab Apostolo praedicatum

first conferred with the apostles who were before him. Therefore, if, fervently, as one still a neophyte, he thought that something in their conduct was to be censured as against Judaism, namely indiscriminate association at table, he himself afterwards was in practice to become all things to all men, that he might gain all, to the Jews as a Jew, and to those who were under the law, as under the law (1 Cor. 9); yet you want that censure of conduct alone, conduct which was afterwards to please its very accuser, to be held suspect also of a betrayal of the preaching concerning God. And yet concerning the unity of the preaching, as we read above, they had joined right hands, and by the very distribution of their office they had agreed upon a fellowship in the Gospel; just as elsewhere also (1 Cor. 15:11): Whether I, he says, or they, so we preach. But even if he described certain false brethren as having crept in, who wished to transfer the Galatians to another Gospel (Gal. 1:7), he himself shows that that adulteration of the Gospel had as its aim, not the transferring of faith to another God and Christ, but the preserving of the discipline of the Law; censuring, namely, those who claimed circumcision, and who observed the times, and the days and months and years of the Jewish ceremonies (Gal. 4:10), which they ought to have recognized as already shut out, in accordance with the renewed dispensation of the Creator, Who long ago had preached about this very thing through His prophets, as through Isaiah (Isa. 43:19): The old things have passed away, He says; behold the new things which I now make; and elsewhere (Jer. 31:32): And I will dispose a covenant, not such as I disposed to your fathers, when I had led them out of the land of Egypt; so also through Jeremiah (4:4): Renew for yourselves a new tillage, and be circumcised to your God, and be circumcised in the foreskins of your heart. Establishing, then, this circumcision now and this new tillage, the Apostle dissuaded also from those antiquated ceremonies, concerning which the same Founder of them) professed through Hosea that they would one day cease (Hos. 2:11): And I will turn away all her joys, and her feast days, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and all her ceremonies. For so too through Isaiah (1:14): Your new moons, and Sabbaths, and the great day I do not endure; your holidays and fasting and feast days My soul hates. But if the Creator too had long since rejected all these things, and the Apostle was now declaring that they were to be rejected, the very judgement of the Apostle, agreeing with the decrees of the Creator, proves that no other God was preached by the Apostle

Editors' notes and page, col. 294

Page

running head: [...]I ADV. MARCIONEM. 294 (left part of running head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A primum cum antecessoribus; B repsisse descripsit, qui vellent; C vestros, cum illos eduxissem; D tentia Apostoli, consentanea
old-edition numerals: 269 after praedicamus
other: commentary calls (58) (59) (60) and superior calls 88-93 omitted; Variae lectiones and Commentarius run across both columns at page foot, cut off at left edge, not set; left-column fragments belong to col. 293, not set; "earum)" has an unmatched closing parenthesis as printed; "disposui" printed with a dotless i (damaged type?); "scilicet illos" reads like "seilicet", "junxerant" like "jnnxerant" and "condixerant" like "condixeraut" in the low-resolution image, set as scilicet, junxerant, condixerant, UNSURE; "sistens" set as printed

PL 2:295

quam cujus decreta cupiebat jam agnosci; falsos et apostolos et fratres notans in hac causa, qui Evangelium Christi Creatoris transferrent a novitate praenuntiata a Creatore, ad vetustatem recusatam a Creatore (Galat. I, 6 seqq.).

than [He] whose decrees he desired now to be acknowledged; branding as false both apostles and brethren in this matter, who were transferring the Gospel of Christ the Creator's from the newness foretold by the Creator to the oldness rejected by the Creator (Gal. 1:6 ff.).

CAPUT XXI.

Chapter XXI.

Caeterum, si quasi novum Deum praedicans, veteris Dei legem cupiebat excludere, quare de deo quidem novo nihil praescribit, sed de vetere lege solummodo, nisi quoniam, fide manente in Creatorem, sola lex ejus concessare debebat? ut et Psalmus ille (Psal. II, 3) praececinerat: Disrumpamus a nobis vincula eorum, et abjiciamus eorum jugum a nobis; ex quo scilicet tumultuatae sunt gentes, et populi meditati sunt inania: astiterunt reges terrae, et magistratus convenerunt in unum adversus Dominem et adversus Christum ejus (Ibid. 1, 2). Et utique, si alius deus praedicaretur a Paulo, nulla disceptatio esset servandae legis, necne, non pertinentis scilicet ad dominum novum et aemulum legis. Ipsa enim dei novitas atque diversitas abstulisset non modo quaestionem veteris et alienae legis, verum omnem ejus mentionem. Sed hic erat totus status quaestionis, quod, cum idem Deus legis in Christo praedicaretur, legis ejus derogaretur. Stabat igitur fides semper in Creatore et Christo ejus, sed conversatio et disciplina nutabat. Nam et alii de idolothyto edendo, alii de mulierum velamento, alii de nuptiis vel repudiis, nonnulli et de spe resurrectionis, disceptabant; de Deo, nemo. Nam, si fuisset haec quoque quaestio disceptata, et ipsa apud Apostolum inveniretur, vel quanto principalis. Quod si post apostolorum tempora, adulterium veritas passa est circa Dei regulam, ergo jam apostolica traditio nihil passa est in tempore suo circa Dei regulam, et non alia agnoscenda erit traditio apostolorum, quam quae hodie apud ipsorum Ecclesias editur. Nullam autem apostolici census Ecclesiam invenias, quae non in Creatore Christianizet. Aut si hae erunt a primordio corruptae, quae erunt integrae? nimirum adversariae Creatoris. Exhibe ergo aliquam ex tuis apostolici sensus, et obduxeris. Igitur, cum omnibus modis constet alium deum in regula sacramenti istius non

But if, as though preaching a new God, he desired to exclude the law of the old God, why does he prescribe nothing about the new god, but only about the old law, unless because, while faith in the Creator remained, His law alone was to cease? as that Psalm also had foretold (Ps. 2:3): Let us break their bonds from off us, and let us cast away their yoke from us; namely from the time when the nations raged, and the peoples meditated vain things: the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ (Ps. 2:1–2). And certainly, if another god were being preached by Paul, there would be no dispute whether the law was to be kept or not, since it would of course not pertain to the new lord, the rival of the law. For the very newness and difference of the god would have removed not only the question of the old and alien law, but all mention of it. But this was the whole state of the question: that, while the same God of the law was preached in Christ, His law was being set aside. Faith therefore stood always in the Creator and His Christ, but conduct and discipline wavered. For some disputed about eating what had been offered to idols, others about the veiling of women, others about marriages or divorces, some also about the hope of the resurrection; about God, no one. For if this question too had been disputed, it also would be found in the Apostle, and all the more as being the principal one. But if after the times of the apostles the truth suffered adulteration concerning the rule of God, then the apostolic tradition in its own time suffered nothing concerning the rule of God, and no other tradition of the apostles will have to be acknowledged than that which is set forth today in their own Churches. But you will find no Church of apostolic stock which is not Christian in the Creator. Or if these shall have been corrupt from the beginning, which shall be sound? Doubtless those hostile to the Creator. Produce, then, some one of yours of apostolic mind, and you will have prevailed. Therefore, since it is established in every way that in the rule of this sacrament no other god

Editors' notes and page, col. 295

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 94 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 295 (inferred) Qua Pamel.

"Qua" ("by which / where"): Pamelius.

95 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 295 (inferred) Praecinuerat Pamel.

"Praecinuerat" ("had foretold in song"): Pamelius.

96 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 295 (inferred) Vincula a nobis Pamel.

"Vincula a nobis" ("bonds by us"): Pamelius.

97 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 295 (inferred) Circumvenerunt Semler, Oberth.

"Circumvenerunt" ("they surrounded / deceived"): Semler, Oberthür.

98 ‹anchor: Nam, si› · call in col 295 Si omitt. Semler.

"Si" ("if") is omitted by Semler.

79 [for 99] ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Evenietur Rhen.

"Evenietur": Rhenanus.

1 ‹anchor: et introitu› · call in col 296 In inserit Semler.

Semler inserts "in" ("in").

2 ‹anchor: agens quod› · call in col 296 Quo Seml. Pam. Oberth.

"Quo" ("by which"): Semler, Pamelius, Oberthür.

3 ‹anchor: perennis et jugis› · call in col 296 Et jugis abest in Paris.

"Et jugis" ("and unfailing") is absent in the Paris edition.

4 ‹anchor: et hic› · call in col 296 Et hic non minus Pamel.

"Et hic non minus" ("and here no less"): Pamelius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 152)

(61) ‹anchor: de idolothyto edendo› · call in col 295

Nam et alii de idolothyto edendo, etc. Alludit ad I Epist. Apostoli ad Corinthios, in qua contra ejuscemodi disceptationes late disputat, de idolothyto, cap. X, de mulierum velamento, cap. XI, de nuptiis vel repudiis, cap. VII, et de spe resurrectionis, cap. XV. PAM.

For some disputed about eating meat offered to idols, etc. He alludes to the Apostle's First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he argues at length against disputes of this kind: on meat offered to idols, ch. 10; on the veiling of women, ch. 11; on marriage and divorce, ch. 7; and on the hope of the resurrection, ch. 15. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 152)

(62) ‹anchor: et obduxeris› · call in col 295

Et obduxeris. Hoc est, evinceris. RHEN. PAM.

And you will have carried it. That is, you will have won your case. RHENANUS, PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 152)

(63) ‹anchor: hoc enim cuneo veritatis› · call not visible

Hoc enim cuneo veritatis. Hoc argumento ad veritatis defensionem cuneata veluti acie. Desumpta hac a disciplina militari metaphora usus est cap. 2 de Resurrect. carnis: « Quo cuneo occurrendum sit nobis. Illud aciei genus a Philippo Macedone inventum est, ad perrumpendos hostium ordines quamvis confertissimos. Alio nomine cuneus dicitur phalanx et Graecis ἔμβολος ἱππικὸς et στίφος. LE PR.

For by this wedge of truth. By this argument, drawn up as it were in a wedge-shaped line for the defence of the truth. He used this metaphor, taken from military science, in ch. 2 On the Resurrection of the Flesh: "with what wedge we must meet them." That kind of battle line was invented by Philip of Macedon for breaking through the enemy's ranks however close-packed. By another name the wedge is called the phalanx, and by the Greeks ἔμβολος ἱππικός ("cavalry wedge") and στῖφος ("massed body"). LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 152)

(64) ‹anchor: umbram et phantasma› · call not visible

Vel potius umbram et phantasma. Alludit ad errorem Marcionis, quod Christus in phantasmate homo sit factus, contra quem supra egit libro De carne Christi, cap. 5. PAM.

Or rather a shadow and a phantom. He alludes to Marcion's error that Christ became man in a phantom, against which he argued above in the book On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 5. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 152)

Page

running head: 295 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹quam cujus decreta cupiebat›; B ‹rae, et magistratus convenerunt›; C ‹spe resurrectionis, disceptabant›; D ‹(61) Nam et alii de idolothyto (in the Commentarius)›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 2:296

fuisse a Christo usque ad Marcionem, quam Creatorem, satis jam et probatio nostra munita est, qua ostendimus notitiam dei haeretici ex Evangelii et Legis separatione coepisse, et definitio superior instructa est: non esse credendum deum quem homo de suis sensibus composuerit, nisi plane prophetes, id est non de suis sensibus. Quod si Marcion poterit dici, debebit etiam probari. Nihil retractare oportebat, hoc enim cuneo veritatis omnis extruditur haeresis, cum Christus non alterius Dei quam Creatoris circumlator ostenditur.

has existed from Christ up to Marcion than the Creator, both our proof is now sufficiently fortified, by which we have shown that the knowledge of the heretic's god began from the separation of the Gospel and the Law, and the earlier definition has been set up: that no god is to be believed whom a man has composed out of his own senses, unless he is plainly a prophet, that is, [speaking] not out of his own senses. If Marcion can be called this, it will also have to be proved. There was no need to retract anything, for by this wedge of truth every heresy is driven out, since Christ is shown to be the bearer about of no other God than the Creator.

CAPUT XXII.

Chapter XXII.

Sed quomodo funditus evertetur Antichristus, nisi caeteris quoque injectionibus ejus elidendis locus detur, relaxata praescriptionum defensione? Accedamus igitur jam hinc ad ipsam Dei personam, vel potius umbram et phantasma, secundum Christum ipsius, per idque examinctur per quod Creatori praefertur. Et utique erunt regulae certae ad examinandam Dei bonitatem. Sed prius est ut inveniam illam, et apprehendam, et ita ad regulas perducam. Cum enim circumspicio tempora, nusquam est a primordio materiarum, et introitu causarum, cum quibus debuerat inveniri exinde agens quod agi habuit. Erat enim jam et mors, et aculeus mortis delictum, et ipsa malitia Creatoris; adversus quam subvenire deberet alterius dei bonitas, primae huic regulae divinae bonitatis occurrens, si se naturalem probaret, statim succurrens, ut causa coepit. Omnia enim in Deo naturalia et ingenita esse debebunt, ut sint aeterna, secundum statum ipsius, ne obvenientia et extranea reputentur, ac per hoc temporalia et aeternitatis aliena. Ita et bonitas perennis et jugis exigetur in Deo, quae, in thesauris naturalium proprietatum reposita et parata, antecederet causas et materias suas; et primam quamque susciperet, non despiceret et destitueret, si antecedebat. Denique, non minus et hic quaeram cur non a primordio operata sit bonitas ejus, quam de ipso quaesivimus, cur non a primordio sit revelatus? Quidni? qui per bonitatem revelari haberet, si qui fuisset. Non posse quid Deo non licet, nedum

But how shall the Antichrist be utterly overthrown, unless room is given for crushing his other objections as well, the defence of prescriptions being relaxed? Let us therefore now proceed from here to the very person of [his] God, or rather to the shadow and phantom, according to his own Christ, and let him be examined by that through which he is preferred to the Creator. And certainly there will be sure rules for examining the goodness of God. But first I must find it, and lay hold of it, and so bring it to the rules. For when I look around over the ages, it is nowhere from the beginning of material things and the entry of the causes, together with which it ought to have been found, doing from then on what it had to do. For death already existed, and the sting of death, sin, and the very malice of the Creator; against which the goodness of the other god ought to have come to aid, meeting this first rule of divine goodness, if it were to prove itself natural, by coming to the rescue at once, as soon as the cause began. For all things in God will have to be natural and inborn, so that they may be eternal, according to His state, lest they be reckoned accidental and extraneous, and on this account temporal and alien to eternity. So also a goodness perennial and unceasing will be required in God, which, laid up and prepared in the treasuries of natural properties, would precede its causes and materials; and would take up each one first, not despise and abandon it, if it preceded. Finally, no less here too I shall ask why his goodness did not operate from the beginning, than we asked concerning him himself, why he was not revealed from the beginning? Why not? he who was to be revealed through goodness, if he had existed at all. To be unable is something not permitted to God, much less

Editors' notes and page, col. 296

Footnotes

(65) ‹anchor: quid Deo non licet› · call in col 296

Non posse quid Deo non licet. Sensus est: Non licet Deo ut aliquid non possit, nedum ut non possit naturalibus suis fungi. RHEN.

To be unable to do anything is not allowed to God. The sense is: it is not allowed to God that he be unable to do anything, still less that he be unable to exercise his natural powers. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 152)

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 5 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 297 (inferred) Agatur. Sic Pamel.

"Agatur. Sic" ("let it be done. So"): Pamelius.

6 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 297 (inferred) Sic alii.

"Sic" ("so"): others.

7 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 297 (inferred) Bonitatis Paris Rhen.

"Bonitatis" ("of goodness"): Paris edition, Rhenanus.

8 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 297 (inferred) Utilitatem cruciare Rig.

"Utilitatem cruciare" ("to torment usefulness"): Rigaltius.

9 ‹anchor: deputatur cum› · call in col 297 Jam. inser. Pamel.

Pamelius inserts "jam" ("already").

10 ‹anchor: ejus admissis› · call in col 297 Honoratum operationibus ejus admisisse Rhen.

"Honoratum operationibus ejus admisisse" ("to have admitted him honoured with his works"): Rhenanus.

11 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Debere omitt. Seml. Oberth.

"Debere" ("to owe / ought") is omitted by Semler and Oberthür.

12 ‹anchor: non habenti› · call in col 298 Habentis Pamel.

"Habentis" ("of one having"): Pamelius.

13 ‹anchor: quoque exiguae› · call in col 298 Exigua conjic. Seml.

"Exigua" ("scanty"): Semler's conjecture.

14 ‹anchor: Exhibe› · call in col 298 Re add. Seml. exhibere Pamel.

Semler adds "re" ("in fact"); "exhibere" ("to show"): Pamelius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 153)

(66) ‹anchor: in illum rescribetur› · call in col 297

Totum denique Creatoris elogium in illum rescribetur. Elogium dicit nomen, titulum; et rescribere, quod sequenti libro dicet transcribere. « Sed et si ab homine in diabolum transcripseris mali elogium. » RIG.

In short the whole charge against the Creator will be rewritten against him. By elogium he means a name, a title; and by rescribere what in the next book he will call transcribere: "but even if you transfer the charge of evil from man to the devil." RIGALTIUS.

(printed under page 153)

(67) ‹anchor: damnatur in mortem› · call in col 297

Homo damnatur in mortem, etc. Pulchra peccati orginalis descriptio, quamquam ipse in plurali numero efferat, « et exinde prosiliunt (sive proficiunt, uti habent Vatic. z. Ms. cod.) dicta cum poenis, » eo quod ex ipso etiam alia multa peccata oriantur. Eleganter autem dixit, « Qui paradisi nullum cespitem norunt, » hoc est qui paradisi terram numquam ingressi sunt. PAM.

Man is condemned to death, etc. A fine description of original sin, though he puts it in the plural, "and from that leap out (or proficiunt, 'proceed', as the second Vatican manuscript has it) the sayings [sic] with their punishments," because many other sins also arise from it. And he said elegantly, "who know not a single turf of paradise," that is, who never set foot on the ground of paradise. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 153)

(68) ‹anchor: Si (68)› · call in col 297

Si. Subaudi, sustinuit. EDD.

If. Understand "he bore it." THE EDITORS.

(printed under page 153)

(69) ‹anchor: a Cerdone et Marcione› · call not visible

A Cerdone et Marcione. Conjungit hos duos, eo quod Cerdonis discipulus fuerit Marcion, PAM.

By Cerdo and Marcion. He joins these two because Marcion was Cerdo's disciple. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 153)

(70) ‹anchor: aliam illi regulam praetendo› · call not visible

Aliam illi regulam praetendo, Alio argumento in ipsam utor, et regulam veritatis illi explico. Le PR.

I hold out another rule to him. I use another argument against it, and unfold to him the rule of truth. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 153)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L02 and L04 blocked (both columns had already been set aside on the volunteer page) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:298

rio; imo, quod verius, a Cerdone et Marcione. Tiberio nunc deus ille praestiterit, ut imperio ejus divina bonitas in terris dedicaretur.

[from Tibe]rius; nay rather, to speak more truly, from Cerdo and Marcion. Let it be, then, that that god granted to Tiberius that under his rule the divine goodness should be inaugurated on earth.

CAPUT XXIII.

Chapter XXIII.

Aliam illi regulam praetendo; sicut naturalia, ita rationalia esse debere in Deo omnia. Exigo rationem bonitatis, quia nec aliud quid bonum haberi liceat, quod non rationaliter bonum sit, nedum ut ipsa bonitas irrationalis deprehendatur. Facilius malum, cui rationis aliquid adfuerit, pro bono habebitur, quam ut bonum ratione desertum non pro malo judicetur. Nego rationalem bonitatem dei Marcionis, jam hoc primo, quod in salutem processerit hominis alieni. Scio dicturos: Atquin hanc esse principalem et perfectam bonitatem, cum sine ullo debito familiaritatis, in extraneos voluntaria et libera effunditur, secundum quam inimicos quoque nostros, et hoc nomine jam extraneos, diligere jubeamur. Cum ergo non a primordio hominem respexit, a primordio extraneum, cessando praejudicavit cum extraneo nihil sibi esse. Caeterum, disciplinam diligendi extraneum vel inimicum, antecessit praeceptum diligendi proximum tamquam teipsum. Quod etsi ex lege Creatoris, et tu quoque illud excipere debebis, ut a Christo non destructum, sed potius exstructum. Nam, quo magis proximum diligas, diligere juberis inimicum et extraneum. Exaggeratio est debitae bonitatis, exactio indebitae. Antecedit autem debita indebitam, ut principalis, ut dignior ministraret comite sua, id est indebita. Prior igitur cum prima bonitatis ratio sit in rem suam exhiberi ex justitia, secunda autem in alienam, ex redundantia justitiae super Scribarum et Pharisaeorum quale est secundam ei rationem referri, cui deficit prima? non habenti proprium hominem, ac per hoc quoque exiguae? Porro, exigua quae suum non habuit, quomodo in alienum redundavit? Exhibe principalem rationem, et tunc vindica sequentem, Nulla res sine ordine rationalis potest vindicari; tanto abest ut ratio ipsa in aliquo ordinem amittat. Sit nunc et a secundo gradu incipiens ratio bonitatis,

I put forward against him another rule: that, just as natural things, so rational things ought all to be in God. I demand the reason of the goodness, since nothing else may be held good which is not rationally good, much less may goodness itself be found irrational. An evil thing in which something of reason has been present will more easily be held for good than a good thing deserted by reason will fail to be judged for evil. I deny that the goodness of Marcion's god is rational, and on this first ground already, that it went forth to the salvation of a man belonging to another. I know they will say: But this is the principal and perfect goodness, when, without any debt of kinship, it is poured out voluntarily and freely upon strangers, the goodness according to which we are commanded to love even our enemies, who on that very account are strangers too. Since, therefore, he did not regard man from the beginning, a stranger from the beginning, by holding back he gave a prior judgement that he had nothing to do with a stranger. Moreover, the teaching of loving a stranger or an enemy was preceded by the precept of loving one's neighbour as oneself. And although this comes from the law of the Creator, you too will have to accept it as not destroyed by Christ but rather built up. For you are commanded to love your enemy and the stranger so that you may love your neighbour the more. The demanding of the goodness that is not owed is an amplification of the goodness that is owed. But the owed goes before the not-owed, as the principal, so that as the worthier it might perform its office with its companion, that is, the not-owed. Accordingly, since the first and prior reason of goodness is that it be shown towards what is its own, out of justice, and the second towards what is another's, out of a justice abounding beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees, what sort of thing is it that the second reason should be ascribed to one which lacks the first, to one not having a man of its own, and through this also meagre? Further, how did a meagre goodness, which had nothing of its own, overflow upon what was another's? Show the principal reason, and then lay claim to the one that follows. Nothing can be claimed as rational without order; so far is it from possible that reason itself should lose order in anything. Let there now be, beginning even from the second degree, a reason of goodness,

Editors' notes and page, col. 298

Footnotes

(71) ‹anchor: proximum (71)› · call in col 298

Antecessit praeceptum diligendi prox. etc. Istud partim desumit ex illo loco Matth. V: « Audisti quia dictum est antiquis: Diliges proximum tuum, » partim et proprie ex Levit. XIX, ad quod ibi alludebat Christus. PAM.

The command to love one's neighbour came first, etc. He takes this partly from the passage in Matthew 5, "you have heard that it was said to those of old: You shall love your neighbour," and partly, and properly, from Leviticus 19, to which Christ was alluding there. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 153)

(72) ‹anchor: super Scribarum› · call in col 298

Ex redundantia justitiae super Scribarum. Super pro plus quam hic usurpari video, quod fecit Suetonius in August. Quamvis id adeo elegans non sit, est enim novitatis genus. LE PR.

From an abundance of righteousness beyond that of the Scribes. I see super used here for plus quam ("more than"), as Suetonius did in his Augustus; though it is not very elegant, being a kind of novelty. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 153)

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge] . I ADV. MARCIONEM. 298
marginal letters: A rio; imo, quod verius; B hanc esse principalem; C bonitatis, exactio indebitae; D beside the commentary note (69) A Cerdone et Marcione
old-edition numerals: 273 after extraneum
other: column begins with fragment "rio" (Tibe-rio, broken from column 297); column ends mid-word "bonita-"; commentary calls (69)-(72) and superior figures 11-14 omitted; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes by Pamelius and Le Prieur) at page foot not set; printer's signature "10" at foot; "vindicari;" read through slightly blurred type; "Prior igitur" construed with the following clause, UNSURE

PL 2:299

in extraneum scilicet, nec secundus illi gradus ratione constabit, alio modo destructus. Tunc enim rationalis habebitur vel secunda in extraneum bonitas, si sine injuria ejus operetur, cujus est res, quamcumque bonitatem, justitia prima efficit rationalem, sic et in principali gradu rationalis erit, cum in rem suam exhibetur, si justa sit. Sic et in extraneum rationalis videri poterit, si non sit injusta. Caeterum, qualis bonitas, quae per injuriam constat, et quidem pro extraneo? Fortasse enim pro domestico aliquatenus rationalis habeatur bonitas injuriosa; pro extraneo vero, cui nec proba legitime deberetur, qua ratione tam injusta rationalis defendetur? Quid enim injustius, quid iniquius et improbius, quam ita alieno benefacere servo, ut domino eripiatur, ut alii vindicetur, ut adversus caput domini subornetur, et quidem, quo indignius, in ipsa adhuc domo domini, de ipsius adhuc horreis vivens, sub ipsius adhuc plagis tremens? Talis assertor etiam damnaretur in saeculo, nedum plagiator. Non aliter deus Marcionis inrumpens in alienum mundum, eripiens Deo hominem, patri filium, educatori alumnum, domino famulum; ut eum efficiat Deo impium, patri irreligiosum, educatori ingratum, domino nequam. Oro te, si rationalis bonitas talem facit, qualem faceret inrationalis? Non putem impudentiorem, quam qui in aliena aqua alii deo tinguitur, ad alienum coelum alii deo expanditur, in aliena terra alii deo sternitur, super alienum panem alii deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur, de alienis bonis ob alium deum nomine eleemosynae et dilectionis operatur. Quis iste deus tam bonus, ut homo ab illo malus fiat? tam propitius, ut a⟨l⟩ium illi deum, et dominum quidem ipsius faciat iratum?

namely towards a stranger, nor will a second degree of it stand firm in reason, being destroyed in another way. For then even a second goodness, towards a stranger, will be held rational, if it operates without injury to him whose the thing is; whatever goodness, justice first makes rational; so too in the principal degree it will be rational, when it is displayed towards what is its own, if it is just. So also towards a stranger it will be able to seem rational, if it is not unjust. But what kind of goodness is that which subsists through injury, and that indeed on behalf of a stranger? For perhaps on behalf of one of the household an injurious goodness might be held rational to some extent; but on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even an honest [goodness] would lawfully be owed, by what reason will one so unjust be defended as rational? For what is more unjust, what more iniquitous and more wicked, than so to do good to another's slave that he is snatched from his master, claimed for another, suborned against his master's life, and that, which is more shameful, while still in his master's very house, still living from his master's granaries, still trembling under his master's stripes? Such a liberator would be condemned even in the world, much more a kidnapper. Not otherwise is the god of Marcion, bursting into another's world, snatching man from God, the son from the father, the nursling from the one who reared him, the servant from the master, so as to make him impious towards God, irreverent towards his father, ungrateful towards his rearer, worthless towards his master. I ask you, if rational goodness makes such a one, what sort would irrational goodness make? I should not think anyone more shameless than he who is dipped in another's water for another god, stretched out towards another's heaven for another god, prostrated on another's earth for another god, performs thanksgivings over another's bread for another god, and works from another's goods for the sake of another god under the name of almsgiving and love. Who is this god so good that man becomes evil through him? so propitious that he makes another god, and that indeed his own Lord, angry with him?

CAPUT XXIV.

Chapter XXIV.

Sed Deus, sicut aeternus et rationalis, ita opinor,

But God, as He is eternal and rational, so, I think,

Editors' notes and page, col. 299

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 15 ‹anchor: Non› · call in col 299 Irrationalis. An Paris. at Rhen. Oberth.

"Irrationalis. An" ("irrational. Or"): Paris edition; "at" ("but"): Rhenanus, Oberthür.

16 ‹anchor: dominum quidem ipsius› · call in col 299 Ipsius omitt. Seml. Oberth.

"Ipsius" ("his own") is omitted by Semler and Oberthür.

17 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 299 (inferred) Deo abest Seml.

"Deo" ("God") is absent in Semler.

18 ‹anchor: quid enim tam› · call in col 300 Quid erat perfectae Seml. Oberth. quid enim tam perfectae charitatis Latin.

"Quid erat perfectae" ("what was of perfect"): Semler, Oberthür; "quid enim tam perfectae charitatis" ("for what is so much of perfect charity"): Latinius.

19 ‹anchor: quod sciam› · call in col 300 Quod si jam Pam. Seml. Oberth.

"Quod si jam" ("but if now"): Pamelius, Semler, Oberthür.

Commentarius. (printed under page 154)

(73) ‹anchor: assertor etiam damnaretur› · call in col 299 (inferred)

Talis assertor etiam damnaretur in saeculo. Assertor est vindex alienae libertatis. LE PR.

Such a claimant would be condemned even in the world. An assertor is one who claims another person's freedom at law. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 154)

(74) ‹anchor: nedum plagiator› · call in col 299 (inferred)

Nedum plagiator. Opponit plagiatorem assertori. Est autem plagium, a quo plagiator, suppressio liberi hominis aut servi, sive quod auctore Suida, fiat πλαγίως seu δολίως sive ut ait Isidorus, ἀπὸ τοῦ πλαγίου. LE PR.

Much less a kidnapper. He sets the kidnapper against the claimant. Plagium, from which plagiator comes, is the carrying off of a free man or a slave, either because, on Suidas's authority, it is done πλαγίως or δολίως ("crookedly" or "by guile"), or, as Isidore says, ἀπὸ τοῦ πλαγίου ("from the crooked"). LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 154)

(75) ‹anchor: alii deo expanditur› · call in col 299

Ad alienum coelum alii deo expanditur, etc. Ergo precantes Christiani ad coelum brachia extendebant. RHEN.

He spreads himself out towards another's heaven for another god, etc. So Christians at prayer stretched out their arms towards heaven. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 154)

(76) ‹anchor: alii deo sternitur› · call in col 299

Alii Deo sternitur. Hoc poenitentium erat. RHEN.

He prostrates himself to another god. This was the practice of penitents. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 154)

(77) ‹anchor: gratiarum actionibus fungitur› · call in col 299

Super alienum panem alii deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur. In eumdem sensum dixerat Irenaeus: « Quomodo autem constabit eis, cum panem in quo gratiae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis ejus, si non ipsum fabricatoris mundi Filium dicant, id est, Verbum ejus? » RIG. — Super alienum panem, alii deo, etc. Istud ad sacramentum Eucharistiae, in quo panem non remanere, sed mutari in corpus Christi certum est. PAM.

Over another's bread he performs thanksgivings to another god. Irenaeus had spoken to the same effect: "How will it be certain to them that the bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup that of his blood, if they do not call him the Son of the maker of the world, that is, his Word?" RIGALTIUS. — Over another's bread, to another god, etc. This [refers] to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in which it is certain that the bread does not remain but is changed into the body of Christ. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 154)

Page

running head: 299 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹tis, in extraneum scilicet›; B ‹servo, ut domino eripiatur›; C ‹in aliena terra alii deo›; D ‹(74) Nedum plagiator› (in the commentary at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 274 after ‹impium,›
other: the word opinor, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 300

PL 2:300

et perfectus in omnibus: Eritis enim perfecti, quemadmodum Pater vester qui in coelis est (Matth. V, 48). Exhibe perfectam quoque bonitatem ejus. Etsi de imperfecta satis constat, quae neque naturalis invenitur neque rationalis, nunc et alio ordine traducetur, nec jam imperfecta, imo et defecta, exigua et exhausta, minor numero materiarum suarum, quae in omnibus exhibetur. Non enim omnes salvi fiunt, sed pauciores omnibus et Judaeis et Christianis creatoris. Pluribus vero pereuntibus, quomodo perfecta defenditur bonitas ex majore parte cessatrix? paucis aliqua, pluribus nulla, cedens perditioni, partiaria exitii? Quod si plures salvi non erunt, erit jam non bonitas, sed malitia perfectior. Sicut enim bonitatis operatio est, quae facit salvos, ita malignitatis, quae non facit salvos. Magis autem non faciens salvos dum paucos facit, perfectior erit, non juvando, quam juvando. Non poteris et in Creatorem referre bonitatem, in omnes defectionem. Quem enim judicem tenes, dispensatorem si forte bonitatis ostendis intelligendum, non profusorem quod deo tuo vindicas. Usque adeo hac sola eum praefers bonitate Creatori; quam si solam profitetur et totam, nulli deesse debuerat. Sed nolo jam de parte majore pereuntium, imperfectum bonitatis arguere deum Marcionis: sufficit ipsos, quos salvos facit, imperfectae salutis inventos, imperfectam bonitatem ejus ostendere: scilicet anima tenus salvos, carne deperditos, quae apud illum non resurgit. Unde haec dimidiatio salutis, nisi ex defectione bonitatis? Quid enim tam perfectae bonitatis, quam totum hominem redigere in salutem, totum damnatum a Creatore, totum a Deo optimo allectum? Quod sciam, et caro tinguitur apud illum, et caro de nuptiis tollitur, et caro in confessione nominis desaevitur. Sed et si carni delicta reputantur, praecedit animae reatus, et culpae principatus animae potius adscribendus,

is also perfect in all things: For you shall be perfect, just as your Father Who is in the heavens (Matt. 5:48). Show also the perfect goodness of him. Even if it is sufficiently established concerning the imperfect goodness, which is found to be neither natural nor rational, now it will be exposed in another order as well, no longer as imperfect, but even as defective, scanty and exhausted, smaller than the number of its objects, the goodness which is displayed in all. For not all are saved, but fewer than all, both the Jews and the Christians of the Creator. But since the greater number perish, how is a goodness defended as perfect which for the greater part is inactive? to a few something, to the greater number nothing, yielding to perdition, a sharer in ruin? But if the greater number will not be saved, it will now be not goodness but malice that is the more perfect. For just as it is the working of goodness that makes men saved, so it is the working of malignity that does not make them saved. Moreover, by not making men saved while it makes few so, it will be more perfect in not helping than in helping. You will not be able to refer to the Creator as well a goodness that is a failure towards all. For him whom you hold to be a judge, you show, if perhaps at all, to be understood as a dispenser of goodness, not the lavisher of it that you claim for your god. To such an extent do you prefer him to the Creator by this goodness alone; and if he professes it alone and entire, he ought to have been wanting to no one. But I do not wish now, on the ground of the greater part of those who perish, to convict the god of Marcion of imperfect goodness: it suffices that those very ones whom he makes saved, being found to have an imperfect salvation, show his goodness to be imperfect: namely, saved as far as the soul, lost in the flesh, which with him does not rise again. Whence this halving of salvation, unless from a failure of goodness? For what is so proper to perfect goodness as to bring the whole man back to salvation, the whole man condemned by the Creator, the whole man drawn to himself by the most good God? As far as I know, with him the flesh too is baptized, and the flesh is taken away from marriage, and the flesh is savaged in the confession of the name. But even if transgressions are imputed to the flesh, the guilt of the soul precedes, and the primacy of fault is rather to be ascribed to the soul,

Editors' notes and page, col. 300

Footnotes

(78) ‹anchor: carne deperditos› · call in col 300

Scilicet anima tenus salvos, carne deperditos, etc. Hoc est quod supra dixit auctor, lib. de Praescr. adv. haeret., c. 51: « Resurrectionem animae tantummodo probat, corporis negat. « Contra quam haeresin late disputat lib. de Resurr. carnis. Sicut autem hic legitur, dimidiatio salutis, sic supra lib. de carne Christi, c. 1: Quid Christum dimidias? eodem pertinet illud infra, ex parte resurgere. PAM.

Saved, that is, as far as the soul, lost in the flesh, etc. This is what the author said above, in the book On the Prescription of Heretics, ch. 51: "he approves the resurrection of the soul only, and denies that of the body." Against that heresy he argues at length in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh. And as we read here a halving of salvation, so above, in the book On the Flesh of Christ, ch. 1: Why do you halve Christ? To the same point belongs the phrase below, to rise in part. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 154)

(79) ‹anchor: caro tinguitur apud illum› · call in col 300

Et caro tinguitur apud illum. Sic legimus more Tertullianico, pro tingitur, similiter autem supra lib. de Resurr. carnis, c. 8: « Sed et caro abluitur, etc. Virginitas quoque et viduitas, etc. De bonis carnis Deo adolentur; » hoc est enim quod hic addit. « Et caro de nuptiis tollitur. » Quibus locis et aliis quibusdam confirmari a nuptiis continentiam, quam hodie impugnare quidam non verentur, ibid. adnotavimus, et lib. De velandis Virgin. et de Cultu femin. c. 9. PAM.

And the flesh is dipped with him. So we read, in Tertullian's manner, for tingitur; and likewise above in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. 8: "but the flesh too is washed, etc. Virginity also and widowhood, etc., are offered up to God from the goods of the flesh"; for this is what he adds here: "and the flesh is withdrawn from marriage." That continence from marriage, which some today are not afraid to attack, is confirmed by these places and certain others we noted there, and in the book On the Veiling of Virgins and On the Apparel of Women, ch. 9. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 154)

Page

running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 300 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A nor, et perfectus in omnibus; B facit salvos, ita malignitatis; C illum non resurgit. Unde haec dimidiatio; D etc. Hoc est quod supra dixit auctor (beside the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 275 after dimidiatio
other: column begins with the fragment "nor" of a word broken from col. 299; last word "adscriben-" split at column break; partial left column (col. 299) visible, not set; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes 78, 79) at page foot not set; "salvos" before "Magis" has a damaged final letter, read as salvos; ligature in italic "coelis" uncertain, may be æ (caelis); "tinguitur" as printed (editors' note defends the form)
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): coelis | caelis

PL 2:301

cui caro ministri nomine occurrit. Carens denique anima caro, hactenus peccat. Ita et in hoc injusta bonitas, et sic quoque imperfecta; innocentiorem substantiam relinquens in exitium, obsequio, non arbitrio delinquentem: cujus Christus etsi non induit veritatem, ut tuae haeresi visum est, imaginem tamen ejus subire dignatus est. Ipsum quod mentitus est illam, aliquid ei debuit debuisse. Quid est autem homo aliud quam caro? Si quidem nomen hominis, materia corporalis, non animalis, ab auctore sortita est: Et fecit hominem Deus, inquit (Gen. II), limum de terra, non animam; anima enim de afflatu: Et factus est homo in animam vivam. Quis? utique qui de limo. Et posuit Deus hominem in paradiso, quod finxit, non quod flavit; qui caro nunc, non qui anima. Itaque, si ita est, quo ore contendes perfectum bonitatis titulum, quae non jam a partitione speciali hominis liberandi defecit, sed a proprietate generali? Si plena est gratia et solida misericordia quae soli animae salutaris est, plus praestat haec vita, qua toti et integri fruimur. Caeterum, ex parte resurgere, multari erit, non liberari. Erat et illud perfectae bonitatis, ut homo liberatus in fidem Dei optimi, statim eximeretur de domicilio atque dominatu dei saevi. At nunc et febricitas, o Marcionita, et caeteros tribulos et spinas dolor carnis tuae tibi edit; nec fulminibus tantum, aut bellis, et pestibus, aliisque plagis Creatoris, sed et scorpiis ejus objectus; in quo te putas liberatum de regno ejus, cujus te muscae adhuc calcant? si de futuro erutus es, cur non et de praesenti, ut perfecte? Alia est nostra conditio, apud auctorem, apud judicem, apud offensum principem generis. Tu tantummodo bonum deum praefers. Non potes autem perfecte bonum ostendere, a quo non perfecte liberaris.

to which the flesh comes forward under the name of servant. In short, flesh lacking the soul sins only to that extent. Thus in this too [his] goodness is unjust, and in this way also imperfect, leaving to destruction the more innocent substance, which offends through obedience, not by its own choice: the reality of which Christ, even if He did not put it on, as your heresy has held, nevertheless deigned to take up its image. The very fact that He counterfeited it means that He must have owed it something. But what is man other than flesh? Since indeed the name of man was allotted by its Author to the bodily material, not to the soul: And God made man, it says (Gen. 2), mud from the earth, not soul; for the soul is from the breathing: And man was made into a living soul. Who? Surely he who was of the mud. And God placed man in paradise, that which He formed, not that which He breathed; that which is now flesh, not that which is soul. Therefore, if this is so, with what face will you claim the perfect title of goodness, which now fails not in some particular portion of the man to be set free, but in his general property? If that is full grace and solid mercy which is saving to the soul alone, this present life offers more, which we enjoy whole and entire. Moreover, to rise again in part will be to be punished, not to be set free. This too belonged to perfect goodness, that a man set free into faith in the best God should at once be removed from the dwelling and dominion of the cruel god. But as it is, O Marcionite, you both suffer fevers, and the pain of your flesh brings forth for you the other thistles and thorns; and you are exposed not only to the thunderbolts, or wars, and plagues, and other strokes of the Creator, but also to His scorpions; in what respect do you think yourself freed from His kingdom, when His flies still tread upon you? If you have been rescued from the future, why not also from the present, so as [to be rescued] perfectly? Ours is a different condition, before the Author, before the Judge, before the offended Prince of the race. You put forward only a good god. But you cannot show [him to be] perfectly good, by whom you are not perfectly set free.

CAPUT XXV.

Chapter XXV.

Quod attinet ad bonitatis quaestionem, his lineis deduximus eam minime Deo adaequari, ut neque ingenitam, neque rationalem, neque perfectam; sed et improbam, et injustam, et ipso jam bonitatis nomine indignam: quod scilicet in quantum Deo congruat, in tantum Deum non esse conveniat, qui de tali bonitate etiam perferatur, nec de tali

As regards the question of goodness, we have drawn it out along these lines, that it by no means measures up to God, so that it is neither unbegotten, nor rational, nor perfect; but also wicked, and unjust, and unworthy even of the very name of goodness: namely, that insofar as it befits God, so far it is fitting that he should not be God who is even carried along on such goodness, and that not on such

Editors' notes and page, col. 301

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 20 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 301 (inferred) Habuit Jun. debui alii.

"Habuit" ("he had"): Junius; "debui" ("I ought"): others.

21 ‹anchor: ut perfecte› · call in col 301 Sis add. Seml.

Semler adds "sis" ("you may be").

22 ‹anchor: bonum deum› · call in col 301 Deum abest Fran.

"Deum" ("god") is absent in the Franeker edition.

23 ‹anchor: bonum ostendere› · call in col 301 Deum addit Rhen.

Rhenanus adds "Deum" ("God").

24 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Negamus Jun.

"Negamus" ("we deny"): Junius.

25 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Jesum Rhen.

"Jesum" ("Jesus"): Rhenanus.

26 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Agnovisset Wouw.

"Agnovisset" ("had recognized"): Wouwer.

27 ‹anchor: consiliario Marcione› · call in col 302 Marcionis alii.

"Marcionis" ("of Marcion"): others.

28 ‹anchor: et eum a› · call in col 302 Cum de Rhen. Oberth.

"Cum de" ("with from"): Rhenanus, Oberthür.

29 ‹anchor: aemulationi concurrant› · call in col 302 Occurrant Semler, Oberth.

"Occurrant" ("let them meet"): Semler, Oberthür.

30 ‹anchor: indignatio, bilis› · call in col 302 Indignabilis Rhen.

"Indignabilis" ("indignant"): Rhenanus.

Commentarius. (printed under page 155)

(80) ‹anchor: anima enim de afflatu› · call not visible

Anima enim de afflatu. Vulgare est etymum animam esse dictam quasi ἄνεμον. Quod forte Tertullianus in mente habebat. LE PR.

For the soul comes from the breath. It is a common etymology that anima ("soul") is so called as if from ἄνεμος ("wind"). Tertullian perhaps had this in mind. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 155)

(81) ‹anchor: negatis caeteris appendicibus› · call not visible

Negatis caeteris appendicibus, sensus, etc. Premit hic Marcionem, adhibetque appellationes illas quas adsciscebant Marcionis discipuli, ut Deum creatorem saevum dicerent. LE PR.

The other appendages being denied, the senses, etc. Here he presses Marcion, and uses the names which Marcion's disciples took up in order to call the Creator God cruel. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 155)

(82) ‹anchor: de Epicuri schola Deum› · call not visible

Si aliquem de Epicuri schola Deum. Nempe, uti sequitur, immobilem, et stupentem. ac sicuti, cap. 26, stupidissimum. Quo pertinet etiam illud de Deo, quod sequitur: « Negotium et sibi et aliis fecit Epicuro nolente. » PAM.

If some god from the school of Epicurus. That is, as follows, motionless and stupefied; and, as in ch. 26, most stupid. To this also belongs what follows about God: "he made trouble for himself and others, against the wishes of Epicurus." PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 155)

Page

running head: 301 LIB. I ADV. MARCION[EM] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A dus, cui caro; B qui caro nunc; C in quo te putas; D qui de tali bonitate
old-edition numerals: 276 after nostra

PL 2:302

modo, verum et sola. Jam enim et hoc discuti par est, an Deus de sola bonitate censendus sit, negatis caeteris appendicibus, sensibus et affectibus, quos Marcionitae quidem a deo suo ambigunt in Creatorem, nos vero et agnoscimus in Creatore, ut Deo dignos. Et ex hoc quoque negabimus Deum, in quo non omnia quae Deo digna sunt, constent. Si aliquem de Epicuri schola Deum affectavit Christi nomine titulare, ut quod beatum et incorruptibile sit, neque sibi, neque alii molestias praestet (hanc enim sententiam ruminans Marcion, removit ab illo severitates et judiciarias vires) aut in totum immobilem et stupentem Deum concepisse debuerat; et quid illi cum Christo, molesto et Judaeis per doctrinam, et sibi per sensum? aut et de caeteris motibus eum agnovisse, et quid illi cum Epicuro, nec sibi nec Christianis necessario? Ecce enim hoc ipso quod retro quietus, qui nec notitiam sui aliquo interim opere curaverit, post tantum aevi senserit in hominis salutem, utique per voluntatem, nonne concussibilis tunc fuit novae voluntati, ut et caeteris motibus videatur obnoxius? Quae autem voluntas sine concupiscentiae stimulo est? Sed et cura accedet voluntati. Quis volet, quod non concupiscet? Quis enim volet quid, et concupiscet, et non curabit? Igitur cum et voluit et concupiit in hominis salutem, jam et sibi et aliis negotium fecit, Epicuro nolente, consiliario Marcione. Nam et adversarium sibi constituit ipsum illud adversus quod et voluit, et concupiit et curavit, sive delictum, sive mortem; imprimis ipsum arbitrum eorum, et dominum hominis Creatorem. Porro, nihil sine aemulatione decurret, quod sine adversario non erit. Denique volens, et concupiscens, et curans hominem liberare, hoc ipso jam aemulatur, et eum a quo liberat; adversus eum scilicet sibi liberaturus; et ea de quibus liberat, in alia liberaturus. Proinde enim aemulationi concurrant necesse est officiales suae in ea quae aemulatur, ira, discordia, odium, dedignatio, indignatio, bilis, nolentia, offensa. Haec omnia, si aemulationi adsistunt, aemulatio autem liberando homini procurat; liberatio autem hominis operatio bonitatis est, non poterit ea bonitas sine suis dotibus, id est sine sensibus et affectibus, per quos administratur

[goodness] only, but also [on it] alone. For now this too is fit to be discussed: whether God is to be judged by goodness alone, the other appendages being denied, the senses and affections, which the Marcionites indeed drive away from their god onto the Creator, whereas we do acknowledge them in the Creator, as worthy of God. And on this ground too we shall deny [him to be] God in whom not all the things that are worthy of God are present. If he chose to dignify with the name of Christ some god from the school of Epicurus, so that what is blessed and incorruptible causes trouble neither to itself nor to another (for it was in chewing over this opinion that Marcion removed from him severities and judicial powers), he ought either to have conceived a God wholly immovable and insensible, and then what has he to do with Christ, troublesome both to the Jews by His teaching and to Himself by His feeling? or to have acknowledged him in respect of the other emotions also, and then what has he to do with Epicurus, necessary neither to himself nor to Christians? For behold, by this very fact that he who was formerly at rest, who had not meanwhile provided for any knowledge of himself by any work, after so long an age felt [concern] for the salvation of man, certainly by an act of will, was he not then capable of being stirred by a new will, so that he may seem subject to the other emotions also? And what will is there without the goad of desire? And care too will be added to will. Who will will what he will not desire? For who will will something, and desire it, and not take care for it? Therefore, since he both willed and desired the salvation of man, he has thereby made business both for himself and for others, Epicurus being unwilling, Marcion being his counsellor. For he also set up as his own adversary that very thing against which he both willed and desired and took care, whether sin or death; and above all the arbiter of these and lord of man, the Creator. Further, nothing will run its course without rivalry which will not be without an adversary. In short, in willing and desiring and taking care to free man, by this very fact he already enters into rivalry, both with him from whom he frees, being about, namely, to free [man] for himself against him, and with the things from which he frees, being about to free into other things. For accordingly the attendants of rivalry must needs rush together against the things which it rivals: anger, discord, hatred, disdain, indignation, bile, unwillingness, offence. All these, if they attend upon rivalry, and rivalry serves in the freeing of man, and the freeing of man is the operation of goodness, that goodness will not be able [to be] without its endowments, that is, without the senses and affections through which

Editors' notes and page, col. 302

Footnotes

(83) ‹anchor: et concupiscet (83)› · call in col 302

Quis volet, quod non concupiscet, etc. Istud deletum a Rhenano, quia non habebatur in Gorziensi codice, iterum adjicimus ex Vatic. II. ms. eo quod ad explicationem pertineat. Sive autem cum iisdem bis legas, concupivit, sive cum excusis, concupiit, perinde est. Sunt autem Tertullianea officiales suae, ac nolentia, quam, inquit Rhenanus, opponit voluntati ac homini procurat. PAM.

Who will will what he will not desire, etc. This, deleted by Rhenanus because it was not in the Gorze manuscript, we add again from the second Vatican manuscript, because it belongs to the explanation. Whether you read concupivit twice with those same manuscripts, or concupiit with the printed editions, makes no difference. And officiales suae ("its attendants") and nolentia ("unwillingness"), which, says Rhenanus, he sets against voluntas, and homini procurat, are Tertullian's own expressions. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 155)

Page

running head: ADV. MARCIONEM.
marginal letters: A modo, verum et sola; B et de caeteris motibus; C ipsum illud adversus; D bus, id est sine sensibus
old-edition numerals: 277 after fecit,
other: the word administratur was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 303

PL 2:303

adversus Creatorem; ne sic quoque inrationalis proscribatur, si careat et sensibus et affectibus debitis. Haec multo plenius defendemus in causa Creatoris, in qua et exprobrantur.

is administered against the Creator; lest in this way too he be proscribed as irrational, if he lacks both the senses and the affections that are due to him. These things we shall defend much more fully in the case of the Creator, in which they are also made a reproach.

CAPUT XXVI.

Chapter XXVI.

At hic sufficit perversissimum deum ostendi in ipso praeconio solitariae bonitatis, quae nolunt ei adscribere ejusmodi motus animi, quos in Creatore reprehendunt. Si enim neque aemulatur, neque irascitur, neque damnat, neque vexat, utpote qui nec judicem praestat, non invenio quomodo illi disciplinarum ratio consistat, et quidem plenior. Quale est enim, ut praecepta constituat non exsecuturus? ut delicta prohibeat non vindicaturus, quia non judicaturus? extraneus scilicet ab omnibus sensibus severitatis et animadversionis. Cur enim prohibet admitti, quod non defend⟨i⟩t admissum? cum multo rectius non prohibuisset quod defensurus non esset, quam ut non defenderet quod prohibuisset: imo et permisisse directo debuit, sine caussa prohibiturus, ut non defensurus. Nam et tunc tacite permissum est, quod sine ultione prohibetur. Et utique non aliud prohibet admitti, quam quod non amat fieri. Stupidissimus ergo qui non offenditur facto quod non amat fieri, quando offensa comes sit frustratae voluntatis. Aut si offenditur, debet irasci; si irascitur, debet ulcisci. Nam et ultio fructus est irae, et ira debitum offensae, et offensa, ut dixi, comes frustratae voluntatis. Sed non ulciscitur; ergo nec offenditur. Sed non offenditur; ergo nec laeditur voluntas ejus, cum fit quod fieri noluit: et fit jam de⟨l⟩ictum secundum voluntatem ejus, quia non fit adversus voluntatem, quod non laedit voluntatem. Aut si hoc erit divinae virtutis, sive bonitatis, nolle quidem fieri, et prohibere fieri; non moveri tamen, si fiat; dicimus jam motum esse illum qui noluit: et vane non moveri ad factum, qui motus sit ad non faciendum, quando noluit fieri; nolendo enim prohibuit. Non enim et judicavit? Nolendo fieri, et idcirco prohibendo; non faciendum enim judicavit, et prohibendum pronuntiavit. Ergo et ille jam judicat. Si indignum est Deum judicare, aut si ea tenus dignum est Deum judicare, qua tantummodo nolit et prohibeat; non etiam defendat admissum. Atquin nihil Deo tam indignum, quam non exsequi quod noluit et prohibuit

But here it is enough that a most perverse god is shown in the very proclamation of his solitary goodness, since they refuse to ascribe to him such motions of the mind as they censure in the Creator. For if he is neither jealous, nor angry, nor condemns, nor afflicts, inasmuch as he does not even present himself as a judge, I do not find how the system of his disciplines can hold together, and that indeed a fuller one. For what sort of thing is it, that he should establish precepts which he will not enforce? that he should forbid offences which he will not avenge, because he will not judge? being, to be sure, a stranger to all feelings of severity and punishment. For why does he forbid the commission of what he does not avenge once committed? when it would have been much more right for him not to have forbidden what he was not going to avenge, than not to avenge what he had forbidden: nay, he ought rather to have permitted it outright, since he would be forbidding without cause, as one who would not avenge. For even then a thing is tacitly permitted which is forbidden without vengeance. And certainly he forbids the commission of nothing other than what he does not love to see done. Most stupid, then, is he who is not offended by a deed which he does not love to see done, since offence is the companion of frustrated will. Or if he is offended, he must be angry; if he is angry, he must take vengeance. For vengeance is the fruit of anger, and anger the due of offence, and offence, as I have said, the companion of frustrated will. But he does not take vengeance; therefore neither is he offended. But he is not offended; therefore neither is his will injured when that is done which he did not will to be done: and an offence now comes about in accordance with his will, because what does not injure his will does not come about against his will. Or if this is to be [a mark] of divine power, or goodness, to be unwilling indeed that a thing be done, and to forbid it to be done, yet not to be moved if it is done; we say that he who was unwilling has already been moved: and it is in vain that he is not moved at the deed who was moved towards its not being done, since he was unwilling that it be done; for by being unwilling he forbade it. For has he not also judged? By being unwilling that it be done, and therefore by forbidding it; for he judged that it was not to be done, and pronounced that it was to be forbidden. Therefore he too already judges. If it is unworthy of God to judge, or if it is worthy of God to judge only so far as He is merely unwilling and forbids; not also that He should avenge what has been committed. And yet nothing is so unworthy of God as not to carry out what He did not will and forbade

Editors' notes and page, col. 303

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. 31 ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 303 (inferred) Non ut Seml. non et Jun.

"Non ut" ("not that"): Semler; "non et" ("not also"): Junius.

32 ‹anchor: non etiam› · call in col 303 Enim Paris.

"Enim" ("for"): Paris edition.

33 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Ut Semler. Oberth.

"Ut" ("that / as"): Semler, Oberthür.

34 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Haec alii.

"Haec" ("these things"): others.

35 ‹anchor: not visible› · call not visible Bonitatis Rhen.

"Bonitatis" ("of goodness"): Rhenanus.

36 ‹anchor: circi furentis› · call in col 304 Circum furentes Rhen. Oberth.

"Circum furentes" ("raging round"): Rhenanus, Oberthür.

Commentarius. (printed under page 156)

(84) ‹anchor: sententiae suae circumscriptorem› · call not visible

Sententiae suae circumscriptorem. Circumscriptorem, id est, abrogatorem, circumscribere pro circumducere et oblitterare frequens jureconsultis et auctoribus idoneis verbum. Cicero in Finibus, « Circumscriptis igitur iis sententiis quas modo posui. » RHEN.

One who cancels his own sentence. Circumscriptor, that is, one who annuls. Circumscribere for circumducere ("to strike out") and oblitterare ("to erase") is a word frequent in the jurists and in reliable authors. Cicero in the De finibus: "these opinions which I have just set out being set aside, then." RHENANUS.

(printed under page 156)

(85) ‹anchor: transfunctoria praecepta› · call not visible

Et ipsa transfunctoria praecepta. Transfunctoria vocat perfunctoria. Est autem jureconsultis perfunctorium quod levi cura fit et aliud agendo, dum videlicet non curamus ut aliquid bene fiat, sed tantum ut fiat: inde perfunctorie adverbium in crebro usu apud illos. RHEN.

And the very precepts perfunctory. He calls transfunctoria what are perfunctoria. To the jurists, perfunctorium is what is done with slight care and while doing something else, when, that is, we take no care that a thing be done well but only that it be done; hence the adverb perfunctorie is in frequent use among them. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 156)

Page

running head: 303 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A ministratur adversus Creatorem; B judicaturus? extraneus scilicet; C comes frustratae voluntatis. Sed non ulciscitur; D judicare, qua tantummodo nolit (letter sits between this line and the one above)
old-edition numerals: 278 after voluntatem,

PL 2:304

admitti. Primo, quod qualicumque sententiae suae et legi, debeat vindictam in auctoritatem et obsequii necessitatem. Secundo, quia aemulum sit necesse est quod noluit admitti, et nolendo prohibuit. Malo autem parcere Deum, indignius sit, quam animadvertere: et quidem Deo optimo, qui non alias plene bonus sit, nisi mali aemulus, uti boni amorem odio mali exerceat, et boni tutelam expugnatione mali impleat.

to be admitted. First, because to any sentence and law of His whatsoever He owes vindication, for the sake of authority and of the necessity of obedience. Second, because what He did not wish to be admitted, and by not wishing it forbade, must necessarily be a rival [to Him]. Moreover, that God should spare evil would be more unworthy than that He should punish it: and indeed for God most good, Who would not otherwise be fully good unless He were a rival of evil, so as to exercise the love of good by hatred of evil, and to fulfil the protection of good by the overthrow of evil.

CAPUT XXVII.

Chapter XXVII.

Sed judicat plane malum nolendo, et damnat prohibendo: dimittit autem non vindicando, et absolvit non puniendo. O Deum veritatis praevaricatorem, sententiae suae circumscriptorem: timet damnare quod damnat, timet odisse quod non amat, factum sinit quod fieri non sinit, mavult ostendere qui nolit, quam probare. Hoc erit bonitas imaginaria, disciplina, phantasma; et ipsa transfunctoria praecepta, secura delicta: audite, peccatores, quique nondum hoc estis, ut esse possitis: Deus melior inventus est, qui nec offenditur, nec irascitur, nec ulciscitur, cui nullus ignis coquitur in gehenna, cui nullus dentium frendor horret in exterioribus tenebris; bonus tantum est, denique prohibet delinquere, sed litteris solis. In vobis est, si velitis, illi obsequium subsignare, ut honorem Deo habuisse videamini: timorem enim non vult. Atque adeo prae se ferunt Marcionitae, quod Deum suum omnino non timeant. Malus autem, inquiunt, timebitur, bonus autem diligetur. Stulte, quem Dominum appellas, negas timendum; cum hoc nomen potestatis sit, etiam timendae. At quomodo diliges, nisi timeas non diligere? Plane nec pater tuus est, in quem competat et amor propter pietatem, et timor propter potestatem? nec legitimus dominus. ut diligas propter humanitatem, et timeas propter disciplinam. Sic denique plagiarii diliguntur, non etiam timentur. Non enim timebitur, nisi justa et ordinaria dominatio. Diligi autem potest etiam adultera. Sollicitatione enim constat, non auctoritate; et adulatione, non potestate. Quid denique adulantius, quam delicta non exsequi? Age itaque, qui Deum non times quasi bonum, quid non in omnem libidinem ebullis? summum, quod sciam, fructum vitae omnibus qui Deum non timent; quid non frequentas tam solemnes voluptates circi furentis, caveae saevientis,

But plainly He judges evil by not willing it, and condemns it by forbidding it; yet He lets it go by not avenging it, and acquits it by not punishing it. O God, betrayer of truth, circumventer of His own sentence! He fears to condemn what He condemns, fears to hate what He does not love; He permits as done what He does not permit to be done; He prefers to show that He is unwilling rather than to prove it. This will be an imaginary goodness, a discipline [that is] a phantom; and the precepts themselves perfunctory, sins free of care: hear, you sinners, and you who are not yet such, that you may be able to become so: a better God has been discovered, Who is neither offended, nor angered, nor takes vengeance, for Whom no fire is heated in Gehenna, for Whom no gnashing of teeth shudders in the outer darkness; He is merely good; in short, He forbids wrongdoing, but in writing only. It rests with you, if you wish, to sign over your obedience to Him, so that you may appear to have paid honour to God: for He does not want fear. And so the Marcionites openly profess that they do not fear their God at all. But the evil one, they say, will be feared, whereas the good one will be loved. Fool, you deny that He Whom you call Lord is to be feared, though this name is one of power, and indeed of power to be feared. But how will you love, unless you fear not to love? Plainly He is neither your father, to whom both love on account of piety and fear on account of power would be fitting? nor a lawful lord, so that you should love Him on account of His humanity and fear Him on account of His discipline. Thus, in short, kidnappers are loved, but not also feared. For nothing will be feared except a just and regular dominion. But even an adulteress can be loved. For [her hold] consists in enticement, not in authority; and in flattery, not in power. And what indeed is more flattering than not to prosecute sins? Come then, you who do not fear God as being good, why do you not boil over into every lust? [That is] the highest fruit of life, so far as I know, for all who do not fear God; why do you not frequent such solemn pleasures of the raging circus, of the savage arena,

Editors' notes and page, col. 304

Footnotes

(86) ‹anchor: voluptates circi furentis› · call in col 304 (printed "(85)")

Voluptates circi furentis. Furorem et insaniam tribui circo veteres ferme omnes docent. Augustinus lib. II de Symbolo ad catechumenos: « Quid delectat in circo? aurigas videre certantes: populos insania, furia anhelantes? » B. Hieronymus ad Marcellum: Circus insaniat. B. Gregorius Nazianz. (continues)

The pleasures of the raging circus. Almost all the ancients teach that frenzy and madness belong to the circus. Augustine, On the Creed to Catechumens book II: "What delights in the circus? Seeing charioteers compete; peoples panting with madness and fury?" Blessed Jerome to Marcella: Let the circus rave. Blessed Gregory Nazianzen (continues)

(printed under page 156)

Page

running head: UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (cut off at left edge; column number 304)
marginal letters: A buit admitti. Primo, quod qualicumque; B amat, factum sinit quod fieri non sinit; C tem, inquiunt, timebitur, bonus autem diligetur; D bonum, quid non in omnem libidinem ebullis?
old-edition numerals: 279 after etiam

PL 2:305

et scenae lascivientis? quid non et in persecutionibus statim oblata acerra animam negatione lucraris? Absit, inquis, absit. Ergo jam times delictum, et timendo probasti illum timeri, qui prohibet delictum. Aliud est, si eadem dei tui perversitate, quem non times, observas, qua et ille quod non vindicat, prohibet. Multo adhuc vanius, cum interrogati, quid fiet peccatori cuique die illo, respondent abjici illum quasi ab oculis. Nonne et hoc judicio agitur? judicatur enim abjiciendus, et utique judicio damnationis: nisi si in salutem abjiciatur peccator, ut et hoc Deo optimo competat. Et quid erit abjici, nisi amittere id quod erat consecuturus, si non abjiceretur? id est salutem. Ergo salutis in detrimentum abjicietur: et hoc decerni non poterit nisi ab irato, et offenso, et exsecutore delicti, id est judice.

and of the wanton stage? Why do you not also, in persecutions, as soon as the censer is offered, gain your soul by denial? Far be it, you say, far be it. Then you already fear sin, and by fearing it you have proved that He is feared Who forbids sin. It is another matter if you observe [these things] out of the same perversity of your god, whom you do not fear, by which he too forbids what he does not punish. Emptier still by far is it when, asked what will happen to each sinner on that day, they answer that he will be cast away, as it were, out of sight. Is not this too done by judgement? For he is judged to be cast away, and certainly by a judgement of condemnation: unless perhaps the sinner is cast away unto salvation, so that this too may befit the most good God. And what will being cast away be, except to lose that which he would have obtained had he not been cast away? that is, salvation. Therefore he will be cast away to the loss of salvation: and this cannot be decreed except by one who is angered, and offended, and an avenger of sin, that is, by a judge.

CAPUT XXVIII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Exitus autem illi abjecto quis? Ab igne, inquiunt, Creatoris deprehendetur. Adeone nullum habet elementum, vel in hanc caussam provisum, quo peccatores suos vel sine saevitia releget, ne illos dedat Creatori? Quid tunc Creator? Credo, sulphuratiorem eis gehennam praeparabit, ut blasphemis suis scilicet: nisi quod Deus zelotes fortassean desertoribus adversarii sui parcat. O Deum usquequaque perversum, ubique inrationalem, in omnibus vanum atque ita neminem! cujus non statum, non conditionem, non naturam, non ullum ordinem video consistere; jam nec ipsum fidei ejus sacramentum. Cui enim rei baptisma quoque apud eum exigitur? Si remissio delictorum est, quomodo videbitur delicta dimittere, qui non videbitur retinere? quia retineret, si judicaret. Si absolutio mortis est, quomodo absolveret a morte, qui non devinxit ad mortem? devinxisset enim, si a primordio damnasset. Si regeneratio est hominis,

But what is the end for him once cast away? He will be caught, they say, by the fire of the Creator. Has he then no element, provided even for this purpose, to which he might banish his sinners, even without cruelty, so as not to hand them over to the Creator? What then will the Creator do? I suppose He will prepare for them a more sulphurous Gehenna, as being, forsooth, His own blasphemers: unless perhaps the jealous God may spare the deserters of His adversary. O god perverse in every respect, irrational everywhere, empty in all things, and thus nobody! of whom I see neither state, nor condition, nor nature, nor any order standing firm; no, not even the very sacrament of faith in him. For to what end is baptism too required by him? If it is the remission of sins, how will he be seen to remit sins who will not be seen to retain them? for he would retain them if he judged. If it is release from death, how would he release from death who did not bind to death? for he would have bound, had he condemned from the beginning. If it is the regeneration of man,

Editors' notes and page, col. 305

Footnotes

Variae lectiones 37 ‹call not visible on this page foot› Respondebunt Latin. illorum, respondent Semler. Dei ollorum Rhen.

"Respondebunt" (they will answer) in the Latin [edition?]; "illorum, respondent" (of those, they answer) in Semler; "Dei ollorum" in Rhenanus.

38 ‹call not visible on this page foot› Nisi in Rhen. Oberth.

"Nisi in" (except in) in Rhenanus and Oberthür.

39 ‹gehennam præparabit› · call in col 305 Præparavit Seml. Jun.

"Præparavit" (he has prepared) in Semler and Junius.

40 ‹adversarii sui parcat› · call in col 305 Adversarii parcit ? Paris. Fran.

"Adversarii parcit" (spares [the deserters] of his adversary)? in the Paris and Franeker editions.

41 ‹call not visible on this page foot› Ut deus Marcionis proinde cum Seml. Oberth.

"Ut deus Marcionis proinde cum" (so that the god of Marcion, accordingly, when) in Semler and Oberthür.

42 ‹call not visible on this page foot› Autem Semler.

"Autem" (but) in Semler.

43 ‹call not visible on this page foot› Reprehendens Rhen.

"Reprehendens" (reproving) in Rhenanus.

44 ‹nisi divortio› · call in col 306 Devortio Jun.

"Devortio" in Junius.

Commentarius

(continued) ‹call on a previous page›

orat. 27 : περὶ τοὺς ἱππικοὺς καὶ τὰ θέατρα, καὶ τὰ στάδια, καὶ τὰ κυνηγέσια τοσοῦτονν μεμηνέναι, ὥστε ταῦτα ποιεῖσθαι βίον : « In circensibus et spectaculis, cursu et venationibus adeo insaniebat, ut in iis vitam ageret. » Idem adhuc Theologus Carm. 5 iambico. Le Pr.

Oration 27: "to have been so mad about the horse races and the theatres, the stadiums and the hunts, as to make these his life": "He was so mad about the circus games and the shows, the racing and the hunts, that he spent his life in them." The same Theologian [Gregory Nazianzen] again, in the fifth iambic poem. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 157) (87) ‹call not visible on this page foot› Caveæ sævientis. Cavea sæpe pro theatro et amphitheatro ut hic sumitur. Sed hunc locum in vita S. Hilarionis expressit optime B. Hieronym. : « Non circi furoribus, non arenæ sanguine, non theatri luxuria delectabatur. » Vides arenam dici pro cavea, unde Apolog. 38, arenæ atrocitas dicitur. Le Pr.

Of the raging cavea. "Cavea" is often taken, as here, for the theatre and the amphitheatre. Blessed Jerome rendered this passage excellently in the Life of St Hilarion: "He took no delight in the frenzies of the circus, the blood of the arena, or the luxury of the theatre." You see that arena is said for cavea; hence Apology 38 speaks of "the savagery of the arena". Le Prieur.

(printed under page 157) (88) ‹call not visible on this page foot› Scenæ lascivientis. Prohibita erant Christianis spectacula propter turpidinem et impudicitiam; id undique clamant canones. Ipse Tertull. Apol. 38 : Spectaculis vestris in tantum renuntiamus : in baptismo nimirum, unde S. Chrysostomus, orat. 19, ad Pop. testatur non videri debere Christianos in scena et ludionum gesticulationibus, ἐν σκηνῇ καὶ μίμων παιδειαῖς. Le Pr.

Of the wanton stage. Shows were forbidden to Christians because of their foulness and immodesty; the canons cry this out on every side. Tertullian himself, Apology 38: "We renounce your shows so far": in baptism, to be sure; whence St Chrysostom, oration 19 To the People, testifies that Christians ought not to be seen at the stage and the gesturings of players, "at the stage and the amusements of mimes". Le Prieur.

(printed under page 157) (89) ‹call not visible on this page foot› Suffectura est quodammodo spiritus anima. Tamquam supposita spiritui sustinendo. Suffecturam dicit, quemadmodum contrario significatu dicimus præfecturam. Itaque suffecturam tribuit animæ, ut intelligamus datam spiritui præfecturam. Sic libro de Anima, animum dixit suggestum esse animæ. Rig.

The soul is in a way the spirit's substructure. As though set beneath the spirit to bear it up. He says suffectura, as with the contrary meaning we say præfectura. So he assigns the substructure to the soul, that we may understand the presidency to have been given to the spirit. Thus in the book On the Soul he said the mind is the soul's suggestum [platform]. Rigault.

(printed under page 157) (90) ‹call not visible on this page foot› Et in hoc totum salutis sacramentum carnem mergit. Augustinus, libro I de peccatorum meritis, contra Pelag., cap. 24 : « Optime, inquit, Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum nihil aliud quam salutem vocant. » Rig.

And for this he plunges the flesh into the whole sacrament of salvation. Augustine, book 1 On the Merits of Sins, against Pelagius, chapter 24: "Most excellently," he says, "do the Punic Christians call baptism itself nothing other than salvation." Rigault.

(printed under page 157)

Page

running head: 305 LIB. I ADV. MARCI[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A beside "vientis (87), et scenae lascivientis (88)?"; B beside "Ergo salutis in detrimentum abjicietur"; C beside "nibus vanum atque ita neminem!"; D beside "orat. 27" in the Commentarius, not in the text
old-edition numerals: 280 after consistere;
other: column begins with "vientis", the end of "saevientis" broken from the previous column; editors' calls (87), (88) and superior figures 37-40 omitted; "sulphuratiorem" split across lines with damaged first letter of "rem"; headings "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" are full-width lines cut off at the image edge, not set; page-foot variant readings and Commentarius (editors' notes, Le Pr.) seen, not set

PL 2:306

quomodo regenerat qui non regeneravit? Iteratio enim non competit ei a quo quid nec semel factum est. Si consecutio est Spiritus sancti, quomodo spiritum adtribuet, qui animam non prius contulit? quia suffectura est quodammodo spiritus anima. Signat igitur hominem, numquam apud se resignatum, lavat hominem nunquam apud se coinquinatum; et in hoc totum salutis sacramentum carnem mergit exsortem salutis. Nec rusticus terram rigabit, fructum non relaturam, nisi tam vanus, quam deus Marcionis. Proinde, cur tantam, sive sarcinam, sive gloriam, infirmissimae aut indignissimae carni imponit sanctitatem? Quid dicam autem de disciplinae vanitate, qua sanctificat, substantiam sanctam? Quid aut onerat infirmam, aut exornat indignam? Quid non salute remunerat, quam onerat vel exornat? Quid fraudat mercedem operis, non rependens carni salutem. Quid et honorem sanctitatis in illa mori patitur

how does he regenerate who has not regenerated? For repetition does not belong to one by whom something has not been done even once. If it is the obtaining of the Holy Spirit, how will he assign the spirit, who did not first confer the soul? since the soul is in a certain way the support of the spirit. He therefore seals a man never unsealed in his keeping, he washes a man never defiled in his keeping; and into this whole sacrament of salvation he plunges flesh that has no share in salvation. Not even a farmer will water land that will bring back no fruit, unless he is as foolish as the god of Marcion. Therefore, why does he impose so great a sanctity, whether as a burden or as a glory, on the most feeble or most unworthy flesh? And what am I to say of the vanity of the discipline by which he sanctifies, a holy substance? Why does he either burden it as weak, or adorn it as unworthy? Why does he not reward with salvation that which he burdens or adorns? Why does he defraud the work of its wages, by not paying back salvation to the flesh. Why does he also allow the honour of sanctity to die in it

CAPUT XXIX.

Chapter XXIX.

Non tinguitur apud illum caro, nisi virgo, nisi vidua, nisi caelebs, nisi divortio baptisma mercata, quasi non etiam spadonibus ex nuptiis nata. Sine dubio ex damnatione conjugii institutio ista constabit. Videamus an justa: non quasi destructuri felicitatem sanctitatis, ut aliqui Nicolaitae, assertores libidinis atque luxuriae; sed qui sanctitatem sine nuptiarum damnatione noverimus, et sectemur, et praeferamus; non ut malo bonum, sed ut bono melius. Non enim projicimus, sed deponimus nuptias: nec praescribimus, sed suademus sanctitatem; servantes et bonum, et melius pro viribus cujusque sectando; tunc denique conjugium exerte defendentes cum inimice accusatur spurcitiae nomine in destructionem Creatoris, qui proinde conjugium pro rei honestate benedixit, in crementum

With him flesh is not dipped unless it is virgin, unless widowed, unless unmarried, unless it has bought baptism by divorce, as though even eunuchs were not born of marriages. Without doubt this institution will rest upon the condemnation of marriage. Let us see whether it is just: not as people about to destroy the felicity of holiness, as do some Nicolaitans, champions of lust and luxury; but as those who know holiness without condemnation of marriage, and pursue it, and prefer it; not as good to evil, but as better to good. For we do not cast off marriage, but lay it aside; nor do we prescribe holiness, but we counsel it; preserving both the good and the better by pursuing it according to the strength of each; and then at length openly defending marriage when it is accused in hostility under the name of filthiness, to the destruction of the Creator, Who accordingly blessed marriage for the honourableness of the thing, for the increase

Editors' notes and page, col. 306

Footnotes

(94) ‹deponimus nuptias› · call in col 306 (printed there as (91))

Sed deponimus nuptias, etc. Nuptias equidem non damnabat, imo in iis sanctitatem commendabat auctor, sed nuptiarum obtentu turpitudinem jam invalescentem rejiciebat. Le Pr.

But we lay marriage aside, etc. The author did not condemn marriage; indeed he commended holiness within it; but he rejected the foulness already gaining strength under the pretext of marriage. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 157)

Page

running head: . I ADV. MARCIONEM. 306 (start of running head cut off at left edge; probably LIB. I ADV. MARCIONEM.)
marginal letters: A quomodo regenerat qui non regeneravit; B ficat, substantiam sanctam; C bidinis atque luxuriae; D et ludionum gesticulationibus (beside the Commentarius notes, not set)
old-edition numerals: 281 after nuptias
note calls in this column: (89) after "spiritus anima"; (90) after "carnem mergit"; 41 after "Proinde, cur"; 42 after "Quid aut"; 43 after "non rependens"; 44 after "nisi divortio"; (91) after "deponimus nuptias" (its note is printed as (94)). The notes 41-44, (89) and (90) are set in notes/n305.md (same page foot), where 41-43, (89) and (90) are marked "call not visible": their calls stand here in col 306 (Q2, 2026-10-18).

PL 2:307

generis humani, quemadmodum et universum conditionis in integros et bonos usus. Non ideo autem et cibi damnabuntur, quia operosius exquisiti in gulam committunt: ut nec vestitus ideo accusabuntur, quia pretiosius comparati in ambitionem tumescunt. Sic nec matrimonii res ideo despuentur, quia intemperantius diffusae in luxuriam inardescunt. Multum differt inter causam et culpam, inter statum et excessum. Ita hujusmodi non institutio, sed exorbitatio reprobanda est, secundum censuram institutoris ipsius; cujus est tam, Crescite et multiplicamini (Gen. I, 28), quam et, Non adulterabis (Exod. XX, 14), et, Uxorem proximi tui non concupisces (Levit. XX, 10): morte punientis et incestam, sacrilegam, atque monstruosam in masculos et in pecudes libidinum insaniam. Sed et si nubendi jam motus ponitur, quem quidem apud nos spiritalis ratio, Paracleto auctore, defendit, unum in fide matrimonium praescribens; ejusdem erit modum figere, qui modum aliquando diffuderat: is colliget, qui sparsit: is caedet sylvam qui plantavit; is metet segetem, qui seminavit: is dicet: Superest ut et qui uxores habent, sic sint quasi non habeant (I Cor. VII, 29), cujus et retro fuit, Crescite et multiplicamini: ejusdem finis, cujus et initium. Non tamen ut accusanda caeditur silva, nec ut damnanda secatur seges, sed ut tempori suo parens. Sic et connubii res, non ut mala, securem et falcem admittit sanctitatis, sed ut matura defungi, ut ipsi sanctitati reservata, cui caedendo praestat et esse. Unde jam dicam deum Marcionis, cum matrimonium ut malum et impudicitiae negotium reprobat, adversus ipsam facere sanctitatem, cui videtur studere: materiam

of the human race, just as also the whole of creation, for sound and good uses. Yet foods will not for that reason be condemned, because, sought out too laboriously, they commit [men] to gluttony; just as garments will not for that reason be accused, because, bought too expensively, they swell into vainglory. So neither are the things of matrimony for that reason to be spat upon, because, poured out too intemperately, they blaze up into lust. There is a great difference between cause and fault, between the state and the excess. Thus it is not the institution of such things, but the deviation from it, that is to be reprobated, according to the judgement of the institutor Himself; whose word is as much "Increase and multiply" (Gen. 1:28) as also "You shall not commit adultery" (Exod. 20:14) and "You shall not covet your neighbour's wife" (Lev. 20:10), He punishing with death also the incestuous, sacrilegious and monstrous madness of lusts against males and against beasts. But even if a limit to marrying is now laid down, which indeed among us the spiritual reckoning defends, the Paraclete being its author, prescribing one marriage in the faith, it will belong to the same [God] to fix the limit Who once had spread it wide: He will gather Who scattered; He will cut down the forest Who planted it; He will reap the harvest Who sowed it; He will say, "It remains that those also who have wives be as though they had none" (1 Cor. 7:29), Whose word too was formerly "Increase and multiply": the end belongs to the same One to Whom the beginning belongs. Yet the forest is not cut down as something to be accused, nor is the harvest reaped as something to be condemned, but as obeying its own season. So also the thing of wedlock admits the axe and the sickle of holiness, not as evil, but as ripe for being done with, as kept for holiness itself, to which by being cut down it even supplies existence. Hence I shall now say that the god of Marcion, when he reprobates matrimony as an evil and a business of unchastity, acts against holiness itself, which he seems to promote: for its material

Editors' notes and page, col. 307

Footnotes

Variae lectiones 45 ‹ut nec vestitus› · call in col 307 Tunc Rhen Oberth.

"Tunc" (then) in Rhenanus and Oberthür.

46 ‹incestam› · call in col 307 Incestam et Jun.

"Incestam et" (unchaste and) in Junius.

47 ‹Non tamen ut› · call in col 307 Ut neglig. Seml. Oberth.

"Ut" is overlooked [omitted] by Semler and Oberthür.

48 ‹præstat et esse› · call in col 307 Præstet esse Seml. præstaret Rhen.

"Præstet esse" in Semler; "præstaret" in Rhenanus.

49 ‹in facultate dinoscitur› · call in col 308 Dignoscitur Rig. Fran.

"Dignoscitur" (is discerned) in Rigault and the Franeker edition.

50 ‹sementem› · call in col 308 Semen Jun.

"Semen" (seed) in Junius.

51 ‹compescere in totum› · call in col 308 In delet. Seml.

"In" is deleted by Semler.

52 ‹Non erit immanior› · call in col 308 Humanior Seml. Oberth. inhumanior alii.

"Humanior" (more humane) in Semler and Oberthür; "inhumanior" (more inhumane) in others.

53 ‹ille aufert de› · call in col 308 A Seml. Pamel.

"A" in Semler and Pamelius.

54 ‹conditiones statuum› · call in col 308 Statum Rhen. Oberth.

"Statum" in Rhenanus and Oberthür.

55 ‹non esse confirmant› · call in col 308 Confirmantes Rhen.

"Confirmantes" (confirming) in Rhenanus.

56 ‹minus quid videmur› · call in col 308 Videbimur Fran.

"Videbimur" (we shall seem) in the Franeker edition.

Commentarius (printed under page 158)

(92) ‹accusanda cæditur silva› · call in col 307

Non tamen ut accusanda cæditur silva. A simili nuptias damnandas non esse docet, utque juris romani peritus erat, de silva cædua loquitur, de qua frequens in jure mentio, dividiturque silva omnis in cæduam, et non cæduam. Prior ideo servatur ut cædatur, posterior pastioni pecorum destinata est, et vulgo pascua dicitur. Le Pr.

Yet the wood is not felled as though it were blameworthy. By a comparison he teaches that marriage is not to be condemned; and, being skilled in Roman law, he speaks of the coppice wood, which the law often mentions: all woodland is divided into coppice and non-coppice. The first is kept so that it may be felled; the second is set aside for pasturing cattle and is commonly called pasture. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 158)

Page

running head: 307 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — SE[cut off at image edge]
marginal letters: A ‹tum generis humani›; B ‹masculos et in pecudes›; C ‹ut matura defungi›; D ‹ARGUMENTUM. (in the Liber secundus Argumentum, next unit)›
old-edition numerals: 282 after ‹Unde›
misprints kept as printed: motus (for modus, "nubendi jam motus ponitur"); the English follows the sense (limit)

PL 2:308

enim ejus eradit: quia si nuptiae non erunt, sanctitas nulla est. Vacat enim abstinentiae testimonium, cum licentia eripitur; quoniam ita quaedam in diversis probantur. Sicut et virtus in infirmitate perficitur (II Cor. XII, 9), sic et abstinentia nubendi in facultate dinoscitur. Quis denique abstinens dicetur, sublato eo a quo abstinendum est? Quae temperantia gulae in fame? quae ambitionis repudiatio in egestate? quae libidinis infraenatio in castratione? Jam vero sementem generis humani compescere in totum, nescio an hoc quoque optimo Deo congruat. Quomodo enim salvum hominem volet, quem vetat nasci, de quo nascitur auferendo? quomodo habebit in quo bonitatem suam signet, quem esse non patitur? quomodo diligit, cujus originem non amat? Timet forsitan redundantiam sobolis, ne laboret plures liberando, ne multos faciat haereticos, ne generosiores habeat Marcionitas ex Marcionitis. Non erit immanior duritia Pharaonis, nascentium enecatrix. Nam ille animas adimit, hic non dat; ille aufert de vita, hic non admittit in vitam. Nihil apud ambos de homicidio differt: sub utroque homo interficitur; sub altero, jam editus, sub altero, edendus. Gratus esses, o dee haeretice, si esses in dispositionem Creatoris, quod marem et feminam miscuit: utique enim et Marcion tuus ex nuptiis natus est. Satis haec de deo Marcionis, quem, et definitiones unicae divinitatis, et conditiones statuum ejus omnino non esse confirmant. Sed et totius opusculi series in hoc utique succedit. Proinde, si cui minus quid videmur egisse, speret reservatum suo tempori, sicut et ipsarum Scripturarum examinationem, quibus Marcion utitur.

he roots out: because if there are no marriages, there is no holiness. For the testimony of abstinence is empty when the freedom is snatched away; since certain things are proved in their opposites. Just as strength too is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9), so too abstinence from marrying is discerned where there is the capacity for it. Who, finally, will be called abstinent once that from which one must abstain has been taken away? What temperance of the gullet is there in famine? what repudiation of ambition in poverty? what bridling of lust in castration? Now indeed, to check the seed of the human race altogether, I do not know whether this too befits the most good God. For how will he wish man to be saved, whom he forbids to be born, by taking away that from which he is born? how will he have anyone on whom to set the seal of his goodness, when he does not allow him to exist? how does he love one whose origin he does not love? Perhaps he fears an overflow of offspring, lest he toil in setting more people free, lest he make many heretics, lest he have Marcionites of nobler birth descended from Marcionites. The harshness of Pharaoh, the slayer of the newborn, will not be more savage. For that man takes away lives, this one does not give them; that man removes from life, this one does not admit into life. Between the two there is no difference in respect of homicide: under each a human being is killed; under the one when already born, under the other when about to be born. You would be pleasing, O heretic god, if you were in agreement with the dispensation of the Creator, in that He joined male and female: for certainly your Marcion too was born of a marriage. Enough of these things concerning the god of Marcion, whom both the definitions of the unique divinity and the conditions of his states confirm not to exist at all. But indeed the sequence of the whole little work proceeds to this very end. Therefore, if we seem to anyone to have accomplished somewhat less, let him hope that it has been reserved for its own time, as also the examination of the very Scriptures which Marcion uses.

Editors' notes and page, col. 308