PL 2 · cols. 387–498

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, Liber quartus

Editors' preface

LIBER QUARTUS.

Book Four.

ARGUMENTUM.

Argument.

Scripturus Tertullianus adversus opus Marcionis ex contrarietatum oppositionibus Antitheses cognominatum, ad separationem Legis et Evangelii coactum, qua duos deos diversos, alterum Veteris, alterum Novi Testamenti dividebat.

Tertullian is about to write against the work of Marcion entitled Antitheses, from its oppositions of contrarieties. It was compiled to separate the Law and the Gospel, and by it he divided off two different gods, one of the Old Testament and the other of the New.

I. In primis diversitatem praeceptorum et disciplinarum non negans, in unum eumdem Deum competere demonstrat; ex eo quod ipse Deus creator per Prophetas suos aliam legem novam, Evangelii nempe, orituram praedixerit pro Veteri, ac testamentum aeternum pro temporali.

I. First, not denying the diversity of precepts and disciplines, he shows that they belong to one and the same God. He argues this from the fact that God the Creator Himself foretold through His Prophets that another, new law, namely that of the Gospel, would arise in place of the Old, and an eternal testament in place of a temporal one.

II. Deinde, nos solum Lucae Evangelium (quod Marcion adulteratum admittebat, nullo tamen adscripto titulo), sed etiam Joannis et Matthaei apostolorum, et Marci apostolici viri, non minus ac Lucae, auctoritatem habere praescribit.

II. Next, he lays down by prescription that not only the Gospel of Luke has authority, which Marcion accepted in adulterated form, though with no title ascribed to it. The Gospels of John and Matthew, apostles, and of Mark, an apostolic man, also have authority, no less than Luke's.

III. Neque vero obstare quod apostolus Paulus ad Galatas apostolos reprehendat; non enim de Evangelii depravatione aut interpolatione, sed de conversatione tantum fuisse denotatos, imo ipsa eorum Evangelii digesta a pseudo-apostolis fuisse perversa.

III. Nor indeed is it an obstacle that the apostle Paul rebukes the apostles in Galatians. They were censured not for the corruption or interpolation of the Gospel, but only for their conduct. Indeed, their very digests of the Gospel had been perverted by pseudo-apostles.

IV. Atqui, dum disputatur de titulo Evangelii, quod Marcion suum, Auctor item suum, id est Lucae, affirmat adulteratum; ei praescribi auctoritatem, quod antiqnius reperiatur, et illi vitiationem quod posterius; maxime, cum Marcion aliquanto catholicae Ecclesiae crediderit, et postea in haeresim descierit.

IV. But there is a dispute about the title of the Gospel: Marcion asserts it to be his own, and the Author likewise asserts it to be his own, that is, Luke's, but adulterated. In such a dispute, authority is prescribed to that which is found to be older, and corruption to that which is later. This holds especially since Marcion for some time believed the Catholic Church, and afterwards fell away into heresy.

V. Quippe, cum Lucae Evangelium auctoritatem habeat ab Ecclesiis apostolicis, apud quas quod sacrosanctum est, ab apostolis traditum constat; et proinde etiam caetera Evangelia, Joannis, Matthaei, et Marci; sed et Apocalypsis, ex ordine episcoporum ad originem recenso.

V. For the Gospel of Luke has authority from the apostolic Churches, among which what is sacrosanct is established as handed down by the apostles. Accordingly the other Gospels also have authority, those of John, Matthew and Mark, and the Apocalypse too, traced back to its origin through the succession of bishops.

VI. Porro ad institutum veniens Auctor, nullam esse Veteris et Novi Testamenti diversitatem, vel inde praescribit, quod Christns noster impleverit prophetias Creatoris, et repraesentaverit promissiones ejus, ac leges adjuverit.

VI. Further, coming to his purpose, the Author lays down that there is no diversity between the Old and the New Testament. He argues this also from the fact that our Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Creator, made present His promises, and supported His laws.

VII. Quod ipsum primum comprobat ex capite quarto Lucae sub finem, de daemonio expulso in synagoga Capharnaum, eo quod tria Lucae prima capita, et initium quarti, tanquam suae sententiae contraria erasisset Marcion.

VII. He proves this first from the end of the fourth chapter of Luke, about the demon cast out in the synagogue of Capernaum. He begins there because Marcion had erased the first three chapters of Luke and the beginning of the fourth as contrary to his own opinion.

VIII. Ex eodem capite, partim ante, partim post dictam historiam (nam etiam hoc transposuerat Marcion) de doctrina Christi apud Nazareth in synagoga, et aliis daemoniis.

VIII. From the same chapter, partly before and partly after the said account (for Marcion had transposed this too), he argues concerning the teaching of Christ in the synagogue at Nazareth, and other demons.

IX. Item ex capite quinto Lucae, de vocatione apostolorum Simonis et filiorum Zebedaei, ac leproso mundato.

IX. Likewise he argues from the fifth chapter of Luke, about the calling of the apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee, and the leper cleansed.

Editors' notes and page, col. 387

Editors' prose

LIBER QUARTUS.

BOOK FOUR.

ARGUMENTUM.

ARGUMENT.

Tertullian is about to write against Marcion's work, named Antitheses from its setting of contradictions against one another, which was put together to separate the Law and the Gospel; by this he divided off two different gods, the one of the Old Testament, the other of the New.

I. In primis diversitatem præceptorum et disciplinarum non negans, in unum eumdem Deum competere demonstrat; ex eo quod ipse Deus creator per Prophetas suos aliam legem novam, Evangelii nempe, orituram prædixerit pro Veteri, ac testamentum æternum pro temporali.

I. First, without denying the difference of precepts and disciplines, he shows that it fits one and the same God; from the fact that God the Creator Himself foretold through His Prophets that another, new law, namely that of the Gospel, would arise in place of the Old, and an eternal testament in place of a temporal one.

II. Deinde, nos solum Lucæ Evangelium (quod Marcion adulteratum admittebat, nullo tamen adscripto titulo), sed etiam Joannis et Matthæi apostolorum, et Marci apostolici viri, non minus ac Lucæ, auctoritatem habere præscribit.

II. Next, he lays down that not only the Gospel of Luke (which Marcion accepted in an adulterated form, though with no title written on it), but also those of the apostles John and Matthew, and of Mark, an apostolic man, have authority no less than Luke's.

III. Nor indeed does it stand in the way that the apostle Paul, writing to the Galatians, reproves the apostles; for they were censured not for corrupting or interpolating the Gospel, but only for their conduct; rather, it was their very digests of the Gospel that had been perverted by the false apostles.

IV. Atqui, dum disputatur de titulo Evangelii, quod Marcion suum, Auctor item suum, id est Lucæ, affirmat adulteratum; ei præscribi auctoritatem, quod antiqnius reperiatur, et illi vitiationem quod posterius; maxime, cum Marcion aliquanto catholicæ Ecclesiæ crediderit, et postea in hæresim descierit.

IV. But, while the dispute is over the title of the Gospel, which Marcion asserts is his own, and the Author likewise asserts is his own, that is, Luke's, adulterated; authority is to be prescribed to that which is found to be the older, and corruption to that which is the later; above all, since Marcion for some time believed with the catholic Church, and afterwards fell away into heresy.

V. Quippe, cum Lucæ Evangelium auctoritatem habeat ab Ecclesiis apostolicis, apud quas quod sacrosanctum est, ab apostolis traditum constat; et proinde etiam cætera Evangelia, Joannis, Matthæi, et Marci; sed et Apocalypsis, ex ordine episcoporum ad originem recenso.

V. For the Gospel of Luke has its authority from the apostolic Churches, among which it is established that what is held most sacred was handed down by the apostles; and so likewise the other Gospels, of John, Matthew and Mark; and the Apocalypse too, the order of bishops being traced back to its origin.

VI. Porro ad institutum veniens Auctor, nullam esse Veteris et Novi Testamenti diversitatem, vel inde præscribit, quod Christns noster impleverit prophetias Creatoris, et repræsentaverit promissiones ejus, ac leges adjuverit.

VI. Then, coming to his set purpose, the Author lays down that there is no difference between the Old and the New Testament, if only from this, that our Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Creator, made His promises present, and upheld His laws.

VII. Quod ipsum primum comprobat ex capite quarto Lucæ sub finem, de dæmonio expulso in synagoga Capharnaum, eo quod tria Lucæ prima capita, et initium quarti, tanquam suæ sententiæ contraria erasisset Marcion.

VII. This he first proves from the fourth chapter of Luke, towards its end, concerning the demon cast out in the synagogue of Capernaum, because Marcion had erased the first three chapters of Luke and the beginning of the fourth as contrary to his opinion.

VIII. Ex eodem capite, partim ante, partim post dictam historiam (nam etiam hoc transposuerat Marcion) de doctrina Christi apud Nazareth in synagoga, et aliis dæmoniis.

VIII. From the same chapter, partly before and partly after the said narrative (for Marcion had transposed this too), concerning Christ's teaching in the synagogue at Nazareth, and other demons.

IX. Item ex capite quinto Lucæ, de vocatione apostolorum Simonis et filiorum Zebedæi, ac leproso mundato.

IX. Likewise from the fifth chapter of Luke, concerning the calling of the apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee, and the leper cleansed.

Page

running head: 387 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ARGUMENTUM.; B Marcion adulteratum admittebat, nullo tamen ad-; C aliquanto catholicae Ecclesiae crediderit, et postea; D quarto Lucae sub finem, de daemonio expulso in syna-
old-edition numerals: 359 after quod
misprints kept as printed: "nos solum" (for non solum), section II; "antiqnius" (for antiquius), section IV; "Christns" (for Christus), section VI
other: full-width title "LIBER QUART[US]" across both columns, cut off at right edge in the column image, set once at the head of the unit in the part; "testamentum" in section I has a damaged e (reads like tcstamentum), set as testamentum; "Apocalypsis" set as printed; right-hand column (summary items X onward) belongs to column 388, not set

PL 2:388

X. Ex eodem de paralytico curato, et appellatione Filii hominis.

X. From the same, on the paralytic cured, and on the title Son of Man.

XI. De publicano allecto à Domino, et de jejunio, ac Christo sponso, et parabola vini novi ac veteris, ex eodem capite.

XI. On the tax-collector chosen by the Lord, and on fasting, and on Christ the bridegroom, and on the parable of the new and the old wine, from the same chapter.

XII. Dein ex capite VI, de discipulis colligentibus spicas, ac sanata manu arida in Sabbato.

XII. Then from chapter 6, on the disciples gathering ears of grain, and on the withered hand healed on the Sabbath.

XIII. Ex eodem, de ascensu et oratione nocturna in monte apostolorum duodecim numero mutatione nominis Petri; ac conventu gentium ad Christum.

XIII. From the same, on the ascent and the night-time prayer on the mountain, [on the choosing] of the apostles, twelve in number, [and] the change of Peter's name; and on the gathering of the nations to Christ.

XIV. De beatitudinibus, seu sermone Domini in monte, ex eodem.

XIV. On the beatitudes, or the Lord's sermon on the mountain, from the same.

XV. De variis maledictionibus, quibus Vae Pharisaeis imprecatus est, ex eodem.

XV. On the various curses with which He called down woe upon the Pharisees, from the same.

XVI. De praecepto dilectionis tam inimicorum quam proximi, ex eodem.

XVI. On the precept of love both of enemies and of one's neighbour, from the same.

XVII. De foenore interdicto, aliisque Domini verbis pene ad finem usque ejusdem capitis.

XVII. On usury forbidden, and on other words of the Lord almost to the very end of the same chapter.

XVIII. Ex capite etiam VII Lucae de fide centurionis, resuscitato filio viduae, Joanne Baptista et muliere peccatrice.

XVIII. Also from chapter 7 of Luke, on the faith of the centurion, the widow's son raised to life, John the Baptist and the sinful woman.

XIX. Posthaec ex capite VIII Lucae, de divitibus mulieribus adhaerentibus Christo, de verbis Domini ad discipulos et de matre ac fratribus Christi

XIX. After this, from chapter 8 of Luke, on the rich women attaching themselves to Christ, on the words of the Lord to the disciples, and on the mother and brothers of Christ

XX. De miraculis Christi, quibus ventis ac mar⟨i⟩ imperavit, legionem daemonum ejecit, et fluxum sanguinis curavit in muliere, ex eodem.

XX. On the miracles of Christ, by which He commanded the winds and the sea, cast out the legion of demons, and cured the flow of blood in the woman, from the same.

XXI. Ex IX item capite Lucae, de discipulis ad praedicandum missis, pasto populo in solitudine, confessione Petri: Tu es Christus, et praedicta persecutione fidelium.

XXI. Likewise from chapter 9 of Luke, on the disciples sent out to preach, the people fed in the wilderness, Peter's confession: Thou art the Christ, and the foretold persecution of the faithful.

XXII. De ostensione Christi cum Moyse et Elia in secessu montis, ex eodem.

XXII. On the showing of Christ with Moses and Elijah in the seclusion of the mountain, from the same.

XXIII. De verbis Domini ad Pharisaeos, dilectione parvulorum, et increpatione ejus qui dixerat: Sequar te quocunque ieris, ex eodem.

XXIII. On the words of the Lord to the Pharisees, on the love of little children, and on the rebuke of him who had said: I will follow Thee wherever Thou goest, from the same.

XXIV. Porro et ex capite X Lucae, de allectione LXX discipulorum, et potestate illis data.

XXIV. Further, from chapter 10 of Luke too, on the choosing of the seventy disciples, and the power given to them.

XXV. De oratione Domini ad Patrem, verbis ad discipulos, et responso facto legis doctori, ex eodem.

XXV. On the Lord's prayer to the Father, the words to the disciples, and the answer given to the teacher of the law, from the same.

XXVI. Exinde ex capite XI Lucae de Oratione Dominica, aliisque orandi formis et parabolis eo pertinentibus; de surdo daemonio expulso, ac de exclamatione mulieris de turba.

XXVI. Next, from chapter 11 of Luke, on the Lord's Prayer, and other forms of praying and parables pertaining to it; on the deaf demon cast out, and on the exclamation of the woman from the crowd.

XXVII. De Pharisaeis signum petentibus, et aliis eorumdem increpationibus, ex eodem.

XXVII. On the Pharisees seeking a sign, and on other rebukes of them, from the same.

XXVIII. Ex capite XII Lucae, de verbis Domini variis ac discipulos, et parabola divitis blandientis sibi de proventu agrorum suorum.

XXVIII. From chapter 12 of Luke, on various words of the Lord to the disciples, and on the parable of the rich man flattering himself about the yield of his fields.

XXIX. De cura non agenda animae de victu, et corpori de vestitu, succingendis lumbis, ac servis

XXIX. On the soul's not taking care about food, nor the body about clothing, on girding the loins, and on servants

Editors' notes and page, col. 388

Page

running head: [...]UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A X. Ex eodem de paralytico curato; B risaeis imprecatus est, ex eodem; C praedicandum missis, pasto populo; D Dominica, aliisque orandi formis
old-edition numerals: 360 after fidelium.
other: full-width title "[LIB]ER QUARTUS." above both columns, cut off at left edge, not set; column consists of numbered chapter summaries of Adv. Marcionem IV, set here as text, though possibly editorial argumenta; "à Domino" set with accent as printed; mark over "càpite" taken as a speck, set capite; damaged type read as ascensu, nocturna, in, Domini; "mar" at line end set mar⟨i⟩; XIX printed without final full stop; XIII apparently wants a word such as electione before apostolorum (as printed)

PL 2:389

beatis, et igne misso in terram, aliisque verbis Domini; ex eodem capite.

[who are] blessed, and the fire sent onto the earth, and other words of the Lord; from the same chapter.

XXX. Rursus ex capite XIII Lucae, de curatione Sabbato facta, parabolis, aliisque verbis Domini.

XXX. Again from chapter 13 of Luke, on the healing performed on the Sabbath, the parables, and other words of the Lord.

XXXI. Etiam ex capite Lucae XIV, quales ad coenam vel prandium vocandi sint, ac de coena ad quam vocavit multos.

XXXI. Also from chapter 14 of Luke, on what sort of people are to be invited to a supper or a dinner, and on the supper to which He invited many.

XXXII. Item ex capite XV Lucae, de ove et dragma perditis et inventis.

XXXII. Likewise from chapter 15 of Luke, on the sheep and the drachma lost and found.

XXXIII. Ex capite etiam XVI Lucae, de duobus dominis, Deo et Mammona, ac dicto Domini: Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem.

XXXIII. Also from chapter 16 of Luke, on the two masters, God and Mammon, and on the saying of the Lord: The Law and the Prophets until John.

XXXIV. De divortio prohibito, ac proinde conjugio approbato, et inferno ac sinu Abrahae, ex eodem.

XXXIV. On divorce forbidden, and marriage therefore approved, and on hell and the bosom of Abraham, from the same.

XXXV. Deinceps ex cap. XVII Lucae, de verbis Domini diversis, leprosis decem curatis, et interrogatione Pharisaeorum de regno Dei.

XXXV. Next from chap. 17 of Luke, on various words of the Lord, the ten lepers healed, and the question of the Pharisees about the kingdom of God.

XXXVI. Similiter ex cap. XVIII Lucae, de parabolis judicis, ac Pharisaei et Publicani orantium in templo, verbis Domini ad adolescentem divitem, et caeco curato.

XXXVI. Similarly from chap. 18 of Luke, on the parables of the judge, and of the Pharisee and the Publican praying in the temple, on the words of the Lord to the rich young man, and on the blind man healed.

XXXVII. Ex capite etiam XIX Lucae, de Zachaeo, et servorum parabola qui secundum rationem foeneratae pecuniae dijudicantur.

XXXVII. Also from chapter 19 of Luke, on Zacchaeus, and the parable of the servants who are judged according to the account of the money put out at interest.

XXXVIII. Item ex cap. XX Lucae, de variis verbis Domini ad Pharisaeos, principes sacerdotum, Sadducaeos, et Scribas.

XXXVIII. Likewise from chap. 20 of Luke, on various words of the Lord to the Pharisees, the chief priests, the Sadducees, and the Scribes.

XXXIX. Praeterea et ex XXI Lucae capite, de venturis in nomine Christi et signis ultimi finis, ac de doctrina Christi in templo et secessu in montem Elaeonem.

XXXIX. Furthermore also from the 21st chapter of Luke, on those who are to come in the name of Christ and the signs of the final end, and on the teaching of Christ in the temple and His withdrawal to the Mount of Olives.

XL. Idem ex cap. XXII Lucae, de die Paschae electo ad Passionem, venditione ac proditione Judae, et de distributione corporis et sanguinis Christi.

XL. Likewise from chap. 22 of Luke, on the day of the Passover chosen for the Passion, on the selling and betrayal by Judas, and on the distribution of the body and blood of Christ.

XLI. De imprecatione illi facta, per quem traderetur Filius hominis, ac osculo traditoris; et de responso Domini ad interrogationem an ipse esset Christus, ex eodem capite.

XLI. On the curse pronounced upon him by whom the Son of man was to be betrayed, and on the kiss of the traitor; and on the Lord's answer to the question whether He was the Christ, from the same chapter.

XLII. Ex capite quoque XXIII Lucae, de simili responso in domo Pilati, judicio apud eumdem Pilatum et Herodem, crucifixione, signis in morte, exspiratione, et sepultura Domini.

XLII. Also from chapter 23 of Luke, on the similar answer in the house of Pilate, the trial before the same Pilate and Herod, the crucifixion, the signs at His death, the expiring, and the burial of the Lord.

XLIII. Denique ex cap XXIV Lucae, de mulieribus ad sepulcrum cum odorum paratura, de resurrectione post biduum, de apparitionibus Christi, quae mulieribus, discipulis ac apostolis factae sunt, et de missione apostolorum ad praedicandum universis nationibus.

XLIII. Finally from chap. 24 of Luke, on the women at the tomb with the preparation of spices, on the resurrection after two days, on the appearances of Christ which were made to the women, the disciples and the apostles, and on the sending of the apostles to preach to all nations.

Editors' notes and page, col. 389

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 389 (not visible) In usu Lat.

"In use" — reading of Lat.

² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call in col 389 (not visible) Equidem Seml.

"Indeed" — reading of Seml.

³ ‹anchor: a quo constat› · call in col 390 Eam add. Seml.

Seml. adds "it" (eam).

⁴ ‹anchor: audite me, audite me› · call in col 390 Et add. Seml.

Seml. adds "and" (et).

⁵ ‹anchor: Haec erit lex› · call in col 390 Et add. Seml.

Seml. adds "and" (et).

Commentarius. (printed under page 199)

(1) ‹anchor: Et omnem paraturam› · call in col 389 (not visible)

Et omnem paraturam. Hoc est, omnem materiam, omnem argumentorum apparatum, ut supra. RHEN.

"And all the equipment." That is, all the material, all the apparatus of arguments, as above. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 199)

(2) ‹anchor: Antitheses cognominatum› · call in col 389 (not visible)

Antitheses cognominatum. Liber erat Marcionis, quo Vetus Testamentum a Novo separabat, et sibi invicem opponebat : loquitur etiam hic Tertullianus de interpolatione Evangelii, de quo nos alio loco. Putant nonnulli librum editum esse a Tertulliano Antithesium nomine, de quibus eorum judicio explicandus hic locus. Quod a sensu hujus libri et orationis alienum. Nam Antitheses liber erat Marcionis. LE PR.

"Called the Antitheses." It was a book of Marcion's, in which he separated the Old Testament from the New and set them against each other; here too Tertullian speaks of the interpolation of the Gospel, of which we treat in another place. Some think that a book was published by Tertullian under the name of Antitheses, and in their judgement this passage is to be explained of them. That is foreign to the sense of this book and of the discourse. For the Antitheses was Marcion's book. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 199)

Page

running head: 389 LIB. IV ADV. MARCIO[NEM] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A beatis, et igne misso; B XXXV. Deinceps ex cap.; C venturis in nomine Christi; D ad sepulcrum cum odorum
old-edition numerals: 361 after Pilatum et
other: column consists of the chapter-summary list (capitula) of Book IV, likely editorial, set as printed; several worn e's look like c (Dco, cx, intcr-rogatione) and are set as e; full-width headings "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" not set; variant readings and commentary notes (1)-(2) at foot not set; right column visible only partially, not part of this column

PL 2:390

CAPUT PRIMUM.

Chapter I.

Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impi atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum jam Evangelium ejus provocamus, quod interpolando suum fecit. Et ut fidem instrueret, dotem quamdam commentatus est illi, opus ex contrarietatum oppositionibus, Antitheses cognominatum, et ad separationem Legis et Evangelii coactum, qua duos deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius Instrumenti, vel (quod magis usui est dicere) Testamenti; ut exinde Evangelio quoque secundum antitheses credendo patrocinaretur. Sed et istas proprio congressu cominus, id est, per singulas injectiones Pontici cecidissem, si non multo opportunius in ipso et cum ipso Evangelio, cui procurant, retunderentur. Quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere, et quidem ut accepto eas faciam, ut rato habeam, ut nobiscum facere dicam, quo magis de caecitate auctoris sui erubescant nostrae jam antitheses adversus Marcionem. Atque confiteor alium ordinem decucurrisse in veteri dispositione apud Creatorem, alium in nova apud Christum. Non nego distare documenta eloquii, praecepta virtutis, legis disciplinas; dum tamen tota diversitas in unum et eumdem Deum competat; illum scilicet a quo constat dispositam, sicut et praedicatam. Olim concionatur Isaias (II, 2), prodituram ex Sion legem, et sermonem Domini ex Jerusalem: aliam utique legem, aliumque sermonem. Denique (Ibid. 4): Judicabit, inquit, inter nationes, et traducet populum plurimum; scilicet non unius gentis Judaeorum, sed nationum, quae per novam legem Evangelii et novum sermonem apostolorum judicantur et traducuntur apud semetipsas, de pristino errore, simul crediderunt, atque exinde concidunt machaeras suas in aratra; et sibynas, quod genus venabulorum est, in falces, id est, feros et saevos quondam animos convertunt in sensus probos, et bonae frugis operarios. Et rursus (Isa. LI, 4): Audite me, audite me, populus meus; et reges auribus intendite in me, quoniam lex prodibit a me, et judicium meum in lucem nationum, quo judicaverat atque decreverat nationes quoque illuminandas per Evangelii legem atque sermonem. Haec erit lex apud David invituperabilis, qua perfecta, convertens animas, utique ab idolis ad Deum. Hic erit et sermo, de quo idem Isaias (X, 23): Quoniam, inquit, decisum sermonem faciet Dominus in terra. Compendiatum est enim Novum

Every opinion and every preparation of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now summon to his own gospel itself, which by interpolating he has made his own. And in order to furnish it with credibility, he devised for it a kind of dowry, a work made up of oppositions of contrarieties, entitled Antitheses, and compiled for the separation of the Law and the Gospel, whereby, dividing two gods, accordingly distinct, the one of the one Instrument, the other of the other (or, as it is more customary to say, Testament), he might thereafter also advocate for the gospel by believing according to the Antitheses. But I would have cut these down too in a proper hand-to-hand encounter, that is, through each of the Pontic's objections, were it not much more opportune that they be blunted in and with the very gospel which they serve. And yet it is so easy to meet them by way of prescription, and indeed in such a way that I accept them, that I hold them ratified, that I say they act on our side, so that they may blush the more for the blindness of their author, being now our antitheses against Marcion. And I confess that one order ran its course in the old dispensation with the Creator, another in the new with Christ. I do not deny that the teachings of the discourse, the precepts of virtue, the disciplines of the law differ; provided, however, that the whole difference belongs to one and the same God, namely Him by whom it is established that it was arranged, as it was also foretold. Long ago Isaiah proclaims (Isa. 2:2) that a law would go forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem: another law, that is, and another word. Next (ibid. 2:4): He will judge, he says, among the nations, and will reprove a very great people; that is, not of the single race of the Jews, but of the nations, which through the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles are judged and reproved within themselves for their former error as soon as they have believed, and thereafter beat their swords into ploughshares, and their sibynae, which is a kind of hunting spear, into pruning hooks; that is, they turn minds once fierce and savage into upright dispositions, and workers of good fruit. And again (Isa. 51:4): Hear Me, hear Me, My people; and you kings, give ear to Me, for a law will go forth from Me, and My judgement for a light of the nations, by which He had judged and decreed that the nations too were to be enlightened through the law and word of the gospel. This will be the law in David that is irreproachable, inasmuch as it is perfect, converting souls, that is, from idols to God. This will be the word too of which the same Isaiah [speaks] (Isa. 10:23): For, he says, the Lord will make a cut-short word in the earth. For abridged indeed is the New

Editors' notes and page, col. 390

Page

running head: [LIBER I]V ADV. MARCIONEM. 390 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹CAPUT PRIMUM.›; B ‹derentur. Quamquam tam facile›; C ‹que (Ibid. 4) : Judicabit›; D ‹Haec erit lex apud David›
old-edition numerals: 362 after ‹intendite›

PL 2:391

Testamentum, et l⟨e⟩gis laciniosis operibus expeditum. Sed quid pluribus? cum manifestius, et luce ipsa clarius novatio praedicetur a Creatore per eumdem (XLIII, 18): Ne rememineritis priorum, et antiqua ne cogitaveritis. Vetera transierunt, nova oriuntur. Ecce facio nova, quae nunc orientur. Idem per Jeremiam (IV, 3): Novate vobis novamen novum, et ne severitis in spinas, et circumcidimini praeputia cordis vestri; et alibi (XXXI, 31, 32): Ecce veniunt dies, dicit Dominus, et pe⟨rf⟩iciam domui Jacob et Domui Juda testamentum novum, non secundum testamentum quod disposui patribus eorum in die qua arripui dispositionem eorum, ad educendos eos de terra Aegypti. Adeo pristinum testamentum temporale significat, dum mutabile ostendit, etiam dum aeternum de postero pollicetur. Nam per Isaiam (LV, 3): Audite me, et vivetis, et disponam vobis testamentum; adjiciens, Sancta et fidelia David; ut id testamentum in Christo decursurum demonstraret. Eumdem ex genere David secundum Mariae censum, etiam in virga ex radice Jesse processura figurate praedicabat. Igitur si alias leges, aliosque sermones, et novas testamentorum dispositiones a Creatore dixit futuras, ut etiam ipsorum sacrificiorum alia officia potiora, et quidem apud nationes destinarit, dicente Malachia (I, 10, 11): Non est voluntas mea in vobis, inquit Dominus, et sacrificia vestra non excipiam de manibus vestris; quoniam a solis ortu usque ad occasum glorificatum est in nationibus nomen meum, et in omni loco sacrificium nomini meo offertur, et sacrificium mundum, scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura: necesse est, omnis demutatio veniens ex innovatione, diversitatem ineat cum his quorum fit, et contrarietatem ex diversitate. Sicut enim nihil demutatum, quod non diversum; ita nihil diversum, quod non contrarium. Ejusdem ergo deputabitur etiam contrarietas ex diversitate, cujus fuerit demutatio ex innovatione. Qui disposuit demutationem, iste instituit et diversitatem; qui praedicavit innovationem, iste praenuntiavit et contrarietatem. Quid differentiam rerum ad distantiam interpretaris potestatum? quid antitheses exemplorum distorques adversus Creatorem, quas in ipsis quoque sensibus et affectionibus ejus potes recognoscere? Ego, inquit (Deut. XXXII, 39), percutiam, et ego sanabo; Ego, inquit (I Reg. II, 6), occidam,

Testament, and freed from the fringed works of the law. But why say more? Since more plainly, and clearer than light itself, a renewal is proclaimed by the Creator through the same [prophet] (43:18): Remember not the former things, and think not on the ancient things. The old things have passed away, new things are arising. Behold, I make new things, which shall now arise. The same [Creator] through Jeremiah (4:3): Renew for yourselves a new renewal, and sow not among thorns, and be circumcised in the foreskins of your heart; and elsewhere (31:31–32): Behold, the days come, says the Lord, and I will accomplish for the house of Jacob and for the house of Judah a new testament, not according to the testament which I appointed for their fathers in the day in which I took hold of their ordering, to lead them out of the land of Egypt. So far does He signify that the former testament is temporary, while He shows it to be changeable, even while He promises an eternal one for hereafter. For through Isaiah (55:3): Hear Me, and you shall live, and I will appoint for you a testament; adding, The holy and faithful things of David; so as to show that this testament would run its course in Christ. Him, of the stock of David according to Mary's lineage, He also foretold figuratively in the rod that was to come forth from the root of Jesse. If therefore He said that other laws, and other words, and new dispositions of testaments would come from the Creator, so that He appointed even other, better offices of the sacrifices themselves, and that among the nations, as Malachi says (1:10–11): I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun even to its setting My name is glorified among the nations, and in every place a sacrifice is offered to My name, and a clean sacrifice, namely simple prayer from a pure conscience: it is necessary that every change coming from renewal should enter into diversity with those things of which it is made, and into contrariety from the diversity. For just as nothing is changed which is not diverse, so nothing is diverse which is not contrary. To the same [author], therefore, will contrariety arising from diversity also be assigned, to whom belonged the change arising from renewal. He who appointed the change, He also established the diversity; He who proclaimed the renewal, He also foretold the contrariety. Why do you interpret a difference of things as a distinction of powers? Why do you twist against the Creator the antitheses of examples, which you can recognize also in His own feelings and affections? I, He says (Deut. 32:39), will strike, and I will heal; I, He says (1 Sam. 2:6), will kill,

Editors' notes and page, col. 391

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et a legis Seml.

"And from the law's" — reading of Seml.

⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Praeputio Seml.

"By the foreskin" — reading of Seml.

⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Venient Seml.

"They will come" — reading of Seml.

⁹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Demonstraretur Par. Fran.

"It would be shown" — reading of the Paris and Franeker editions.

¹⁰ ‹anchor: iste praenuntiavit› · call in col 391 Pronuntiavit Par. Jun.

"Pronounced" — reading of Par. and Junius.

¹¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Jubeat... prohibeat cod. Wouw.

"Should command ... should forbid" — Wouwer's manuscript.

¹² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Constructum Seml.

"Constructed" — reading of Seml.

¹³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Antithesis al.

"Antithesis" — other editions.

¹⁴ ‹anchor: et post apostolos› · call in col 392 Apostolicos Jun.

"Apostolic men" — reading of Junius.

¹⁵ ‹anchor: imo Christi, qui› · call in col 392 Quae Seml.

"Which" — reading of Seml.

¹⁶ ‹anchor: congredi malumus› · call in col 392 Maluimus Seml.

"We preferred" — reading of Seml.

¹⁷ ‹anchor: Nam ex iis› · call in col 392 His Seml.

"These" — reading of Seml.

Commentarius. (printed under page 200)

(3) ‹anchor: Et legis laciniosis oneribus expeditum› · call not visible

Et legis laciniosis oneribus expeditum. Laciniosa opera vocat multiplicia, et quae homines occupationibus distinebant, sicut impedit gressum vestis laciniosa. RHEN.

"And freed from the trailing burdens of the law." He calls "trailing" the works that were manifold and held men back with occupations, as a garment with trailing skirts hinders the step. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 200)

Page

running head: 391 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A Testamentum, et legis laciniosis; B ostendit, etiam dum aeternum; C occasum glorificatum est; D sensibus et affectionibus ejus
old-edition numerals: 363 after diversitatem;

PL 2:392

et ego vivificabo; condens scilicet (Isa. XLV, 7) mala, et faciens pacem; qua etiam soles illum mobilitatis quoque et inconstantiae nomine reprehendere, prohibentem quae jubet, et jubentem quae prohibet. Cur ergo non et antitheses ad naturalia reputasti contrarii sibi semper Creatoris? nec mundum saltim recogitare potuisti, nisi fallor, etiam apud Ponticos, ex diversitatibus structum aemularum invicem substantiarum? Prius itaque debueras alium Deum luminis, alium tenebrarum determinasse, ut ita posses alium Legis, alium Evangelii adseverasse. Caeterum, praejudicatum est ex manifestis, cujus opera et ingenia per antitheses constant, eadem forma constare etiam sacramenta.

and I will make alive; creating, that is (Isa. 45:7), evils, and making peace; on which account you are also accustomed to censure Him under the name of fickleness and inconstancy too, as forbidding what He commands and commanding what He forbids. Why then did you not also reckon the antitheses among the natural traits of a Creator ever contrary to Himself? Could you not at least reflect that the world, unless I am mistaken, even among the Pontics, is built out of diversities of substances rivalling one another? You ought therefore first to have determined one God of light and another of darkness, so that you might thus have asserted one God of the Law and another of the Gospel. For the rest, it is settled beforehand from manifest things that He whose works and dispositions consist in antitheses has His sacraments also consisting in the same form.

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

Habes nunc ad antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad Evangelii, sane non Judaici, sed Pontici, interim adulterati demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem quem aggredimur. Constituimus in primis, evangelicum Instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus Evangelii promulgandi ab ipso Domino sit impositum, si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis, et post apostolos. Quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, imo Christi, qui magistros apostolos fecit. Denique, nobis fidem ex apostolis Joannes et Matthaeus insinuant; ex apostolicis, Lucas et Marcus instaurant, iisdem regulis exorsi, quantum ad unicum Deum attinet Creatorem, et Christum ejus, natum ex Virgine, supplementum Legis et Prophetarum. Viderit enim si narrationem dispositio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, de quo cum Marcione non convenit. Contra Marcion Evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque affingere, cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere. Et possem hic jam gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens opus, quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam constantiam praeferat, nullam fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli, et professione debita auctoris. Sed per omnia congredi malumus, nec dissimulamus quod ex nostro intelligi potest. Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus, Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse, quem caederet. Porro Lucas non apostolus,

You now have from us a ready answer to the antitheses. I now pass to the demonstration of the Gospel, not indeed the Jewish but the Pontic one, adulterated in the meantime, laying down beforehand the order in which we are approaching it. We establish first of all that the evangelical Instrument has apostles as its authors, on whom this office of promulgating the Gospel was imposed by the Lord Himself; and if apostolic men also, yet not alone, but with apostles and after apostles. For the preaching of disciples could become suspect of a desire for glory, if the authority of the masters did not stand by it, nay rather that of Christ, Who made the apostles masters. Accordingly, of the apostles, John and Matthew instil the faith into us; of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it, having started from the same rules as far as concerns the one God the Creator, and His Christ, born of the Virgin, the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets. For it matters little if the arrangement has varied the narrative, provided there is agreement on the chief point of the faith, on which there is no agreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the contrary, ascribes no author to his Gospel, that is, to his own, as if it were not lawful for him to forge a title as well, for whom it was no crime to overturn the very body. And I could here already plant my foot, contending that a work is not to be acknowledged which does not lift up its brow, which displays no constancy, which promises no credibility from the fullness of its title and the due declaration of its author. But we prefer to engage on every point, nor do we conceal what can be understood from our side. For of those commentators whom we have, Marcion seems to have chosen Luke, to cut him up. Moreover, Luke [was] not an apostle,

Editors' notes and page, col. 392

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: non tamen solos› · call in col 392

Si et apostolicos non tamen solos, etc. Ab Apostolis aut viris apostolicis solum verum Evangelium conscriptum fuisse ait, ut iis viam occludat quae ex haereticorum correptis exemplaribus objici possent, veluti ex Ebionitarum, Encratitarum, Nazaraeorum, Marcionitarum, etc. LE PR.

"If apostolic men too, yet not alone," etc. He says that the only true Gospel was written by the Apostles or by apostolic men, to shut the road against the objections that could be raised from the corrupted copies of the heretics, such as those of the Ebionites, Encratites, Nazaraeans, Marcionites, etc. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 200)

(5) ‹anchor: quem caederet› · call in col 392

Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet. Vides manifeste corruptum fuisse B. Lucae Evangelium, ut in suorum errorum patrocinium detorqueret, ut multa truncaret, adderet, suaque explicatione commacularet. LE PR.

"Marcion seems to have chosen Luke to cut up." You see that blessed Luke's Gospel was plainly corrupted, so that he might twist it into a defence of his errors, cut away much, add, and stain it with his own explanation. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 200)

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A et ego vivificabo; B CAPUT II.; C Joannes et Matthaeus insinuant; D nostro intelligi potest
old-edition numerals: 364 after Sed

PL 2:393

sed apostolicus; non magister, sed discipulus, utique magistro minor; certe tanto posterior, quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio: ut, etsi sub ipsius Pauli nomine Evangelium Marcion intulisset, non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas Instrumenti, destituta patrocinio antecessorum; exigeretur enim id quoque Evangelium quod Paulus invenit, cui fidem dedit, cui mox suum congruere gestiit. Siquidem (Galat. II, 1) propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cognoscendos apostolos et consultandos, ne forte in vacuum cucurrisset, id est, ne non secundum illos credidisset, et non secundum illos evangelizaret. Denique, ut cum auctoribus contulit et convenit de regula fidei, dexteras miscuere, et exinde officia praedicandi distinxerunt, ut illi in Judaeos, Paulus in Judaeos et in nationes. Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae, auctoritatem antecessorum et fidei et praedicationi suae optavit, quanto magis eam Evangelio Lucae expostulem, quae Evangelio magistri ejus fuit necessaria? Aliud est, si penes Marcionem a discipulatu, Lucae coepit religionis Christianae sacramentum. Caeterum, si et retro decucurrit, habuit utique authenticam paraturam, per quam ad Lucam usque pervenit, cujus testimonio adsistente, Lucas quoque possit admitti.

but an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and certainly less than his master; assuredly as much later as he is the follower of a later apostle, Paul without doubt: so that, even if Marcion had brought in a Gospel under the name of Paul himself, the singularity of the document, destitute of the support of its predecessors, would not suffice for faith; for that Gospel too would be required which Paul found, to which he gave his faith, with which he soon was eager that his own should agree. For indeed (Gal. 2:1) for this reason he went up to Jerusalem to get to know the apostles and to consult them, lest perhaps he had run in vain, that is, lest he had believed otherwise than they, and was preaching the gospel otherwise than they. Then, when he had conferred with the authorities and agreed with them concerning the rule of faith, they joined right hands, and thereafter divided the offices of preaching, so that they [should go] to the Jews, and Paul to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Therefore, if the very enlightener of Luke desired the authority of his predecessors both for his faith and for his preaching, how much more may I demand for the Gospel of Luke that authority which was necessary for the Gospel of his master? It is another matter if, in Marcion's view, the sacrament of the Christian religion began from the discipleship of Luke. But if it also runs back to an earlier time, it surely had an authentic provision, through which it came down as far as Luke, so that, with its testimony standing by, Luke too may be admitted.

CAPUT III.

Chapter III.

Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos apostolos suggillantis (Galat. II), ut non recto pedes incedentes ad veritatem Evangelii, simul et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam pervertentes Evangelium Christi, connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum, quae propria, et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum; ut scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat. Porro, etsi reprehensus est Petrus et Joannes et Jacobus, qui existimabantur columnae, manifesta causa est. Personarum enim respectu videbantur variare convictum. Et tamen, cum ipse Paulus omnibus omnia fieret, ut omnes lucraretur (I Cor. IX, 19), potuit et Petro hoc in consilio fuisse, aliquid aliter agendi quam docebat. Proinde si et pseudapostoli irrepserant, horum quoque qualitas edita est, circumcisionem vindicantium et Judaicos fastos. Adeo non de praedicatione, sed de conversatione, a Paulo denotabantur; aeque denotaturo, si quid de Deo creatore, aut Christo ejus errassent. Igitur distinguenda erant singula. Si apostolos praevaricationis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur usque ad

But Marcion, having come upon the epistle of Paul to the Galatians, which reproaches even the apostles themselves (Gal. 2) as not walking with a straight foot towards the truth of the Gospel, and at the same time accuses certain false apostles of perverting the Gospel of Christ, strives to destroy the standing of those gospels which are put forth as their own and under the name of apostles, or even of apostolic men; in order, that is, to confer on his own the credit which he takes away from them. Further, even if Peter and John and James, who were reputed to be pillars, were rebuked, the cause is evident. For they seemed to vary their manner of living out of regard for persons. And yet, since Paul himself became all things to all men, that he might gain all (1 Cor. 9:19), it may have been Peter's design too to act somewhat otherwise than he taught. Accordingly, if false apostles too had crept in, their character also has been set forth: they were claiming circumcision and the Jewish festivals. So it was not for their preaching but for their conduct that they were censured by Paul, who would equally have censured them if they had erred in any respect concerning God the Creator or His Christ. Therefore the several cases had to be distinguished. If Marcion complains that the apostles are held suspect of prevarication and dissimulation even to

Editors' notes and page, col. 393

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ¹⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Antecessorem Par.

"Predecessor" — reading of Par.

¹⁹ ‹anchor: et Judaicos fastos› · call in col 393 Fastus cod. Pithae. Seml.

"Fastus" (pride) — Pithou's manuscript and Seml.

²⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Caeterorum. Seml. Pamel.

"Of the others" — Seml. and Pamelius.

²¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Ergo negl. Fran.

The Franeker edition omits "ergo" (therefore).

²² ‹anchor: quod posterius revincetur› · call in col 394 Invenietur al. utrumque abfuisse conj. Seml.

"Will be found" in other editions; Semler conjectures that both words were absent.

²³ ‹anchor: sed et praeferunt› · call in col 394 Proferunt Lat. Jun.

"They bring forward" — Lat. and Junius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 201)

(6) ‹anchor: et Judaicos fastos› · call in col 393

Judaicos fastos. Uti est Galat. IV et dies et menses, et tempora et annos observantes. Quae adeo interpretatio observanda venit contra modernos haereticos, qui illum locum adducere non verentur adversus Ecclesiae catholicae fastos : cum disertis verbis Judaicos auctor interpretetur, idque non hic modo, sed etiam infra, lib. V, cap. 4, ubi hunc locum tractat. PAM.

"The Jewish calendar." As in Galatians 4: "observing days and months and times and years." This interpretation is all the more to be noted against the heretics of our day, who do not fear to cite that passage against the feasts of the Catholic Church, since the author in express words interprets them as Jewish, and not only here but also below, Book V, chapter 4, where he treats this passage. Pamelius.

(printed under page 201)

Page

running head: 393 LIB. IV ADV. MARCIO[NEM] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A sed apostolicus; non magister; B tinxerunt, ut illi in Judaeos; C ut non recto pedes incedentes; D tium et Judaicos fastos
old-edition numerals: 365 after creatore,

PL 2:394

Evangelii depravationem, Christum jam accusat, accusando quos Christus elegit. Si vero apostoli quidem integrum Evangelium contulerunt, de sola convictus inaequalitate reprehensi, pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt, et inde sunt nostra digesta; quod erit germanum illud apostolorum instrumentum, quod adulteros passum est? Quod Paulum illuminavit et ab eo Lucam? Aut si tam funditus deletum est, ut cataclysmo quodam, ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum; jam ergo nec Marcion habet verum. Aut si ipsum erit verum, id est apostolorum, quod Marcion habet solus; et quomodo nostro consonat, quod non apostolorum, sed Lucae refertur, aut si non statim Lucae duputandum est, quo Marcion utitur; quia nostro consonat, scilicet adulterato etiam circa titulum, caeterum apostolorum est; jam ergo et nostrum quod illi consonat, aeque apostolorum est, sed adulteratum de titulo quoque.

the corruption of the Gospel, he is now accusing Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose. But if the apostles did indeed hand on the Gospel whole, being reproved only for inconsistency in their way of living, while false apostles interpolated their truth, and from this our [texts] were compiled, what will that genuine instrument of the apostles be, which has suffered adulterers? That which enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? Or if it has been so utterly destroyed that, as by some deluge, it has been obliterated by an inundation of forgers, then not even Marcion has the true one. Or if that one will be the true one, that is, the apostles', which Marcion alone has, how then does it agree with ours, which is ascribed not to the apostles but to Luke? Or if that which Marcion uses is not at once to be assigned to Luke because it agrees with ours (adulterated, of course, even as regards its title), but is otherwise the apostles', then ours too, which agrees with it, is equally the apostles', but adulterated in its title as well.

CAPUT IV.

Chapter IV.

Funis ergo ducendus est contentionis, pa⟨r⟩i hinc inde nisu fluctuante. Ego meum dico verum Marcion suum; ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem, quod antiquius reperietur; et ei praejudicans vitiationem, quod posterius revincetur? In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri, in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum. Prior erit res passione, et materia aemulatione. Alioquin, quam absurdum ut si nostrum antiquius probaverimus, Marcionis vero posterius; et nostrum ante videatur falsum quam habuerit de veritate materiam, et Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum quam est editum? Et postremo id verius existimetur, quod est serius, post tot ac tanta jam opera atque documenta Christianae religionis saeculo edita, quae edi utique non potuissent sine Evangelii veritate, id est ante Evangelii veritatem? Quod ergo pertinet ad Evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio ejus inter nos et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcione est, quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit; cum et pecuniam in primo calore fidei catholicae Ecclesiae contulit, projectam mox cum ipso postea quam in haeresim suam a nostra veritate descivit. Quid nunc si negaverint Marcionitae, primam apud nos fidem ejus, adversus epistolam quoque ipsius. Quid, si nec epistolam agnoverint? Certe antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. Ex

The rope of the contest must therefore be pulled, with equal effort swaying this way and that. I say mine is true, Marcion says his is; I affirm that Marcion's is adulterated, Marcion says mine is. Who will decide between us, unless it be the reckoning of time, which prescribes authority for that which shall be found the older, and prejudges corruption against that which shall be convicted of being the later? For in so far as the false is a corruption of the true, in so far must the truth precede the false. The thing will be prior to what is done to it, and the material prior to the imitation of it. Otherwise, how absurd it would be that, if we have proved ours the older and Marcion's the later, ours should seem false before it had from the truth the material [for falsehood], and Marcion's should be believed to have suffered imitation from ours before it was published! And finally, that that should be reckoned the truer which is the later, after so many and such great works and records of the Christian religion already published to the world, which certainly could not have been published without the truth of the Gospel, that is, before the truth of the Gospel! As far, then, as concerns the Gospel of Luke for the present, in so far as the sharing of it between us and Marcion is in dispute as to its truth, that which is according to us is so much older than Marcion that Marcion himself once believed it, when also, in the first warmth of his faith, he contributed money to the Catholic Church, which was soon cast out together with himself after he had departed from our truth into his own heresy. What now if the Marcionites should deny that his first faith was with us, even against his own letter? What if they should not acknowledge the letter either? Certainly they not only confess the Antitheses to be Marcion's, but even put them forward. From

Editors' notes and page, col. 394

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. 394 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A Evangelii depravationem; B nostro consonat, scilicet; C et materia aemulatione; D contulit, projectam mox
old-edition numerals: 366 after negaverint

PL 2:395

his mihi probatio sufficit. Si enim id Evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos (videremus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod Marcion per antitheses suas arguit, ut interpolatum a protectoribus Judaismi ad concorporationem Legis et Prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde configerent, utique non potuisset arguere, nisi quod invenerat. Nemo post futura reprehendit quae ignorat futura: emendatio culpam non antecedit. Emendator sane Evangelii, a Tiberianis usque ad Antoniani tempora eversi, Marcion solus et primus obvenit, exspectatus tamdiu a Christo poenitentem jam quod apostolos praemisisse properasset sine praesidio Marcionis; nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctoritatis negotium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat Evangelia, dum vitiat: cum etsi discipulus Marcion, non tamen super magistrum (Matth. X, 24); et si apostolus Marcion. Sive ego, inquit Paulus (I Cor. XV, 11), sive illi, sic praedicamus. Et si prophetes Marcion: et spiritus prophetarum prophetis erunt subditi (I Cor. XIV, 32); non enim eversionis, sed pacis. Etiam si angelus Marcion, citius (Galat. I, 8) anathema dicendus quam evangelizator, quia aliter evangelizavit. Itaque dum emendat, utrumque confirmat; et nostrum anterius, id emendans quod invenit; et id posterius, quod de nostri emendatione constituens, suum et novum fecit.

these the proof suffices for me. For if that Gospel which among us is attributed to Luke (we shall see whether it is so among Marcion's people too) is the very one which Marcion accuses through his Antitheses as having been interpolated by the protectors of Judaism to incorporate it with the Law and the Prophets, so that by this means they might also fashion Christ from that source, then certainly he could not have accused anything except what he had found. No one finds fault beforehand with things yet to come, of which he does not know that they are to come: correction does not precede the fault. Indeed, as corrector of the Gospel, which had been overthrown from the times of Tiberius right up to the Antonine times, Marcion alone and first turned up, awaited for so long by Christ, Who by now was repenting that He had hastened to send the apostles ahead without the support of Marcion; except that heresy is a business of human rashness, not of divine authority, and so it always corrects the Gospels while it corrupts them: since, even if Marcion is a disciple, yet he is not above the master (Matt. 10:24); and if Marcion is an apostle: Whether I, says Paul (1 Cor. 15:11), or they, so we preach. And if Marcion is a prophet: the spirits of the prophets also will be subject to the prophets (1 Cor. 14:32); for [God is] not of overthrow, but of peace. Even if Marcion is an angel, he ought sooner (Gal. 1:8) to be called anathema than evangelist, because he has preached a different gospel. And so, while he corrects, he confirms both points: both that ours is earlier, since he corrects that which he found; and that the other is later, since by establishing it out of the correction of ours he has made it his own and new.

CAPUT V.

Chapter V.

In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio, quod ab apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab apostolis traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint; ad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti; quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus Evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsim ejus Marcion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus, in Joannem stabit auctorem. Sic et caeterarum generositas recognoscitur. Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas jam apostolicas, sed apud universas, quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id Evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare, quod cum maxime

In sum, if it is established that what is earlier is truer, that what is from the very beginning is earlier, and that what is from the apostles is from the beginning, it will likewise certainly be established that what has been held sacrosanct among the churches of the apostles is what was handed down by the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule the Galatians were brought back by correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians and Ephesians read; and what the Romans also, close at hand, proclaim, to whom both Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed also with their own blood. We have also the churches nurtured by John. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, yet the succession of bishops, traced back to its origin, will rest on John as its author. In this way the noble lineage of the rest also is recognized. I say therefore that among those churches, and not now only among the apostolic ones but among all those that are joined with them in fellowship of the sacrament, that Gospel of Luke has stood from the beginning of its publication which we most especially

Editors' notes and page, col. 395

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ²⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible In abest in al.

"In" is absent in other editions.

²⁵ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Confingerent Seml.

"Would invent" — reading of Seml.

²⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Si omitt. Venet.

The Venice edition omits "si" (if).

²⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Si omitt. Jun.

Junius omits "si" (if).

²⁸ ‹anchor: id ab initio› · call in col 395 Id omit. Seml.

Seml. omits "id" (that).

²⁹ ‹anchor: Galatae sint recorrecti› · call in col 395 Correcti al.

"Corrected" — other editions.

³⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Autem omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "autem" (but).

³¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Eodem Seml.

"In the same" — reading of Seml.

³² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Autem add. Jun.

Junius adds "autem" (but).

³³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Quod Seml.

"That/which" — reading of Seml.

³⁴ ‹anchor: apostolica integra› · call in col 396 Integre Seml.

"Intact (adverb)" — reading of Seml.

³⁵ ‹anchor: integra cucurrerunt› · call in col 396 Decurrerunt Par. Rig. Venet.

"Ran down" — Par., Rigault and the Venice edition.

³⁶ ‹anchor: aemulum factum est› · call in col 396 Ab inser. Par. Fran.

Par. and the Franeker edition insert "ab" (from).

Commentarius. (printed under page 202)

(7) ‹anchor: Joannis alumnas ecclesias› · call in col 395

Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias. Ecclesias intelligit quae traditas a sancto Joanne regulas servaverunt, quemadmodum superius dixit quod lac Corinthii a Paulo hauserint. LE PR.

"We have also the churches nursed by John." He means the churches that kept the rules handed down by Saint John, just as he said above that the Corinthians drank milk from Paul. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 202)

(8) ‹anchor: generositas recognoscitur› · call in col 395

Sic et caeterarum generositas recognoscitur. Hoc est, genus, origo, nobilitas. RIG.

"So too the pedigree of the rest is recognized." That is, their stock, origin, nobility. Rigault.

(printed under page 202)

(9) ‹anchor: Faciunt et favos vespae› · call not visible

Faciunt et favos vespae. Vespas in sublimi e luto nidos facere, et in iis creas, tradit Plinius. RIG.

"Wasps too make combs." Pliny records that wasps make nests of mud on high, and in them combs [creas, as printed]. Rigault.

(printed under page 202)

Footnotes

(10) ‹anchor: Evangelium pervertebant› · call in col 396

Si qui Evangelium pervertebant. Artes vulgares tangit haereticorum in corrumpendis Scripturae codicibus, iis potissimum qui ab auctoribus magni ponderis magnaeque auctoritatis conscripti sunt. Observanda venit vox Graeca μεταστρέψαι quae habetur apud Apost. (Galat. I), ex quo haec desumpsit Tertullianus; significat quippe non solum convertere, sed et corrumpere et in alium sensum trahere. LE PR.

"If any were perverting the Gospel." He touches on the common arts of the heretics in corrupting the books of Scripture, above all those written by authors of great weight and great authority. The Greek word μεταστρέψαι, found in the Apostle (Gal. 1), from whom Tertullian took this, is to be noted: it means not only to turn round but also to corrupt and to drag into another sense. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 202)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:397

dentia evertit. His fere compendiis utimur, cum de Evangelii fide adversus haereticos experimur, defendentibus et temporum ordinem posteritati falsariorum praescribentem, et auctoritatem Ecclesiarum traditioni apostolorum patrocinantem: quia veritas falsum praecedat necesse est, et ab eis procedat, a quibus tradita est.

dentia overturns. We use roughly these summary arguments when we contend against heretics concerning the faith of the Gospel. We defend both the order of times, which rules against the later date of the falsifiers, and the authority of the Churches, which upholds the tradition of the apostles: because truth must necessarily precede the false, and proceed from those by whom it was handed down.

CAPUT IV.

Chapter IV.

Sed alium jam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum (ut professi sumus) Evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi adulteratum. Certe enim totum quod elaboravit, etiam antitheseis praestruendo, in hoc cogit, ut veteris et Novi Testamenti diversitatem constituat; proinde Christum suum a Creatore separatum, ut Dei alterius, ut alienum legis et prophetarum. Certe propterea contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit, conspirantia cum Creatore quasi ab assertoribus ejus intexta: competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit. Haec conveniemus. Haec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint; si Marcionis praesumptionem percusserint; tunc et illa constabit eodem vitio haereticae caecitatis erasa, quo et haec reservata. Sic habebit intentio et forma opusculi nostri, sub illa utique conditione, quae ex utraque parte condicta sit. Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum, qui Tiberianis temporibus a Deo quondam ignoto revelatus sit in salutem omnium gentium; alium qui a Deo creatore in restitutionem Judaici status sit destinatus, quandoque venturus. Inter hos magnam et omnem differentiam scindit, quantam inter justum et bonum, quantam inter Legem et Evangelium, quantam inter Judaismum et Christianismum. Hinc et nostra praescriptio, qua defigimus, nihil Christo Dei alterius commune, esse debere cum Creatore: caeterum, Creatoris pronuntiandum, ai administraverit dispositiones ejus, impleverit prophetias ejus, si adjuverit leges ejus, si repraesentaverit promissiones ejus, si restauraverit virtutes ejus, si sententias reformaverit, si mores, si proprietates expresserit. Hujus pacti et hujus praescripti quaeso te, lector, memineris ubique, et incipe recognoscere aut Marcionis Christum, aut Creatoris.

But now we move on from here to another step, challenging the very Gospel of Marcion (as we have professed), and intending to prove in this way too that it has been adulterated. For certainly everything he has laboured on, even in laying down his Antitheses beforehand, he drives towards this end: that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testament, and accordingly his Christ as separated from the Creator, as belonging to another God, as a stranger to the law and the prophets. Certainly it was for that reason that he erased whatever was contrary to his opinion, namely the things in agreement with the Creator, on the grounds that they had been woven in by His defenders; but he retained what suited his opinion. These we shall confront. These we shall embrace, if they turn out rather to be on our side, if they strike at Marcion's presumption; then it will also be established that those others were erased by the same fault of heretical blindness by which these were retained. Such, then, will be the aim and form of our little work, under that condition, to be sure, which has been agreed on by both sides. Marcion lays down that one Christ is He who in the times of Tiberius was revealed by a God formerly unknown for the salvation of all nations, and another He who was destined by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, to come at some time. Between these he cuts a great and total difference, as great as between the just and the good, as great as between the Law and the Gospel, as great as between Judaism and Christianity. Hence also our prescription, by which we fix it that the Christ of the other God ought to have nothing in common with the Creator; otherwise He must be pronounced the Creator's if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, if He has assisted His laws, if He has made present His promises, if He has restored His mighty works, if He has reshaped His sentences, if He has expressed His ways and His properties. I beg you, reader, to remember this agreement and this prescription everywhere, and begin to recognize whether it is Marcion's Christ or the Creator's.

Editors' notes and page, col. 397

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ³⁷ ‹anchor: de Evangelii fide› · call in col 397 De evangeliis Seml.

"Concerning the Gospels" — Seml.

³⁸ ‹anchor: adversus haereticos experimur› · call in col 397 Expedimur Seml.

"Expedimur" (we make our way) — Seml.

³⁹ ‹anchor: a Creatore separatum› · call in col 397 Separaturus Par. Fran. separaturum. Jun.

"Separaturus" (about to separate) — Par., Fran.; "separaturum" — Junius.

Commentarius.

(11) ‹anchor: Certe propterea contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit› · call in col 397

Certe propterea contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit. Omnibus haereticis id familiare est, ut contraria suae sententiae eradant in Scripturis, atque etiam adeo nostris. Sic libros duos Machabaeorum rejiciunt, eo quod sanctorum post hanc vitam orationibus et sacrificiis pro defunctis suffragentur; Epistolam Jacobi et Apocalypsin, quod faciant pro bonorum operum meritis; Epistolam denique Petri secundam, quod suas haereses novissimis hisce temporibus ibi praedictas animadvertant. PAM.

"Certainly for that reason he erased whatever was contrary to his opinion." It is habitual with all heretics to scrape out of the Scriptures what is contrary to their opinion, and so also with ours. Thus they reject the two books of Maccabees, because they support the prayers of the saints after this life and sacrifices for the dead; the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse, because they tell in favour of the merits of good works; and finally the Second Epistle of Peter, because they notice that their heresies are foretold there for these last times. Pamelius.

(printed under page 203)

(12) ‹anchor: inter justum et bonum› · call in col 397

Differentiam inter justum et bonum. Hoc est inter severum et mitem, inter judicantem et misericordem, inter punientem et parcentem, inter Creatorem et redemptorem. RIG.

"The difference between the just and the good." That is, between the severe and the gentle, between the one who judges and the merciful one, between the one who punishes and the one who spares, between the Creator and the redeemer. Rigault.

(printed under page 203)

Page

running head: 397 LIB. IV ADV. MARCIO[NEM] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A dentia evertit. His fere compendiis; B separatum, ut Dei alterius; C nem Judaici status sit destinatus; D (11) Certe propterea contraria (commentary, beside the left column's footnote)
old-edition numerals: 369 after memineris
misprints kept as printed: "ai" (for si) before administraverit
other: "CAPUT IV." carries a handwritten correction to V on the scan; set as printed
column break (Q1a): "dentia" at the head of this column is the tail of a word split from col 396 (a fresh column); by the break rule the word stands whole at the end of 396 and the tail goes from here; the English "dentia" is likewise untranslated. For the settle step.

PL 2:398

CAPUT VII.

Chapter VII.

Anno quinto decimo principatus Tiberiani (Luc. III, 1) proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum (Luc. IV, 31): utique de coelo Creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat. Ecquid ergo ordinis fuerat, ut prius de suo coelo in Creatoris descendens describeretur? Cur enim non et ista reprehendam, quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper? Plane semel dicta sint, per quae jam alibi retractavimus, an descendens per Creatorem, et quidem adversus ipsum potuerit ab eo admitti, et inde tramitti in terram aeque ipsius. Nunc autem et reliquum ordinem descensionis expostulo tenens descendisse illum. Viderit enim sicubi apparuisse positum est. Apparere, subitum ex inopinato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit. Descendisse autem, dum sit, videtur, et subit oculos; de facto etiam ordinem facit. Atque ita cogit exigere, quale habitu, quali suggestu, quonam impetu vel temperamento, etiam quo in tempore diei noctisve descenderit; praeterea quis viderit descendentem, quis retulerit, quis asseveraverit rem utique nec asseveranti facile credendam. Indignum denique ut Romulus quidem ascensus sui in coelum habuerit Proculum affirmatorem, Christus vero Dei descensus de coelo suo sui non invenerit annuntiatorem; quasi non sic et ille ascenderit iisdem mendacii scalis, sicut et iste descendit. Quid autem illi cum Galilaea, si non erat Creatoris? cui ista regio destinabatur ingressuro praedicationem, dicente Isaia. (IX, 1-2): Hoc primum bibito, cito facito regio Zabulon, et terra Nepthalim, et caeteri qui maritimam ad Jordanem, Galilaea nationum, populus qui sedetis in tenebris, videte lumen magnum; qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos. Bene autem quod et Deus Marcionis, illuminator vindicatur nationum: quo magis debuerit vel de coelo descendere, etsi utique in Pontum potius descendere, quam in Galilaeam. Caeterum, et loco et illuminationis opere secundum praedicationem occurrentibus Christo, jam eum prophetatum incipimus agnoscere, ostendentem in

In the fifteenth year of the principate of Tiberius (Luke 3:1) he sets forth that He came down into the city of Galilee, Capernaum (Luke 4:31): from the heaven of the Creator, of course, into which He had previously come down from His own. Would it not, then, have been a matter of due order that He should first be described as coming down from His own heaven into the Creator's? For why should I not also censure these things, which do not fulfil the credibility of an orderly narrative, one always failing in its falsehood? Let it indeed be said once for all, in terms we have already treated elsewhere, whether, coming down through the Creator, and that in opposition to Him, He could have been admitted by Him, and passed on thence to the earth, which is likewise His. But now I also demand the rest of the order of the descent, holding [you] to [your statement] that He came down. For let it see to itself wherever it is set down that He appeared. To appear savours of a sudden sight out of the unexpected, which has once struck the eyes upon that which appeared without delay. But to have come down, while it is happening, is seen, and comes under the eyes; from the fact itself it also makes an order. And so it compels us to demand in what attire, with what equipage, with what speed or measure, and also at what time of day or night He came down; moreover, who saw Him coming down, who reported it, who affirmed a thing certainly not easily to be believed even by one affirming it. It is unworthy, finally, that Romulus should have had Proculus as the affirmer of his ascent into heaven, while the Christ of God should not have found a herald of His descent from His own heaven; as if the one did not likewise ascend by the same ladders of falsehood by which the other descended. But what had He to do with Galilee, if it did not belong to the Creator? for Whom, when about to enter upon His preaching, this region was destined, as Isaiah says (Isa. 9:1–2): Drink this first, do it quickly, region of Zebulun, and land of Naphtali, and you others who [hold] the seacoast towards the Jordan, Galilee of the nations, people who sit in darkness, see a great light; you who inhabit the land, sitting in the shadow of death, a light has risen upon you. But it is well that the God of Marcion too is claimed as the illuminator of the nations: all the more ought He to have come down even from heaven, though certainly to come down into Pontus rather than into Galilee. However, since both by place and by the work of illumination things accord with Christ according to the prophecy, we now begin to recognize Him as the One prophesied, showing in

Editors' notes and page, col. 398

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ³⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible De evangeliis Seml.

"Concerning the gospels" — reading of Seml.

³⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Expedimur Seml.

"We are set free" — reading of Seml.

³⁹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Separaturus Par. Fran. separaturum. Jun.

"About to separate" (separaturus) — Par. and the Franeker edition; "separaturum" — Junius.

⁴⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Deum Par. Fran.

"God" (accusative) — Par. and the Franeker edition.

⁴¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Quo Seml.

"Whereby" — reading of Seml.

⁴² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et quid Seml.

"And what" — reading of Seml.

⁴³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Subito Fran.

"Suddenly" — the Franeker edition.

⁴⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible It Par. Fran.

"Goes" — Par. and the Franeker edition.

⁴⁵ ‹anchor: Christus vero Dei› · call in col 398 Dei abest Fran.

"Dei" (of God) is absent in the Franeker edition.

⁴⁶ ‹anchor: cito facito› · call in col 398 Obito Par. Rhen.

"Go to" (obito) — Par. and Rhenanus.

⁴⁷ ‹anchor: et caeteri qui› · call in col 398 Habitatis terram add. Rhen. ex cod. Gorz.

Rhenanus adds "you who dwell in the land", from the Gorze manuscript.

⁴⁸ ‹anchor: maritimam ad Jordanem› · call in col 398 Et Jordanis Seml.

"And of the Jordan" — reading of Seml.

⁴⁹ ‹anchor: etsi utique› · call in col 398 Et (si utique) Jun.

"And (if indeed)" — Junius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 203)

(13) ‹anchor: Hoc primum bibito› · call in col 398

Hoc primum bibito, cito facito. Veram esse arbitror praestantissimi Hug. Grotii super hac verborum Isaiae interpretatione conjecturam, adnotationibus in Evan. Matth., cap. IV, v. 14. RIG.

"Drink this first; act quickly." I judge true the conjecture of the most eminent Hugo Grotius on this rendering of Isaiah's words, in his annotations on the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 4, verse 14. Rigault.

(printed under page 203)

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. 398 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹CAPUT VII.›; B ‹rere, subitum ex inopinato›; C ‹cendit. Quid autem illi cum Galilaea›; D ‹poribus ibi praedictas (commentary)›
old-edition numerals: 370 after ‹populus›

PL 2:399

primo ingressu (Matth. V. 17) venisse se non ut Legem et Prophetas dissolveret, sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion, ut additum, erasit. Sed frustra negabit Christum dixisse, quod statim fecit ex parte. Prophetiam enim interim de loco adimplevit, de coelo statim ad Synagogam, ut dici solet, AD QUOD VENIMUS HOC AGE. Marcion, aufer etiam illud de Evangelio : Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel (Matth. XV, 24) ; et : Non est auferre panem filiis, et dare eum canibus (Matth. VII, 27); ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. Sufficiunt mihi facta pro dictis. Detrahe voces Christi mei, res loquentur. Ecce venit in synagogam ; certe ad oves perditas domus Israelis. Ecce doctrinae suae panem prioribus offert Israelitis ; certe ut filios praefert. Ecce aliis eum nondum impertit ; certe ut canes praeterit. Quibus autem magis impertisset, quam extraneis Creatoris, si ipse in primis non fuisset Creatoris ? Et tamen quomodo in synagogam potuit admitti tam repentinus, tam ignotus ; cujus nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de domo, de censu denique Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum Dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt ? Meminerant certe, nisi circumcisum scirent, non admittendum in Sancta sanctorum. Sed etsi passim Synagoga adiretur, non tamen ad docendum, nisi ab optime cognito et explorato et probato, jam pridem in hoc ipsum, vel aliunde commendato cum hoc munere. Stupebant autem omnes ad doctrinam ejus ; plane : quoniam, inquit, in potestate erat sermo ejus (Luc. IV, 32) : non quoniam adversus Legem et prophetas docebat. Utique enim eloquium divinum et vim et gratiam praestabat, magis extruens quam destruens substantiam Legis et Prophetarum. Alioquin non stuperent, sed horrerent ; nec mirarentur, sed statim aversarentur destructorem Legis et Prophetarum ; et utique in

His first entrance (Matt. 5:17) that He had come not to dissolve the Law and the Prophets, but rather to fulfil [them]. For Marcion erased this as an addition. But in vain will he deny that Christ said what He at once in part did. For He meanwhile fulfilled the prophecy as to place, [going] straight from heaven to the synagogue, as the saying goes, TO WHAT WE HAVE COME, ATTEND TO THIS. Marcion, take away also that [saying] from the Gospel: I am not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 15:24); and: It is not [good] to take the bread from the children and give it to the dogs (Matt. 7:27); lest, that is, Christ should seem to belong to Israel. Deeds suffice me in place of words. Strip away the utterances of my Christ: the facts will speak. Behold, He comes into the synagogue; surely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Behold, He offers the bread of His teaching first to the Israelites; surely He prefers them as children. Behold, He does not yet impart it to others; surely He passes them over as dogs. But to whom would He rather have imparted it than to strangers to the Creator, if He Himself had not been the Creator's in the first place? And yet how could one so sudden, so unknown, be admitted into the synagogue, one about whom nobody was yet certain as to tribe, as to people, as to house, and finally as to the census of Augustus, which the Roman archives keep as a most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity? They certainly remembered that, unless they knew him to be circumcised, he was not to be admitted into the Holy of holies. But even if the synagogue might be approached freely, yet not for teaching, except by one very well known and examined and approved, long since [appointed] for this very thing, or commended from elsewhere with this office. But all were astonished at His teaching; clearly: because, it says, His word was in power (Luke 4:32): not because He was teaching against the Law and the prophets. For indeed His divine eloquence supplied both force and grace, building up rather than destroying the substance of the Law and the Prophets. Otherwise they would not have been astonished but would have shuddered; they would not have marvelled but would at once have turned away from a destroyer of the Law and the Prophets; and certainly in

Editors' notes and page, col. 399

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁵⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Negavit Seml.

"He denied" — reading of Seml.

⁵¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Bonum inser. Lat.

Lat. inserts "good" (bonum).

⁵² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Vocem Seml.

"Voice" — reading of Seml.

⁵³ ‹anchor: statim aversarentur› · call in col 399 Adversarentur al.

"Would oppose" — other editions.

⁵⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Ignoto jam al.

"To one already unknown" — other editions.

⁵⁵ ‹anchor: Quid nobis et tibi› · call in col 400 Jesu add. Jun.

Junius adds "Jesus".

⁵⁶ ‹anchor: Jesu, ad quem› · call in col 400 Extraneum sed ad quem Jun.

"A stranger, but to whom" — Junius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 204)

(14) ‹anchor: Non ut Legem et Prophetas dissolveret› · call not visible

Non ut Legem et Prophetas dissolveret. Irenaeus (lib. IV, 13) dicit Marcionem legisse contrarium. SEML.

"Not to dissolve the Law and the Prophets." Irenaeus (Book IV, 13) says that Marcion read the contrary. Semler.

(printed under page 204)

(15) ‹anchor: De censu denique Augusti› · call not visible

De censu denique Augusti, etc. Quis fuerit iste census, et de quo censu id accipiendum, magnopere controversum est. Baronius, in Apparatu ad Annales eumdem censet eum ac de quo evangelista. Quod non alienum mihi a vero videtur. De censuaria ordinatione id explicat Casaubonus in notis ad Spartianum, nescio quo auctore. Assentirer libentius Petavio, qui duplicem Quirini censum fuisse scribit, modo id certum esset. Si enim conjecturae locus aliquis tribuitur, pari jure ac eruditus Petavius, conjecturas meas afferrem. Putarem quippe ἀπογραφὴν illam quae sub Sentio Saturnino facta est, eamdem esse cum descriptione Quirini. Praesidem fuisse Saturninum conjicio, Quirinum procuratorem. Justinus quippe hoc eum nomine indigitat Apol. II : Ἐπὶ Κυρηνίου τοῦ ὑμετέρου ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ πρώτου γενομένου ἐπιτρόπου [last word only partly legible at this resolution]. Sub Quirino vestro in Judaea primo procuratore. Id autem parum honorificum mihi objiciet aliquis post tot adeptos honores, post dignitates summas quibus functus est. Verum id fieri potuit ex majori quam de ejus virtute conceperat fiducia Augustus; sicque Saturninus, ut imperatoris voluntati quodammodo faveret obsequendo, praeses nomine tenus fuit tantum. Sic enim accipiendus est Eusebius, lib. I, cap. 5, ἡγεμονεύοντος Κυρηνίου τῆς Συρίας. Ex quibus nescio an vere dixisse Petavium quis pronuntiare audeat, qui nullos tunc exstitisse censet Judaeae procuratores. LE PR.

"Finally, of the census of Augustus," etc. What this census was, and which census it is to be understood of, is much disputed. Baronius, in the Apparatus to the Annals, holds it to be the same as the one the evangelist speaks of, which seems to me not far from the truth. Casaubon, in his notes on Spartianus, explains it of the census ordinance, on what authority I do not know. I would more gladly agree with Petavius, who writes that there were two censuses of Quirinius, if only that were certain. For if any room is allowed for conjecture, I would put forward my own conjectures with the same right as the learned Petavius. I would think, then, that the enrolment (ἀπογραφή) made under Sentius Saturninus is the same as Quirinius's registration. I conjecture that Saturninus was the governor and Quirinius the procurator. For Justin designates him by this title, Apology II: "Under your Quirinius, who was the first procurator in Judaea." Someone will object to me that this is hardly an honourable post after so many honours gained, after the highest dignities he had held. But it could have come about through Augustus's greater confidence in his ability; and so Saturninus, to humour in some measure the emperor's wish by complying, was governor in name only. For so Eusebius is to be understood, Book I, chapter 5: "when Quirinius was governing Syria." From which I do not know whether anyone would dare to declare that Petavius spoke truly, who holds that there were no procurators of Judaea at that time. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 204)

(16) ‹anchor: Synagoga adiretur› · call in col 399

Sed et si passim Synagoga adiretur. Nempe, etiam a proselytis et gentilibus. Nec improbat Eusebius ; in Ecclesia Christiana etiam laicos ὁμιλεῖν, modo id fiat τῇ τοῦ προεστῶτος ἐποπτείᾳ. RIG.

"But even if the synagogue was freely entered." Namely, even by proselytes and gentiles. Nor does Eusebius disapprove of laymen too addressing the assembly in the Christian Church, provided it be done under the oversight of the one who presides. Rigault.

(printed under page 204)

(17) ‹anchor: erat sermo ejus› · call in col 399

Quoniam in potestate erat sermo ejus. Hoc est, potens erat sermo ejus. Lucas, ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις τῆς χάριτος. RIG.

"Because his word was in power." That is, his word was powerful. Luke: "at the words of grace." Rigault.

(printed under page 204)

Page

running head: 399 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A primo ingressu (Matth. V. 17); B Israelitis ; certe ut filios praefert; C (not visible); D (14) Non ut Legem et Prophetas (beside commentary)
old-edition numerals: 371 after vel

PL 2:400

primis alterius D⟨e⟩i praedicatorem: quia nec potuisset adversus Legem et Prophetas docere. Et hoc nomine adversus Creatorem, non praemissa diversae atque aemulae divinitatis professione. Cum ergo nihil tale Scriptura significet, nisi solam vim et potestatem sermonis admirationi fuisse, facilius ostendit, secundum Creatorem docuisse illum, quia non negavit; quam adversus Creatorem, quia non significavit. Atque ita aut ejus erit agnoscendus, secundum quem docuit; aut praevaricator judicandus, si seeundum eum, adversus quem venerat, docuit. Exclamat ibidem spiritus daemonis (Luc. 4, 34): Quid nobis et tibi est, Jesu? venisti perdere nos? scio qui sis, sanctus Dei. Hic ergo non retractabo, an et hoc cognomentum competierit ei, quem nec Christum vocari oporteret, si non Creatoris. Alibi jam de nominibus expostulatum est. At nunc discepto, quomodo hoc eum vocari cognoverit daemon, nulla unquam retro emissa praedicatione in illum a Deo ignoto, et in id temporis muto, cujus nec sanctum eum contestari potuit, ut ignoti etiam ipsi suo Creatori. Quid autem jam tale ediderat novae divinitatis, per quod posset alterius Dei sanctus intelligi? tantum quod Synagogam introgressus, et nec sermone operatus aliquid adversus Creatorem? Sicut ergo quem ignorabat, nullo modo poterat Jesum et sanctum Dei agnoscere; ita, quem notat agnovit. Nam et Prophetam meminerat sanctum Dei praedicasse, et Jesum nomen Dei esse in filio Nave. Haec et ab angelo exceperat secundum nostrum Evangelium (Luc I, 35): Propterea, quod in te nascetur vocabitur sanctum, Filius Dei, et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum. Se⟨d⟩ et habebat utique sensum aliquem Dominicae dispositionis (licet daemon tamen) magis quam alienae, et nondum satis cognitae. Nam et praemisit: Quid nobis et tibi? non quasi in extraneum Jesu, ad quem pertinent spiritus Creatoris. Nec enim dixit: Quid tibi et nobis? sed:

the first place [from] a preacher of another God: because neither could He have taught against the Law and the Prophets, and on that account against the Creator, without first making profession of a different and rival divinity. Since therefore Scripture indicates nothing of the kind, except that only the force and authority of His speech were a cause of wonder, it shows more readily that He taught according to the Creator, because He did not deny Him, than against the Creator, because He did not indicate it. And thus either He will have to be acknowledged as belonging to him according to whom He taught, or He must be judged a transgressor, if He taught according to him against whom He had come. In the same place the spirit of a demon cries out (Luke 4:34): What is there to us and to Thee, Jesus? Hast Thou come to destroy us? I know who Thou art, the Holy One of God. Here, then, I shall not go back over whether this surname too befitted Him who ought not even to be called Christ, if He were not the Creator's. Elsewhere the matter of the names has already been argued. But now I dispute how the demon came to know that He was called this, when no preaching had ever previously been sent forth concerning Him from a God unknown, and silent up to that time, of whom he could not attest Him to be the holy one, as [a God] unknown even to the demon's own Creator. But what had He yet put forth of a new divinity, through which He could be understood as the holy one of another God? Only that He had entered the synagogue, and had not even by speech wrought anything against the Creator? Just as, therefore, he could in no way recognize as Jesus and the Holy One of God one whom he did not know, so he recognized the One whom he names. For he remembered that the Prophet had proclaimed the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was the name of God in the son of Nave. These things too he had caught from the angel according to our Gospel (Luke 1:35): Therefore that which will be born in you shall be called holy, the Son of God, and you shall call His name Jesus. But he also certainly had some perception of the Lord's dispensation (albeit a demon all the same), rather than of a foreign one, and one not yet sufficiently known. For he also put first: What is there to us and to Thee? not as if against a Jesus who was a stranger, to whom the spirits of the Creator belong. For he did not say: What is there to Thee and to us? but:

Editors' notes and page, col. 400

Page

running head: …UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 400 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A primis alterius Dei praedicatorem; B nec Christum vocari oporteret; C (none seen); D daea primo procuratore (in the Commentarius, not set)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 2:401

Quid nobis et tibi? se deplorans, et sorti suae exprobrans : quam jam videns, adjicit : Venisti perdere nos. Adeo judicis et ultoris, et ut ita dixerim, saevi Dei Filium agnoverat Jesum, non optimi illius et perdere et punire nescientis. Quorsum hunc locum praemisimus? ut Jesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum, et a semetipso non alium conformatum quam Creatoris. Atquin, inquis, increpuit illum Jesus. Plane ut invidiosum, et in ipsa confessione petulantem, et male adulantem; quasi haec esset summa gloria Christi, si ad perditionem daemonum venisset, et non potius ad hominum salutem; qui nec discipulos de subactione spirituum, sed de candida salutis gloriari volebat. Aut cur eum increpuit? Si quasi mentitum in totum, ergo non fuit Jesus, nec Dei sanctus omnino. Si quasi ex parte mentitum, quod cum Jesum quidem et sanctum Dei, sed Creatoris existimasset, injustissime increpuit hoc sentientem, quod sciebat sentiendum, et hoc non existimantem, quod ignorabat existimandum, alium Jesum, et alterius Dei sanctum. Quod si verisimiliorem statum non habet increpatio, nisi quem nos interpretamur, jam ergo et daemon nihil mentitus est, non ob mendacium increpitus : ipse enim erat Jesus, praeter quem alium daemon agnovisse non poterat; et Jesus eum confirmavit, quem agnoverat daemon, dum non ob mendacium increpat daemonem.

What is there to us and to Thee? lamenting himself and reproaching his own lot: seeing it already, he adds: Thou hast come to destroy us. So fully had he recognized Jesus as the Son of the judging and avenging, and, if I may so put it, cruel God, not of that most good one who knows neither how to destroy nor how to punish. To what end have we set this passage first? That we may show that Jesus was recognized by the demon as none other, and confirmed by Himself as none other, than the Creator's. But, you say, Jesus rebuked him. Certainly, as being spiteful, and impudent in the very confession, and flattering in an evil way; as if this were the highest glory of Christ, if He had come for the destruction of demons, and not rather for the salvation of men; He who wished His disciples to glory not in the subjugation of spirits but in the white robe of salvation. Or why did He rebuke him? If as having lied altogether, then He was not Jesus, nor the Holy One of God at all. If as having lied in part, because he had supposed Him to be Jesus indeed and the Holy One of God, but the Creator's, He most unjustly rebuked him for thinking what He knew was to be thought, and for not supposing what he did not know was to be supposed, namely another Jesus, and the Holy One of another God. But if the rebuke has no more probable standing than the one which we interpret, then the demon too lied in nothing, and was not rebuked for a lie: for He Himself was Jesus, besides whom the demon could not have recognized another; and Jesus confirmed Himself as the one whom the demon had recognized, inasmuch as He does not rebuke the demon for a lie.

CAPUT VIII.

Chapter VIII.

Nazaraeus vocari habebat secundum prophetiam Christus Creatoris : unde et ipso nomine nos Judaei Nazaraeos appellant per eum. Nam et sumus, de quibus est (Thren. IV, 7) : Nazaraei exalbati sunt super nivem. Qui scilicet retro luridati delinquentiae maculis, et nigrati ignorantiae tenebris. Christo autem appellatio Nazaraei competitura erat ex infantiae latebris, ad quas apud Nazareth descendit, vitando Archelaum filium Herodis. Hoc propterea non omisi, quia Christum Marcionis oportuerat omne commercium ejerasse etiam locorum familiarium Christi Creatoris, habentem, tanta Judaeae oppida, non ita Christi Creatoris per prophetas emancipata. Caeterum, prophetarum erit Christus, ubicumque secundum Prophetas invenitur. Et tamen apud Nazareth quoque nihil novi notatur praedicasse, dum alio merito unius proverbii (Luc. IV, 23) ejectus refertur. Hic primum manus ei injectas animadvertens, necesse habeo jam de substantia ejus corporali praetinire, quod non possit phantasma credi, qui contactum, et

The Creator's Christ was to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy: whence also the Jews call us by that very name, Nazarenes, on His account. For we too are those of whom it is said (Lam. 4:7): "The Nazarites have been made whiter than snow"; namely those who formerly were made livid by the stains of wrongdoing, and blackened by the darkness of ignorance. But the appellation of Nazarene was to fall to Christ from the hiding-place of His infancy, to which He went down at Nazareth, avoiding Archelaus the son of Herod. I have not omitted this for this reason, that Marcion's Christ ought to have renounced all dealings even with the places familiar to the Creator's Christ, having so many towns of Judaea not thus made over to the Creator's Christ through the prophets. Moreover, He will be the Christ of the prophets wherever He is found in accordance with the Prophets. And yet at Nazareth too He is not recorded to have preached anything new, while He is reported to have been cast out on another account, that of a single proverb (Luke 4:23). Here, first noticing that hands were laid upon Him, I must now settle beforehand concerning His bodily substance, that He cannot be believed a phantasm who [underwent] contact, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 401

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁵⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et omitt. al.

Other editions omit "et" (and).

⁵⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Ut Seml.

"As/that" — reading of Seml.

⁵⁹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Aestimandum Seml.

"To be reckoned" — reading of Seml.

⁶⁰ ‹anchor: Judaei Nazaraeos› · call in col 401 Nazarenos Seml.

"Nazarenes" — reading of Seml.

⁶¹ ‹anchor: per prophetas emancipata› · call in col 401 Mancipata Jun.

"Made over (as property)" — Junius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 205)

(18) ‹anchor: De candida salutis› · call not visible

De candida salutis. Vestem intellige, nisi mavis cum Rhenano, candidam substantive usurpari. A Romanis illud vulgo petitur, apud quos honorum petitores candida veste induebantur, unde dicti candidati. LE PR.

"Of the white robe of salvation." Understand "garment," unless you prefer, with Rhenanus, that "candida" is used as a noun. The expression is commonly drawn from the Romans, among whom candidates for office were clothed in a white garment, whence they were called "candidati." Le Prieur.

(printed under page 205)

(19) ‹anchor: Tangere enim et tangi› · call not visible

Tangere enim et tangi, etc. Illud idem, c. 5 de Anima attulit, ut corpoream ibi astrueret. Habetur autem apud Lucretium (De Rerum Nat. lib. I), adversus cujus deliria disputat Lactantius, lib. VII Instit. Div. LE PR.

"For to touch and be touched," etc. He brought forward the same line in chapter 5 of De anima, to establish there that the soul is bodily. It is found in Lucretius (On the Nature of Things, Book I), against whose ravings Lactantius argues in Book VII of the Divine Institutes. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 205)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:403

ricationis notam; cum se a daemoniis quasi Filium Creatoris sustineret timeri, ut jam non propria potestate expelleret daemonia, sed per Creatoris auctoritatem. In solitudinem procedit. Solemnis et hujusmodi regio Creatoris. Oportebat sermonem illic quoque videri in corpore, ubi egerat aliquando et in nube. Competebat et Evangelio habitus loci, qui placuerat et Legi. Capiat itaque jucunditatem solitudo, hoc Isaias (XXXV, 1) promiserat. Detentus a turbis: Oportet me, inquit (Luc. IV, 42), aliis civitatibus annuntiare regnum Dei. Ostenderat jam alicubi Deum suum? Non puto adhuc usque. Sed do eis loquebatur, qui alium quoque Deum noverant. Nec hoc credo. Ergo si nec ille alium Deum crediderat, nec illi noverant praeter Creatorem ejusdem Dei regnum portendebat, quem solum sciebat notum eis qui audiebant.

[prevar]ication's mark; since He endured being feared by the demons as if He were the Son of the Creator, so that He was now expelling demons not by His own power but through the Creator's authority. He goes out into a desert place. A region of this kind, too, is customary for the Creator. It was fitting that the Word should be seen in the body there also, where He had once acted in the cloud as well. The character of the place suited the Gospel too, as it had pleased the Law also. "Let the wilderness therefore take joy": this Isaiah (Isa. 35:1) had promised. Detained by the crowds, "I must," He says (Luke 4:42), "announce the kingdom of God to other cities as well." Had He by now shown His God anywhere? I think not, up to this point. But was He speaking of those who also knew another God? Nor do I believe this. Therefore, if neither had He believed in another God, nor had they known any besides the Creator, He was announcing the kingdom of that same God whom alone He knew to be known to those who were listening.

CAPUT IX.

Chapter IX.

De tot generibus operum, quid utique ad piscaturam respexit, ut ab illa in apostolos sumeret Simonem et filios Zebedaei? non enim simplex factum videri potest, de quo argumentum processurum erat, dicens (Luc. V, 10) Petro trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: Ne time, abhinc enim homines eris capiens. Hoc enim dicto, intellectum illis suggerebat adimpletae prophetiae, se eum esse qui per Hieremiam pronuntiarat (Jerem. XVI, 16): Ecce ego mittam piscatores multos, et piscabuntur illos; homines scilicet. Denique relictis naviculis secuti sunt eum; ipsum intelligentes, qui coeperat facere quod edixerat. Aliud est, si adfectavit de naviculariorum collegio allegere, habiturus apostolum quandoque nauclerum Marcionem. Praestruximus quidem adversus Antitheses, nihil proficere proposito Marcionis, quam putat, diversitatem Legis et Evangelii, ut et hanc a Creatore dispositam, denique praedicatam in repromissione novae legis et novi sermonis et Novi Testamenti. Sed quoniam attentius argumentatur apud illum suum nescio quem συνταλαίπωρον, id est commiseronem, et συμμισούμενον, id est, coodibilem, in leprosi purgationem, non pigebit ei occurrere, et in primis figuratae legis vim ostendere; quae in exemplo leprosi non contingendi, imo ab omni commercio submovendi, communicationem prohibebat hominis

Out of so many kinds of work, why did He particularly look to fishing, so as to take from it Simon and the sons of Zebedee as apostles? For it cannot seem a simple deed from which an argument was going to proceed, when He said (Luke 5:10) to Peter, who was trembling at the abundant catch of fish: "Do not fear, for from now on you will be catching men." For by this saying He was suggesting to them the understanding of a fulfilled prophecy, that He was the One who had declared through Jeremiah (Jer. 16:16): "Behold, I will send many fishers, and they will fish them", men, that is. Accordingly, leaving their boats, they followed Him, understanding that it was He Himself who had begun to do what He had proclaimed. It is another matter if He aimed to choose from the guild of ship-owners, being one day to have the shipmaster Marcion as an apostle. We have indeed already laid down, against the Antitheses, that the diversity of Law and Gospel, as he supposes it, profits Marcion's purpose nothing, since this too was arranged by the Creator, and indeed proclaimed in the promise of a new law and a new word and a New Testament. But since he argues rather attentively, with that fellow-sufferer of his, whoever he is (that is, co-miserator), and fellow-hated one (that is, co-odious one), concerning the cleansing of the leper, it will not irk me to meet him, and first of all to show the force of the figurative law; which, in the example of the leper who was not to be touched, indeed was to be removed from all intercourse, was forbidding communication with a man

Editors' notes and page, col. 403

Footnotes

(20) ‹anchor: illum suum nescio quem συνταλαίπωρον› · call in col 403

Apud illum suum nescio quem, etc. E margine in textum irrepserunt interpretationes Graecarum vocum. LE PR.

"With that fellow of his, whoever he is," etc. The explanations of the Greek words crept from the margin into the text. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 206)

Page

running head: 403 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
marginal letters: A ricationis notam; B rem ejusdem Dei regnum; C illos; homines scilicet; D leprosi non contingendi
old-edition numerals: 374 after Detentus

PL 2:404

delictis commaculati; cum qualibus et Apostolus (1 Cor. V, 11) cibum quoque vetat sumere: participari enim stigmata delictorum, quasi ex contagione, si quis se cum peccatore miscuerit. Itaque Dominus volens altius intelligi Legem, per carnalia spiritalia significantem, et hoc nomine non destruens, sed magis exstruens quam pertinentius volebat agnosci, tetigit leprosum, a quo etsi homo inquinari potuisset, Deus utique non inquinaretur, incontaminabilis scilicet. Ita non praescribetur illi quod debuerit legem observare, et non contingere immundum, quem contactus immundi non erat inquinaturus. Hoc magis meo Christo competere sic doceo, dum tuo non competere demonstro. Si enim ut aemulus legis tetigit leprosum, nihil faciens praeceptum legis, per contemptum inquinamenti, quomodo posset inquinari, qui corpus non habebat quod inquinaretur? phantasma enim inquinari non posset. Qui ergo inquinari non poterat ut phantasma, jam non virtute divina incontaminabilis erit, sed phantasmatis inanitate: nec contempsisse videri potest inquinamentum, cujus materiam non habebat: ita nec legem destruxisse, qui inquinamentum ex occasione phantasmatis, non ex ostentatione virtutis evaserat. Si autem Elisaeus, prophetes Creatoris, unicum leprosum Naaman syrum ex tot leprosis israelitis emendavit (IV Reg. V, 14), nec hoc ad diversitatem facit Christi, quasi hoc modo melioris, dum Israelitem leprosum emundavit extraneus, quem suus dominus emundare non valuerat; Syro facilius emundato, significato per nationes emundationis in Christo lumine earum, quae septem maculis capitalium delictorum inhorrent, idololatria, blasphemia, homicidio, adulterio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. Quapropter septies quasi per singulos titulos in Jordane lavit, simul et ut totius hebdomadis caperet expiationem; quia unius lavacri vis et plenitudo Christo soli dicabatur, facturo in terris, sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. Nam et hoc opponit Marcion, Helisaeum quidem materia eguisse, aquam adhibuisse, et eam septies; Christum vero verbo solo, et hoc semel functum, curationem statim repraesentasse. Quasi non audeam et verbum ipsum in substantiam Creatoris vindicare. Nullius rei non ille

stained with offences; with such persons the Apostle also forbids even to take food (1 Cor. 5:11): for the brands of offences are shared, as if by contagion, if anyone mingles himself with a sinner. Therefore the Lord, wishing the Law to be understood more deeply, as signifying spiritual things through carnal ones, and on this account not destroying it, but rather building up what He wished to be recognized as more pertinent, touched the leper, by whom, although a man could have been defiled, God at any rate would not be defiled, being, of course, incapable of contamination. Thus it will not be objected against Him that He ought to have observed the law and not touched the unclean, since contact with the unclean was not going to defile Him. That this rather befits my Christ I thus teach, while I show that it does not befit yours. For if He touched the leper as a rival of the law, making nothing of the precept of the law, through contempt of defilement, how could He be defiled who had no body that might be defiled? For a phantasm could not be defiled. He, then, who could not be defiled, as being a phantasm, will be incapable of contamination not by divine power but by the emptiness of a phantasm; nor can He seem to have despised defilement, the material of which He did not have; nor, accordingly, to have destroyed the law, He who had escaped defilement by reason of being a phantasm, not by a display of power. But if Elisha, the prophet of the Creator, cleansed a single leper, Naaman the Syrian, out of so many Israelite lepers (2 Kgs. 5:14), neither does this make for a difference in Christ, as though He were better in this way, in that He, a stranger, cleansed an Israelite leper whom his own lord had not been able to cleanse; the Syrian having been cleansed more easily, there being signified through the nations the cleansing in Christ, their light, of those who bristle with the seven stains of capital offences: idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, debauchery, false witness, fraud. For this reason he washed seven times in the Jordan, as if once for each heading, and at the same time so that he might receive the expiation of a whole week; because the force and fullness of a single washing was dedicated to Christ alone, who was to make on earth, as a shortened word, so also a washing. For Marcion objects this too, that Elisha indeed needed material, applied water, and that seven times, but that Christ, having acted by a word alone, and that once, brought about the cure at once. As if I would not dare to claim the word itself also for the substance of the Creator. Of no thing did He not

Editors' notes and page, col. 404

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁶² ‹anchor: leprosum emundavit› · call in col 404 Emundat Seml.

"Cleanses" — reading of Seml.

⁶³ ‹anchor: emundato, significato› · call in col 404 Significat Seml.

"Signifies" — reading of Seml.

⁶⁴ ‹anchor: ut totius› · call in col 404 Toties Rig. Venet.

"So many times" — Rigault and the Venice edition.

⁶⁵ ‹anchor: hebdomadis caperet› · call in col 404 Caneret Rig. Venet.

"Would sing" — Rigault and the Venice edition.

⁶⁶ ‹anchor: caperet expiationem› · call in col 404 Et inser. Seml.

Seml. inserts "et" (and).

⁶⁷ ‹anchor: semel functum› · call in col 404 Functo Seml.

"Having performed (dative)" — reading of Seml.

Commentarius. (printed under page 206)

(21) ‹anchor: capitalium delictorum› · call in col 404

Septem maculis capitalium delictorum. Longe aliam habes quam quae communiter traditur septem capitalium delictorum enumerationem, utpote cum hic enumerentur idololatria, blasphemia, homicidium, adulterium, stuprum, falsum testimonium, et fraus. Quorum idololatria et blasphemia possunt ad superbiam referri, homicidium ad iram, adulterium et stuprum ad luxuriam, falsum testimonium et fraus ad avaritiam; sed restabunt praeterea, invidia, gula, et acedia. Tria autem ex his enumeratis adulterium, fraudem, homicidium, Cyprianus etiam inter mortalia crimina ponit, lib. de Bono Patientiae. Auctor denique lib. de Pudicitia, eadem ista inter graviora et exitiosa, imo et mortalia numerat, praeter falsum testimonium, cujus loco ibi negationem addit, fornicationem illic appellans, quam hic stuprum more suo. PAM.

"With the seven stains of capital sins." Here you have a list of the seven capital sins far different from the one commonly handed down, since here are listed idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false witness, and fraud. Of these, idolatry and blasphemy can be referred to pride, murder to anger, adultery and fornication to lust, false witness and fraud to avarice; but envy, gluttony and sloth will remain over besides. Three of those listed, adultery, fraud and murder, Cyprian too sets among the mortal crimes, in the book On the Good of Patience. Finally, the author, in the book On Modesty, numbers these same among the graver and deadly, indeed the mortal, sins, except false witness, in whose place he there adds denial [of the faith], calling "fornicatio" there what here, in his own manner, he calls "stuprum". Pamelius.

(printed under page 206)

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁶⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Utputa Seml.

"As for instance" — reading of Seml.

⁶⁹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Propheta Seml. prophetae Jun.

"Prophet" (propheta) — Seml.; "prophetae" — Junius.

⁷⁰ ‹anchor: Hanc tam› · call in col 405 Totam Par.

"Whole" — reading of Par.

⁷¹ ‹anchor: an non› · call in col 405 Aut non Seml.

"Or not" — reading of Seml.

⁷² ‹anchor: perseveravit, nunquam› · call in col 405 Nusquam Seml.

"Nowhere" — reading of Seml.

⁷³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Enim Seml.

"For" — reading of Seml.

⁷⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Praecipit al.

"Commands" — other editions.

⁷⁵ ‹anchor: erasisse› · call in col 406 Eradicasse Seml.

"To have rooted out" — reading of Seml.

⁷⁶ ‹anchor: Quoniam› · call in col 406 Quomodo Seml.

"How" — reading of Seml.

⁷⁷ ‹anchor: in priore› · call in col 406 Primore al.

"In the first" (primore) — other editions.

Commentarius. (printed under page 207)

(22) ‹anchor: De gradu pellam› · call not visible

De gradu pellam. Objectionem tuam illam dissolvam, quae bonum Deum legem indulsisse dicis, et malum abstulisse; disputat enim acerrime contra has immanitates hic scriptor. LE PR.

"I will dislodge you from your stand." I will undo that objection of yours, in which you say that the good God granted the law and the evil one took it away; for this writer argues most sharply against these monstrosities. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 207)

(23) ‹anchor: De Evangelio erasisse› · call not visible

De Evangelio erasisse, etc. Ob corruptum B. Lucae in omnibus fere Evangelium; et inter alia, cap. IV, de quo hic quaestio. LE PR.

"To have erased from the Gospel," etc. Because blessed Luke's Gospel was corrupted in almost everything; and among other places, chapter 4, which is in question here. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 207)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:406

advenit. Proinde si ut sciens omnem qui lepra liberatus esset ita facturum, ideo praecepit munus offerre, potuit et non praecepisse quod sciebat ultro futurum. In vanum ergo descendit quasi legem destructurus, cum cedit obsecutoribus legis. Atquin quasi sciens formam eorum, magis ab ea avertendos praevenire debuerat, si in hoc venerat. Cur ergo non tacuit, ut homo solo suo arbitrio legi obediret? tunc enim aliquatenus posset videri patientiae suae praestitisse. Sed adjicit etiam auctoritatem suam exaggeratam testimonii pondere. Cujus jam testimonii, nisi legis assertae? Certe nihil interest quomodo firmaverit legem, sive qua bonus, sive qua supervacuus, sive qua patiens, sive qua inconstans, dum te, Marcion, de gradu pellam. Ecce praecepit legem impleri. Quocumque modo praecepit, eodem potuit etiam illam praemisisse (Matth. V. 17) sententiam: Non veni legem dissolvere, sed adimplere. Quid ergo tibi fuit de Evangelio erasisse quod salvum est? confessus es enim prae bonitate fecisse illum, quod negas dixisse. Constat ergo dixisse illum, quia et fecit; et te potius vocem Domini de Evangelio erasisse, quam nostros injecisse.

came. Accordingly, if it was as knowing that everyone who had been freed from leprosy would act so that He therefore commanded him to offer the gift, He could also have refrained from commanding what He knew would happen of its own accord. In vain, then, did He come down as if to destroy the law, when He gives way to those who comply with the law. And yet, as knowing their custom, He ought rather to have forestalled them so that they might be turned away from it, if He had come for this purpose. Why then did He not keep silent, so that the man might obey the law by his own choice alone? For then He could to some extent have seemed to have shown forth His patience. But He even adds His own authority, heightened by the weight of a testimony. Of what testimony, then, if not of the law upheld? Certainly it makes no difference in what manner He confirmed the law, whether as good, or as superfluous, or as patient, or as inconstant, provided that I drive you, Marcion, from your ground. Behold, He commanded the law to be fulfilled. In whatever manner He commanded it, in the same manner He could also have uttered beforehand that saying (Matt. 5:17): I have not come to dissolve the law, but to fulfil it. What, then, did it profit you to have erased from the Gospel what remains intact? For you have confessed that out of goodness He did what you deny that He said. It is established, therefore, that He said it, because He also did it; and that you have rather erased the Lord's utterance from the Gospel than that our people have inserted it.

CAPUT X.

Chapter X.

Curatur et paralyticus (Luc. V), et quidem in coetu spectante populo. Videbit enim, inquit Isaias (XXXV, 2 seqq.), populus sublimitatem Domini, et gloriam Dei. Quam sublimitatem et quam gloriam? Convalescite manus dimissae, et genua dissoluta. Hoc erit paralysis. Convalescite nec timete. Non otiose iterans, Convalescite; nec vane subjungens, Nec timete: quoniam cum redintegratione membrorum, virium quoque repraesentationem pollicebatur: Exsurge, et tolle grabatum tuum; et animi vigorem, ad non timendos qui dicturi erant: Quis dimittet peccata, nisi solus Deus? Habes itaque jam et specialis medicinae dispunctam prophetiam, et eorum quae medicinam sunt secuta. Pariter et dimissorem delictorum Christum rocognosce apud eumdem prophetam: Quoniam, inquit (Isa. LIII, 12), in plurimis dimittet delicta eorum, et delicta nostra ipse aufert. Nam et in priore (Isa. I, 18), ex ipsius Domini persona: Etsi fuerint delicta vestra tanquam roseum, velut nivem exalbabo; et si tanquam coccinum, velut lanam exalbabo. In roseo sanguinem ostendens prophetarum; in coccino Domini, ut clariorem. Etiam Michaeas (Mich. VII, 18 et 19) de venia delictorum: Quis Deus quomodo

The paralytic too is healed (Luke 5), and that in an assembly, with the people looking on. For the people, says Isaiah (35:2 ff.), shall see the loftiness of the Lord, and the glory of God. What loftiness and what glory? Grow strong, you hands let down, and you loosened knees. This will be the paralysis. Grow strong and do not fear. Not idly repeating, Grow strong; nor vainly adding, Do not fear: since with the restoration of the limbs He was promising also the immediate return of strength: Arise, and take up your bed; and vigour of mind, so as not to fear those who were going to say: Who shall forgive sins, but God alone? You have, therefore, now both the prophecy of the particular cure fulfilled, and that of the things which followed the cure. Likewise recognize Christ as the forgiver of sins in the same prophet: Because, he says (Isa. 53:12), He shall forgive their sins in very many things, and He Himself takes away our sins. For in the earlier [passage] too (Isa. 1:18), in the person of the Lord Himself: Though your sins be as rose-red, I will whiten them like snow; and though as scarlet, I will whiten them like wool. In the rose-red He indicates the blood of the prophets; in the scarlet, that of the Lord, as the brighter. Micah too (Mic. 7:18–19), concerning the pardon of sins: What God as

Editors' notes and page, col. 406

Page

running head: ...IV ADV. MARCIONEM. (cut off at left edge; column number 406)
marginal letters: A advenit. Proinde si ut; B pellam (22). Ecce praecepit; C gloriam Dei. Quam sublimitatem; D sius Domini persona
old-edition numerals: 377 after supervacuus, sive

PL 2:407

tu, eximens iniquitates, et praeteriens injustitias residuis haereditatis tuae? Non tenuit in testimonium iram suam, quia voluit misericordiam. Avertet, et miserebitur nostri. Demerget delicta nostra, et demerget in profunda maris peccata nostra. Sed etsi nihil tale in Christum fuisset praedicatum, haberem hujus benignitatis exempla in Creatore, promittentia mihi et in Filio Patris affectus. Video Ninivitas scelerum veniam consecutos a Creatore, ne dixerim tunc quoque a Christo, quia a primordio egit in Patris nomine. Lego et Nathan prophetam agnoscenti David delictum suum in Uriam dixisse (II Reg. X, 13): Et Dominus circumduxit delictum tuum, et non morieris; proinde et (I Reg. XXI) Achab regem, maritum Jezabel, reum idololatriae et sanguinis Nabuthae, veniam meruisse, poenitentiae nomine; Jonath⟨a⟩m, filium Saulis, resignati jejunii culpam deprecatione delesse (I Reg. XIV). Quid de ipso populo retexam, totiens delictorum indulgentia restituto? ab eo scilicet Deo, qui (Ezech. XXXIII, 11) mavult misericordiam quam sacrificium, et peccatoris poenitentiam quam mortem. Prius est igitur, neges Creatorem indulsisse aliquando delicta; consequens, ut ostendas nec in Christum suum tale quid eum praedicasse: et ita probabis novam istam Christi novi scilicet benignitatem, si probaveris; nec parem Creatori, nec praedicatam a Creatore. Sed et peccata dimittere an ejus possit esse, qui negetur tenere; et an ejus sit absolvere, cujus non sit etiam damnare; et, an congruat eum ignoscere, in quem nihil sit admissum: alibi jam congressi, malumus admonere, quam retractare. De filio hominis duplex est nostra praescriptio, neque mentiri posse Christum, ut se filium hominis pronuntiaret, si non vere erat; neque filium hominis constitui, qui non sit natus ex homine, vel patre vel matre: atque ita discutiendum, cujus hominis filius accipi debeat, patris an matris. Si ex Deo Patre est, utique non ex homine: si non et ex homine, superest ut ex homine sit matre: si ex homine, jam apparet quia ex virgine. Cui enim homo pater non datur, nec vir matri ejus deputabitur; porro, cui vir non deputabitur, virgo est. Caeterum, duo jam patres

Thou, taking away iniquities and passing over injustices for the remnants of Thy inheritance? He did not keep His anger as a testimony, because He willed mercy. He will turn back, and will have mercy on us. He will sink our offences, and will sink our sins into the depths of the sea. But even if nothing of this kind had been foretold of Christ, I should have examples of this kindness in the Creator, promising me the Father's dispositions in the Son also. I see the Ninevites obtaining pardon for their crimes from the Creator, not to say even then from Christ, since from the beginning He acted in the Father's name. I read also that the prophet Nathan said to David, when he acknowledged his offence against Uriah (2 Sam. 10:13): And the Lord has put away your offence, and you shall not die; likewise (1 Sam. 21) that King Ahab, husband of Jezebel, guilty of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, earned pardon on the ground of repentance; that Jonathan, son of Saul, wiped out by entreaty the guilt of a broken fast (1 Sam. 14). Why should I recount the case of the people itself, so often restored by the forgiveness of their offences? [restored], that is, by that God Who (Ezek. 33:11) prefers mercy to sacrifice, and the repentance of the sinner to his death. First, then, you must deny that the Creator has ever forgiven offences; next, you must show that He foretold nothing of the kind regarding His Christ either; and so you will prove this new kindness of the, to be sure, new Christ, if you prove it neither equal to the Creator's nor foretold by the Creator. But whether forgiving sins can belong to Him Who is denied to retain them, and whether absolving belongs to Him to Whom condemning does not also belong, and whether it befits Him to pardon against Whom nothing has been committed: having already engaged on these points elsewhere, we prefer to give a reminder rather than to treat them again. Concerning the Son of Man our prescription is twofold: that Christ could not lie, so as to declare Himself the Son of Man if He was not truly so; and that no one can be constituted son of man who is not born of a human being, either father or mother; and so it must be examined of which human being He ought to be understood as the son, of the father or of the mother. If He is of God the Father, then certainly He is not of a human being; if He is not also of a human being, it remains that He is of a human being as His mother; if of a human being, it is already evident that it is of a virgin. For to one to whom no human father is assigned, neither will a husband be reckoned to his mother; moreover, she to whom no husband will be reckoned is a virgin. Otherwise, two fathers already

Editors' notes and page, col. 407

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁷⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Residuas Par.

"Remaining" — reading of Par.

⁷⁹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et inser. Seml.

Seml. inserts "et" (and).

⁸⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Voluit : et misericordem Seml. quod nec sensum habet, nec cum LXX convenit.

"He willed: and merciful" — Seml., which neither makes sense nor agrees with the Septuagint.

⁸¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Advertet Jun. revertetur, secundum LXX.

"Will turn towards" — Junius; "will turn back," according to the Septuagint.

⁸² ‹anchor: delicta; consequens› · call in col 407 Est add. Seml. Oberth.

Seml. and Oberthür add "est" (is).

⁸³ ‹anchor: malumus admonere› · call in col 407 Maluimus Venet. Oberth.

"We preferred" — the Venice edition and Oberthür.

⁸⁴ ‹anchor: utique non› · call in col 407 Est inser. Seml. Oberth.

Seml. and Oberthür insert "est" (is).

⁸⁵ ‹anchor: Cui enim homo› · call in col 407 Homo omitt. Seml. Oberth.

Seml. and Oberthür omit "homo" (man).

⁸⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Patris Venet. Seml. Obert.

"Of the father" — the Venice edition, Seml. and Oberthür.

⁸⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible De eo nec al.

"Concerning him, nor" — other editions.

⁸⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Nec Seml. Ober.

"Nor" — Seml. and Oberthür.

⁸⁹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Sufficit Seml. Ober.

"Suffices" — Seml. and Oberthür.

⁹⁰ ‹anchor: Nominum communio simplex› · call in col 408 Duplex Jun.

"Double" — Junius.

⁹¹ ‹anchor: ex accidenti enim proprio› · call in col 408 Proprie Jun.

"Properly" — Junius.

⁹² ‹anchor: in quo habet causam, si› · call in col 408 Et inser. Seml.

Seml. inserts "et" (and).

Commentarius. (printed under page 208)

(24) ‹anchor: Non tenuit in testimonium› · call not visible

Non tenuit in testimonium. Hic, ut aliis in locis, sequitur Tertullianus versionem LXX interpretum, qui, cum legissent per lamed vocem Hebream לעד [vowel points not legible at this resolution] quae per lehad legi debuisset, scripserunt hoc loco, εἰς μαρτύριον (in testimonium), ubi εἰς αἰῶνα (in aeternum) scribere rectius potuissent. EDD.

"He did not keep it for a testimony." Here, as in other places, Tertullian follows the version of the Seventy translators, who, having read the Hebrew word לעד with lamed, which should have been read as "lehad", wrote in this place εἰς μαρτύριον ("for a testimony"), where they could more rightly have written εἰς αἰῶνα ("for ever"). The editors.

(printed under page 208)

(25) ‹anchor: Jonathan filium Saulis, resignati jejunii› · call not visible

Jonathan filiun Saulis, resignati jejunii, etc. Resignatum vocat jejunium infractum; dederat enim Jonathas occasionem violandi jejunii, cum mel ori suo admovit. LE PR.

"Jonathan the son of Saul, of the unsealed fast," etc. He calls "unsealed" a fast that was broken; for Jonathan had given occasion for breaking the fast when he put honey to his mouth. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 208)

(26) ‹anchor: alibi jam congressi› · call in col 407

Alibi jam congressi. Est locus lib. I, c. 26.

"Having already engaged elsewhere." The passage is Book I, chapter 26.

(printed under page 208)

(27) ‹anchor: Castori aut Herculi› · call not visible

Castori aut Herculi. Uterque Jovis filius : Castor, ex Leda Tyndari conjuge; Hercules, ex Alcmena Amphitryonis. RHEN

"To Castor or Hercules." Each a son of Jupiter: Castor by Leda, wife of Tyndareus; Hercules by Alcmena, wife of Amphitryon. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 208)

(28) ‹anchor: Quod de Aeone fecit Valentinus› · call not visible

Quod de Aeone fecit Valentinus. In angustias summas redactum Marcionem sublevare videtur, subterfugiumque illi suppeditat, quasi idem ac Valentinus sentiret, qui Jesum quem et Christum vocabat ex aeonibus compositum aiebat. At ex illo loco illum postea acriter dejicit. LE PR.

"What Valentinus did with the Aeon." He seems to relieve Marcion, driven into the tightest straits, and to supply him a way of escape, as if he held the same as Valentinus, who said that Jesus, whom he also called Christ, was composed of the aeons. But afterwards he sharply dislodges him from that position. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 208)

Page

running head: 407 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A tu, eximens iniquitates; B bel, reum idololatriae; C ejus sit absolvere; D (24) Non tenuit in testimonium (in commentary)
old-edition numerals: 378 after a
other: Variae lectiones (78–85) and Commentarius (24–25) at foot not set; right column cut off at image edge, not set; "superest" printed with blotted/bold type (reads like supcreat), set as superest, UNSURE; "Jonath⟨a⟩m" has a damaged letter; stray dot before "dixerim" ignored; English references converted from the printed (erroneous) references

PL 2:408

habebuntur, Deus et homo, si non virgo sit mater. Habebit enim virum, ut virgo non sit; et habendo virum, duos patres faciet, Deum et hominem, ei qui et Dei et hominis esset filius. Talem, si forte, Castori aut Herculi nativitatem tradunt fabulae. Si haec ita distinguuntur, id est, si ex matre filius est hominis, quia ex patre non est; ex matre autem virgine, quia non ex patre homine; hic erit Christus Isaiae, quem concepturam virginem praedicat. Qua igitur ratione admittas filium hominis, Marcion, circumspicere non possum. Si patris hominis, negas Dei filium; si et Dei, Herculem de fabula facis Christum: si matris tantum hominis, meum concedis; si neque matris hominis, ergo nullius hominis est filius, et necesse est mendacium admiserit, qui se quod non erat dixit. Unum potest angustiis tuis subvenire, si audeas aut Deum tuum patrem Christi hominem quoque cognominare, quod de Aeone fecit Valentinus; aut virginem hominem negare, quod ne Valentinus quidem fecit. Quid nunc, si ipso titulo filii hominis censetur Christus apud Danielem? nonne sufficiet ad probationem prophetici Christi? Cum enim id se appellat quod in Christum praedicabatur Creatoris, sine dubio ipsum se praestat intelligi, in quem praedicabatur. Nomiuum communio simplex, si forte, videri potest, et tamen, nec Christum, nec Jesum vocari debuisse defendimus, diversitatis conditionem tenentes. Appellatio autem quod est filius hominis, in quantum ex accidenti obvenit, in tantum difficile est ut et ipsa concurrat super nominis communionem. Ex accidenti enim proprio est, maxime cum causa convenit eadem, per quam deveniat in communionem. Atque adeo si et Christus Marcionis natus ex homine diceretur, tunc et ipse caperet appellationis communionem, et essent duo filii hominis, sicut et duo Christi, et duo Jesus. Ergo cum appellatio propria est ejus, in quo habet causam, si alii vindicetur, in quo est communio nominis, non etiam appellationis, suspecta jam fit communio nominis quoque in eo, cui vindicatur sine causa communio appellationis; et sequitur ut unus idemque credatur, qui et nominis appellationis capacior invenitur, dum alter excluditur, qui non habet ap-

will be held, God and man, if the mother is not a virgin. For she will have a husband, so that she is not a virgin; and by having a husband she will make two fathers, God and a man, for him who would be the son both of God and of man. Such a birth, perhaps, the fables relate of Castor or Hercules. If these things are distinguished thus, that is, if He is son of man from His mother because He is not from a father, and from a virgin mother because not from a human father, this will be the Christ of Isaiah, whom he proclaims a virgin would conceive. On what ground, then, you admit a son of man, Marcion, I cannot make out. If [son] of a human father, you deny [that He is] Son of God; if also of God, you make Christ the Hercules of the fable; if of a human mother only, you concede mine; if not even of a human mother, then He is the son of no human being, and He who said He was what He was not must have committed a lie. One thing can relieve your straits: if you dare either to call your God, the Father of Christ, man as well, as Valentinus did with the Aeon; or to deny that the virgin was human, which not even Valentinus did. What now, if by this very title of Son of man Christ is designated in Daniel? Will it not suffice for proof of the prophesied Christ? For when He calls Himself that which was proclaimed of the Creator's Christ, without doubt He presents Himself to be understood as the very one of whom it was proclaimed. A sharing of names may perhaps seem a simple matter; and yet we maintain that [your Christ] ought not to have been called either Christ or Jesus, holding to the condition of difference. But the designation which is 'Son of man', in so far as it comes about from an accident [of birth], is by so much the harder for it too to coincide over and above a sharing of the name. For it belongs to a proper accident, especially when the same cause holds through which it may come into common use. And so, if Marcion's Christ too were said to be born of man, then he also would take a share in the designation, and there would be two sons of man, just as also two Christs and two Jesuses. Therefore, since the designation belongs properly to Him in whom it has its cause, if it is claimed for another in whom there is a sharing of the name but not also of the designation, the sharing of the name too becomes suspect in him for whom a sharing of the designation is claimed without cause; and it follows that one and the same is to be believed [the Christ], who is found more capable of both name and designation, while the other is excluded, who does not have

Editors' notes and page, col. 408

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁹³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Item ipse Seml. Obert.

"Likewise he himself" — Seml. and Oberthür.

⁹⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Respondebit Venet. Rig.

"Will answer" — the Venice edition and Rigault.

⁹⁵ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Eum al.

"Him" — other editions.

⁹⁶ ‹anchor: qualе sit, dispice› · call in col 409 Inspice Seml. Obert.

"Look into" — Seml. and Oberthür.

⁹⁷ ‹anchor: non admittunt› · call in col 409 In inser. Seml. Obert.

Seml. and Oberthür insert "in".

⁹⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible In quantum Jun.

"Insofar as" — Junius.

⁹⁹ ‹anchor: ad praesentes enim› · call in col 410 Enim abest Rig. Fran.

"Enim" (for) is absent in Rigault and the Franeker edition.

Commentarius. (printed under page 209)

(29) ‹anchor: nusquam adhuc professus est› · call in col 409

Denique nusquam adhuc professus est, etc. Loquitur Auctor de Evangelio Lucae solummodo, secundum quod in isto loco primum professus est se filium hominis. Nam si de Evangeliis omnibus loquamur, ante hoc miraculum recenset D. Matthaeus (VIII, 20) illud Christi : Filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput reclinet, quod primum repetitur Lucae IX, 58. Utrum autem prius contigerint verba illa Christi ante istud miraculum, sicuti contendunt qui Concordiam scripserunt evangelicam, an posterius, quod indicare videtur Auctor, aliis disputandum relinquo. PAM.

"Finally, nowhere till then had he professed," etc. The author speaks of Luke's Gospel only, according to which he first professed himself Son of Man in this place. For if we speak of all the Gospels, Saint Matthew (8:20) records before this miracle Christ's saying, "But the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head," which is first repeated in Luke 9:58. Whether those words of Christ came before this miracle, as those who have written a Gospel Harmony contend, or after it, as the author seems to indicate, I leave to others to dispute. Pamelius.

(printed under page 209)

(30) ‹anchor: Extraneum Legis et Judaismi› · call not visible

Extraneum Legis et Judaismi, etc. Extraneum ut supra cum genitivo plus semel conjunxit. Hic etiam dixit, Judaismi profanum, intelligens a Judaeis rejectum velut exsecrabilem. RHEN.

"A stranger to the Law and to Judaism," etc. As above, he has more than once joined "extraneus" with a genitive. Here he also said "profane to Judaism," meaning one rejected by the Jews as accursed. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 209)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:410

deducit, quasi ab adversario legis allectum, extraneum Legis, et Judaismi profanum. Excidit, ei vel de Petro, Legis homine, et tamen non tantum allecto, sed etiam testimonium consecuto agnitionis praestitae a Patre (Matth. XVI, 17). Nusquam legerat lumen, et spem, et exspectationem nationum praedicari Christum. Atquin probavit potius Judaeos, dicendo (Luc. V, 31), medicum sanis non esse necessarium, sed male habentibus. Si enim male valentes voluit intelligi ethnicos et publicanos quos allegebat, sanos Judaeos confirmabat, quibus medicum necessarium negabat. Hoc si ita est, male descendit ad Legem destruendam, quasi ad malam valetudinem remediandam, in qua qui agebant, bene valebant, quibus medicus necessarius non erat. Quale est autem, ut similitudinem medici proposuerit, nec impleverit? Nam sicut sanis medicum nemo adhibet, ita nec in tantum extraneis, quantum est homo a Deo Marcionis, suum habens et auctorem et protectorem, et ab illo potius medicum Christum. Hoc similitudo praejudicat, ab eo magis praestari medicum, ad quem pertinent qui languent. Unde autem et Joannes venit in medium? Subito Christus, subito et Joannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud Creatorem. Sed de Joanne caetera alibi; ad praesentes enim quosque articulos respondendum est. Nunc illud tuebor, ut demonstrem et Joannem Christo, et Christum Joanni convenire, utique prophetae Creatoris, qua Christum Creatoris; atque ita erubescat haereticus, Joannis ordinem frustra frustratus. Si enim nihil omnino administrasset Joannes, secundum Isaiam (XL, 3) vociferator in solitudinem, et praeparator viarum Dominicarum, per denuntiationem et laudationem poenitentiae; si non etiam ipsum inter caeteros tinxisset, nemo discipulos Christi, manducantes et bibentes, ad formam discipulorum Joannis assidue jejunantium et orantium provocasset: quia si qua diversitas staret inter Christum et Joannem, et gregem utriusque, nulla esset comparationis exactio, vacaret provocationis intentio. Nemo enim miraretur, et nemo torqueretur, si diversae divinitatis aemulae praedicationes, de disciplinis quoque inter se non convenirent, non convenientes prius de auctoritatibus disciplinarum: adeo Joannis erat Christus, et Joannes Christi; ambo Creatoris, et

he infers, as though chosen by an adversary of the law, a stranger to the Law and profane in respect of Judaism. It slipped his mind, even in the case of Peter, a man of the Law, who was nevertheless not only chosen but also obtained the testimony of an acknowledgement granted by the Father (Matt. 16:17). Nowhere had he read that Christ was proclaimed as the light, and the hope, and the expectation of the nations. On the contrary, He rather approved the Jews, saying (Luke 5:31) that a physician is not necessary for the healthy, but for those who are ill. For if by those faring ill He wished the heathen and publicans whom He was choosing to be understood, He was confirming the Jews as healthy, to whom He denied that a physician was necessary. If this is so, He did ill to come down to destroy the Law, as though to remedy a bad state of health, when those who lived under it were in good health and had no need of a physician. But what sort of thing is it, that He should have put forward the similitude of a physician and not fulfilled it? For just as no one applies a physician to the healthy, so neither to those who are strangers to the degree that man is a stranger to the God of Marcion, having both his own author and his own protector, and from him rather Christ as physician. This the similitude settles beforehand: that the physician is more fittingly supplied by him to whom those who are sick belong. But whence did John too come into the midst? Suddenly Christ, and suddenly John as well. So are all things with Marcion, which have their own full order with the Creator. But of John the rest elsewhere; for we must reply to each of the articles now before us. Now I shall maintain this, that I may show both that John fits with Christ and Christ with John, John of course as the Creator's prophet, in so far as Christ is the Creator's; and so let the heretic blush, having frustrated John's order to no purpose. For if John had administered nothing at all, as, according to Isaiah (40:3), a crier into the wilderness and preparer of the Lord's ways, through the announcement and commendation of repentance; if he had not also dipped Him Himself among the rest, no one would have challenged the disciples of Christ, eating and drinking, by the pattern of the disciples of John, constantly fasting and praying: because if some difference stood between Christ and John, and the flock of each, there would be no demanding of a comparison, and the point of the challenge would be void. For no one would wonder, and no one would be troubled, if the rival preachings of a different divinity did not agree among themselves concerning disciplines as well, having first not agreed concerning the authorities behind the disciplines: so truly was Christ John's, and John Christ's; both the Creator's, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 410

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁹⁸ ‹anchor: ita nec in tantum› · call in col 410 In quantum Jun.

"In quantum" (to the degree that) — Junius.

⁹⁹ ‹anchor: ad praesentes enim› · call in col 410 Enim abest Rig. Fran.

"Enim" (for) is absent in Rig., Fran.

Commentarius.

(30) ‹anchor: et Judaismi profanum› · call in col 410

Extraneum Legis et Judaismi, etc. Extraneum ut supra cum genitivo plus semel conjunxit. Hic etiam dixit, Judaismi profanum, intelligens a Judaeis rejectum velut exsecrabilem. RHEN.

"A stranger to the Law and to Judaism," etc. As above, he has joined "extraneum" with a genitive more than once. Here too he has said "profane of Judaism", meaning one rejected by the Jews as accursed. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 209)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] V ADV. MARCIONEM. 410
marginal letters: A deducit, quasi ab; B erat. Quale est; C convenire, utique prophetae; D inter se non convenirent
old-edition numerals: 381 after dicendo

PL 2:411

ambo de Lege et prophetis, praedicatores et magistri. Sed et Christus rejecisset Joannis disciplinam, ut Dei alterius; et discipulos defendisset, ut merito aliter incedentes, aliam scilicet et contrariam initiatos divinitatem. At nunc humiliter reddens rationem, quod non possent jejunare filii Sponsi, quamdiu cum eis esset Sponsus; postea vero jejunaturos promittens, cum ablatus ab eis Sponsus esset; nec discipulos defendit, sed potius excusavit, quasi non sine ratione reprehensos; nec Joannis rejicit disciplinam, sed magis concessit, tempori Joannis eam praestans, ut tempori suo eam destinans; rejecturus alioquin eam et defensurus aemulos ejus si non ipsius fuisset jam quae erat. Teneo meum Christum, etiam in nomine Sponsi, de quo Psalmus (Psal. XVIII, 5): Ipse tanquam Sponsus egrediens de thalamo suo: a summo coeli profectio ejus, et deversio ejus ad summum usque ejus. Qui etiam per Isaiam gaudens ad Patrem: Exsultet, inquit (XLI, 10), anima mea in Domino, induit enim me indumentum salutaris, et tunicam jucunditatis velut Sponso: circumposuit mihi mitram velut Sponsae. In se enim et Ecclesiam deputat, de qua idem Spiritus ad ipsum (Isa. XLIX, 18): Et circumpones tibi omnes eos, velut ornamentum Sponsae. Hanc sponsam Christus sibi etiam per Salomonem ex vocatione gentium accersit. Siquidem legisti (Cant. IV, 8): Veni, sponsa, de Libano. Eleganter Libani utique montis mentione injecta, qui thuris vocabulum est peues Graecos, de idololatria enim sibi sponsabit Ecclesiam. Nega te nunc dementissimum, Marcion. Ecce legem tui quoque Dei impugnas: Nuptias non conjungit, conjunctas non admittit neminem tinguit nisi coelibem aut spadonem, morti aut repudio baptisma servat. Quid itaque Christum ejus Sponsum facis? Illius hoc nomen est, qui masculum et feminam conjunxit, non qui separavit. Errasti in illa etiam Domini pronuntiatione, qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus, et excerebratus es novo vino; atque ita

both, from the Law and the prophets, preachers and teachers. Moreover Christ too would have rejected John's discipline, as belonging to another God; and He would have defended the disciples, as rightly walking otherwise, namely as having been initiated into another and contrary divinity. But as it is, humbly giving a reason, that the sons of the Bridegroom could not fast as long as the Bridegroom was with them, yet promising that they would fast afterwards, when the Bridegroom had been taken away from them, He neither defended the disciples, but rather excused them, as not reproved without reason; nor does He reject John's discipline, but rather granted it, assigning it to the time of John, just as He destines it for His own time; otherwise He would have rejected it and defended its rivals, if what already existed had not been His own. I hold my Christ, even in the name of Bridegroom, of Whom the Psalm [says] (Ps. 18:5): He Himself as a Bridegroom coming forth from His chamber: from the summit of heaven is His going forth, and His turning back even to its summit. He Who also through Isaiah, rejoicing before the Father, says (Isa. 41:10): Let my soul exult in the Lord, for He has clothed me with the garment of salvation, and with the tunic of gladness as a Bridegroom: He has set a mitre about me as on a bride. For He counts the Church also within Himself, concerning whom the same Spirit [says] to Him (Isa. 49:18): And Thou wilt set them all about Thee, as the adornment of a bride. This bride Christ summons to Himself also through Solomon, out of the calling of the gentiles. For you have read (Song 4:8): Come, bride, from Lebanon. Elegantly indeed is mention made of Mount Lebanon, which is the word for frankincense among the Greeks, for it is out of idolatry that He will betroth the Church to Himself. Deny now that you are utterly mad, Marcion. Behold, you are attacking the law even of your own god: he does not join marriages, he does not admit those joined, he baptizes no one except a celibate or a eunuch, he reserves baptism for death or divorce. Why then do you make his Christ a Bridegroom? This is the name of Him Who joined male and female, not of him who separated [them]. You have also gone astray in that pronouncement of the Lord by which He seems to distinguish new and old things. You are puffed up with old wineskins, and you have been made brainless by the new wine; and so

Editors' notes and page, col. 411

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et Jun.

"And" — Junius.

² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Temporis Rhen.

"Of time" — Rhenanus.

³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Destinans si non, caeteris voc. omissis, Seml. Obert.

"Destining, if not," with the other words omitted — Seml. and Oberthür.

⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Jamque teneo Paris. Fran.

"And now I hold" — the Paris and Franeker editions.

⁵ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et velut sponsam ornavit me ornatu Fran. sec. I[…] [one or two words lost at the gutter between the two foot images] […]n. sec. LXX.

"And as a bride he has adorned me with adornment" — Franeker edition, according to […]; […] according to the Septuagint. [Text at the gutter not legible in either image.]

⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Enim omitt. Seml. Obert.

Seml. and Oberthür omit "enim" (for).

⁷ ‹anchor: velut ornamentum Sponsae› · call in col 411 Sponsa Fran.

"Bride" (nominative) — the Franeker edition.

⁸ ‹anchor: Christus sibi etiam› · call in col 411 Etiam omitt. Seml. Obert.

Seml. and Oberthür omit "etiam" (also).

⁹ ‹anchor: neminem tinguit› · call in col 411 Tingit Seml. Obert.

"Dips" (tingit, spelling) — Seml. and Oberthür.

¹⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Inquo Venet.

"In which" — the Venice edition.

¹¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Aliter nonnulli.

Some read otherwise.

¹² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et inser. Seml. Oberth.

Seml. and Oberthür insert "et" (and).

¹³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Itaque et Jun.

"And so also" — Junius.

¹⁴ ‹anchor: praemitto, nec› · call in col 412 Ne Rig. Venet.

"Lest/not" (ne) — Rigault and the Venice edition.

¹⁵ ‹anchor: si non Dominum› · call in col 412 Deum Seml. Oberth.

"God" — Seml. and Oberthür.

Commentarius. (printed under page 210)

(31) ‹anchor: Et deversio ejus› · call not visible

Et deversio ejus, etc. Devertere et deversari, supra quoque legimus. Paulo post scripsimus : « Hanc Sponsam Christus sibi etiam per Salomonem. » RHEN.

"And his lodging," etc. We have read "devertere" and "deversari" above as well. A little further on we have written: "This Bride Christ also [summoned] for himself through Solomon." Rhenanus.

(printed under page 210)

(32) ‹anchor: est penes Graecos› · call in col 411

Qui thuris vocabulum est penes Graecos. Apud Theophrastum et Dioscoridem pro thure et arbore thurifera. Apud Diosc., lib. I, c. 38 : Φλοῖος λιβάνου, Cortex thuriferae arboris. Sed et apud Hebraeos thus a candore dicitur לבנה, et mons Libanus לבנון cedris altissimis insignis est. LE PR.

"Which is the word for frankincense among the Greeks." In Theophrastus and Dioscorides it is used for frankincense and the frankincense tree. In Dioscorides, Book I, chapter 38: "Φλοῖος λιβάνου," bark of the frankincense tree. And among the Hebrews too frankincense is called "lebonah" from its whiteness, and Mount Lebanon, "Lebanon," is famous for its very tall cedars. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 210)

Page

running head: 411 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
marginal letters: A ambo de Lege et prophetis; B Sponsi, de quo Psalmus; C tione injecta, qui thuris vocabulum; D (31) Et deversio ejus (in the commentary at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 382 after reprehensos

PL 2:412

veteri, id est, priori Evangelio pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. In quo alter creator (velim discere) cum per Jeremiam (IV, 4) praecepit: Novate vobis novamen novum, nonne a veteribus avertit? Cum per Isaiam (XLIII, 18) edicit: Vetera transierunt, ecce nova quae ego facio, nonne ad nova convertit? Olim hanc statuimus destinationem pristinorum a Creatore potius repromissam, a Christo exhiberi, sub unius et ejusdem Dei auctoritate, cujus sint et vetera et nova. Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres, qui et veteres utres non habuerit; et novum additamentum nemo injicit veteri vestimento, nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. Ille non facit quid, si faciendum non est, qui non habeat unde faciat, si faciendum esset. Itaque si in hoc dirigebat similitudinem, ut ostenderet se Evangelii novitatem separare a Legis vetustate, suam demonstrabat, et illam aqua separabat, alienorum separatione non fuisse notandam, quia nemo alienis sua adjungit, ut ab alienis separare possit. Separatio per conjunctionem capit, de qua fit. Ita, quae separabat, et in uno ostendebat fuisse, sicut et fuissent, si non separaret. Et tamen sic concedimus separationem istam per reformationem, per amplitudinem, per profectum, sicut fructus separatur a semine, cum sit fructus ex semine: sic et Evangelium separatur a Lege, dum provehitur ex Lege: aliud ab illa, sed non alienum; diversum, sed non contrarium. Nec forma sermonis in Christo nova: cum similitudines objicit, cum quaestiones refutat, de septuagesimo septimo venit Psalmo: Aperiam, inquit, in parabolam os meum, id est similitudinem: eloquar problemata, id est, edisseram quaestiones. Si hominem alterius gentis probare voluisses, utique de proprietate loquelae probares.

to the old, that is, to the earlier Gospel, you have sewn a patch of heretical novelty. In this matter (I should like to learn), when the other creator commanded through Jeremiah (Jer. 4:4): Renew for yourselves a new renewal, did He not turn [them] away from the old things? When He proclaims through Isaiah (Isa. 43:18): The old things have passed away, behold the new things which I make, does He not turn [them] towards new things? Long ago we established that this setting-aside of the former things, promised rather by the Creator, is displayed by Christ, under the authority of one and the same God, Whose are both the old things and the new. For indeed no one puts new wine into old wineskins who has not also had old wineskins; and no one puts a new addition onto an old garment, unless he has not lacked an old garment as well. He does not do something, if it is not to be done, who would not have the means to do it, if it were to be done. Therefore, if He was directing the comparison to this end, to show that He was separating the novelty of the Gospel from the oldness of the Law, He was showing that it was His own, and also that from which He was separating it, [which] would not have needed to be marked out by a separation of things alien, since no one joins his own things to things alien in order to be able to separate them from things alien. Separation takes its start through the conjunction from which it arises. Thus the things which He was separating He also showed to have been in one, just as they would have been had He not separated them. And yet we grant this separation in this way: by reformation, by enlargement, by progress, as fruit is separated from the seed although the fruit comes from the seed: so too the Gospel is separated from the Law while it is advanced out of the Law: other than it, but not alien; different, but not contrary. Nor is the form of speech in Christ new: when He sets forth comparisons, when He refutes questions, it comes from the seventy-seventh Psalm: I will open, it says, my mouth in a parable, that is, a comparison; I will utter problems, that is, I will set forth questions (Ps. 77:2). If you had wished to prove a man to be of another nation, you would surely prove it from the peculiarity of his speech.

CAPUT XII.

Chapter XII.

De Sabbato quoque illud praemitto, nec hanc quaestionem consistere potuisse, si non Dominum Sabbati circumferret Christus. Nec enim disceptaretur

Concerning the Sabbath also I state this first, that this question could not even have arisen if Christ were not going about as Lord of the Sabbath. For it would not have been disputed

Editors' notes and page, col. 412

Footnotes

(33) ‹anchor: in parabolam os meum› · call in col 412

Aperiam in parabolam os meum. Hoc est, ad captum imbecillitatis humanae verba faciam. De parabolis veterum scriptorum, Seneca, epist. 59 : « Illi qui simpliciter et demonstrandae rei causa eloquebantur, parabolis referti sunt, quas existimo necessarias, non ex eadem causa qua poetis, sed ut imbecillitatis nostrae adminicula sint, et ut discentem et audientem in rem praesentem adducant. » Parabolam Cicero collationem vocat. Quintilianus, lib. VIII : » In omni autem parabola aut praecedit similitudo, et res sequitur; aut praecedit res, et similitudo sequitur. » RIG.

"I will open my mouth in a parable." That is, I will speak words suited to the grasp of human weakness. On the parables of the ancient writers, Seneca, Letter 59: "Those who spoke plainly and for the sake of demonstrating the matter are full of comparisons, which I think necessary, not for the same reason as for the poets, but to be supports for our weakness, and to bring learner and listener face to face with the matter." Cicero calls a parable a "collatio". Quintilian, Book VIII: "In every comparison either the likeness comes first and the thing follows, or the thing comes first and the likeness follows." Rigault.

(printed under page 210)

(34) ‹anchor: circumferret Christus› · call in col 412

Si non dominum Sabbati circumferret Christus, etc. Hic alludit ad illud Christi, Dominus est filius hominis etiam Sabbati; de quo sic Epiphanius: « Duo statim, inquit, simul, et filium hominis, et dominum Sabbati, seipsum Salvator confitetur; docens ut ne Sabbatum alienum a sua creatione putetur. » PAM.

"If Christ did not bear about [the title] lord of the Sabbath," etc. Here he alludes to Christ's saying, "The Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath," of which Epiphanius says: "At once," he says, "the Saviour confesses himself two things together, both Son of Man and lord of the Sabbath, teaching that the Sabbath should not be thought foreign to his own creation." Pamelius.

(printed under page 210)

Page

running head: [...]UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 412 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹veteri, id est, priori Evangelio›; B ‹esset. Itaque si in hoc›; C ‹forma sermonis in Christo nova›; D ‹eloquebantur, parabolis referti sunt› (in the Commentarius, not set)
old-edition numerals: 383 after ‹aqua›
other: "aqua" printed as one word, sense requires "a qua", translated accordingly; Jeremiah reference printed IV, 4 (the verse is properly 4:3), kept as printed; column ends with "di-" split at the column break; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes by Rig., Pam.) at the page foot not set; old numeral 382 belongs to the left column

PL 2:413

cur destrueret Sabbatum, si destruere deberet. Porro, destruere deberet, si alterius Dei esset, nec quisquam miraretur facientem quod illi congruebat. Mirabantur ergo, quia non congruebat illi Deum creatorem circumferre, et Sabbatum ejus impugnare. Et ut prima quaeque decidamus, ne eadem ubique novemus ad omnem argumentationem adversarii, ex aliqua nova Christi institutione nitentem; haec jam definitio stabit, ideo de novitate institutionis cujusque disceptatum; quia de novitate divinitatis nihil erat usque adhuc editum, sicuti nec disceptatum: nec posse retorqueri ex ipsa novitate institutionis cujusque satis aliam a Christo demonstratam divinitatem, quando et ipsam novitatem pronuntiatam a Creatore constiterit, in Christo non esse mirandam. Et oportuerit utique prius alium Deum exponi, postea disciplinam ejus induci; quia Deus auctoritatem praestat disciplinae, non Deo disciplina: nisi si et Marcion plane tam perversas non per magistrum litteras didicit, sed per litteras magistrum. Caetera de Sabbato ita dirigo: Si Sabbatum Christus intervertit, secundum exemplum fecit Creatoris. Siquidem in obsidione civitatis Hierichuntis, circumlata per muros arca Testamenti septem diebus, etiam Sabbato, ex praecepto Creatoris Sabbatum operatione destruxit, ut putant qui hoc et de Christo existimant, ignorantes neque Christum Sabbatum destruxisse, neque Creatorem, ut mox docebimus. Et tamen per Jesum tunc quoque concussum est Sabbatum, ut et hoc in Christum renuntiaretur, etiamsi odio insecutus est solemnissimum Judaeorum diem, ut Christus non Judaeorum. De odio quoque Sabbati professus, Creatorem, ut Christus ipsius, sequebatur exclamantem ore Isaiae (I, 14): Neomenias et Sabbata vestra odit anima mea. Sed et haec quoquo modo dicta sint, scimus adhibendam tamen in hac specie etiam abruptam provocationem. Nunc et ad ipsam materiam disceptabo, in qua visa est destruere Sabbatum Christi disciplina. Esurierant discipuli; ea die spicas decerptas manibus effrixerant: cibum operati, ferias ruperant. Excusat illos Christus, et reus est Sabbati laesi: accusant Pharisaei, Marcion

why He was destroying the Sabbath, if He was bound to destroy it. Further, He would have been bound to destroy it if He belonged to another God, and no one would have marvelled at Him doing what befitted Him. They marvelled therefore because it did not befit Him to carry about God the Creator and to attack His Sabbath. And, so that we may settle the first points once and for all, lest we renew the same things everywhere against every argument of the adversary that leans upon some new institution of Christ, this definition will now stand: that the dispute was about the novelty of each institution for this reason, that concerning a novelty of divinity nothing had as yet been put forth, just as nothing had been disputed; and that it cannot be turned back, from the very novelty of each institution, that another divinity has been sufficiently demonstrated by Christ, since it will be established that the novelty itself, having been foretold by the Creator, is not to be marvelled at in Christ. And surely it would have been necessary first for another God to be set forth, and afterwards for His teaching to be introduced; for God lends authority to teaching, not teaching to God: unless indeed Marcion plainly learned letters so perverse, not his letters through a master, but his master through letters. The rest concerning the Sabbath I settle thus: if Christ overturned the Sabbath, He did so after the example of the Creator. For in the siege of the city of Jericho, when the ark of the Testament was carried around the walls for seven days, even on the Sabbath, by the command of the Creator it destroyed the Sabbath by working, as those suppose who think this of Christ too, not knowing that neither Christ destroyed the Sabbath nor the Creator, as we shall presently show. And yet even then the Sabbath was shaken through Jesus [i.e. Joshua], so that this too might be proclaimed beforehand in respect of Christ, even if He assailed with hatred the most solemn day of the Jews, as being a Christ not of the Jews. Even having professed hatred of the Sabbath, He was following the Creator, as His Christ, Who cries out by the mouth of Isaiah (Isa. 1:14): Your new moons and Sabbaths My soul hates. But however these things may have been said, we know that in this matter a direct challenge must nevertheless also be employed. Now I shall dispute about the very matter in which the teaching of Christ appeared to destroy the Sabbath. The disciples had been hungry; on that day they had rubbed in their hands the ears they had plucked: by preparing food they had broken the holiday. Christ excuses them, and is charged with having violated the Sabbath: the Pharisees accuse, Marcion

Editors' notes and page, col. 413

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ¹⁶ ‹anchor: Testamenti septem› · call in col 413 Octo Seml. Oberth.

"Eight" — Seml. and Oberthür.

¹⁷ ‹anchor: manibus effrixerant› · call in col 413 Efflixerant Rig. Seml. Venet. Oberth. effixerant, Paris.

"Efflixerant" (had crushed out) — Rigault, Seml., the Venice edition and Oberthür; "effixerant" — Paris edition.

¹⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Diei.

"Of the day."

¹⁹ ‹anchor: de exemplo ejus› · call in col 414 Et inser. Seml.

Seml. inserts "et" (and).

²⁰ ‹anchor: autem errabant› · call in col 414 Errabunt Seml.

"Will err" — reading of Seml.

Commentarius. (printed under page 211)

(35) ‹anchor: Scripti et voluntatis› · call not visible

Scripti et voluntatis. Γραμμάτων καὶ διανοίας. RIG.

"Of the letter and of the intention." [Greek:] "of the writings and of the meaning." Rigault.

(printed under page 211)

(36) ‹anchor: Discipulos non constanter tuebatur› · call not visible

Discipulos non constanter tuebatur. Non fortiter, quemadmodum Fabius Quintil. Instit. lib. V, dixit : « Jam ne balare quidem, aut hinnire fortiter diceremus, nisi judicio vetustatis niteremur. » RIG.

"He did not defend the disciples steadily." That is, not boldly, as Fabius Quintilian said, Institutes Book V: "We would not now say even 'to bleat' or 'to neigh' boldly, unless we leaned on the judgement of antiquity." Rigault.

(printed under page 211)

(37) ‹anchor: quasi deprecatricem› · call not visible

Humanam opponit necessitatem, quasi deprecatricem. Excusatio quam populis ostendit Christus Sabbatum non destruebat; praesentior erat cibi necessitas, quam ut colligendi tempus in aliud differretur; permisit itaque, nec tamen Sabbatum abrogavit. LE PR.

"He sets human necessity against it, as a pleader for pardon." The excuse that Christ showed the people did not destroy the Sabbath; the need for food was too pressing for the time of gathering to be put off to another; so he permitted it, and yet did not abrogate the Sabbath. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 211)

Page

running head: 413 LIB. IV ADV. MARCIO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹sceptaretur cur destrueret Sabbatum›; B ‹non esse mirandam. Et oportuerit›; C ‹concussum est Sabbatum, ut et hoc›; D ‹(35) Scripti et voluntatis› (in the commentary at page foot)
old-edition numerals: 384 after ‹Caetera de›

PL 2:414

captat status controversiae (ut aliquid eludam cum mei Domini veritate) scripti et voluntatis, de Scriptura enim sumitur Creatoris, et de Christi voluntate color, quasi de exemplo David introgressi Sabbatis templum, et operati cibum, audenter fractis panibus propositionis. Meminerat enim et ille hoc privilegium donatum Sabbato a primordio, quo dies ipse compertus est; veniam jejunii dico. Cum enim prohibuisset Creator in biduum legi manna, solummodo permisit in parasceve, ut Sabbati sequentis ferias pridiana pabuli paratura jejunia liberaret. Bene igitur, quod et caussam eamdem secutus est Dominus in Sabbati, sita volunt dici, destructione: bene, quod et affectum Creatoris expressit in Sabbato non jejunandi honore. Denique, tunc demum Sabbatum destruxisset, etiam ipsum Creatorem, si discipulos Sabbato jejunare mandasset, adversus statum scripti et voluntatis Creatoris. Sed quoniam discipulos non constanter tuebatur, sed excusat, quoniam humanam opponit necessitatem quasi deprecatricem; quoniam potiorem honorem Sabbati servat non contristandi, quam vacandi; quoniam David, comitesque ejus, cum discipulis suis aequat in culpa et in venia; quoniam placet illi, quia Creator indulsit; quoniam de exemplo ejus, ipse tam bonus est; ideo alienus est a Creatore. Exinde (Luc. VI, 7) observant pharisaei, si medicinas Sabbatis ageret, ut accusarent eum: certe qua Sabbati destructorem, non qua novi Dei professorem; fortasse enim hunc solum articulum ubique ingeram, alium Christum nusquam praedicatum. In totum autem errabant Pharisaei circa Sabbati legem, non animadvertentes conditionaliter eam indicentem ferias operum sub certa specie eorum. Nam cum de die Sabbati dicit (Exod. XX, 10): Omne opus tuum non facies in ea; dicendo, tuum, de humano opere definiit, quod quisque ex artificio, vel negotio suo exequitur, non de divino. Opus autem salutis et incolumitatis, non est hominis, sed Dei proprium. Sicut et rursus in lege: Non facies, inquit (Exod. XII, 16), omne opus in ea, nisi quod fiet omni animae id est in caussa animae

seizes upon the issue of the dispute (to make a little play with the truth of my Lord), that of the letter and of the intent; for from the Scripture of the Creator is taken, and from the will of Christ, the colouring, as if on the example of David, who entered the temple on the Sabbaths and procured food, boldly breaking the loaves of the presentation. For he too had remembered this privilege granted to the Sabbath from the beginning, from which the day itself was established: I mean the exemption from fasting. For when the Creator had forbidden the manna to be gathered for two days at once, He permitted it only on the day of preparation, so that the provision of food made on the day before might free the rest of the following Sabbath from fasting. Well, therefore, did the Lord also follow the same reason in the destruction (if they will have it so called) of the Sabbath; well did He also express the mind of the Creator in the honour of not fasting on the Sabbath. In short, He would only then have destroyed the Sabbath, and indeed the Creator Himself, if He had commanded the disciples to fast on the Sabbath, contrary to the letter and to the intent of the Creator. But since He does not steadfastly defend the disciples, but excuses them; since He puts forward human necessity as it were to plead for them; since He preserves the higher honour of the Sabbath, that of not being saddened rather than that of resting; since He puts David and his companions on a level with His own disciples in fault and in pardon; since He is pleased because the Creator granted indulgence; since He is so good after His example: therefore He is a stranger to the Creator! Thereupon (Luke 6:7) the Pharisees watch whether He would perform cures on the Sabbath, that they might accuse Him: assuredly as a destroyer of the Sabbath, not as the proclaimer of a new God; for perhaps I may press this one point everywhere, that another Christ was nowhere preached. But the Pharisees were wholly in error concerning the law of the Sabbath, not observing that it enjoins rest from works conditionally, under a certain kind of them. For when He says of the Sabbath day (Exod. 20:10): You shall not do any work of yours on it, by saying "yours" He has defined it as concerning human work, which each person carries out from his craft or his business, not concerning divine work. But the work of salvation and of preservation is not man's, but proper to God. As again in the law: You shall not do, He says (Exod. 12:16), any work on it, except what shall be done for every soul, that is, in the cause of the soul

Editors' notes and page, col. 414

Footnotes

(38) ‹anchor: non facies in ea› · call in col 414

Omne opus tuum non facies in ea. Cum nusquam istud reperire potuerimus in lege Moysis, quam hic allegat, suspicor olim id lectum fuisse Exodi XXXI, ubi hodie legitur : Omnis qui faciet in eo opus, peribit anima illa de medio populi sui, aut potius Lev. XXIII, ubi frequentissime reperitur : Opus servile non facietis in eo ; et, Omnis qui faciet in eo opus, peribit anima illa de medio populi sui, maxime cum eumdem hunc locum citet etiam supra, lib. adv. Judaeos, cap. 4. PAM. — Forsan tuum pro tu, et in graeco σοῦ pro σύ, legerat Tertullianus ad v. 10 c. XX Exod. in hunc modum: Non facies omne opus in eo TUUM ; Οὐ ποιήσεις ἐν αὐτῇ πᾶν ἔργον ΣΟΥ (pro σὺ ut in LXX). EDD.

"You shall not do all your work on it." Since we have been able to find this nowhere in the law of Moses, which he cites here, I suspect it was once read in Exodus 31, where today one reads, "Whoever does work on it, that soul shall perish from among his people," or rather in Leviticus 23, where one finds very often, "You shall do no servile work on it," and, "Whoever does work on it, that soul shall perish from among his people" — especially as he also cites this same passage above, in the book Against the Jews, chapter 4. Pamelius. — Perhaps Tertullian had read "tuum" for "tu", and in the Greek σοῦ for σύ, at Exodus 20:10, in this way: "You shall not do all YOUR work on it"; Οὐ ποιήσεις ἐν αὐτῇ πᾶν ἔργον ΣΟΥ (for σύ, as in the Septuagint). The editors.

(printed under page 211)

(39) ‹anchor: quod fiet omni animae› · call in col 414

Nisi quod fiet omni animae. Legitur quidem (continues)

"Except what shall be done for every soul." It is indeed read (continues)

(printed under page 211)

Page

running head: [LIBER I]V ADV. MARCIONEM. 414 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A captat status controversiae; B naudi honore. Denique; C destructorem, non qua novi; D quam istud reperire potuerimus (in the Commentarius at page foot)
old-edition numerals: 385 after opponit
other: "eludam" read so though the scan shows it close to "cludam" (e and c are hard to tell apart throughout the scan); "jejunandi" broken jeju-/nandi, second part looks like "naudi" in the scan (u/n unclear); "introgressi" and "operati" set as printed; "pharisaei" lower case in the italic quotation, as printed; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes) at the page foot not set; the column ends mid-sentence at "animae"

PL 2:415

liberandae; quia opus Dei etiam per hominem fieri potest in salutem animae, a Deo tamen, quod facturus fuerat et Christus homo, quia et Deus. In hunc ergo sensum legis inducere volens illos per manus arefactae restitutionem, interrogat: Licetne Sabbatis benefacere, annon? animam liberare, an perdere? Ut id operis promittens, quod pro anima facturus esset, admoneret eos, quae opera Sabbati lex prohiberet, humana scilicet; et quae praeciperet, divina scilicet, quae fierent animae omni; Dominus Sabbati dictus, quia Sabbatum, ut rem suam, tuebatur. Quod etiam si destruxisset, merito, qua Dominus magis ille qui instituit. Sed non omnino destruxit, qua Dominus; ut hinc jam apparere possit, ne tum quidem in arcae circumlatione apud Hierichuntem, Sabbatum a Creatore destructum. Nam et illud opus Dei erat, quod ipse praeceperat, et quod propter animas disposuerat hominum suorum, in discrimine belli constitutas. Sed et si odium alicubi Sabbatorum professus est, vestra Sabbata dicendo (Isa. I, 13), hominum ea deputans non sua, quae sine Dei timore celebrat populus plenus delictis, labiis Deum diligens non corde; suis Sabbatis, id est, quaecumque disciplina ejus agerentur, alium statum fecit, quae per eumdem postea propheten (Isa. LVIII, 13) vera, et delicata, et non profananda pronuntiat. Ita nec Christus omnino Sabbatum rescindit, cujus legem tenuit et supra in causa discipulorum pro anima operatus; esurientibus enim solatium cibi indulsit; et nunc manum aridam curans, factis ubique ingerens (Matth. V, 17): Non veni dissolvere legem, sed adimplere; nec Marcion hac voce os ei obstruxit. Adimplevit enim et hic legem, dum conditionem interpretatur ejus, dum operum differentiam illuminat, dum facit quae lex de Sabbati feriis excipit, dum ipsum Sabbati diem benedictione Patris a primordio sanctum, benefactione sua efficit sanctiorem; in quo scilicet divina praesidia ministrabat, quod adversarius aliis diebus praestitisset, ne Sabbatum Creatoris ornaret, ne opera debita Sabbato redderet. In quo die, si et Elisaeus prophetes Sunamitidis filium mortuum restituit in vitam (IV Reg. IV, 23), vides, Pharisaee, tuque Marcion, olim Cre⟨a⟩toris esse Sabbatis benefacere, animam liberare, non perdere; nihil Christum novi intulisse, quod non sit ex forma,

to be set free; because the work of God can be done even through a man for the salvation of the soul, yet by God, which Christ too was going to do as man, because [He was] also God. Wishing therefore to lead them into this sense of the law through the restoration of the withered hand, He asks: Is it lawful on the Sabbaths to do good, or not? to set free a soul, or to destroy it? So that, promising that kind of work which He was going to do for the soul, He might remind them which works of the Sabbath the law forbade, namely human ones, and which it enjoined, namely divine ones, which would be done for every soul; [He was] called Lord of the Sabbath because He protected the Sabbath as His own possession. Even if He had destroyed it, [He would have done so] rightly, as Lord, the more so as He who instituted it. But He did not destroy it altogether, as Lord; so that from this it may now appear that not even then, in the carrying about of the ark at Jericho, was the Sabbath destroyed by the Creator. For that too was a work of God, which He Himself had commanded, and which He had ordained for the sake of the souls of His people, placed in the peril of war. But even if somewhere He professed hatred of Sabbaths, by saying your Sabbaths (Isa. 1:13), reckoning them as men's, not His own, since a people full of sins celebrates them without the fear of God, loving God with the lips, not with the heart, to His own Sabbaths, that is, those which would be kept according to His discipline, He gave another standing, which through the same prophet afterwards (Isa. 58:13) He pronounces true, and delightful, and not to be profaned. Thus neither does Christ altogether rescind the Sabbath, whose law He kept, and above, in the case of the disciples, He worked for the soul; for to the hungry He granted the solace of food; and now, healing the withered hand, He impresses everywhere by His deeds (Matt. 5:17): I have not come to dissolve the law, but to fulfil it; nor did Marcion stop His mouth with this saying. For here too He fulfilled the law, while He interprets its condition, while He illuminates the difference of works, while He does what the law excepts from the Sabbath rest, while He makes the very day of the Sabbath, holy from the beginning by the blessing of the Father, holier by His own beneficence; on which, that is, He was ministering divine aids, which the adversary would have furnished on other days, so as not to adorn the Sabbath of the Creator, nor render to the Sabbath the works due to it. On which day, if Elisha the prophet also restored the dead son of the Shunammite woman to life (2 Kgs. 4:23), you see, Pharisee, and you, Marcion, that it was of old the Creator's [practice] to do good on the Sabbaths, to set free a soul, not to destroy it; that Christ brought in nothing new which is not from the pattern,

Editors' notes and page, col. 415

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ²¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Salute Par. Fran.

"By safety/salvation" — Par. and the Franeker edition.

²² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Permittens cod. Wouw.

"Permitting" — Wouwer's manuscript.

²³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Hominem Venet.

"Man" (accusative) — the Venice edition.

²⁴ ‹anchor: sed adimplere; nec› · call in col 415 Si Seml.

"If" — reading of Seml.

²⁵ ‹anchor: quod adversarius› · call in col 415 Adversariis Fran.

"To the adversaries" — the Franeker edition.

²⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et Fran.

"And" — the Franeker edition.

²⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Loquor Oberth.

"I speak" — Oberthür.

²⁸ ‹anchor: habes actum› · call in col 416 Factum Ciaccon.

"Deed" — Chacón.

²⁹ ‹anchor: auditum Patris› · call in col 416 Pacis Rig. Venet.

"Of peace" — Rigault and the Venice edition.

³⁰ ‹anchor: desertum a› · call in col 416 V. Dei praeterm. conjic. Edd.

The editors conjecture that the word "Dei" (of God) has been left out.

Commentarius. (printed under page 212)

(40) ‹anchor: In montem excelsum, inquit Isaias› · call not visible

In montem excelsum, inquit Isaias, etc. Hanc prophetiam Isaiae XL eodem modo de Christo in monte orante interpretatur B. Ambrosius, l. V in Lucam, cap. 6. PAM.

"Into a high mountain, says Isaiah," etc. Blessed Ambrose interprets this prophecy of Isaiah 40 in the same way, of Christ praying on the mountain, in Book V on Luke, chapter 6. Pamelius.

(printed under page 212)

(41) ‹anchor: Item Naum ex duodecim› · call not visible

Item Naum ex duodecim, etc. Nempe prophetis. Reperitur enim Naum I quod citat, Quoniam ecce veloces pedes in monte evangelizantium pacem, praeterquam quod apud LXX legatur ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη, id est super montes. Sed non mirum, cum ipse B. Hieronymus propterea scribat a se hic LXX interpretes differre, quod et ipsa capitula apud eos interpretationis varietate confusa sint. PAM.

"Likewise Nahum, of the twelve," etc. Namely, of the prophets. For what he cites is found in Nahum 1, "For behold the swift feet on the mountain of those who bring good tidings of peace," except that the Septuagint reads ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη, that is, "upon the mountains." But this is no wonder, since blessed Jerome himself writes that he differs here from the Septuagint translators because with them even the chapters are confused by variety of rendering. Pamelius.

(printed under page 212)

Page

running head: 415 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A liberandae; quia opus Dei etiam per hominem fieri; B Hierichuntem, Sabbatum a Creatore destructum.; C tibus enim solatium cibi indulsit; et nunc manum; D batis benefacere, animam liberare, non perdere;
old-edition numerals: 386 after diligens
other: the word forma, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 416

PL 2:416

ex lenitate, ex misericordia, ex praedicatione quoque Creatoris. Nam et hic specialis medicinae prophetiam repraesentat. Invalescunt manus dissolutae, sicnt et genua dissoluta in paralytico.

from the gentleness, from the mercy, from the preaching also of the Creator. For here too He represents the prophecy of a special healing. Loosened hands grow strong, as also loosened knees in the paralytic.

CAPUT XIII.

Chapter XIII.

Certe Evangelizat Sion et Jerusalem pacem et bona omnia: certe ascendit in montem, et illic pernoctat in oratione; et utiqne auditur a Patre. Evolve igitur prophetas, et ordinem totum recognosce: In montem excelsum, inquit Isaias (XL, 9), ascende, qui evangelizas Sion, extolle cum vigore vocem tuam, qui evangelizas Jerusalem. Adhuc in vigore. Obstupescebant in doctrina ejus, erat enim docens, tanquam virtutem habens (Luc. IV, 32). Et rursus (Isa. LII, 6): Propterea cognoscet populus nomen meum in illa die. Quod nomen, nisi Christi? Quod ego sum ipse qui loquebar. Tunc enim ipse erat qui in prophetis loquebatur, Sermo, Filius Creatoris: « Adsum, dum hora est, in montibus, ut evangelizans auditionem pacis, evangelizans bona. » Item Naum (I, 15) ex duodecim: Quoniam ecce veloces pedes in monte evangelizantis pacem. De voce autem nocturnae orationis ad Patrem, manifeste Psalmus (XXI, 2): Deus meus, clamabo per diem, et exaudies; et nocte, et non in vanitatem mihi; et alibi, de loco et voce eadem. Psalmus (III, 4): Voce mea ad Dominum exclamavi, et exaudivit me de monte sancto suo. Habes nominis repraesentationem, habes actum evangelizantis, habes locum montis, et tempus noctis, et sonum vocis, et auditum Patris; habes Christum prophetarum. Cur autem duodecim apostolos elegit, et non alium quemlibet numerum? Nae et ex hoc meum Christum interpretari possem, non tantum vocibus prophetarum, sed et argumentis rerum praedicatum? Hujus enim numeri figuras apud Creatorem deprehendo: Duodecim fontes Elim (Num. XXXIII); et: Duodecim gemmas in tunica sacerdotali Aaronis (Exod. XXVIII); et, Duodecim lapides ab Jesu de Jordane electos (Josue. IV) et in arcam testamenti conditos. Totidem enim apostoli portendebantur; proinde ut fontes et amnes, rigaturi aridum retro et desertum a notitia orbem nationum; sicut et per Isaiam (XLIII, 20): Ponam in terra inaquosa flumina, proinde ut gemmae, illuminaturi

Certainly He brings the good news of peace and all good things to Sion and Jerusalem; certainly He goes up into a mountain, and there spends the night in prayer; and assuredly He is heard by the Father. Unroll, then, the prophets, and recognize the whole order: Into a lofty mountain, says Isaiah (Isa. 40:9), go up, you who bring good news to Sion; lift up your voice with vigour, you who bring good news to Jerusalem. Further, "with vigour": They were astonished at His teaching, for He was teaching as one having power (Luke 4:32). And again (Isa. 52:6): Therefore the people shall know My name in that day. What name, if not Christ's? That I am He Who was speaking. For it was He Himself Who was then speaking in the prophets, the Word, the Son of the Creator: "I am present, while it is the hour, upon the mountains, as one bringing the tidings of peace, bringing good news." Likewise Nahum (Nah. 1:15), one of the twelve: For behold the swift feet upon the mountain of one bringing the good news of peace. Concerning the voice of His prayer by night to the Father, the Psalm plainly says (Ps. 21:2): My God, I shall cry out by day, and Thou wilt hear; and by night, and not to folly for me; and elsewhere, concerning the same place and voice, the Psalm (Ps. 3:4): With my voice I cried out to the Lord, and He heard me from His holy mountain. You have the representation of the name, you have the action of one bringing good news, you have the place, a mountain, and the time, night, and the sound of a voice, and the hearing by the Father; you have the Christ of the prophets. But why did He choose twelve apostles, and not some other number? Could I not indeed interpret my Christ from this too, as foretold not only by the utterances of the prophets but also by the evidences of things? For I find figures of this number in the Creator: The twelve springs of Elim (Num. 33); and: The twelve gems on the priestly tunic of Aaron (Exod. 28); and: The twelve stones chosen by Joshua out of the Jordan (Josh. 4) and laid up in the ark of the covenant. For just so many apostles were being foreshadowed; thus as springs and rivers, which were to water the world of the nations, formerly dry and destitute of knowledge; as also through Isaiah (Isa. 43:20): I will put rivers in the waterless land; thus as gems, which were to illuminate

Editors' notes and page, col. 416

Page

running head: [cut off at left] UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA.
marginal letters: A ma, ex lenitate; B Et rursus (Isa. LII, 6); C repraesentationem, habes actum; D nationum; sicut et per Isaiam
old-edition numerals: 387 after ex (Item Naum (I, 15) ex)

PL 2:417

sacram Ecclesiae vestem, quam induit Christus pontifex Patris; proinde ut et lapides, solidi fide, quos de lavacro Jordanis Jesus verus elegit, et in sacrarium testamenti sui recepit. Quid tale de numeri defensione competit Christo Marcionis? Non potest simpliciter factum ab illo quid videri, quod potest videri non simpliciter factum a meo. Ejus erit res, apud quem invenitur rei praeparatura. Mutat et Petro nomen de Simone; quia et Creator Abrahae, et Sarae, et Auseae nomina reformavit, hunc vocando Jesum, illis syllabas adjiciendo. Sed et cur Petrum? Si ob vigorem fidei, multae materiae solidaeque nomen de suo accommodarent. An quia et petra et lapis Christus? Siquidem et legimus (Isa. VIII, 14; I Petr. II, 8) positum eum in lapidem offendiculi, et in petram scandali. Omitto caetera. Itaque affectavit carissimo discipulorum de figuris suis peculiariter nomen communicare, puto proprius quam de non suis: Conveniunt a Tyro, et ex aliis regionibus multitudo etiam transmarina. Hoc spectabat Psalmus (LXXXVI, 4): Et ecce Allophyli et Tyrus, et populus Aethiopum, isti fuerunt illic. Mater Sion dicet homo, et homo factus est in illa (quoniam Deus homo natus est), et aedificavit eam voluntate Patris: ut scias ad eum tunc gentiles convenisse, quia Deus homo erat natus, aedificaturus Ecclesiam ex voluntate Patris, ex allophylis quoque. Sic et Isaias (XLIX, 12): Ecce isti veniunt de longinquo, isti autem veniunt ab aquilone et mari, alii autem de terra Persarum. De quibus et rursus (Ibid. 18): Attolle per circuitum oculos tuos, et vide, omnes congregati sunt. De quibus et infra (Ibid. 21): Vides ignotos et extraneos: et dices cordi tuo: Quis istos genuit mihi? Porro, hos quis mihi educavit? At hi mihi ubi fuerunt? Hic Christus non prophetarum? Et quis erit Christus Marcionitarum, si perversitas placet, qui non fuerit Prophetarum?

the sacred vestment of the Church, which Christ, the high priest of the Father, put on; and likewise as the stones, solid in faith, which the true Jesus chose from the washing of the Jordan and received into the sanctuary of His testament. What such thing, in defence of the number, belongs to the Christ of Marcion? Nothing can seem to have been done simply by him which can be seen to have been done not simply by mine. The matter will belong to him with whom the preparation of the matter is found. He changes Peter's name also from Simon; because the Creator too reshaped the names of Abraham, and of Sarah, and of Auses, calling this last Jesus, and adding syllables to the others. But why Peter? If on account of the vigour of his faith, many materials, and solid ones, would have supplied a name from their own. Or because Christ is both rock and stone? Since indeed we also read (Isa. 8:14; 1 Pet. 2:8) that He was set as a stone of stumbling and as a rock of offence. I pass over the rest. So He chose to share with the dearest of His disciples a name drawn especially from His own figures, more fittingly, I think, than from those not His own. There come together from Tyre and from other regions a multitude, even from across the sea. To this the Psalm looked (Ps. 86:4): And behold, the foreigners and Tyre and the people of the Ethiopians, these were there. Mother Sion, a man will say, and a man was made in her (since God was born man), and He built her by the will of the Father: so that you may know that the Gentiles then came together to Him because God had been born man, about to build the Church by the will of the Father, from foreigners also. So also Isaiah (Isa. 49:12): Behold, these come from afar, and these come from the north and the sea, and others from the land of the Persians. Of whom again (Isa. 49:18): Lift up your eyes round about, and see, all are gathered together. Of whom also further on (Isa. 49:21): You see unknown people and strangers; and you will say in your heart: Who has begotten these for me? Moreover, who has brought these up for me? And these, where were they for me? Is this not the Christ of the prophets? And who will be the Christ of the Marcionites, if perversity pleases, who was not of the Prophets?

CAPUT XIV.

Chapter XIV.

Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias ejus, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit ad edictum (ut ita dixerim) Christi: Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum coelorum. Jam hoc ipsum quod a benedictionibus coepit, Creatoris est, qui universa prout edidit, nulla alia voce quam

I come now to His regular pronouncements, through which He introduces the distinctiveness of His teaching into the edict (so to speak) of Christ: Blessed are the beggars (for so the interpretation of the word which is in the Greek requires), for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Already this very fact, that He began with blessings, belongs to the Creator, Who, as He brought forth all things, with no other word than

Editors' notes and page, col. 417

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ³¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Proprius Rig. Venet. Seml.

"Nearer" — Rigault, the Venice edition and Seml.

³² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Hos Ciaccon.

"These" — Chacón.

³³ ‹anchor: De quibus et infra (Ibid. 21) : Vides› · call in col 417 Videns Lat. Jun.

"Seeing" — Lat. and Junius.

³⁴ ‹anchor: est regnum caelorum› · call in col 417 Dei Seml. Oberth.

"Of God" — Seml. and Oberthür.

³⁵ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Benedictionibus Rig. Venet.

"With blessings" — Rigault and the Venice edition.

³⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Veteris Jun.

"Of the old" — Junius.

³⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Est omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "est" (is).

³⁸ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Liberavit al.

"He freed" — other editions.

³⁹ ‹anchor: in conspectu ipsius› · call in col 418 Coram ipso Fran.

"Before him" — the Franeker edition.

⁴⁰ ‹anchor: utique in regno suo› · call in col 418 Utique in regno suo omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "of course in his kingdom".

Commentarius. (printed under page 213)

(42) ‹anchor: Hunc vocando Jesum› · call not visible

Hunc vocando Jesum. Idem est ac Josue. EDD.

"By calling him Jesus." It is the same as Joshua. The editors.

(printed under page 213)

(43) ‹anchor: sic enim exigit interpretatio› · call in col 417

Beati mendici, sic enim exigit interpretatio, etc. Graece est Lucae VI πτωχοί, quod proprie mendicos significat, juxta illud Aristophanis in Pluto πτωχοῦ vita vivere, est nihil habentem, πένητος autem, id est, pauperis, parce uti laboribus intendere; supra tamen, l. de Idol. c. 12, Felices egenos transtulit. PAM.

"Blessed are the beggars, for so the rendering requires," etc. In Greek, Luke 6 has πτωχοί, which properly means beggars, in keeping with Aristophanes' line in the Plutus: to live the life of a πτωχός is to have nothing, but that of a πένης, that is, a poor man, is to live sparingly and keep at one's labours. Above, however, in the book On Idolatry, chapter 12, he translated it "Felices egeni" (happy the needy). Pamelius.

(printed under page 213)

(44) ‹anchor: Inclamat Psalmus, Judicate› · call not visible

Inclamat Psalmus, Judicate, etc. Istud ex Psal. LXXXI in hoc variat a Vulgata edit. quod legat Juste tractate, pro quo alii omnes ex Graeco δικαιώσατε, justificate. PAM.

"The Psalm cries out, 'Judge,'" etc. This from Psalm 81 differs from the Vulgate edition in that it reads "Deal justly", where all the others read, from the Greek δικαιώσατε, "justify". Pamelius.

(printed under page 213)

Page

running head: 417 LIB. IV ADV. MARCI (cut off at the image edge, presumably MARCIONEM.)
marginal letters: A minaturi sacram Ecclesiae vestem; B eum in lapidem offendiculi; C aquilone et mari, alii autem; D hoc ipsum quod a benedictionibus
old-edition numerals: 388 after Sion

PL 2:418

benedictionis dedicavit. Eructavit enim, inquit (Psal. XLIV, 1), cor meum sermonem optimum. Hic erit sermo optimus benedictionis scilicet, qui et novi quoque Testamenti initiator agnoscitur de veteri exemplo. Quid ergo mirum est, si et ab affectibus Creatoris ingressus est per hujusmodi dictionem, semper mendicos, et pauperes, et humiles ac viduas, et pupillos usque diligentis, consolantis, asserentis, vindicantis? ut hanc Christi quasi privatam benignitatem, rivulum credas de fontibus Salvatoris. Revera quo dirigam nescio, in tanta frequentia ejusmodi vocum, tanquam in sylva, vel in prato, vel in nemore pomorum, passim prout incidit, res petenda est. Inclamat Psalmus (LXXXI, 3): Judicate pupillo et mendico, et humilem et pauperem juste tractate. Liberate pauperem, et mendicum de manu peccatoris eruite. Item Psalmus septuagesimus primus: Justitia judicabit mendicos populi, et faciet salvos filios pauperum. Et in sequentibus de Christo: Omnes nationes servient ei. David autem uni genti judaicae praefuit, ne quis in David putet dictum, quia et ille susceperat humiles et necessitatibus laborantes. Quod liberaverit, inquit, a dynasta mendicum, parcet mendico et pauperi, et animas pauperum salvas faciet. Ex usura et injustitia redimet eorum animas, et honoratum nomen eorum in conspectu ipsius. Item (Psal. IX, 18, 19): Avertantur peccatores in inferos, omnes nationes quae Dei obliviscuntur, quoniam non in finem oblivioni habebitur mendicus: tolerantia pauperum non peribit in finem. Item (Psal. CXII, 5, 6): Quis sicut Deus noster, qui habitat in excelsis, et humilia prospectat in coelo et in terra? Qui suscitat mendicum de terra, et de stercore exaltat pauperem, uti sedere eum faciat cum principibus populi, utique in regno suo. Sic et retro in Basiliis, Anna mater Samuelis, spiritu gloriam Deo reddens: Qui, inquit (I Reg. II, 8) excitat pauperem de terra, et mendicum, uti sedere eum faciat cum dynastis populi, utique in regno suo: et in thronis gloriae, utique regalibus. Per Isaiam vero (III, 13), quomodo invehitur in vexatores egenorum? Vos autem ad quid incenditis vineam meam, et rapina mendici in domibus vestris? Cur vos laeditis populum meum, et faciem mendicorum confunditis? et rursus (X, 1): Vae qui scribunt nequitiam; scribentes enim scribunt nequam, vitantes judicia mendicorum, et diripientes judicata pauperum

that of blessing dedicated them. For, He says (Ps. 44:1), My heart has belched forth an excellent word. This will be the excellent word, namely of blessing, Who is recognized as the initiator of the new Testament also, after the example of the old. What wonder is it, then, if He also made His entrance from the affections of the Creator through an utterance of this kind, of Him Who always loves, consoles, defends and avenges beggars and the poor and the humble and widows and orphans? so that you may believe this as it were private benevolence of Christ to be a rivulet from the springs of the Saviour. Truly I do not know where to turn; in so great a throng of sayings of this sort, as in a wood, or in a meadow, or in an orchard of fruit trees, the matter must be gathered here and there, just as it falls to hand. The Psalm cries out (Ps. 81:3): Judge for the orphan and the beggar, and deal justly with the humble and the poor. Free the poor man, and rescue the beggar from the hand of the sinner. Likewise the seventy-first Psalm: In justice He will judge the beggars of the people, and will save the sons of the poor. And in what follows concerning Christ: All nations will serve Him. But David ruled over the one Jewish nation, lest anyone think it said of David, because he too had taken up the humble and those labouring under necessities. Because He will have freed, it says, the beggar from the potentate, He will spare the beggar and the poor man, and will save the souls of the poor. From usury and injustice He will redeem their souls, and their name [will be] honoured in His sight. Likewise (Ps. 9:18–19): Let sinners be turned back into the underworld, all the nations which forget God, since the beggar will not be held in forgetfulness to the end: the endurance of the poor will not perish to the end. Likewise (Ps. 112:5–6): Who is like our God, Who dwells on high, and looks upon lowly things in heaven and on earth? Who raises the beggar from the earth, and lifts up the poor man from the dung, to make him sit with the princes of the people, that is, in His kingdom. So too earlier in the Kingdoms, Anna the mother of Samuel, giving glory to God in the spirit: Who, she says (1 Sam. 2:8), raises the poor man from the earth, and the beggar, to make him sit with the potentates of the people, that is, in His kingdom: and on thrones of glory, that is, royal ones. Through Isaiah, moreover (Isa. 3:13), how does He inveigh against the oppressors of the needy? But you, why do you burn My vineyard, and [why is] the plunder of the beggar in your houses? Why do you injure My people, and put to shame the face of the beggars? and again (Isa. 10:1): Woe to those who write wickedness; for writers write what is wicked, avoiding the judgements of beggars, and plundering what has been adjudged to the

Editors' notes and page, col. 418

Footnotes

(45) ‹anchor: retro in Basiliis› · call in col 418

Basiliis. Id est, libris Regum, quibus adnumerat Noster etiam duos primos, Samuelis dictos ab Hebraeis, atque inde a Protestantibus. EDD.

"In the Basileiai." That is, in the books of Kings, among which our author also counts the first two, called "of Samuel" by the Hebrews, and hence by the Protestants. The editors.

(printed under page 213)

Page

running head: IV ADV. MARCIONEM. 418
marginal letters: A ‹benedictionis dedicavit. Eructavit enim›; B ‹perem juste tractate. Liberate pauperem›; C ‹habebitur mendicus : tolerantia pauperum›; D ‹nequitiam; scribentes enim scribunt›
old-edition numerals: 389 after ‹parcet›
other: the word pauperum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 419

PL 2:419

populi mei. Quae judicia pupillis quoque et viduis exigit, ut et ipsis egenis solatia? Judicate pupillo, et juste tractate viduam, et venite conciliemur, dicit Dominus (Isa. I, 17). Cui tantus affectus in omnem conditionem humilitatis Creatoris est, ejus erit et regnum quod a Christo repromittitur; ad cujus affectum jam dudum pertinent ii, quibus repromittitur. Nam etsi putas Creatoris quidem terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero coelestes; bene quod coelum nullius alterius usque adhuc Dei apparet, nisi cujus et terra: bene quod Creator vel minora promisit, ut facilius illi et de majoribus credam, quam qui nunquam de minoribus prius fidem liberalitatis suae struxit: Beati esurientes, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. Possem hunc titulum in superiorem transmisisse, quod non alii sunt esurientes, quam pauperes et mendici, si non et hanc promissionem Creator specialiter in Evangelii scilicet sui praestructionem destinasset. Siquidem per Isaiam, de eis quos vocaturus esset a summo terrae, utique nationes: Ecce, inquit (Isa. V, 26), velociter, et leviter advenient. Velociter, qua properantes sub finibus temporum; leviter, qua sine oneribus pristinae legis. Non esurient, neque sitient: ergo saturabuntur; quod utique nisi esurientibus et sitientibus non promittitur. Et rursus: Ecce, inquit (Isa. LXV, 15), qui serviunt mihi, saturabuntur; vos autem esurietis; ecce qui serviunt mihi, bibent; vos autem sitietis. Videbimus et contraria ista, an Christo praeministrentur: interim quod esurientibus saturitatem repromittit, Dei creatoris est. Beati plorantes, quia ridebunt. Decurre sententiam Isaiae (LXV, 13): Ecce qui serviunt mihi, exultabunt in jucunditate, vos autem confundemini. Ecce qui serviunt mihi oblectabuntur, vos autem clamabitis prae dolore cordis. Et haec contraria apud Christum recognosce. Certe oblectatio et exsultatio in jucunditate illis promittitur, qui in diversa conditione sunt, moestis, et tristibus, et anxiis, scilicet etiam Psal. CXXV: Qui seminant, inquit, in lacrymis, in exultatione metent. Porro tam exultantibus et jucunditatem capientibus risus accedit, quam moerentibus et dolentibus fletus. Ita Creator, materias risus et fletus praedicans, risuros plorantes prior dixit. Igitur qui a consolatione pauperum, et humilium, et esurientium, et flentium exorsus est, statim se illum repraeseutare gestivit, quem demonstraverat per Isaiam (LXI, 1): Spiritus Domini super me, propter quod unxit me ad evangelizandum pauperibus. — (Luc. VI, 20):

poor of my people. What judgements does He require for orphans also and widows, as also comforts for the needy themselves? Judge for the orphan, and deal justly with the widow, and come, let us be reconciled, says the Lord (Isa. 1:17). He Who has so great an affection towards every condition of lowliness is the Creator; His too will be the kingdom which is promised by Christ, to Whose affection those to whom it is promised have long since belonged. For even if you think that the Creator's promises were earthly, but Christ's heavenly, it is well that heaven appears up to now to belong to no other God than Him Whose the earth also is; it is well that the Creator promised even lesser things, so that I may more easily believe Him concerning the greater too, than one who never first built up trust in his liberality by lesser things: Blessed are the hungry, for they shall be filled. I could have transferred this heading to the preceding one, since the hungry are no other than the poor and the beggars, had not the Creator also destined this promise specially for the preparing, namely, of His own Gospel. For through Isaiah, concerning those whom He would call from the end of the earth, that is, the nations: Behold, He says (Isa. 5:26), swiftly and lightly they shall come. Swiftly, inasmuch as they hasten at the ends of the times; lightly, inasmuch as they are without the burdens of the former law. They shall not hunger, nor thirst: therefore they shall be filled; which certainly is promised only to the hungry and thirsty. And again: Behold, He says (Isa. 65:15), those who serve me shall be filled, but you shall hunger; behold, those who serve me shall drink, but you shall thirst. We shall see whether these opposites too are furnished beforehand for Christ: meanwhile, that He promises fullness to the hungry belongs to God the Creator. Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh. Run through the saying of Isaiah (65:13): Behold, those who serve me shall exult in gladness, but you shall be confounded. Behold, those who serve me shall be delighted, but you shall cry out for sorrow of heart. And recognize these opposites too in Christ. Certainly delight and exultation in gladness is promised to those who are in the opposite condition, to the sorrowful, and the sad, and the anxious, as namely also Ps. 125: Those who sow, it says, in tears, shall reap in exultation. Moreover, laughter comes to those who exult and take gladness, just as weeping comes to those who mourn and grieve. Thus the Creator, foretelling the materials of laughter and of weeping, first said that those who weep would laugh. Therefore He Who began from the consolation of the poor, and the lowly, and the hungry, and the weeping, at once eagerly desired to show Himself to be the one Whom He had pointed out through Isaiah (61:1): The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. — (Luke 6:20):

Editors' notes and page, col. 419

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁴¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Solatii Rig. Pamel. Venet.

"Of comfort" — Rigault, Pamelius and the Venice edition.

⁴² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Ipsi omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "ipsi" (they themselves).

⁴³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "et" (and).

⁴⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Quia Seml.

"Because" — reading of Seml.

⁴⁵ ‹anchor: qua sine oneribus› · call in col 419 Quia Seml.

"Because" — reading of Seml.

⁴⁶ ‹anchor: Beati plorantes, quia› · call in col 419 Qui Venet.

"Who" — the Venice edition.

⁴⁷ ‹anchor: exultabunt in jucunditate› · call in col 419 Oblectabuntur Oberth.

"Will be delighted" — Oberthür.

⁴⁸ ‹anchor: mihi oblectabuntur› · call in col 419 Exultabunt in jucunditate Oberth.

"Will exult in gladness" — Oberthür.

⁴⁹ ‹anchor: in exultatione› · call in col 419 Gaudio al.

"In joy" — other editions.

⁵⁰ ‹anchor: Igitur qui a› · call in col 419 Quia Rhen.

"Because" — Rhenanus.

⁵¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Ipsi omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "ipsi" (they themselves).

⁵² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et omitt. Fran.

The Franeker edition omits "et" (and).

⁵³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Malum Pamel.

"Evil" — Pamelius.

⁵⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Odii omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "odii" (of hatred).

⁵⁵ ‹anchor: Et alibi : Sancite› · call in col 420 Sanctificate cod. Lat.

"Sanctify" — the Latin manuscript.

⁵⁶ ‹anchor: Nam et sancitur› · call in col 420 Sanctificatur cod. Lat.

"Is sanctified" — the Latin manuscript.

⁵⁷ ‹anchor: in quantum non› · call in col 420 Non deest in al.

"Non" (not) is missing in other editions.

Commentarius. (printed under page 214)

(46) ‹anchor: Et venite conciliemur, dicit Dominus› · call not visible

Et venite conciliemur, dicit Dominus. Videtur legisse, διαλλαχθῶμεν; nam alii vertunt, disceptemus, legentes διαλεχθῶμεν. LE PR.

"And come, let us be reconciled, says the Lord." He seems to have read διαλλαχθῶμεν (let us be reconciled); for others translate "let us argue it out", reading διαλεχθῶμεν. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 214)

(47) ‹anchor: Advocare languentes› · call not visible

Advocare languentes. Advocare pro consolari, et advocatum agere languentium, quem ipse vocat infra, advocatorem. RHEN.

"To comfort the languishing." "Advocare" for "to console," and to act as advocate of the languishing, whom he himself calls below "advocator". Rhenanus.

(printed under page 214)

Page

running head: TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
marginal letters: A ‹perum populi mei. Quae judicia›; B ‹hunc titulum in superiorem›; C ‹et contraria ista, an Christo›; D ‹plorantes prior dixit›
old-edition numerals: 390 after ‹sine oneribus›

PL 2:420

Beati mendici, quoniam illorum est regnum coelorum. — (Isa. LXI, 1) : Misit me curare obtritos corde. — (Luc. VI, 21) : Beati qui esuriunt, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. — (Isa. LXI, 1) : Advocare languentes. — (Luc. VI, 21) : Beati qui plorant, quoniam ridebunt. — (Isa. LXI, 3) : Dare lugentibus Sionis gloriam, et pro cinere unguenti jucunditatem, et gloriae habitum pro spiritu taedii. Haec si statim admissus Christus administravit; aut ipse est, qui se ad haec venturum praedicavit; aut si nondum venit qui praedicavit, ridicule, sed necessarie dixerim, fortasse mandaverit Christo Marcionis : Beati eritis, cum vos odio habebunt homines, et exprobrabunt, et ejicient nomen vestrum, velut nequam, propter filium hominis (Luc. VI, 22). Haec pronuntiatione sine dubio ad tolerantiam exhortatur. Quid minus Creator per Isaiam (LI, 7) : Ne metueritis ignominiam ab hominibus, et nullificatione eorum ne minuamini. Quae ignominia? quae nullificatio, quae futura? erat propter filium hominis. Quem istum? Qui est secundum Creatorem. Unde probabimus? Excidio in ipsum quoque praedicato, sicut per Isaiam (LII, 7) ad auctores odii Judaeos : Propter vos blasphematur nomen meum in nationibus. Et alibi : Sancite eum qui circumscribit animam suam, qui aspernamento habetur a nationibus, famulis, et magistratibus. Si enim odium in illum filium hominis praedicabatur qui secundum Creatorem est, Evangelium autem nomen Christianorum, utique a Christo deductum, odio futurum eontestatur propter filium hominis, quod est Christus, eum filium hominis in caussa odii constituit, qui erat secundum Creatorem, in quem odium praedicabatur. Et utique, si nondum venissent, non potuisset nominis odium, quod agitur hodie, personam nominis antecessisse. Nam et sancitur penes nos, et animam suam circumscribit, propter nos cam ponens, et aspernamento habetur a Nationibus. Et qui natus est, ipse erit filius hominis, propter quem et nomen nostrum recusatur.

Blessed are the beggars, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. — (Isa. 61:1): He has sent me to heal the crushed in heart. — (Luke 6:21): Blessed are those who hunger, for they shall be filled. — (Isa. 61:1): To comfort the languishing. — (Luke 6:21): Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh. — (Isa. 61:3): To give to the mourners of Zion glory, and for ashes the gladness of ointment, and the garment of glory for the spirit of weariness. If Christ, as soon as He was admitted, carried these things out, then either He is the one who proclaimed that He would come for these things; or, if He who proclaimed it has not yet come, I would say, absurdly but of necessity, that perhaps He entrusted to Marcion's Christ: Blessed will you be, when men hate you, and reproach you, and cast out your name as worthless, on account of the Son of man (Luke 6:22). By this pronouncement He without doubt exhorts to endurance. What less does the Creator say through Isaiah (51:7): Do not fear reproach from men, and do not be diminished by their scorn? What reproach? What scorn, what was to come? It was on account of the Son of man. Which [Son of man] is this? He who is according to the Creator. Whence shall we prove it? From the destruction foretold against Him also, as through Isaiah (52:7) to the authors of the hatred, the Jews: Because of you My name is blasphemed among the nations. And elsewhere: Hallow him who circumscribes his soul, who is held in contempt by the nations, by servants, and by magistrates. For if hatred was foretold against that Son of man who is according to the Creator, and the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, derived of course from Christ, will be hated on account of the Son of man, which is Christ, it establishes as the cause of the hatred that Son of man who was according to the Creator, against whom hatred was foretold. And certainly, if they had not yet come, the hatred of the name, which is carried on today, could not have preceded the person of the name. For He is both hallowed among us, and circumscribes His soul, laying it down for us, and is held in contempt by the Nations. And He who was born, He will be the Son of man, on account of whom our name too is rejected.

CAPUT XV.

CHAPTER XV.

Secundum haec, inquit (Luc. VI), faciebant Prophetis patres eorum. O Christum versipellem, nunc destructorem, nunc assertorem prophetarum! Destruebat ut aemulus, convertens discipulos eorum; sibi asserebat ut amicus, sugillans insectatores eorum. Porro, in quantum non congruisset Christo Marcionis assertio prophetarum, ad quorum venerat destructionem; in tantum congruit Christo

In the same way, he says (Luke 6), their fathers did to the Prophets. O shape-shifting Christ, now destroyer, now champion of the prophets! He destroyed them as a rival, turning away their disciples; He claimed them for Himself as a friend, rebuking their persecutors. Moreover, inasmuch as the championing of the prophets would not have befitted the Christ of Marcion, who had come for their destruction, so much does it befit the Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 420

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁵¹ ‹anchor: quoniam ipsi saturabuntur› · call in col 420 Ipsi omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "ipsi" (they).

⁵² ‹anchor: et pro cinere› · call in col 420 Et omitt. Fran.

Fran. omits "et" (and).

⁵³ ‹anchor: velut nequam› · call in col 420 Malum Pamel.

"Malum" (evil) — Pamelius.

⁵⁴ ‹anchor: ad auctores odii› · call in col 420 Odii omitt. Seml.

Seml. omits "odii" (of the hatred).

⁵⁵ ‹anchor: Sancite eum› · call in col 420 Sanctificate cod. Lat.

"Sanctificate" (sanctify) — the Latin codex.

⁵⁶ ‹anchor: Nam et sancitur› · call in col 420 Sanctificatur cod. Lat.

"Sanctificatur" (is sanctified) — the Latin codex.

⁵⁷ ‹anchor: in quantum non› · call in col 420 Non deest in al.

"Non" (not) is lacking in others.

Commentarius.

(47) ‹anchor: Advocare languentes› · call in col 420

Advocare languentes. Advocare pro consolari, et advocatum agere languentium, quem ipse vocat infra, advocatorem. RHEN.

"To comfort the languishing." "Advocare" stands for "consolari" (to console), and for acting as advocate of the languishing, whom he himself calls below the "advocator". Rhenanus.

(printed under page 214)

Page

running head: PATROLOGIAE LATINAE TOMUS II (left page, not visible); …UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 420
marginal letters: A ‹Beati mendici, quoniam›; B ‹pronuntiatione sine dubio›; C ‹norum, utique a Christo›; D ‹phetis patres eorum›
old-edition numerals: 391 after ‹ipsum quoque›
misprints kept as printed: "eontestatur" (for contestatur); "cam" (for eam) in "propter nos cam ponens"

PL 2:421

Creatoris sugillatio in insectatores prophetarum, quos in omnibus adimplebat; vel quia magis Creatoris est delicta patrum filiis exprobrare, quam ejus Dei, qui nec propria cujusque castigat. Sed non statim, inquis, Prophetas tuebatur si iniquitatem Judaeorum affirmatam volebat, quod nec cum prophetis suis pie egissent. Atquin nulla hic iniquitas exprobranda erat Judaeis, laudandis potius et probandis, si eos figuraverunt, ad quorum destructionem post tantum aevi Deus optimus motus est. Sed puto jam et non optimus jam aliquid et cum Creatore moratus, nec in totum Epicuri Deus. Ecce enim demutat in maledictionem, et ostendit eum se esse qui novit offendi et irasci: Vae enim dicit. Sed fit nobis quaestio de verbi istius qualitate, quasi non tam maledictionis sit, quam admonitionis. Et quid caussae interest, quando et admonitio non sit sine aculeo comminationis, maxime per Vae amarior facta? Et admonitio autem et comminatio, ejus erunt qui norit irasci. Nemo enim admonebit, et nemo comminabitur ne quid faciat, nisi quid factum vindicabit: nemo vindicarit, nisi qui norit irasci. Alii agnoscunt quidem verbum maledictionis, sed volunt Christum sic Vae pronuntiasse, non quasi ex sententia sua proprie, sed quod Vae a Creatore sit, et voluerit illis asperitatem Creatoris opponere, quo suam supra in benedictionibus sufferentiam commendaret; quasi non Creatori competat, qua utrumque praestanti, et bonum Deum et judicem; ut quia praemiserat in benedictionibus benignitatem, subjiceret etiam in maledictionibus severitatem, amplitudinem disciplinae utriusque instruendae, tam ad benedictionem sectandam, quam ad maledictionem praecavendam. Nam et ita praemiserat (Deut. XXX, 19): Ecce posui ante vos benedictionem et maledictionem. Quod etiam in hanc Evangelii dispositionem portendebat. Alioquin, qualis est ille, qui, ut suam insinuaret bonitatem, Creatoris opposuit asperitatem? Infirma commendatio est, quae de alterius destructione

of the Creator, the rebuke against the persecutors of the prophets, whom He was fulfilling in all things; or because it belongs more to the Creator to reproach sons with the offences of their fathers than to that God who does not even punish each man's own. But, you say, He was not straightway defending the prophets if He wished the iniquity of the Jews to be affirmed, namely that they had not dealt piously even with their own prophets. Yet here there was no iniquity to be cast in the teeth of the Jews, who were rather to be praised and approved, if they prefigured those for whose destruction, after so long an age, the most good God was moved. But I suppose that by now He is not most good either, having by now taken on something of the Creator's character, and is not wholly the god of Epicurus. For see, He changes over to cursing, and shows Himself to be one who knows how to be offended and to be angry: for He says "Woe". But a question is raised for us about the nature of that word, as though it were not so much a word of cursing as of admonition. And what difference does it make to the case, when admonition too is not without the sting of threatening, especially when made more bitter by "Woe"? Both admonition, moreover, and threatening will belong to Him who knows how to be angry. For no one will admonish, and no one will threaten, that someone should not do something, unless he will avenge it when done: no one would avenge, except one who knows how to be angry. Others indeed acknowledge it as a word of cursing, but would have it that Christ pronounced "Woe" thus, not as properly of His own judgement, but because "Woe" is from the Creator, and He wished to set the harshness of the Creator against them, in order to commend His own forbearance shown above in the blessings; as though it did not befit the Creator, as One Who furnishes both, to be both a good God and a judge; so that, because He had put kindness first in the blessings, He should add severity too in the curses, to the full extent of a discipline that was to instruct in both, as much for pursuing blessing as for guarding against cursing. For so too He had set it forth beforehand (Deut. 30:19): Behold, I have set before you blessing and cursing. Which also foreshadowed this arrangement of the Gospel. Otherwise, what sort of being is he who, to insinuate his own goodness, set against it the harshness of the Creator? Weak is the commendation which from the other's destruction

Editors' notes and page, col. 421

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁵⁸ ‹anchor: Creatoris opposuit asperitatem› · call in col 421 Dei praemitt. Seml. Dei alterius Rhen.

Seml. puts "Dei" (of God) before it; "of the other God" — Rhenanus.

⁵⁹ ‹anchor: quae de alterius› · call in col 421 De alterius omitt. alii.

Others omit "of the other".

⁶⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Atquin Seml.

"And yet" — reading of Seml.

⁶¹ ‹anchor: locupletantis quidem› · call in col 422 Quidem omitt. Pamel.

Pamelius omits "quidem" (indeed).

⁶² ‹anchor: sed quia› · call in col 422 Qui Jun.

"Who" — Junius.

⁶³ ‹anchor: tuis multificatis› · call in col 422 Multiplicatis Pamel.

"Multiplied" — Pamelius.

Commentarius. (printed under page 215)

(48) ‹anchor: Jam aliquid et cum Creatore moratus› · call in col 421

Jam aliquid et cum Creatore moratus. Aliquid moratum dicit moribus quibusdam praeditum, qualibus Creator, nempe odio, benevolentia, ira, misericordia, justitia, clementia. RIG.

"Already somewhat 'mannered' along with the Creator." He calls "mannered" something endowed with certain dispositions such as the Creator has, namely hatred, goodwill, anger, mercy, justice, clemency. Rigault.

(printed under page 215)

(49) ‹anchor: Nec in totum Epicuri Deus› · call in col 421

Nec in totum Epicuri Deus. Stupens, iners, ἀλειτούργητος [Greek partly unclear at this resolution]. RIG. — Deum secure vivere, et sine ullo negotio curaque rerum humanarum, statuebant Epicurei, et somnia ideo rejiciebant, ne Deo negotium facesserent. Vana in totum somnia, inquit Tertull., lib. de Anima, cap. 46, Epicureus judicavit, liberans a negotiis divinitatem. Tantisper moderatiores ait Stoicos Plutarchus de animi tranquill. ἀπράγμονας εἶναι τοὺς σοφούς· ἐκκλίνειν γὰρ τὸ καθῆκον. « Sapientes a negotiis vacare, nam officium etiam declinant. » De ambobus meminit Seneca, de Vita beata. LE PR.

"Nor wholly the God of Epicurus." Dazed, idle, exempt from service. Rigault. — The Epicureans held that God lives free of care, without any business or concern for human affairs, and for that reason rejected dreams, lest they make work for God. "The Epicurean," says Tertullian in the book On the Soul, chapter 46, "judged dreams wholly vain, freeing the divinity from business." Plutarch, On Tranquillity of Mind, says the Stoics were somewhat more moderate: "the wise are free of affairs, for they decline even duty." Seneca mentions both in On the Happy Life. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 215)

(50) ‹anchor: sufferentiam commendaret› · call in col 421

Sufferentiam commendaret. Sufferentia substantivum nomen, pro patientia, quam et benignitatem mox interpretatur. RHEN.

"To commend his forbearance." "Sufferentia" is a noun, for patience, which he presently also glosses as kindness. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 215)

(51) ‹anchor: Infirma commendatio est› · call in col 421

Infirma commendatio est. Huic loco ob transpositionem dictionum depravato mederi licuit ex Gorziensi collatione, infirma commendatio, etc. RHEN.

"A weak commendation it is." This place, corrupted by a transposition of words, could be healed from the collation of the Gorze manuscript: "infirma commendatio," etc. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 215)

Page

running head: 421 LIB. IV ADV. MARCI[cut off at image edge]
marginal letters: A Creatoris sugillatio in insectatores; B tam maledictionis sit, quam admonitionis; C severitatem, amplitudinem disciplinae utriusque; D (48) Jam aliquid et cum Creatore moratus (in the notes at page foot)
old-edition numerals: 392 after comminationis,

PL 2:422

fulcitur. Atqui opponens asperitatem Creatoris, timendum eum confirmavit: si timendum, magis utique obaudiendum quam negligendum; et incipit jam Christus Marcionis Creatori docere. Tunc, si Vae Creatoris est, quod in divites spectat, ergo Christus non est divitibus offensus, sed Creator; et ratas habet Christus divitum caussas, superbiam dico, et gloriam, et saeculi studia, et Dei incuriam, per quae Vae merentur a Creatore. Sed quomodo non ejusdem sit divites reprobare, qui supra mendicos probarit? Nemo non contrarium ejus quod probaverit reprobat. Itaque si Creatori deputabitur maledictio in divites, ejusdem defendetur benedictio in mendicos, et totum jam opus Christi, Creatoris est. Si Deo Marcionis ascribetur benedictio in mendicos, ejusdem imponetur et maledictio in divites; et erit par jam Creatoris, tam bonus quam et judex; nec erit jam discrimini locus, quo duo Dei fiunt; sublatoque discrimine, supererit unum Deum renuntiari Creatorem. Igitur Vae, si et vox maledictionis est, vel alicujus austerioris inclamationis, et a Christo dirigitur in divites, debeo Creatorem divitum quoque aspernatorem probare, probavi mendicorum advocatorem, ut Christum in hac quoque sententia Creatoris ostendam, locupletantis quidem Salomonem (III Reg. III), sed quia, permissa sibi optione, maluit ea postulare quae sciebat Deo grata, sapientiam, et meruerat etiam divitias consequi, quas non magis voluit: quamquam et divitias praestare, non incongruens Deo sit, per quas et divites solatio juvantur, et multa inde opera justitiae et dilectionis administrantur. Sed accidentia vitia divitiis, illa in Evangelio quoque. Vae divitibus, adscribunt: Quoniam, inquit, recepistis advocationem vestram, utique ex divitiis, de gloria earum, et saecularibus fructibus. Itaque in Deuteronomio (VIII, 12) Moyses: Ne, inquit, cum manducaveris, et repletus fueris, et domos magnas aedificaveris, pecoribus et bubus tuis multificatis, et pecunia et auro, exaltetur cor

is supported. But by setting forth the severity of the Creator, He confirmed that He is to be feared: if He is to be feared, then surely He is rather to be obeyed than neglected; and now Marcion's Christ begins to teach on behalf of the Creator. Then, if the "Woe" which is aimed at the rich belongs to the Creator, it follows that it is not Christ who is offended at the rich, but the Creator; and Christ holds as acceptable the ways of the rich, I mean their pride and glory and worldly pursuits and neglect of God, for which they deserve the "Woe" from the Creator. But how should it not belong to the same one to reprove the rich, who above approved the beggars? No one fails to reprove the contrary of what he has approved. Therefore, if the curse against the rich is to be assigned to the Creator, the blessing upon the beggars will be maintained to be His as well, and now the whole work of Christ is the Creator's. If the blessing upon the beggars is to be ascribed to Marcion's god, the curse against the rich will also be laid upon him; and he will now be the equal of the Creator, as much good as judge; nor will there any longer be room for the distinction by which two gods are made; and with the distinction removed, it will remain that the Creator be proclaimed the one God. Therefore, if "Woe" is also a word of cursing, or of some rather severe outcry, and is directed by Christ against the rich, I must prove the Creator to be also a despiser of the rich, [as] I have proved Him the advocate of the beggars, so that I may show Christ in this sentence too to be the Creator's, who did indeed enrich Solomon (1 Kgs. 3), but because, when the choice was granted to him, he preferred to ask for what he knew was pleasing to God, namely wisdom, and had deserved also to obtain riches, which he did not rather wish for: although to bestow riches too is not unbefitting to God, since by them even the rich are helped with comfort, and many works of justice and love are administered from them. But the vices incidental to riches, these they attach to the "Woe to the rich" in the Gospel too: Because, He says, you have received your consolation, assuredly from riches, from their glory and worldly fruits. Thus in Deuteronomy (8:12) Moses says: Lest, when you have eaten and been filled, and have built great houses, with your flocks and oxen multiplied, and money and gold, your heart be exalted

Editors' notes and page, col. 422

Footnotes

(52) ‹anchor: recepistis advocationem vestram› · call in col 422

Quoniam, inquit, recepistis advocationem vestram. Id est consolationem. Prosequitur vero verba Lucae VI, in hoc differens, quod vocem Graecam ἀπέχετε vertit recepistis, tum hic tum paulo post, pro eo quod alii, habuistis, quasi volens explicare significationem illam, qua significat aliunde accipere, velut censum et reditum ex arvis, quod optime hic convenit, et eodem modo vertitur a Vulgato interprete. (Matth. VI), mercedem suam receperunt. Sic etiam vertit Syriacus interpres. Haud multo aliter, sed magis convenienter voci Graecae, vertit interpres Irenaei lib. III, cap. 14, percepistis. PAN.

"For, he says, you have received your consolation." That is, comfort. He follows the words of Luke 6, but differs in rendering the Greek word ἀπέχετε by "recepistis", both here and a little later, where others have "habuistis", as though wishing to bring out the sense in which it means to receive from elsewhere, like a rent or income from fields; this fits very well here, and the Vulgate translator renders it the same way (Matt. 6): "they have received their reward." So too the Syriac translator renders it. Not very differently, but more fittingly to the Greek word, Irenaeus's translator, Book III, chapter 14, renders "percepistis". Pamelius [printed PAN.].

(printed under page 215)

(53) ‹anchor: domos magnas aedificaveris› · call in col 422

Domos magnas aedificaveris, etc. Graecus co- (continues)

"You have built great houses," etc. The Greek (continues)

(printed under page 215)

Page

running head: …V ADV. MARCIONEM. (start cut off at left edge of image)
marginal letters: A tione fulcitur. Atqui; B benedictio in mendicos; C et multa inde opera; D tatem mox interpretatur (in the Commentarius, not set)
old-edition numerals: 393 after probare,

PL 2:423

tuum, et obliviscaris Domini Dei tui. Quemadmodum et Ezechiam regem thesauris inflatum, et de eis potius quam de Deo gloriatum apud illos qui ex Pe⟨r⟩side advenerant, insilit per Isaiam (XXXIX, 6): Ecce dies veniunt, et auferentur omnia quae in domo tua sunt; et quae patres tui congesserunt, in Babylonem transferentur. Sic et per Jeremiam (IX, 22) quoque edicit: Ne glorietur dives in divitiis suis; et qui gloriatur, scilicet in Deo glorietur. Sic et in filias Sionis invehitur per Isaiam (III, 15), cultu et divitiarum abundantia inflatas; comminabundus et alibi (Isa. V, 14) nobilibus et superbis: Dilatavit orcus animam suam, et aperuit os suum, et descendent inclyti et magni et divites (hoc erit Christi vae super divites): et humiliabitur homo; utique exaltatus divitiis: et inhonorabitur vir; utique ob substantiam honorabilis. De quibus et rursus (Isa. X, 23): Ecce Dominus virtutum conturbabit gloriosos cum valentia, et elati comminuentur, et ruent gladio sublimes: qui magis quam divites? Quia receperunt scilicet advocationem suam, gloriam et honorem, sublimitatem ex divitiis. A quibus avertens nos et in Psalmo quadragesimo octavo: Ne timueris, inquit, cum dives factus fuerit homo, et cum abundabit gloria ejus; quoniam cum morietur, non tollet omnia, nec descendet cum illo gloria sua. Item in sexagesimo primo: Ne desideraveritis divitias; et si relucent, ne adjeceritis cor. Idi⟨p⟩sum postremo verbum vae, olim per Amos in divites affluentes deliciis destinatur: Vae, inquit (Amos. VI, 45), qui dormiunt in lectis eburneis, et deliciis fluunt in thoris suis; qui edunt haedos de gregibus caprarum, et vitulos de gregibus boum lactantes, complodentes ad sonum organorum. Tanquam perseverantia deputaverunt, et non tanquam fugientia: qui bibunt vinum liquatum, et unguentis primariis unguntur. Igitur, etsi tantummodo dehortantem a divitiis ostenderem Creatorem, non etiam praedamnantem divites etiam verbo ipso quo et Christus, nemo dubitaret ab eodem adjectam in divites comminationem per vae Christi, a quo ipsarum materiarum, id est divitiarum, dehortatio praecucurrisset: comminatio enim dehortationis accessio est. Ingerit: Vae etiam saturatis, quia esurient; etiam ridentibus nunc, quia lugebunt. His respondebunt

and you forget the Lord your God. Just as He also, through Isaiah, falls upon King Hezekiah, puffed up with his treasures and glorying in them rather than in God before those who had come from Persia (Isa. 39:6): Behold, the days are coming, and all things that are in your house shall be carried away; and what your fathers have heaped up shall be transferred to Babylon. So also through Jeremiah (Jer. 9:22) He likewise proclaims: Let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory, that is, in God. So also through Isaiah (Isa. 3:15) He inveighs against the daughters of Zion, puffed up with their finery and the abundance of their riches; and elsewhere (Isa. 5:14) He threatens the noble and the proud: The underworld has enlarged its soul and opened its mouth, and the illustrious and the great and the rich shall go down (this will be Christ's woe upon the rich): and man shall be humbled; that is, he who was exalted by riches: and the man shall be dishonoured; that is, he who was honourable because of his wealth. Concerning whom again (Isa. 10:23): Behold, the Lord of hosts shall throw the glorious into confusion with might, and the lofty shall be broken in pieces, and the high shall fall by the sword: who are these more than the rich? For they have received, that is, their consolation: glory and honour, and loftiness from their riches. Turning us away from these, He says also in the forty-eighth Psalm: Do not fear when a man has become rich, and when his glory shall abound; for when he dies he shall not take all things away, nor shall his glory go down with him. Likewise in the sixty-first: Do not desire riches; and if they shine, do not set your heart [on them]. Lastly, that very word woe was long ago directed through Amos against the rich who abound in delights: Woe, He says (Amos 6:4–5), to those who sleep on beds of ivory and flow in delights upon their couches; who eat kids from the flocks of goats and suckling calves from the herds of oxen, clapping their hands to the sound of instruments. They have reckoned [these things] as lasting and not as fleeting: who drink strained wine and are anointed with the choicest ointments. Therefore, even if I were showing the Creator only dissuading from riches, and not also condemning the rich beforehand by the very word that Christ also uses, no one would doubt that the threat against the rich through Christ's woe was added by the same [God] from Whom the dissuasion from the things themselves, that is, from riches, had gone before: for threat is an addition to dissuasion. He presses further: Woe also to the sated, for they shall hunger; also to those who laugh now, for they shall mourn. To these will correspond

Editors' notes and page, col. 423

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁶⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Edidit Seml.

"He published/brought forth" — reading of Seml.

⁶⁵ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Honorabitur quidam.

"Will be honoured" — some editions.

⁶⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Receperint Pamel.

"They may have received" — Pamelius.

⁶⁷ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Et divitias Jun.

"And riches" — Junius.

⁶⁸ ‹anchor: ne adjeceritis› · call in col 423 Desideraveris... adjeceris Seml.

"Desire (sing.) ... set (sing.)" — Seml.

⁶⁹ ‹anchor: Vae, inquit› · call in col 423 Enim add. Oberth.

Oberthür adds "enim" (for).

⁷⁰ ‹anchor: adjectam in divites comminationem› · call in col 423 Adlectam in div. communicationem Venet. mendose.

"Adlectam in div. communicationem" — the Venice edition, wrongly.

⁷¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Ex laetitia Rig. Venet. et laetitia Rhen.

"Out of joy" — Rigault and the Venice edition; "and joy" — Rhenanus.

⁷² ‹anchor: qui eos fratres› · call in col 424 Tres Venet. mendose.

"Three" — the Venice edition, wrongly.

Commentarius. (printed under page 216)

(54) ‹anchor: Receperunt scilicet advocationem suam› · call not visible

Receperunt scilicet advocationem suam. Non aliud puto hic spectare quam verba Evangelii, divites et potentes increpantis : Amen dico vobis, receperunt mercedem suam. LE PR.

"They have received, that is, their consolation." I think this looks to nothing else than the words of the Gospel rebuking the rich and powerful: "Amen I say to you, they have received their reward." Le Prieur.

(printed under page 216)

Page

running head: 423 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A tuum, et obliviscaris Domini Dei tui; B tatus divitiis : et inhonorabitur; C in divites affluentes deliciis destinatur; D cucurrisset : comminatio enim dehortationis
old-edition numerals: 394 after adjeceritis
other: the word respondebunt was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 424

PL 2:424

illa, quae supra benedictionibus opposita sunt apud Creatorem : Ecce qui mihi serviunt, saturabuntur; vos autem esurietis (Isa LXV, 12); utique quia saturati estis. Et : Ecce qui mihi serviunt, oblectabuntur; vos autem confundemini; utique ploraturi qui nunc ridetis. Sicut enim in Psalmo (CXXV, 6), qui seminant in lacrymis, in laetitia metent : ita in Evangelio, qui in risu seminant, scilicet laetitia, in lacrymis metent. Haec olim Creator simul posuit, Christus solummodo distinguendo, non mutando, renovavit : Vae, cum vobis benedixerint homines : secundum haec faciebant et pseudoprophetis patres illorum (Luc. VI, 23). Aeque Creator benedictionis et laudis humanae sectatores incusat per Isaiam (III, 12) : Populus meus, qui vos beatos dicunt, seducunt vos, et vias pedum vestrorum disturbant. Prohibet et alias fidere omnino in hominem, sic et in laudem hominis, ut per Jeremiam (XVII, 5) : Maledictus homo, qui spem habet in homine. Nam et in Psalmo centesimo decimo septimo (v. 8, 9) : Bonum est fidere in Dominum, quam fidere in hominem. Et : Bonum est sperare in Dominum, quam sperare in principes. Ita, totum quod ab homine captatur abdixit Creator, nedum benedictionem. Pseudoprophetas autem laudatos sive benedictos a patribus eorum, tam ejus est exprobrare, quam prophetas vexatos et recusatos : sicut injuriae prophetarum non pertinuissent ad Deum ipsorum; ita nec gratiae pseudoprophetarum displicuissent, nisi Deo prophetarum.

those things which above were set, with the Creator, as the opposites of the blessings: Behold, those who serve Me shall be filled; but you shall hunger (Isa. 65:12); certainly because you are filled. And: Behold, those who serve Me shall be delighted; but you shall be confounded; certainly you who now laugh are going to weep. For just as in the Psalm (125:6), those who sow in tears shall reap in gladness, so in the Gospel those who sow in laughter, that is, in gladness, shall reap in tears. These things the Creator set down together long ago; Christ only renewed them, by distinguishing, not by changing: Woe, when men shall have blessed you: according to these things their fathers also did to the false prophets (Luke 6:23). Equally the Creator accuses the pursuers of human blessing and praise through Isaiah (3:12): My people, those who call you blessed lead you astray, and disturb the ways of your feet. Elsewhere too He forbids trusting at all in man, and so also in the praise of man, as through Jeremiah (17:5): Cursed is the man who has hope in man. For also in the hundred and seventeenth Psalm (vv. 8-9): It is good to trust in the Lord rather than to trust in man. And: It is good to hope in the Lord rather than to hope in princes. Thus the Creator renounced everything that is courted from man, still more blessing. Moreover, it is as much His part to reproach [the treatment of] false prophets praised or blessed by their fathers as [that of] prophets harassed and rejected: just as the injuries of the prophets would not have concerned [anyone] but their God, so neither would the favours shown to the false prophets have displeased [anyone] except the God of the prophets.

CAPUT XVI.

Chapter XVI.

Sed vobis dico, inquit (Luc VI), qui auditis : ostendens hoc olim mandatum (IV Esdr. XV, 1) a Creatore : Loquere in aures audientium. Diligite inimicos vestros, et benedicite eos qui vos oderunt, et orate pro eis qui vos calumniantur. Haec Creator una pronuntiatione clusit per Isaiam (LXVI, 5) : Dicite, Fratres nostri estis, eis qui vos oderunt. Si enim qui inimici sunt et oderunt, et maledicunt, et calumniantur, fratres appellandi sunt; utique et benedici odientes, orari pro calumniatoribus jussit, qui eos fratres deputari praecepit. Novam plane patientiam docet Christus, etiam vicem injuriae cohibens, permissam a Creatore (Exod. XXI, 24) oculum exigente pro oculo, et dentem pro dente : contra, ipse alteram amplius maxillam

But I say to you, He says (Luke 6), who hear: showing that this was commanded long ago (4 Esd. 15:1) by the Creator: Speak into the ears of those who hear. Love your enemies, and bless those who hate you, and pray for those who slander you. These things the Creator enclosed in a single utterance through Isaiah (66:5): Say, You are our brothers, to those who hate you. For if those who are enemies and hate, and curse, and slander are to be called brothers, then certainly He who commanded that they be counted brothers also ordered that those who hate be blessed and that prayer be made for slanderers. Plainly a new patience Christ teaches, restraining even the requital of injury permitted by the Creator (Exod. 21:24), who demands eye for eye and tooth for tooth: on the contrary, He Himself the other cheek besides

Editors' notes and page, col. 424

Footnotes

(55) ‹anchor: eos qui vos oderunt› · call in col 424

Et benedicite eos qui vos oderunt, etc. Evangelii verba sensu videtur conjungere (habentur autem apud Lucam cap. VI) : Qui inimici sunt et oderunt, at maledicunt, et calumniantur. LE PR.

"And bless those who hate you," etc. He seems to join the words of the Gospel by sense (they are found in Luke chapter 6): "Who are enemies and hate, but curse, and slander." Le Prieur.

(printed under page 216)

(56) ‹anchor: plane patientiam› · call in col 424

Novam plane patientiam, etc. Haec ad mentem Marcionis, neque enim ipsius verba esse existimo. LE PR.

"A patience plainly new," etc. This is according to Marcion's mind, for I do not think they are his own words. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 216)

(57) ‹anchor: oculum exigente pro oculo› · call in col 424

Oculum pro oculo, etc. Eadem habentur l. de Pat., c. 6. LE PR.

"An eye for an eye," etc. The same is found in the book On Patience, chapter 6. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 216)

Page

running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 424 (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A bunt illa, quae supra; B cunt vos, et vias pedum; C CAPUT XVI.; D injuriae cohibens, permissam
old-edition numerals: 395 after pertinuissent

PL 2:425

offerri jubens, et super tunicam pallio quoque cedi. Plane haec Christus adjecerit, ut supplementa consentanea disciplinae Creatoris. Atque adeo hoc statim renuntiandum est, an disciplina patientiae praedicatur penes Creatorem. Si per Zachariam praecepit (Zachar. VII, 10), ne unusquisque malitiae fratris sui meminerit; sed nec proximi: nam et rursus, Malitiam, inquit (Zachar. VIII, 17), proximi sui unusquisque ne recogitet. Multo magis patientiam indixit injuriae, qui indixit oblivionem. Sed et cum dicit (Deut. XXXII, 35): Mihi vindictam, et ego vindicabo; proinde patientiam docet vindictae exspectatricem. In quantum ergo non capit, ut idem videatur et dentem pro dente, oculum pro oculo, in vicem injuriae exigere, qui non modo vicem, sed etiam ultionem, etiam recordationem et recogitationem injuriae prohibet: in tantum aperitur nobis, quomodo oculum pro oculo, et dentem pro dente censuerit, non ad secundam injuriam talionis permittendam, quam prohibuerat interdicta ultione, sed ad primam coercendam, quam prohibuerat opposito talione, ut unusquisque respiciens licentiam secundae injuriae, a prima semetipsum contineret. Facilius enim vim comprimi scit repraesentatione talionis, quam repromissione ultionis. Utrumque autem constituendum fuit pro natura et fide hominum; ut qui Deo crederet ultionem a Deo exspectaret, qui minus fideret, leges talionis timeret. Hanc legis voluntatem de intellectu laborantem, Dominus et sabbati et legis et omnium paternarum dispositionum Christus et revelavit, et compotem fecit, mandans alterius quoque maxillae oblationem; ut tanto magis vicem injuriae exstingueret, quam et lex per talionem voluerat impedisse, certe quam prophetia manifeste coercuerat, et memoriam injuriae prohibens, et ultionem ad Deum redigens. Ita si quid Christus intulit, non adversario, sed adjutore praecepto, non destruxit disciplinas Creatoris. Denique, si in ipsam rationem patientiae praecipiendae, et quidem tam plenae atque perfectae, consideremus, non consistet, si non est Creatoris, qui vindictam repromittit, qui judicem praestat. Alioquin, si tantum patientiae pondus, non modo non repercutiendi, sed et aliam maxillam praebendi; et non modo non remaledicendi, sed etiam benedicendi, et non modo non retinendi tunicam, sed amplius et pallium concedendi, is mihi imponit, qui non sit me defensurus; in vacuum patientiam praecepit, non exhibens mihi mercedem

ordering to be offered, and over and above the tunic to yield the cloak also. Clearly Christ will have added these things as supplements in keeping with the discipline of the Creator. And so this must at once be declared: whether a discipline of patience is preached with the Creator. If through Zechariah He commanded (Zech. 7:10) that each should not remember the malice of his brother, nor indeed of his neighbour: for again also, Let each one, He says (Zech. 8:17), not think again on the malice of his neighbour. Much more did He enjoin patience towards injury, Who enjoined forgetfulness [of it]. But also when He says (Deut. 32:35): Vengeance is Mine, and I will avenge; accordingly He teaches a patience that awaits vengeance. Inasmuch, then, as it is not admissible that the same One should be thought to exact both tooth for tooth and eye for eye in requital of injury, Who forbids not only requital, but also vengeance, even the remembering and thinking again on injury: so far is it opened to us in what way He decreed eye for eye and tooth for tooth, not for permitting a second injury by retaliation, which He had forbidden by the prohibition of vengeance, but for restraining the first, which He had forbidden by setting retaliation against it, so that each one, having regard to the licence of a second injury, should hold himself back from the first. For He knows that violence is more easily repressed by the present prospect of retaliation than by the promise of vengeance. But both had to be established, according to the nature and faith of men; so that he who believed God should await vengeance from God, [and] he who trusted less should fear the laws of retaliation. This intention of the law, labouring as to its understanding, Christ, the Lord both of the sabbath and of the law and of all the paternal dispensations, both revealed and brought to fulfilment, commanding the offering of the other cheek also; so that He might all the more extinguish the requital of injury, which the law also had wished to prevent through retaliation, [and] which certainly prophecy had manifestly restrained, both forbidding the memory of injury and referring vengeance back to God. Thus if Christ introduced anything, it was by a precept not opposed but auxiliary; He did not destroy the disciplines of the Creator. Finally, if we consider the very reason for enjoining patience, and indeed patience so full and perfect, it will not stand if it is not of the Creator, Who promises vengeance, Who provides a judge. Otherwise, if so great a weight of patience, not only of not striking back, but also of offering the other cheek; and not only of not reviling in return, but even of blessing; and not only of not holding on to the tunic, but further of yielding the cloak also, is laid upon me by one who will not defend me; he has commanded patience in vain, not showing me the reward

Editors' notes and page, col. 425

Footnotes

Variae lectiones. ⁷³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Praedicat Jun.

"Proclaims" — Junius.

⁷⁴ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Quisque Seml.

"Each one" — reading of Seml.

⁷⁵ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Fidem inser. Oberth. post Seml.

Oberthür, following Seml., inserts "fidem" (faith).

⁷⁶ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Talione opposito Seml. opposita Pamel.

"With retaliation set against it" — Seml.; "opposita" — Pamelius.

⁷⁷ ‹anchor: qui minus fideret› · call in col 425 Consideret al.

"Would consider" — other editions.

⁷⁸ ‹anchor: perfectae, consideremus› · call in col 425 Considerem Pamel.

"I would consider" — Pamelius.

⁷⁹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Praestaret Pamel.

"Would furnish" — Pamelius.

⁸⁰ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Excussura Lat.

"About to knock out" — Lat.

⁸¹ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Datori imperatam Rig. Venet. in datorem paratam Pam. datorem imperatum Seml.

"Commanded to the giver" — Rigault and the Venice edition; "prepared against the giver" — Pamelius; "the giver commanded" — Seml.

⁸² ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Ultra Latin.

"Beyond" — Latin. [manuscript/edition].

⁸³ ‹anchor: not visible in the foot images› · call not visible Tuo omit. Seml.

Seml. omits "tuo" (your).

⁸⁴ ‹anchor: quantum desiderarit› · call in col 426 Desiderat Oberth.

"Desires" — Oberthür.

⁸⁵ ‹anchor: in omnes praecepit› · call in col 426 Praecipit Fran.

"Commands" — the Franeker edition.

⁸⁶ ‹anchor: ante debetur› · call in col 426 Deberet Seml.

"Would be owed" — reading of Seml.

⁸⁷ ‹anchor: non diligens proximos› · call in col 426 Non diligens proximos omitt. Seml. et Oberth.

Seml. and Oberthür omit "not loving his neighbours".

⁸⁸ ‹anchor: non exstitit› · call in col 426 Existit Pamel.

"Exists" — Pamelius.

⁸⁹ ‹anchor: ordinem primum› · call in col 426 Primum abest Paris.

"Primum" (first) is absent in the Paris edition.

⁹⁰ ‹anchor: postea et› · call in col 426 Et omitt. Pamel.

Pamelius omits "et" (also).

⁹¹ ‹anchor: dedit gentes› · call in col 426 In add. Paris. Rhen.

The Paris edition and Rhenanus add "in".

Commentarius. (printed under page 217)

(58) ‹anchor: Et omnem dentem excitatura› · call not visible

Et omnem dentem excitatura. Qui excitatur, loco fere movetur. Itaque eleganter ait, pugno in maxillam incusso dentem omnem excitari; nec inane est votum miseri illius rixa pugnati. / Ut liceat paucis cum dentibus inde reverti. / Lucilius, Sat. 9 : / Arripio rostrum labiasque hujus Zephiri atque impercutio, dentesque adversas excutio omnes. RIG.

"And bound to rouse every tooth." What is "roused" is generally moved from its place. So he says elegantly that when a fist is driven into the jaw every tooth is roused; nor is the prayer of that poor wretch beaten in a brawl an idle one: "that he may be allowed to come home from there with a few teeth left." Lucilius, Satire 9: "I seize this Zephyrus's snout and lips and strike them, and knock out all his front teeth." Rigault.

(printed under page 217)

Page

running head: 425 LIB. IV ADV. MARCIO[NEM] (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A offerri jubens, et super tunicam; B tionem injuriae prohibet; C borantem, Dominus et sabbati; D praebendi; et non modo non remaledicendi
old-edition numerals: 396 after fideret

PL 2:426

praecepti: patientiae dico fructum, quod est ultio; quam mihi permisisse debuerat, si ipse non praestat; aut si mihi non permittebat, ipse praestare; quoniam et disciplinae interest, injuriam vindicari: metu enim ultionis omnis iniquitas refrenatur. Caeterum, passim emissa libertate dominabitur; utrumque oculum effossura, et omnem dentem excitatura prae impunitatis securitate. Sed hoc est Dei optimi, et tantum boni, patientiae injuriam facere, violentiae januam pandere, probos non defendere, improbos non coercere. Omni petenti te, dato; utique indigenti: vel tanto magis indigenti, si etiam et abundanti. Ne quis ergo indigeat, datori paratam habes Deuteronomio formam Creatoris: Non erit, inquit (Deut. XV, 4) in te indigens, uti benedicens benedicat te Dominus Deus tuus; datorem scilicet, qui fecerit non esse indigentem. Et plus hic; non enim petenti jubet dari. Sed, Non sit, inquit, indigens in te, id est, cura ultro ne sit: quo magis petenti praejudicat dandum, etiam in sequentibus: Si autem fuerit indigens e fratribus tuis, non avertes cor tuum, nec constringes manum tuam a fratre tuo indigente. Aperiens aperies illi manum, foenus foenerabis illi quantum desiderarit. Foenus enim nisi petenti dari non solet. Sed de foenore postmodum. Nunc si quid voluerit argumentari, Creatorem quidem fratribus dari jussisse, Christum vero omnibus petentibus; ut hoc sit novum atque diversum: imo unum erit ex his, per quae lex Creatoris erit in Christo. Non enim aliud Christus in omnes praecepit, quam quod Creator in fratres. Nam etsi major est bonitas quae operatur in extraneos, sed non prior ea quae ante debetur in proximos. Quis enim non diligens proximos, poterit diligere extraneos? Quod si secundus gradus bonitatis est in extraneos, qui in proximos primus est; ejusdem erit secundus gradus, cujus et primus; facilius quam ut ejus sit secundus, cujus non exstitit primus. Ita, Creator et secundum naturae ordinem primum in proximos docuit benignitatem, emissurus eam postea et in extraneos; et secundum rationem dispositionis suae, primo in Judaeos, postea et in omne hominum genus. Ideoque, quamdiu intra Israelem erat sacramentum, merito in solos fratres misericordiam mandabat. At ubi Christo dedit (Psal. II, 8) gentes haereditatem, et possessionem terminos terrae, et coepit expungi quod dictum est per Osee (Osee, I et II): Non populus meus, populus meus; et non misericordiam consecuta, misericordiam

of the precept: the fruit of patience, I mean, which is vengeance; which He ought to have permitted to me, if He Himself does not furnish it; or, if He did not permit it to me, He Himself [ought] to furnish it; since it is also in the interest of discipline that injury be avenged: for through fear of vengeance all iniquity is restrained. Otherwise, with liberty let loose everywhere, it will hold sway, ready to dig out both eyes and to knock out every tooth through the security of impunity. But this is [the mark] of a supremely good God, and of one only good: to do injury to patience, to throw open the door to violence, not to defend the upright, not to restrain the wicked. "Give to everyone who asks you"; to the needy, surely: or all the more to the needy, if even also to the well-off. That no one, then, may be in need, you have the Creator's pattern ready for the giver in Deuteronomy: "There shall not be," He says (Deut. 15:4), "a needy one among you, so that the Lord your God, blessing, may bless you"; that is, the giver, who will have brought it about that there is no one needy. And more here; for He does not order that it be given to one who asks. But, "Let there not be," He says, "a needy one among you", that is, take care of your own accord that there not be: whereby all the more He prejudges that one must give to him who asks, also in what follows: "But if there be one needy among your brothers, you shall not turn away your heart, nor shall you close your hand against your needy brother. Opening, you shall open your hand to him; lending, you shall lend to him as much as he desires." For a loan is not usually given except to one who asks. But of lending later. Now if anyone wishes to argue that the Creator indeed ordered giving to brothers, but Christ to all who ask, so that this is new and different: on the contrary, it will be one of those things through which the law of the Creator will be in Christ. For Christ commanded nothing else towards all than what the Creator [commanded] towards brothers. For although greater is the goodness which operates towards strangers, yet it is not prior to that which is owed first towards neighbours. For who, not loving his neighbours, will be able to love strangers? But if the second degree of goodness is towards strangers, which is first towards neighbours, the second degree will belong to the same one to whom the first also belongs; more readily than that the second should belong to one whose first never existed. Thus the Creator, both according to the order of nature, taught kindness first towards neighbours, intending to extend it afterwards also towards strangers; and according to the plan of His dispensation, first towards the Jews, afterwards also towards the whole race of men. And so, as long as the sacrament was within Israel, He rightly commanded mercy towards brothers alone. But when He gave to Christ (Ps. 2:8) the nations as inheritance, and the ends of the earth as possession, and there began to be fulfilled what was said through Hosea (Hos. 1 and 2): "Not My people, My people; and she who had not obtained mercy, having obtained mercy",

Editors' notes and page, col. 426

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. (start cut off at left edge of image)
marginal letters: A ‹praecepti : patientiae dico fructum›; B ‹nedicens benedicat te Dominus›; C ‹toris erit in Christo›; D ‹los fratres misericordiam mandabat›
old-edition numerals: 397 after Foenus
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): foenus foenerabis | faenus faenerabis (italic æ)
other: the word misericordiam was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 427

PL 2:427

consecuta, natio scilicet; exinde Christus in omnes legem paternae benignitatis extendit, neminem excipiens in miseratione sicut in vocatione. Ita et si quid amplius docuit, hoc quoque iu haereditatem gentium accepit. Et sicut vobis fieri vultis ab hominibus, ita et vos facite illis (Luc. VI). In isto praecepto utique alia pars ejus subauditur: Et sicut vobis non vultis fieri ab hominibus, ita et vos ne faciatis illis. Hoc si novus Deus et ignotus retro, et nondum plane editus praecepit, qui me nulla antehac institutione formaverit, qua prius scirem quid deberem mihi velle vel nolle, atque ita et aliis facere, quae mihi vellem; non facere, quae et mihi nollem, passivitatem sententiae meae permisit, nec astrinxit me ad convenientiam voluntatis et facti, ut id aliis faciam quod mihi velim, et id nec aliis faciam quod mihi nolim. Non enim diffiniit quid mihi atque aliis debeam velle nolle, ut ad legem voluntatis parem factum, et possim alii non praestare, quod ab alio mihi velim praestitum, amorem, obsequium, solatium, praesidium, et ejusmodi bona: proinde nec alii facere, quod ab alio mihi fieri nolim, vim, injuriam, contumeliam, fraudem, et ejusmodi mala. Denique, hac inconvenientia voluntatis et facti, agunt ethnici nondum a Deo instructi. Nam etsi natura bonum et malum notum est, non tamen Dei disciplina: qua cognita, tum demum convenientia voluntatis et facti ex fide, ut sub metu Dei agitur. Itaque Deus Marcionis cum maxime revelatus sit, tamen revelatus non potuit hujus praecepti de quo agitur, tam strictum, et obscurum, et caecum adhuc, et facilius pro meo potius arbitrio interpretandum compendium emittere, cujus nullam praestruxerat distinctionem. At enim creator meus et olim et ubique praecepit indigentes, pauperes et pupillos et viduas protegi, juvari, refrigerari: sicut et per Isaiam (LVIII, 7): Infringito esurienti panem tuum; et mendicos qui sine tecto sunt in domum tuam inducito; et nudum si videris, tegito. Item per Ezechielem (Ezech. XVIII, 7), de viro justo: Panem suum dabit esurienti, et nudum conteget.

the nation, that is; thereafter Christ extended to all the law of the Father's kindness, excepting no one in compassion, just as in calling. So also, if He taught anything further, this too He received into the inheritance of the gentiles. And as you wish it to be done to you by men, so do you also to them (Luke 6). In this precept its other part is certainly understood: And as you do not wish it to be done to you by men, so also do not do it to them. If a new god, unknown hitherto and not yet plainly made known, gave this precept, who had formed me by no prior instruction whereby I might first know what I ought to wish or not wish for myself, and so also do to others what I would wish for myself, and not do what I would not wish for myself, then he left my judgement free to range, and did not bind me to an agreement of will and deed, so that I should do to others what I wish for myself, and not do to others what I do not wish for myself. For he did not define what I ought to wish or not wish for myself and for others, so that I should make my deed equal to the law of my will, and I might fail to render to another what I would wish rendered to me by another, love, deference, comfort, protection, and goods of that kind; and likewise [be under no rule] not to do to another what I would not wish done to me by another, violence, injury, insult, fraud, and evils of that kind. In short, it is by this disagreement of will and deed that the heathen act, not yet instructed by God. For although good and evil are known by nature, yet the discipline of God is not; and once this is known, then at last the agreement of will and deed proceeds from faith, as one acts under the fear of God. Thus the god of Marcion, even granting he has been revealed in the fullest way, yet, being revealed, could not issue a summary of this precept under discussion so tight, and obscure, and blind as yet, and more easily to be interpreted rather according to my own choice, a precept for which he had laid down no prior distinction. But in truth my Creator both long ago and everywhere commanded that the needy, the poor, and orphans and widows be protected, helped, refreshed: as also through Isaiah (Isa. 58:7): Break your bread to the hungry; and bring into your house the beggars who are without a roof; and if you see the naked, cover him. Likewise through Ezekiel (Ezek. 18:7), concerning the just man: He will give his bread to the hungry, and will cover the naked.

Editors' notes and page, col. 427

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 218)

(92) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 427

Et inser. Seml. Oberth.

"And" is inserted by Semler and Oberthür.

(printed under page 218)

(93) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 427

Ut Jun.

"Ut" ("as/that") Junius.

(printed under page 218)

(94) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 427

Et Seml.

"Et" ("and") Semler.

(printed under page 218)

(95) ‹anchor: nondum a Deo› · call in col 427

Ab eo Oberth. post Seml.

"By him" Oberthür, following Semler.

(printed under page 218)

(96) ‹anchor: Itaque Deus Marcionis› · call in col 427

Etsi inser. Latin.

"Although" is inserted by Latinius.

(printed under page 218)

(97) ‹anchor: cujus nullam praestruxerat› · call in col 427

Praestrinxerat Seml. Oberth.

"Praestrinxerat" Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 218)

(98) ‹anchor: creator meus et› · call in col 427

Et omitt. Oberth.

"Et" ("and") is omitted by Oberthür.

(printed under page 218)

(99) ‹anchor: Infringito esurienti› · call in col 427

Esurienti omitt. Seml.

"To the hungry" is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 218)

(1) ‹anchor: panem tuum› · call in col 427

Mendicis add. Seml.

"To the beggars" is added by Semler.

(printed under page 218)

(2) ‹anchor: et mendicos› · call in col 427

Mendicos omitt. Seml.

"Beggars" is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 218)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 427

(continued) Foenoris scilicet redundantiam, quod est usura. Cave ne cum quibusdam damnatum putes tantum τόκον τόκου, sive usuram usurae; nam omnis usura hic prohibetur, tum in locis Script. quae adducuntur, tum ex mente Tertulliani. Tanta vero hodie usurae cupiditas incessit, ut foenus legibus quondam Romanis permissum etiam excedant. Etsi enim usurae centesimae essent legitimae, et unicuique liberum esset centesimam stipulari (l. si pro mutua. C. si cert. pet. et l. lecta D. de reb. cred.); si tamen aliquid supra centesimam solutum erat, id in sortem imputabatur. Canone 17 Nicaeno ἡμιολίαι clericis prohibentur, hoc est usurae dimidio majores quam sors principalis. Nunc vero his finibus non coercetur avaritia. Carolus Molineus tantum crimen suis figmentis adumbrare non est veritus. S. Ambrosius lib. de Tobia, et alibi; S. Basilius passim, et S. Cyprianus lib. de Lapsis, invehuntur in ejusmodi toculliones. Le Pr.

(printed under page 218)

Page

running head: TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A cordiam consecuta; B et facti, ut id aliis; C strictum, et obscurum; D (59) Foenoris scilicet (in the commentary)
old-edition numerals: 398 after ad
other: column begins with the fragment "cordiam" (misericordiam) broken from the previous column; "iu haereditatem" printed with a turned n, set as printed; C stands between "latus non potuit" and "strictum", UNSURE which line it marks; the full-width headings "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" at the page foot are cut off at the right edge and not set; the variant readings (notes 92-8) and the editors' commentary note (59) on usury are not set

PL 2:428

Satis ergo jam tunc me docuit ea facere aliis, quae mihi velim fieri. Proinde denuntians: Non occides, non adulterabis, non furaberis, non falsum testimonium dices; docuit ne faciam aliis quae fieri mihi nolim, et ideo ipsius erit praeceptum in Evangelio, qui illud retro et praestruxit et distinxit, et ad arbitrium disciplinae suae disposuit: et merito jam compendio substrinxit, quoniam et alias recisum sermonem facturus in terris (Isa. X, 25) Dominus, id est Christus, praedicabatur.

Sufficiently, therefore, did He even then teach me to do to others the things which I would wish to be done to me. Accordingly, in declaring: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, He taught that I should not do to others the things which I would not wish to be done to me; and therefore the precept in the Gospel will be His, Who in time past both laid it down beforehand and set it out in distinct parts, and arranged it at the discretion of His own discipline; and rightly has He now bound it up in a summary, since elsewhere also the Lord, that is Christ, was proclaimed as One Who would make a cut-short word on the earth (Isa. 10:25).

CAPUT XVII.

Chapter XVII.

Hic nunc de foenere cum interponit (Luc. VI): Et si foeneraveritis a quibus speratis vos recepturos, quae gratia est vobis? percurre sequentia Ezechielis, de eodem viro justo: Pecuniam, inquit (Ezech. XVIII, 8), suam foenori non dedit, et quod abundaverit, non sumet; foenoris scilicet redundantiam, quod est usura. Prius igitur fuit, ut fructum foenoris eradicaret, quo facilius assuefaceret hominem ipsi quoque foenori, si forte, perdendo, cujus fructum didicisset amittere. Hanc enim dicimus operam Legis fuisse procurantis Evangelio. Quorumdam tunc fidem paulatim ad perfectum disciplinae Christianae nitorem, primis quibusque praeceptis balbutientis adhuc benignitatis informabat. Nam et supra: Et pignus, inquit (Ezech. XVIII, 7), reddet; utique si non sit solvendo: quia soluturo utique pignus restituendum esse, utrum homo scriberet? Multo manifestius in Deuteronomio (XXIV, 12): Non dormies super pignus ejus: redditione reddes illi pallium circa solis occasum, et dormiet in pallio suo. Adhuc clarius supra (XV, 2): Dimittes omne debitum quod tibi proximus debet, et fratrem tuum non reposces: quoniam remissio Domini Dei tui invocata est. Porro, cum debitum dimitti jubet, utique non exsoluturo, plus etiam est; et, si exsoluturo, cum reposci vetat, quid aliud docet quam non exsoluturo foeneremus, qui jam detrimentum foenori indixit? Et eritis filii Dei. Nihil impudentius, si ille non sibi filios faciet, qui nobis filios facere non permisit, auferendo connubium. Quomodo in

Now, when He here inserts something concerning lending at interest (Luke 6): And if you lend at interest to those from whom you hope to receive back, what thanks is there to you? run through the passages that follow in Ezekiel, concerning the same just man: He has not given his money, he says (Ezek. 18:8), at interest, and what has accrued he will not take; that is, the overflow of the loan, which is usury. It came first, therefore, that He should root out the fruit of lending, so that He might the more easily accustom man to [losing] the loan itself as well, if perchance, by losing, he had learned to give up its fruit. For this we say was the work of the Law, preparing the way for the Gospel. It was then shaping the faith of certain people little by little towards the perfect lustre of Christian discipline, by the first precepts, such as they were, of a benevolence still stammering. For above also: And the pledge, he says (Ezek. 18:7), he will restore; surely if [the debtor] is not able to pay: for, that a pledge must be restored to one who is going to pay, would a man write that? Much more plainly in Deuteronomy (24:12): You shall not sleep upon his pledge: you shall surely restore to him his cloak about the setting of the sun, and he will sleep in his cloak. More clearly still above (15:2): You shall remit every debt which your neighbour owes you, and you shall not demand it back from your brother: for the remission of the Lord your God has been proclaimed. Further, when He commands a debt to be remitted, surely to one who will not pay it off, it is even something more; and, if to one who will pay it off, when He forbids it to be demanded back, what else does He teach than that we should lend to one who will not pay it off, He Who has already imposed loss upon lending? And you will be sons of God. Nothing could be more shameless, if he should not make sons for himself who did not permit us to make sons, by taking away marriage. How into

Editors' notes and page, col. 428

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 428

Nunc Paris.

"Nunc" ("now") the Paris edition.

(printed under page 218)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 428

Foenore al.

"Foenore" ("with interest") others.

(printed under page 218)

(5) ‹anchor: inquit, reddet› · call in col 428

Reddes Seml. Oberth.

"Reddes" ("you shall return") Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 218)

(6) ‹anchor: quia soluturo› · call in col 428

Solutori Pamel.

"Solutori" Pamelius.

(printed under page 218)

(7) ‹anchor: plus etiam› · call in col 428

Enim Pamel.

"Enim" ("for") Pamelius.

(printed under page 218)

(8) ‹anchor: qui jam› · call in col 428

Tam Pam. Venet. Seml.

"Tam" ("so") Pamelius, the Venice edition, Semler.

Commentarius

(printed under page 218)

(60) ‹anchor: Et eritis filii Dei› · call in col 428

Et eritis filii Dei. In Graeco B. Lucae est Ὑψίστου Altissimi, hic Dei vertit. Non est autem insolens in Scripturis, ut pro Deo Altissimus vertatur. Le Pr.

And you shall be sons of God. In the Greek of blessed Luke it is Hypsistou, "of the Most High"; here he has rendered it "of God". But it is not unusual in the Scriptures for "the Most High" to be put for "God". Le Prieur.

(printed under page 218)

(61) ‹anchor: auferendo connubium› · call in col 428

Qui nobis filios facere non permisit, auferendo connubium. Quod faciebat scilicet Marcionis deus. Sic enim supra: « Ecce legem tui quoque dei impugnas: nuptias non conjungit; conjunctas non admittit. » Rig.

Who did not allow us to beget sons, by taking away marriage. Which is what Marcion's god did. For so above: "See, you attack the law of your own god as well: he does not join marriages; those already joined he does not admit." Rigault.

(printed under page 218)

Page

running head: [TERTULLIANI OPERU]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A Satis ergo jam tunc; B de eodem viro justo; C dormies super pignus ejus; D ritia. Carolus Molineus (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 399 after fructum

PL 2:429

id nomen allecturus est suos, quod jam erasit? Filius spadonis esse non possum, maxime cum patrem habeam eumdem quem et omnia. Nam tam pater omnium qui conditor universitatis, quam spado qui nullius substantiae conditor. Et si marem ac feminam non miscuisset Creator, et si non universis quoque animalibus filios concessisset, hoc eram ejus ante paradisum, ante delictum, ante exilium, ante duos, unum; denuo factus filius fui statim, cum me manibus enixus est, cum de suo halitu movit. Ille me nunc rursus filium nuncupat, jam non in animam, sed in spiritum pariens. Quia ipse, inquit, suavis est adversus ingratos et malos. Euge, Marcion, satis ingeniose detraxisti illi pluvias et soles, ne Creator videretur. Sed quis iste suavis, qui ne cognitus quidem usque adhuc? quomodo suavis, a quo nulla beneficia praecesserunt? Hoc genus suavitatis, qua soles et imbres qui foeneraverat, non recepturus ab humano genere ut Creator; qui pro tanta elementorum liberalitate facilius idolis quam sibi debitum gratiae referentes homines usque adhuc sustinet. Vere suavis etiam spiritalibus commodis. Eloquia enim Domini dulciora super mel et favos. (Ps. XVIII, 11). Ille igitur et ingratos sugillavit, qui gratos experiri merebatur; cujus soles et imbres tu quoque, Marcion, ingratus habuisti. Caeterum, tuus non poterat jam queri ingratos, qui non paraverat gratos. Misericordiam quoque praecipiens: Estote, inquit, misericordes, sicut Pater vester misertus est vestri. Hoc erit: Panem infringito esurienti, et mendicos sine lecto in domum tuam inducito, et nudum si videris tegito (Isa. LVIII, 7); et: Judicate pupillo, et justificate viduam (Isa. I, 17). Agnosco doctrinam ejus veterem, qui mavult misericordiam, quam sacrificium (Osee VI, 6). Aut si alius nunc misericordiam praecepit, quia et ipse misericors sit, cur tanto aevo misericors mihi non fuit? Nolite judicare, ne judicemini. Nolite condemnare, ne condemnemini. Dimittite, et dimittemini. Date, et dabitur vobis. Mensuram bonam, pressam ac fluentem dabunt in sinum vestrum. Eadem qua mensi eritis mensura, remetietur vobis (Luc. VI). Ut opinor, haec retributionem pro meritis provocatam sonant. A quo ergo retributio? Si ab hominibus tantum, ergo humanam

that name will he entice his own, which he has already erased? I cannot be the son of a eunuch, especially since I have as father the same One Whom all things also have. For He is as truly the father of all, being the founder of the universe, as he is a eunuch who is the founder of no substance. And even if the Creator had not joined male and female, and had not granted offspring to all animals as well, I was this to Him before paradise, before the offence, before the exile, before the two [became] one; I was made a son anew at once, when He brought me forth with His hands, when He set me in motion with His own breath. He now again calls me son, bringing me forth no longer into soul but into spirit. Because He, he says, is kind towards the ungrateful and the wicked. Well done, Marcion! Quite ingeniously have you taken away from Him the rains and the suns, so that He might not seem to be the Creator. But who is this kind one, who has not even been known until now? How is he kind, from whom no benefits have come beforehand? This is the kind of kindness by which He Who had lent suns and rains, not intending to receive [a return] from the human race, as the Creator; Who for so great a liberality of the elements endures until now men who render the gratitude owed to Him more readily to idols than to Himself. Truly kind also in spiritual benefits. For the words of the Lord are sweeter than honey and the honeycomb (Ps. 18:11). He therefore also reproached the ungrateful Who deserved to find them grateful; Whose suns and rains you too, Marcion, have enjoyed ungratefully. Besides, yours could not now complain of the ungrateful, who had not made any grateful. Commanding mercy also, He says: Be merciful, as your Father has had mercy on you. This will be: Break your bread to the hungry, and bring beggars without a bed into your house, and if you see the naked, cover him (Isa. 58:7); and: Judge for the orphan, and do justice to the widow (Isa. 1:17). I recognize His ancient teaching, Who prefers mercy to sacrifice (Hos. 6:6). Or if another has now commanded mercy because he himself is merciful, why has he not been merciful to me through so long an age? Do not judge, that you may not be judged. Do not condemn, that you may not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down and overflowing, they will give into your lap. With the same measure with which you have measured, it will be measured back to you (Luke 6). As I think, these words speak of a retribution called forth according to deserts. From whom then [comes] the retribution? If from men only, then human

Editors' notes and page, col. 429

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 219)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 429

Praecesserant Pam.

"Praecesserant" ("had gone before") Pamelius.

(printed under page 219)

(10) ‹anchor: cujus soles› · call in col 429

Solem Pam.

"Solem" ("sun", singular) Pamelius.

(printed under page 219)

(11) ‹anchor: sicut Pater vester› · call in col 429

Vester omitt. Seml.

"Your" is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 219)

(12) ‹anchor: et mendicos› · call in col 429

Mendicos omitt. Oberth.

"Beggars" is omitted by Oberthür.

(printed under page 219)

(13) ‹anchor: retributionem pro meritis› · call in col 429

Promeritis al.

"Promeritis" ("for deserts") others.

(printed under page 219)

(14) ‹anchor: provocatam sonant› · call in col 429

Sonat Seml. Oberth.

"Sonat" (singular, "sounds") Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 219)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 429

Quam Pamel.

"Quam" ("than") Pamelius.

(printed under page 219)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 429

Et omitt. Oberth.

"Et" ("and") is omitted by Oberthür.

(printed under page 219)

(62) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 429

Ante duos unum. Antequam dixisset Deus, Et erunt duo in carne una. Rig.

One before the two. That is, before God had said, And the two shall be in one flesh. Rigault.

(printed under page 219)

(63) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 429

Eximat et de oculo suo trabem. Apud S. Lucam est κάρφος, hoc est stipulam, quod vuglo redditur festucam. Haereticorum vafritiem notat, qui veluti Aristarchi de aliis ferunt judicium, cum ipsi sint nocentissimi. Hi scilicet veluti lippientes et inunctis oculis mala sua perspiciunt, cum tamen in aliorum vel levioribus erroribus notandis sint perspicacissimi. Adversus tales homines aliosque sibi valde placentes torqueri potest quod apud Plutarchum de Tranquill. animi: Τί τὸ ἀλλότριον, ἄνθρωπε βασκανώτατε, Κακὸν ὀξυδερκῶς, τὸ δ' ἴδιον παραβλέπεις. Le Pr.

Let him take the beam out of his own eye too. In St Luke the word is karphos, that is, a bit of straw, which is commonly rendered "mote". He marks the cunning of the heretics, who pass judgement on others like so many Aristarchuses while they themselves are the most guilty. Like men with bleared and salve-smeared eyes, they look through their own faults, yet are most keen-sighted at noting even the slighter errors of others. Against such men, and others well pleased with themselves, one may turn the line in Plutarch, On Tranquillity of Mind: "Why, most envious man, do you see another's ill so sharply, but overlook your own?" Le Prieur.

(printed under page 219)

Footnotes

(17) ‹anchor: In hoc solo adulterium› · call in col 430

Adulterio Jun.

"Adulterio" ("at the adulteration") Junius.

(printed under page 219)

(18) ‹anchor: Quid vocatis› · call in col 430

Vocas Seml.

"Vocas" ("do you call", singular) Semler.

(printed under page 219)

(19) ‹anchor: Et non facitis› · call in col 430

Facis Jun.

"Facis" ("do you do", singular) Junius.

Commentarius

(printed under page 219)

(64) ‹anchor: stupuisse miror› · call in col 430

Adulterium Marcionis manus stupuisse miror. Facinus intelligit inauditum, quo B. Lucae Evangelium corrupit, ut ante diximus. Le Pr.

I wonder that Marcion's hands were numbed at the adultery. He means the unheard-of crime by which he corrupted the Gospel of blessed Luke, as we said before. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 219)

(65) ‹anchor: sine formidine est› · call in col 430

Nullum maleficium sine formidine est. Qui timet criminis se conscium, ferme convincitur; nam culpa premit comes, et: ..... Murus aheneus esto Nil conscire tibi. (Horat. Epist. lib. v. ep. 1). Le Pr.

No evil deed is without fear. He who fears that he is conscious of a crime is all but convicted; for guilt presses close as a companion, and: "..... Let this be your wall of bronze: to be conscious of nothing" (Horace, Epistles, book v [as printed], ep. 1). Le Prieur.

(printed under page 219)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:431

ciam imputabat. Alioquin quam absurdum, ut novus Deus, novus Christus, novae tantaeque religionis illuminator, contumaces et inobsequentes pronuntiaret, quos nos potuisset experiri?

‹contuma›cy He imputed. Otherwise, how absurd that a new God, a new Christ, the enlightener of so new and so great a religion, should pronounce people contumacious and disobedient whom he could not have put to the test!

CAPUT XVIII.

Chapter XVIII.

Proinde extollenda fide Centurionis (Luc. VII), incredibile si is professus est talem se fidem nec in Israele invenisse, ad quem non pertinebat fides Israelis. Sed nec exinde pertinere poterat adhuc cruda ut probaretur vel compararetur, ne dixerim adhuc nulla. Sed cur non licuerit illi alienae fidei exemplo uti? Quoniam si ita esset, dixisset talem fidem nec in Israele unquam fuisse; caeterum, dicens talem fidem debuisse inveniri in Israele; quique ad hoc venisset, ut eam inveniret, Deus scilicet et Christus Israelis, quam non sugilasset, nisi exactor et sectator ejus. Aemulus vero etiam maluisset eam talem inventam, ad quam infirmandam et destruendam magis venerat, non ad comprobandam. Resuscitavit et mortuum filium viduae, non novum documentum. Hoc et prophetae Creatoris ediderant, quanto magis Filius? Adeo autem in illud usque momenti, nullum alium Dominus Christus intulerat, ut omnes illic Creatori gloriam retulerint dicentes: Magnus prophetes prodiit in nobis, et respexit Deus populum suum. Quis Deus? Utique cujus populus, et a quo prophetae. Quod si illi quidem Creatorem glorificabant, Christus vero et audiens et sciens non corrigebat, et quidem in tanto documento mortui resuscitati Creatorem adhuc orantes, sine dubio aut non alium circumferebat Deum, quam quem in suis beneficiis atque virtutibus honorari sustinebat aut quale est ut illos tam diu errantes sustineret, ad hoc veniens, ut errori eorum mederetur? Sed scandalizatur Joannes auditis virtutibus Christi, ut alterius. At ego rationem scandali prius expediam, quo facilius haeretici scandalum explodam. Ipso jam Domino virtutum Sermone et Spiritu Patri operante in terris, et praedicante, necesse erat portionem Spiritus sancti, quae ex forma prophetici moduli in Joanne egerat praeparaturam viarum Dominicarum, abscedere jam ab Joanne redactam scilicet in Dominum, ut in massalem suam summam. Itaque Joannes communis jam homo, et unus jam de turba, scandalizabatur quidem qua homo, sed non qua alium Christum sperans vel intelligens, qui neque eumdem speraret, ut nihil novi docentem vel operantem. Nemo haesitabit de aliquo, quem dum scit non esse, nec sperat, nec intelligit. Joannes autem certus erat neminem Deum praeter

Next, in the extolling of the centurion's faith (Luke 7), it is incredible that He should have declared that He had not found such faith even in Israel, if the faith of Israel did not concern Him. Nor indeed could it have concerned Him from that point, being still raw, so as to be tested or compared, not to say still non-existent. But why should He not have been allowed to use the example of a faith not His own? Because, if that were so, He would have said that such faith had never been in Israel; but in fact He was saying that such faith ought to have been found in Israel; and as One who had come for this purpose, to find it, being namely the God and Christ of Israel, He would not have upbraided it unless He were its exactor and pursuer. A rival, on the other hand, would even have preferred to find it such, since he had come rather to weaken and destroy it, not to approve it. He also raised the widow's dead son, no new proof. This the prophets of the Creator had also performed; how much more the Son? Moreover, up to that very moment the Lord Christ had brought in no other [god], so much so that all who were there gave glory to the Creator, saying: A great prophet has come forth among us, and God has looked upon His people. What God? Surely He whose people they were, and from whom the prophets [came]. But if they indeed were glorifying the Creator, while Christ, both hearing and knowing it, did not correct them, and that too in so great a proof as a dead man raised, when they were still praying to the Creator, then without doubt either He was carrying about no other God than Him whom He allowed to be honoured in His own benefits and mighty works, or how is it that He bore with them in their error so long, when He came for this very purpose, to heal their error? But John is scandalized on hearing of the mighty works of Christ, as though they were another's. I, however, shall first explain the reason for the scandal, so that I may the more easily hiss off the heretic's scandal. When the Lord of powers Himself, the Word and Spirit, was already working on earth for the Father and preaching, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, after the pattern of the prophetic measure, had in John carried out the preparation of the Lord's ways, should now depart from John, being gathered back, namely, into the Lord, as into its own total mass. And so John, now a common man and now one of the crowd, was scandalized indeed as a man, but not as one hoping for or understanding another Christ, since he would not have been hoping even for the same one, as teaching or doing nothing new. No one will hesitate about someone whom, while he knows him not to exist, he neither hopes for nor understands. But John was certain that there was no God except

Editors' notes and page, col. 431

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 220)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 431

Invenire Seml.

"Invenire" ("to find") Semler.

(printed under page 220)

(21) ‹anchor: unus jam de› · call in col 431

Jam omitt. Oberth.

"Jam" ("now") is omitted by Oberthür.

(printed under page 220)

(22) ‹anchor: qui neque eumdem› · call in col 431

Unde Pamel.

"Unde" ("whence") Pamelius.

(printed under page 220)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 431

Speramus Seml. Oberth.

"Speramus" ("we hope") Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 220)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 431

Vel qui venturus est Oberth.

"Or he who is to come" Oberthür.

(printed under page 220)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 431

Christum Pamel.

"Christum" Pamelius.

(printed under page 220)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 431

Per eas renuntiarit Seml. per ea renunt. Pamel.

"Per eas renuntiarit" ("had reported through them", feminine) Semler; "per ea renuntiarit" (neuter) Pamelius.

(printed under page 220)

(66) ‹anchor: scandalizatur Joannes› · call in col 431

Sed scandalizatur Joannes, etc. Id dictum est ex absurda Marcionis sententia, quod discere potes ab Epiphanio, adv. Marc. Le Pr.

But John is scandalized, etc. This is said on the strength of Marcion's absurd opinion, which you can learn from Epiphanius, Against Marcion. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 220)

(67) ‹anchor: viarum Dominicarum› · call in col 431

Praeparaturam viarum Dominicarum. Praeparatum, inquit Rhen., dixit, pro praeparatione ut paraturam saepe. Est vero etiam phrasis Tertullianica, massalem, summam, id est integram, voce derivata a massa. Pam.

The preparation of the Lord's ways. He said praeparatum [as printed], says Rhenanus, for praeparatio, as he often says paratura. There is also a Tertullianic phrase, massalem summam, that is, the whole sum, the word being derived from massa. Pamelius.

(printed under page 220)

Page

running head: 431 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: A ciam imputabat. Alioquin; B tor et sectator ejus; C in suis beneficiis atque; D licet in Dominum, ut in
old-edition numerals: 402 after illic

PL 2:432

Creatorem, vel qua Judaeus, etiam prophetes plane facilius quasi haesitavit de eo quem quum sciat esse, an ipse sit, nesciat. Hoc igitur metu et Joannes: Tu es, inquit, qui venis, an alium exspectamus (Matth. XI, 3)? simpliciter inquirens, an ipse venisset quem exspectabat. Tu es qui venis, id est, qui venturus es, an alium exspectamus? id est, an alius est quem exspectamus, si non tu es quem venturum exspectamus? Sperabat enim, sicut omnes opinabantur ex similitudine documentorum, potuisse et prophetam interim missum esse, a quo alius esset, id est major, ipse scilicet Dominus, qui venturus exspectabantur. Atque adeo hoc erat Joannis scandalum, quod dubitabat ipsum venisse quem exspectabant, quem et praedicatis operationibus agnovisse debuerant, ut Dominus, per easdem operationes agnoscendum se nuntiaverit Joanni. Quae cum constet praedicata in Christum Creatoris, sicut ad singula ostendimus, satis perversum, ut Christus non Creatoris per ea se renuntiarit intelligendum, per quae magis Christum Creatoris agnosci compellebat. Multo perversius, si et testimonium Joanni perhibet non Joannis Christus, propheten eum confirmans, imo et supra, ut angelum, ingerens etiam scriptum super illo: Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam (Ibid. 10); eleganter ad superiorem sensum scandalizati Joannis commemorans prophetiam, ut, confirmans praecursorem Joannem jam advenisse, exstingueret scrupulum interrogationis illius, Tu es qui venis, an alium exspectamus? Praecursore enim jam functo officio, praeparata via Domini, ipse erat intelligendus, cui praecursor ministraverat, Major quidem omnibus natis mulierum sed non ideo subjecto ei, qui minor fuerit in regno Dei (Ibid. 11); quasi alterius sit Dei regnum, in quo modicus quis major erit Joanne; alterius Joannes, qui omnibus natis mulierum major sit. Sive enim de quocunque dicit modico per humilitatem, sive de semetipso, quia minor Joanne habebatur, omnibus scilicet in solitudinem concurrentibus ad Joannem potius quam ad Christum. Quid exitis videre in solitudinem? tantumdem et Creatori competit, et Joannem ipsius esse majorem natis mulierum, et Christum vel quemque modicum, qui major Joanne futurus sit in regno aeque Creatoris, et qui sit major tanto propheta, qui non fuerit scandalizatus in Christum, quod tunc Joannem minuit. Diximus de remissa peccatorum. Illius autem peccatricis feminae

the Creator, at least as a Jew, and even as a prophet; quite plainly he more readily, as it were, hesitated concerning Him of Whom, though he knows that He exists, he does not know whether it is He. From this fear, then, John too says: Art Thou He Who comes, or do we look for another? (Matt. 11:3), simply asking whether He Whom he was expecting had come. Art Thou He Who comes, that is, Who is to come, or do we look for another? that is, is it another whom we look for, if Thou art not He Whom we expect to come? For he hoped, as all supposed from the likeness of the proofs, that a prophet too could in the meantime have been sent, from whom another would be distinct, that is, a greater, namely the Lord Himself, Who was expected to come. And so this was John's stumbling, that he doubted that He had come Whom they were expecting, Whom they ought to have recognized by the foretold works too, so that the Lord announced to John that He was to be recognized through those same works. Since it is established that these were foretold of the Christ of the Creator, as we have shown point by point, it is quite perverse that a Christ not the Creator's should have declared that He was to be understood through those things through which He rather compelled the Christ of the Creator to be recognized. Much more perverse, if a Christ not John's also bears witness to John, confirming him a prophet, nay, even more, an angel, pressing also what was written about him: Behold, I send My angel before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way (ibid. 10); aptly recalling the prophecy with reference to the earlier sense of the stumbling John, so that, by confirming that the forerunner John had already come, He might extinguish the scruple of that question of his, Art Thou He Who comes, or do we look for another? For since the forerunner had already discharged his office and the way of the Lord had been prepared, He Himself was to be understood, the One Whom the forerunner had served, Greater indeed than all born of women, but not on that account subjected to him who shall be lesser in the kingdom of God (ibid. 11); as if the kingdom in which some little one will be greater than John belonged to one God, and John, who is greater than all born of women, to another. For whether He speaks of any little one whatever out of humility, or of Himself, because He was held less than John, since everyone, that is, was flocking into the wilderness to John rather than to Christ: What do you go out into the wilderness to see? it fits the Creator just as well, both that John should be His, greater than those born of women, and that Christ, or any little one whatever, who is to be greater than John in the kingdom, equally the Creator's, and who is greater than so great a prophet, in that he has not stumbled at Christ, the thing which then diminished John. We have spoken of the remission of sins. But the argument concerning that sinful woman

Editors' notes and page, col. 432

Footnotes

(23) ‹anchor: an alium exspectamus (Matth.› · call in col 432

Speramus Seml. Oberth.

"Speramus" ("we hope for") Semler, Oberthür.

(24) ‹anchor: Tu es qui venis, id est› · call in col 432

Vel qui venturus est Oberth.

"Vel qui venturus est" ("or who is to come") Oberthür.

(25) ‹anchor: ut Christus non Creatoris› · call in col 432

Christum Pamel.

"Christum" Pamelius.

(26) ‹anchor: per ea se renuntiarit› · call in col 432

Per eas renuntiarit Seml. per ea renunt. Pamel.

"Per eas renuntiarit" Semler; "per ea renunt[iarit]" Pamelius.

(27) ‹anchor: Major quidem› · call in col 432

Majore Pamel. Fran. majori Rig. Venet.

"Majore" Pamelius and the Franeker edition; "majori" Rigault and the Venice edition.

Commentarius

(printed under page 220)

(68) ‹anchor: de remissa peccatorum› · call in col 432

Diximus de remissa peccatorum. Remissam pro remissione, ut S. Cyprianus lib. de Bono pat. (continues)

We have spoken of the remission of sins. Remissa for remissio, as St Cyprian, in the book On the Good of Patience (continues)

(printed under page 220)

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 432
marginal letters: A Creatorem, vel qua Judaeus; B easdem operationes agnoscendum; C qui venis, an alium exspectamus? Praecursore; D ad Christum. Quid exitis
old-edition numerals: 403 after Christum

PL 2:433

argumentum eo pertinebit, ut cum pedes Domini osculis figeret, lacrymis inundaret, crinibus detergeret, unguento perduceret, solidi corporis veritatem, non phantasma inane tractaverit. Et ut peccatricis poenitentia secundum Creatorem meruerit veniam praeponere solitum sacrificio. Sed et si poenitentiae stimulus ex fide acciderat, per poenitentiam ex fide justificatam, ab eo audiit: Fides tua te salvam fecit (Matth. IX, 22): qui per Habacuc (II, 4) pronuntiarat: Justus ex fide sua vivet.

will bear on this: that when she fastened kisses on the feet of the Lord, flooded them with tears, wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment, she handled the reality of a solid body, not an empty phantasm. It bears also on this: that the penitence of the sinful woman merited pardon according to the Creator, Who is accustomed to set it before sacrifice. But even if the spur of penitence had arisen from faith, through penitence justified by faith she heard from Him: Your faith has made you whole (Matt. 9:22), from Him Who had declared through Habakkuk (Hab. 2:4): The just shall live by his faith.

CAPUT XIX.

Chapter XIX.

Quod divites Christo mulieres adhaerebant, quae et de facultatibus suis ministrabant ei, inter quas et uxor regis procuratoris (Luc. VIII), de prophetia est. Has enim vocabat per Isaiam (XXXII, 9): Mulieres divites exsurgite, et audite vocem meam; ut discipulas primo, dehinc ut operarias et ministras ostenderet: Filiae, in spe audite sermones meos. Dies anni mementote cum labore in spe. Cum labore enim quo sequebantur, et ob spem, ministrabant. Aeque de parabolis semel sufficiat probatum, hoc genus eloquii a Creatore promissum. At nunc illa quoque pronuntiatio ejus ad populum (Isa. VI, 10): Aure audietis, et non audietis; dedit Christo frequenter inculcare: Qui habet aures, audiat. Non quasi ex diversitate auditum permitteret Christus, quem ademisset Creator: sed quia comminationem exhortatio sequebatur: primo, aure audietis; dehinc, qui habet aures, audiat. Non enim audiebant ultro, qui aures habebant; sed ostendebat aures cordis necessarias, quibus illos audituros negarat Creator. Et ideo per Christum adjicit: Videte quomodo audiatis, et non audiatis; non corde scilicet audientes, sed aure. Si dignum sensum pronuntiationi accommodes pro sensu ejus qui auditui suscitabat, etiam dicendo, Videte quomodo audiatis, non audituris minabatur. Sane nominatur mitissimus Deus, quia nec judicat, nec irascitur. Hoc probat etiam subjacens sensus: Ei qui habet, dabitur; ab eo autem qui non habet, etiam quod habere se putat auferetur ei. Quid dabitur? Adjectio fidei, vel intellectus, vel salus ipsa. Quid auferetur? Utique quod dabitur. A quo dabitur, et auferetur? Si a Creatore auferetur, ab eo et dabitur: si a deo Marcionis dabitur, ab eo et auferetur. Quoquo tamen nomine comminatur ablationem, non erit

That rich women clung to Christ, who also ministered to Him from their means, among whom was even the wife of the king's steward (Luke 8), is from prophecy. For He was calling these through Isaiah (Isa. 32:9): Rich women, rise up, and hear My voice; so as to show them first as disciples, then as workers and ministers: Daughters, hear My words in hope. Remember the days of the year with labour in hope. For it was with labour that they followed, and for the sake of hope that they ministered. Likewise concerning parables, let it suffice to have proved once for all that this kind of speech was promised by the Creator. But now that declaration of His to the people too (Isa. 6:10): With the ear you shall hear, and you shall not hear, gave Christ occasion to inculcate frequently: He who has ears, let him hear. Not as though, out of a difference [of gods], Christ were permitting the hearing which the Creator had taken away; but because exhortation followed upon threat: first, with the ear you shall hear; then, he who has ears, let him hear. For those who had ears did not hear of their own accord; but He was showing that the ears of the heart were necessary, with which the Creator had denied that they would hear. And therefore through Christ He adds: Take heed how you hear, and do not hear; that is, hearing not with the heart, but with the ear. If you fit a worthy meaning to the declaration, in accordance with the mind of Him Who was rousing them to hearing, even in saying, Take heed how you hear, He was threatening those who would not hear. Clearly the most gentle god is so called because he neither judges nor is angry. This is proved also by the sentence that follows: To him who has, it shall be given; but from him who has not, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him. What shall be given? An increase of faith, or of understanding, or salvation itself. What shall be taken away? Surely that which shall be given. By whom shall it be given, and taken away? If it is taken away by the Creator, by Him also it shall be given; if it is given by the god of Marcion, by him also it shall be taken away. Yet under whatever name he threatens the taking away, it will not be

Editors' notes and page, col. 433

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 221)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 433

Vivit Seml. Oberth.

"Vivit" ("lives") Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 221)

(29) ‹anchor: ab eo et› · call in col 433

Et abest Paris.

"Et" ("also") is absent in the Paris edition.

(printed under page 221)

Page

running head: 433 LIB. IV ADV. MARCI[ONEM] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹argumentum eo pertinebit›; B ‹Has enim vocabat per Isaiam›; C ‹bant ultro, qui aures habebant›; D ‹tamen nomine comminatur ablationem›
old-edition numerals: 404 after ‹Aure audietis,›

PL 2:434

ejus Dei qui nescit comminari, quia non novit irasci. Miror autem cum lucernam negat abscondi solere, qui se tanto saeculo absconderat majus et necessarius lumen, cum omnia de occulto in apertum repromittit, qui Deum suum usque adhuc obumbrat, exspectans, opinor, nasci Marcionem. Venimus ad constantissimum argumentum omnium qui Domini nativitatem in controversiam deferunt. Ipse, inquiunt, contestatur se non esse natum, dicendo: Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres? Ita semper haeretici, aut nudas et simplices voces conjecturis quo volunt rapiunt; aut rursus conditionales et rationales, simplicitatis conditione dissolvunt ut hoc in loco. Nos contrario dicimus: primo, non potuisse illi annuntiari, quod mater et fratres ejus foris starent quaerentes videre eum, si nulla illi mater et fratres nulli fuissent, quos utique norat qui adnuntiaret, vel retro notos: vel tunc ibidem compertos, dum eum videre desiderant, vel dum ipsi nuntium mandant. Ad hanc primam propositionem nostram solet ex diverso responderi: Quid enim si tentandi gratia nuntiatum est ei? Sed hoc Scriptura non dicit, quae quanto significare solet ex tentatione quid factum (Luc. X): Ecce legis doctor assurexit tentans eum; et de tributi consultatione: Et accesserunt ad eum Pharisaei tentantes eum (Luc. XX); tanto ubi non facit tentationis mentionem non admittit tentationis interpretationem. Et tamen ex abundanti caussas tentationis expostulo, cui rei tentaverint illum, per nominationem matris et fratrum. Si ut scirent natusne esset, an non; quando de hoc fuit quaestio, quam ex ista tentatione discuterent. Quis autem dubitaret natum, quem videret hominem, quem audisset filium se hominis professum, quem de conspectu omnis humanae qualitatis dubitarent Deum, aut Filium Dei credere? propheten facilius existimantes, licet magnum aliquem, utique tamen natum. Etiamsi in exploratione nativitatis tentandus fuisset, quodcunque aliud argumentum tentationi competisset, quam per earum personarum mentionem, quas potuit etiam natus non habere. Dic mihi: Omnibus natis mater advivit? omnibus natis adgenerantur et fratres? non licet patres magis et sorores habere, vel et neminem? Sed et census constat actos (Luc. II) sub Augusto nunc in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus inquirere potuissent. Adeo nullo

of that god who does not know how to threaten, because he does not know how to be angry. But I marvel that He denies that a lamp is wont to be hidden, He who, a greater and more necessary light, had hidden Himself for so long an age, while He promises that all things [shall come] out of hiding into the open, He who overshadows His God even until now, waiting, I suppose, for Marcion to be born. We come to the most constant argument of all those who bring the Lord's nativity into dispute. He Himself, they say, testifies that He was not born, by saying: Who is My mother, and who are My brothers? So heretics always either snatch bare and simple words by conjectures to wherever they wish, or else dissolve conditional and reasoned ones by the condition of simplicity, as in this place. We on the contrary say: first, that it could not have been announced to Him that His mother and His brothers were standing outside seeking to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brothers, whom certainly the one who announced it knew, either as known from before, or as found out there and then, while they desire to see Him, or while they themselves send the message. To this first proposition of ours it is usually answered from the other side: What then if it was announced to Him for the sake of tempting? But Scripture does not say this; and just as much as it is wont to indicate what was done out of temptation (Luke 10): Behold, a doctor of the law rose up, tempting Him; and concerning the consultation about tribute: And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him (Luke 20); so much, where it makes no mention of temptation, does it not admit an interpretation of temptation. And yet, over and above, I demand the reasons for the temptation: for what purpose they would have tempted Him by the naming of His mother and brothers. If so that they might know whether He had been born or not: when was there a question about this, which they might settle by this temptation? But who would doubt that He was born whom he saw to be a man, whom he had heard professing Himself to be the Son of man, whom, from the sight of every human quality, they hesitated to believe God or the Son of God? thinking Him more readily a prophet, granted some great one, yet certainly born. Even if He had had to be tested in an inquiry into His birth, any other argument whatever would have suited the testing better than through the mention of those persons whom He could, even though born, not have had. Tell me: does a mother remain alive for all who are born? Are brothers also born in addition for all who are born? Is it not allowed to have rather fathers and sisters, or even no one? But it is also established that censuses were held (Luke 2) under Augustus now in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, from whom they could have inquired into His lineage. So by no

Editors' notes and page, col. 434

Footnotes

(30) ‹anchor: sub Augusto nunc› · call in col 434

Tunc Jun.

"Tunc" ("then") Junius.

(printed under page 221)

(31) ‹anchor: in Judaea› · call in col 434

Judaeam Pam.

"Judaeam" ("into Judaea") Pamelius.

Commentarius

(printed under page 221)

(69) ‹anchor: per Sentium Saturninum› · call in col 434

Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Judaeam per Sentium Saturninum. Sic legitur in exemplari. Et veterem scripturam P. Pithoei manus ad Rhenani marginem sic explicat: « Nunc, hoc est, cum illa Christus diceret nuntiantibus adesse matrem et fratres. » Ut Septimius innuat census alios ab iis quos ab Cyrenio actos didicerat ex cap. II Lucae. Rig. — De censu diximus ad cap. 7. Census autem is factus est sine ulla pecuniae indictione seu capitatione; sed tantum ut recenseretur orbis, et nomina civium seu subditorum imperio describerentur. Le Pr.

But it is certain that censuses were taken under Augustus, at that time, in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus. So it reads in the copy. And the hand of P. Pithou, in the margin of Rhenanus, explains the old reading thus: "'Nunc', that is, when Christ said these things to those who told him that his mother and brothers were there." So that Septimius would be hinting at censuses other than those he had learned from chapter II of Luke were taken by Cyrenius. Rigault. — We have spoken of the census at chapter 7. That census was made without any levy of money or poll-tax, but only so that the world might be counted and the names of citizens, or subjects, entered under the empire. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 221)

Page

running head: …V ADV. MARCIONEM. 434 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ejus Dei qui nescit; B rentes videre eum; C et fratrum. Si ut scirent; D quos genus ejus inquirere
old-edition numerals: 405 after nominationem

PL 2:435

modo constitit ratio tentationis istius. At vere mater et fratres ejus foris stabant. Superest et dispicere sensum non simpliciter pronuntiantis, Quae mihi mater aut fratres? quasi ad generis et nativitatis negationem; sed et ex causae necessitate et conditione rationali. Tam proximas enim personas foris stare extraneis intus defixis ad sermones ejus, amplius et avocare eum a solemni opere quaerentes, merito indignatus est. Non tam abnegavit quam abdicavit. Atque adeo cum praemisisset, Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres? subjungens, nisi qui audiunt verba mea, et faciunt ea? transtulit sanguinis nomina in alios, quos magis proximos pro fide judicaret. Nemo autem transfert quid, nisi ab eo qui habet id quod transfert. Si ergo matrem et fratres eos fecit qui non erant, quomodo negavit eos qui erant? meritorum scilicet conditione, non ex primorum negatione; in semetipso docens, qui patrem aut matrem aut fratres praeponeret verbo Dei, non esse (Matth. X, 27) dignum discipulum. Caeterum, ex hoc magis matrem et fratres confitebatur, quod illos nolebat agnoscere; quod alios adoptabat, confirmabat quos ex offensa negavit, quibus non ut veriores substituit, sed ut digniores. Denique nihil magnum, si fidem sanguini praeposuit, quem non habebat.

way the account of this testing holds. But in truth His mother and brothers were standing outside. It remains also to discern the sense of One Who did not speak simply when He said, Who is My mother or My brothers?, as though to deny His family and birth, but spoke both from the necessity of the occasion and on a reasonable ground. For He was rightly indignant that persons so near to Him stood outside, while strangers within were fixed upon His discourses, and that they moreover sought to call Him away from His solemn work. He did not so much deny them as disown them. And so, when He had first said, Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?, adding, except those who hear My words and do them?, He transferred the names of blood to others, whom He judged nearer to Him on account of faith. But no one transfers anything except from him who has that which he transfers. If, then, He made those His mother and brothers who were not so, how did He deny those who were? Namely on the condition of merits, not by a denial of the first ones; teaching in His own person that whoever preferred father or mother or brothers to the word of God was not (Matt. 10:27) a worthy disciple. Moreover, He acknowledged His mother and brothers all the more by this, that He was unwilling to recognize them; by adopting others He confirmed those whom He denied out of offence, in place of whom He put the others not as truer but as worthier. In short, it would be nothing great if He preferred faith to a blood which He did not have.

CAPUT XX.

Chapter XX.

Quis autem iste est, qui et ventis et mari imperat )Luc, VIII)? Nimirum novus dominator atque possessor elementorum subacti jam et exclusi Creatoris. Non ita est. Sed agnorant substantiae auctorem suum, quae famulis quoque ejus obaudire consueverant. Inspice Exodum (Cap. XIV). Marcion, aspice Mari rubro, vastiori super omnia stagna Judae, virgam Moysi imperantem, ut funditus proscissum, et pari utrimque stupore discriminis fixum, sicco

But who is this, Who commands both the winds and the sea (Luke 8)? Doubtless a new lord and possessor of the elements of a Creator now subdued and shut out. It is not so. Rather, the substances had recognized their own Author, they who had been accustomed to obey even His servants. Look into Exodus (ch. 14). Marcion, behold the rod of Moses commanding the Red Sea, vaster than all the pools of Judaea, so that, cleft to its very bottom and held fast on either side by an equal stupor at the division, with dry

Editors' notes and page, col. 435

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 222)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Et omitt. Seml. Oberth.

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

(printed under page 222)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Negavit cod. Pithoei.

"Negavit" ("denied") Pithou's manuscript.

(printed under page 222)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Quis Seml.

"Quis" ("who") Semler.

(printed under page 222)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Ex inser. Wouw.

"Ex" ("from") is inserted by Wouwer.

(printed under page 222)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Disperges Pam.

"Disperges" ("you will scatter") Pamelius.

(printed under page 222)

(70) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Non tam negavit, quam abdicavit. Quis ita loquentem hodie ferat? Nam et moriens Christus adstantem Mariam nihilominus consolatur, et post mulieris appellationem, statim honorificentissima filii relatione matrem profitetur, et Joanni delegat. Rig.

He did not so much deny as disown them. Who would bear anyone speaking so today? For Christ, even as he was dying, nonetheless comforted Mary standing by, and after addressing her as "woman", at once acknowledged her as mother in the most honourable relation of a son, and entrusted her to John. Rigault.

(printed under page 222)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Transtulit sanguinis nomina in alios. Hoc est, metaphorice vocavit fratres et matrem eos qui verba sua audirent et facerent. Rig.

He transferred the names of blood to others. That is, he called "brothers" and "mother", metaphorically, those who would hear and do his words. Rigault.

(printed under page 222)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Fratres eos fecit, qui non erant. Sanguinem suum fecit eos qui non erant: hoc est, usus figura sanguinis seu fraternitatis, demonstravit affectus suos erga verborum suorum auditores et factores. Fratres eos fecit, hoc est, nominavit, figurate scilicet, et allegorice. Rig.

He made them brothers who were not. He made those his blood who were not: that is, using the figure of blood, or brotherhood, he showed his affection towards the hearers and doers of his words. He made them brothers, that is, he named them so, figuratively and allegorically. Rigault.

(printed under page 222)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Lege et sortes familiae dirimendae. Sic habet exemplar. Quod explicari potest: Lege, inquit, historiam Jordanis, scies ejus machaeram fuisse in transitum familiae sorte dirimendae: obstitisse transitui filiorum Israel tanquam aciem ingentis gladii, obstitisse transeunti familiae sorte dirimendae, et tamen ejus impetum atque decursum prophetis transmeantibus stetisse; prophetas arcam foederis ferentes, cum iisque filios Israel, sicco pede transmeasse. Nimirum verbum illud, lege, respondet praecedenti, inspice. Itaque, ut supra dixit, Inspice Exodum, ita hic etiam dixisse videtur, « Lege et sortes familiae dirimendae, » quarum scilicet historia habetur Josue III et IV. Rig.

Read also the lots of the household to be divided. So the copy has it. This can be explained: Read, he says, the story of the Jordan, and you will know that its sword stood across the crossing of the household that was to be divided by lot; that it barred the crossing of the sons of Israel like the edge of a huge sword, barred the household on its way to be divided by lot, and yet its rush and current stood still while the prophets crossed over; the prophets carrying the ark of the covenant, and the sons of Israel with them, crossed dry-shod. Clearly the word lege, "read", answers to the preceding inspice, "look". So, as he said above, Look at Exodus, here too he seems to have said, "Read also the lots of the household to be divided", whose story is given in Joshua III and IV. Rigault.

(printed under page 222)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 435

Jordanis machaeram. Sic Tibris arcano sacrorum vocabulo dicebatur Serra, auctore Servio ad illa Virgilii: ..... Ego sum, pleno quem flumine cernis Stringentem ripas et pinguia culta secantem, Caeruleus Tibris. Rig.

The sword of the Jordan. So the Tiber, in the secret vocabulary of the sacred rites, was called Serra, "the saw", on the authority of Servius on these lines of Virgil: "..... I am he whom you see with full stream grazing the banks and cutting through the rich tilled fields, the sky-blue Tiber." Rigault.

(printed under page 222)

Page

running head: 435 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹modo constitit ratio tentationis›; B ‹trem et fratres eos fecit›; C ‹Luc, VIII)? Nimirum novus dominator›; D ‹(70) Non tam negavit, quam abdicavit› (in the Commentarius at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 406 after ‹ex hoc›

PL 2:436

populum pede, intestino itinere transmitteret, rursusque sub ejusdem virgae nutu, redeunte natura, Aegyptium exercitum undarum concordia obrueret: in quod opus et austri servierunt. Lege et (Josue III, 4) sortes familiae dirimendae, in transitum ejus Jordanis machaeram fuisse, cujus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare. Quid ad haec? Si tuus Christus est, non erit potentior famulis Creatoris. Sed his solis exemplis usus essem, si non etiam praedicatio marinae istius expeditionis Christum antecessisset. Nam cum transfretat, Psalmus (XXVIII, 3) expungitur: Dominus, inquit, super aquas multas; cum undas freti discutit, Habacuc adimpletur: Dispargens, inquit (Habac. III, 9), aquas itinere; cum ad minas ejus eliditur mare, Nahum quoque absolvitur: Comminans, inquit (Nahum I, 4), mari et arefaciens illud; utique cum ventis, quibus inquietabatur. Unde vis meum vindicem Christum? de exemplis, an de prophetis Creatoris? Age nunc, qui militarem et armatum bellatorem praedicari putas, non figurate, nec allegorice, qui bellum spiritale adversus spiritales hostes, spiritali militia et spiritalibus armis, spiritaliter debellaturus esset: cum invenis in uno homine multitudinem daemonum, legionem se pro⟨f⟩essam, utique spiritalem, disce et Christum expugnatorem spiritalium hostium, spiritaliter armatum et spiritaliter bellicosum intelligendum: atque ita ipsum esse, qui cum legione quoque daemonum erat dimicaturus; ut et de hoc bello Psalmus possit videri pronuntiasse (Ps. XXIII, 8): Dominus validus, Dominus potens in bello. Nam cum ultimo hoste morte praeliatus, per tropaeum crucis triumphavit. Cujus autem Dei Filium Jesum legio testata est? Sine dubio cujus tormenta et abyssum noverant, et timebant, nec enim videntur posse ignorasse adhuc quod novi et ignoti Dei virtus operaretur

foot, it should take the people across by a path through the midst [of the sea], and again at the nod of the same rod, nature returning, should overwhelm the Egyptian army with the concord of the waves: in which work the south winds also served. Read also (Josh. 3:4), [in the account of] the lots of the family to be divided, that the sword of the Jordan stood across its crossing, whose force and current Jesus [i.e. Joshua] too had plainly taught to stand still while the prophets passed over. What [do you say] to this? If He is your Christ, He will not be more powerful than the servants of the Creator. But I should have used these examples alone, had not the prediction of this sea expedition also gone before Christ. For when He crosses the strait, the Psalm (Ps. 28:3) is fulfilled: The Lord, it says, upon many waters; when He scatters the waves of the strait, Habakkuk is fulfilled: Scattering, it says (Hab. 3:9), the waters on [His] way; when at His threats the sea is dashed down, Nahum too is discharged: Threatening, it says (Nah. 1:4), the sea and drying it up; that is, together with the winds by which it was being disturbed. From where do you wish me to claim Christ as mine? From the examples, or from the prophets of the Creator? Come now, you who think that a military and armed warrior is foretold, not figuratively nor allegorically, [rather than one] who was to wage to the end a spiritual war against spiritual enemies, with spiritual soldiery and spiritual arms, spiritually: when you find in one man a multitude of demons, which declared itself a legion, spiritual of course, learn that Christ too is to be understood as the vanquisher of spiritual enemies, spiritually armed and spiritually warlike; and that He is thus the one who was to do battle even with a legion of demons; so that the Psalm too may be seen to have spoken of this war (Ps. 23:8): The Lord strong, the Lord mighty in war. For having fought with the last enemy, death, He triumphed through the trophy of the cross. And of which God did the legion testify that Jesus was the Son? Without doubt of Him Whose torments and abyss they knew and feared; for they do not seem to have been able to be ignorant as yet of what the power of the new and unknown God was working

Editors' notes and page, col. 436

Footnotes

(37) ‹anchor: potens in bello› · call in col 436

Praelio alii.

"Praelio" ("in battle") others.

(printed under page 222)

(38) ‹anchor: legio testata› · call in col 436

Testatus Seml. Oberth.

"Testatus" (masculine) Semler, Oberthür.

Commentarius

(printed under page 222)

(75) ‹anchor: legio testata est› · call in col 436

Cujus autem Dei filium Jesum legio testata est? Quasi aliud agens prosequitur illud: Quid mihi et tibi est, Jesu fili Dei altissimi? (Luc. VIII, 28.) et ibi veniam scilicet abyssi, id est ab abysso, sicuti supra cap. 12, veniam jejunii. Pam.

But the Son of which God did the legion testify Jesus to be? As though about something else, he follows up the words What have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of God most high? (Luke VIII, 28), and there "leave of the abyss", that is, leave from the abyss, just as above, chapter 12, "leave of fasting". Pamelius.

(printed under page 222)

Page

running head: [cut off at left]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 436
marginal letters: A ‹populum pede, intestino itinere›; B ‹cuc adimpletur : Dispargens›; C ‹erat dimicaturus; ut et de›; D ‹dae, et tamen ejus impetum› (in the Commentarius notes, not in the set text)
old-edition numerals: 407 after ‹spiritales›
misprints: the page prints "pro- / essam" (the f is missing at the line start); the source sets it as pro⟨f⟩essam, the supplied letter marked
notes called in this column but set in n435 (labelled there "call in col 435"): Variae lectiones 36 (at Dispargens); Commentarius (73) (at dirimendae) and (74) (at machaeram). QA Q2a, 2026-10-18: their calls are on this column's page text; n435 not edited.

PL 2:437

in terris; quia verisimile non est Creatorem ignorasse. Si enim alium supra se Deum ignoraverat aliquando, tamen jam infra coelum suum agentem, utique compererat. Quod autem Dominus comperisset, jam et universae familiae innotuisset in eodem mundo, et intra eumdem ambitum coeli, quo peregrina Divinitas conversaretur. In quantum ergo et Creator scisset eam, et substantiae ejus, si fuisset; in tantum quia nulla fuit, non alium daemones sciebant, quam Dei sui Christum. Non depetunt ab alio, quod meminissent petendum sibi a Creatore, veniam scilicet abyssi Creatoris. Denique impetraverunt. Quo merito? Quia mentiti erant? quia saevi Dei filium eum fecerant? Et qualis erit, qui mentitos juvabat, qui infamantes sustinebat? Sed enim, quia mentiti non erant, quia Deum abyssi et suum cognoverant, ita eum se et ipse confirmavit quem adcognoverunt daemones, Jesum judicem et ultoris Dei Filium. Ecce aliquid et de illis pusillitatibus et infirmitatibus Creatoris in Christo. Ignorantiam enim et ego adscribere ei volo. Permittite mihi adversus haereticum. Tangitur a femina quae sanguine fluitabat, et nescivit a qua. Quis me, inquit, tetigit? Etiam excusantibus discipulis, perseverat in ignorantiae voce, Tetigit me aliquis; idque de argumento affirmat: Sensi enim virtutem ex me profectam. Quid dicit haereticus? sciebatne personam? Et cur quasi ignorans loquebatur? Ut confessionem certe provocaret, ut timorem probaret. Sic et Adam aliquando quaesierat, quasi ignorans: Adam ubi es? (Gen. III, 9). Habes et Creatorem cum Christo excusatum, et Christum Creatori adaequatum. Sed et hoc, qui adversarius legis; ut quia lex a contactu feminae sanguinantis submovet, idcirco gestierit non tantum contactum ejus admittere, sed etiam sanitatem donare. O Deum non natura beneficum, sed aemulatione! At enim si fidem mulieris invenimus ita meruisse, cum dicit: Fides tua te salvam fecit, qui es ut aemulationem legis interpreteris in isto facto, quod ipse Dominus ex fidei remuneratione editum ostendit? Sed hanc vis mulieris fidem constituet, qua contempserat legem. Et cui credibile, ut mulier nullius adhuc Dei conscia, nullius adhuc novae legis

on earth; because it is not likely that the Creator was ignorant [of it]. For if He had at some time been ignorant of another God above Himself, yet once [that God was] acting beneath His own heaven, He would certainly have found [Him] out. And what the Lord had found out would at once have become known to His whole household too, in the same world and within the same circuit of heaven in which the foreign Divinity was dwelling. To the extent, then, that the Creator would have known it, and those of His substance as well, had it existed, to that extent, since there was none, the demons knew no other than the Christ of their own God. They do not beg from another what they would have remembered was to be asked by them of the Creator, namely, pardon from the Creator's abyss. And in the end they obtained it. On what merit? Because they had lied? Because they had made Him the son of a cruel God? And what sort [of God] will He be who helped liars, who bore with slanderers? But no: because they had not lied, because they had recognized the God of the abyss, and their own, He Himself also confirmed that He was the one whom the demons had recognized, Jesus, the Judge and Son of the avenging God. Here, look, is something of those pettinesses and infirmities of the Creator in Christ. For I too wish to ascribe ignorance to Him. Allow me this against the heretic. He is touched by a woman who was flowing with blood, and He did not know by whom. "Who," He says, "touched Me?" Even when the disciples make excuses, He persists in the language of ignorance: "Someone touched Me"; and He affirms it from evidence: "For I perceived power gone out of Me." What does the heretic say? Did He know the person? Then why did He speak as though ignorant? To draw out a confession, surely, to test her fear. So too Adam was once sought by the Creator as though He were ignorant: "Adam, where are you?" (Gen. 3:9). You have both the Creator excused along with Christ and Christ made equal to the Creator. But [you say] this too, that [He was] the adversary of the law: that because the law keeps [men] away from contact with a woman flowing with blood, He was therefore eager not only to allow her contact but also to bestow healing on her. O God, beneficent not by nature but out of rivalry! But if we find that the woman's faith merited it thus, when He says, "Your faith has made you well," who are you to interpret as rivalry with the law in this deed what the Lord Himself shows to have been brought about as the reward of faith? But you would have the woman's faith consist in this, that she had despised the law. And to whom [is it] credible that a woman as yet aware of no God, as yet initiated into no new law,

Editors' notes and page, col. 437

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 223)

(39) ‹anchor: Non depetunt› · call in col 437

Enim peterent Wouw.

"Enim peterent" ("for they were asking") Wouwer.

(printed under page 223)

(40) ‹anchor: quem adcognoverunt› · call in col 437

Cognoverunt Pam.

"Cognoverunt" ("they knew") Pamelius.

(printed under page 223)

(41) ‹anchor: Sed et hoc, qui› · call in col 437

Qua Jun.

"Qua" ("as") Junius.

(printed under page 223)

(42) ‹anchor: nullius adhuc novae legis› · call in col 437

Nulli... legi cod. Wouw.

"Nulli ... legi" (dative) Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 223)

(76) ‹anchor: sanguine fluitabat› · call in col 437

A femina quae sanguine fluitabat. Sic Hieronymus, epist. 131 ad Rufinum dixit « mulierem fluentem sanguine; « et epist. 128 ad Fabiolam: Si quis e sacerdotibus semine fluxerit. » Rig.

By a woman who was flowing with blood. So Jerome, in letter 131 To Rufinus, said "a woman flowing with blood"; and in letter 128 To Fabiola: "If any of the priests has flowed with seed." Rigault.

(printed under page 223)

(77) ‹anchor: sanguinantis submovet› · call in col 437

A contactu feminae sanguinantis submovet, etc. Alludit ad illud Levit. XV, sub finem cap. Haec est lex, etc. sanguinantis, id est, uti B. Hieronymus quae jugiter fluit sanguine, mulieris, pro quo hodie perperam legitur apud LXX: Καὶ ὁ γονοῤῥυής, id est seminifluus; sed repetendum καὶ τῇ αἱμοῤῥοόσῃ, id est sanguinifluae, neque enim egit dicto cap. de femina seminiflua, sed viro seminifluo, et muliere sanguinante dies plures, non in tempore menstrui sui. Pam.

Removes from the touch of a bleeding woman, etc. He alludes to the passage in Leviticus XV, towards the end of the chapter, This is the law, etc.: "of a bleeding", that is, as blessed Jerome has it, "who flows continually with blood", "woman"; in place of which the Septuagint today wrongly reads Kai ho gonorrhyēs, that is, "and the man with a flux of seed"; but one should restore kai tē haimorrhoousē, that is, "and to the woman with a flux of blood", for in that chapter he did not deal with a woman with a flux of seed, but with a man with a flux of seed, and with a woman bleeding for many days, not at the time of her monthly course. Pamelius.

(printed under page 223)

(78) ‹anchor: aemulationem legis› · call in col 437

Aemulationem legis, etc. Aemulationem accipit hic pro adversatione legis; nam paulo prius habetur adversarius legis, et sub finem hujus capitis aemulus legis eodem modo quo Plinius dixit: « Aemula Romae Carthago, lib. XV, cap. 18. Pam.

Rivalry with the law, etc. He takes "rivalry" here for opposition to the law; for a little earlier there is adversary of the law, and towards the end of this chapter rival of the law, in the same way that Pliny said "Carthage, the rival of Rome", book XV, chapter 18. Pamelius.

(printed under page 223)

Page

running head: 437 LIB. IV ADV. MARCI[ONEM] (right part cut at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹raretur in terris; quia verisimile›; B ‹sum judicem et ultoris Dei Filium›; C ‹feminae sanguinantis submovet›; D (none in this column's text; printed beside the commentary at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 408 after ‹certe›
misprints kept as printed: note (76), the guillemet after "sanguine;" is printed as an opening « (for »)

PL 2:438

initiata, legem inrumperet eam cui adhuc tenebatur? Qua denique fide inrupit? in quem Deum credens? quem spernens? Creatorem? Certe enim ex fide tetigit. Si ex fide Creatoris, quae alium Deum ignorabat, et quomodo legem ejus inrupit? Tam enim inrupit, si inrupit, quam ex fide Creatoris. Quomodo enim utrumque conveniet, ut et inruperit, et ex fide eam inruperit, propter quam inrupisse non debuit? Dicam. Fides haec fuit primo, qua Deum suum confidebat misericordiam malle quam ipsum sacrificium, qua eum Deum certa erat operari in Christo, qua sic eum tetigit, non ut hominem sanctum, nec ut prophetam, quem contaminabilem pro humana substantia sciret; sed ut ipsum Deum, quem nulla spurcitia pollui posse praesumpserat. Itaque non temere interpretata est sibi legem, ea contaminari significantem, quae essent contaminabilia, non Deum, quem in Christo confidebat. Sed et illud recogitavit, ordinarium et solemnem menstrui vel partualis sanguinis fluxum in lege taxari, qui veniat ex officio naturae, non ex vitio valetudinis. Illa autem ex vitio valetudinis redundabat, cui non modum temporis, sed divinae misericordiae auxilium necessarium sciebat. Atque ita potest videri legem non inrupisse, sed distinxisse. Haec erit fides, quae contulerat etiam intellectum: Nisi credideritis, inquit (Isa. VII), non intelligetis. Hanc fidem probans Christus ejus feminae, quae solum credebat Creatorem, ejus fidei se Deum respondit, quam probavit. Nec illud omittam, quod dum tangitur vestimentum ejus, utique corpori, non phantasmati, inditum corpus quoque demonstrabatur; non quasi jam de hoc retractemus, sed quia ad praesentem conspirat quaestionem. Si enim non erat veritas corporis, phantasma utique contaminari, qua res vacua, non posset. Qui ergo non potest contaminari, prae inanitate substantiae, quomodo voluisset? Ut aemulus legis mentiebatur qui non vere polluebatur.

should break through the law by which she was still bound? By what faith, then, did she break through? Believing in what God? Despising whom? The Creator? For certainly it was out of faith that she touched [Him]. If out of faith in the Creator, a faith which knew no other God, how then did she break through His law? For she broke through it, if she did break through, just as much as [she touched Him] out of faith in the Creator. For how will both things agree, that she both broke through it and broke through it out of that faith on account of which she ought not to have broken through it? I will tell you. This was the faith, in the first place, by which she trusted that her God preferred mercy to sacrifice itself; by which she was certain that this God was working in Christ; by which she touched Him thus, not as a holy man, nor as a prophet, whom she would know to be capable of defilement by reason of his human substance, but as God Himself, Whom she had presumed could be polluted by no uncleanness. Therefore not rashly did she interpret the law for herself as signifying that those things are defiled which were capable of defilement, not God, Whom she trusted to be in Christ. But she also reflected on this, that it is the ordinary and regular flow of menstrual or childbirth blood that is regulated in the law, which comes from the function of nature, not from a defect of health. But hers was overflowing from a defect of health, for which she knew that not a measure of time but the help of divine mercy was necessary. And thus she can be seen not to have broken through the law but to have drawn a distinction in it. This will be the faith which had also conferred understanding: Unless you believe, He says (Isa. 7), you will not understand. Christ, approving this faith of that woman, who believed only in the Creator, answered that He was the God of that faith which He approved. Nor shall I omit this, that when His garment is touched, a garment put on assuredly a body and not a phantasm, a body too was being demonstrated; not as though we were now going back over this matter, but because it bears upon the present question. For if there was no reality of a body, a phantasm, being an empty thing, assuredly could not be defiled. He, then, who cannot be defiled, by reason of the emptiness of his substance, how could he have wished to be? As a rival of the law he was lying, who was not truly being polluted.

CAPUT XXI.

Chapter XXI.

Dimittit discipulos ad praedicandum Dei regnum (Luc. IX). Numquid vel hic edidit, cujus? Prohibet eos victui aut vestitui quid in viam ferre? Quis hoc mandasset? nisi qui et corvos alit, et flores agri vestit, qui bovi quoque terenti libertatem oris (Deut. XXV, 4) ad veniam pabuli ex opere

He sends out the disciples to preach the kingdom of God (Luke 9). Did He here too make known whose [kingdom it was]? He forbids them to carry anything on the way for food or clothing? Who would have commanded this, except He who both feeds the ravens and clothes the flowers of the field, who also for the ox treading out [the grain] freedom of the mouth (Deut. 25:4) for the indulgence of fodder from the work

Editors' notes and page, col. 438

Footnotes

(43) ‹anchor: ita potest videri› · call in col 438

Videri omitt. Seml.

"Videri" ("seem") is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 223)

(44) ‹anchor: et corvos alit› · call in col 438

Pavit Oberth.

"Pavit" ("fed") Oberthür.

(printed under page 223)

(45) ‹anchor: Deut. XXV, 4› · call in col 438

Sumendi cod. Wouw.

"Sumendi" ("of taking") Wouwer's manuscript.

Commentarius

(printed under page 223)

(79) ‹anchor: Deut. XXV, 4› · call in col 438

Ad veniam pabuli ex opere submovendi. (continues)

To leave to take fodder from the work (continues)

(printed under page 223)

Page

running head: IV ADV. MARCIONEM. 438 (left part of head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A initiata, legem inrumperet; B solemnem menstrui vel partualis; C contaminari, qua res vacua; D ῥοούσῃ, id est sanguinifluae (in the Commentarius at page foot)
old-edition numerals: 409 after credebat

PL 2:439

submovendi ante praecedit : quia dignus operarius mercede sua. Haec Marcion deleat, dum sensui salva sint. At cum jubet pulverem excutere de pedibus in eos a quibus excepti non fuissent, et hoc in testimonium mandat fieri; nemo testatur, quod non judicio destinatur; inhumanitatem qui in testationem redigi jubet, judicem comminatur. Nullum deum novum a Christo probatum illa etiam opinio omnium dcclaravit, quia Christum Jesum, alii Joannem, alii Heliam, alii uuum aliquem ex veteribus prophetis Herodi asseverabant. Ex quibus quicunque fuisset, non utique ob hoc est suscitatus, ut alium deum post resurrectionem praedicaret. Pascit populum in solitudine, de pristino scilicet more. Aut si non eadem et majestas, ergo jam minor est Creatore, qui non uno die, sed annis quadraginta, nec de inferioribus materiis panis et piscis, sed de manna coelesti, nec quinque circiter, sed sexcenta millia hominum protelavit. Adeo autem ea fuit majestas, ut et pabuli exiguitatem non tantum sufficere, verum etiam exuberare, de pristino voluerit exemplo. Sic enim et in tempore famis sub Helia viduae Sareptensi modica et suprema alimenta ex prophetae benedictione, per totum famis tempus redundaverant. (III Reg. XVII). Habes tertiam Basiliarum. Si et quartam resolvas, invenies (IV Reg. IV, 42 seqq.) totum hunc ordinem Christi circa illum Dei hominem, qui oblatos sibi viginti hordeaceos panes cum populo distribui jussisset, et minister ejus proinde comparata multitudine et pabuli mediocritate, respondisset : Quid ergo hoc dem in conspectu centum hominum? Da, inquit, et manducabunt, quoniam haec dicit Dominus : Et manducaverunt, et reliquerunt reliquias, secundum dictum Domini. O Christum et in novis veterem! Haec itaque quae viderat Petrus, et cum pristinis compararat, et non tantum retro facta sed et in futurum jam tunc prophetantia recognoverat interroganti Domino quisnam illis videretur, cum pro omnibus responderet: Tu es Christus, non

to be taken, beforehand goes before: because the labourer is worthy of his wage. Let Marcion delete these things, so long as they are safe for the sense. But when He commands them to shake the dust off their feet against those by whom they had not been received, and orders this to be done as a testimony: no one bears witness to what is not destined for judgement; He Who orders inhumanity to be brought into testimony threatens a judge. That no new god was proved by Christ was declared also by that opinion of all, because some asserted to Herod that Christ Jesus was John, others Elijah, others some one of the old prophets. Whichever of these He had been, He was certainly not raised up for this purpose, that He should preach another god after the resurrection. He feeds the people in the wilderness, after the former custom, of course. Or if the majesty too is not the same, then He is already less than the Creator, Who not for one day but for forty years, not from inferior materials of bread and fish but from heavenly manna, not about five but six hundred thousand men sustained. But so great was the majesty that He willed the scantiness of food not only to suffice but even to abound, after the former example. For so also in the time of famine under Elijah, the scanty and last provisions of the widow of Zarephath, through the prophet's blessing, had overflowed through the whole time of the famine (1 Kgs. 17). You have the third [book] of Kingdoms. If you unroll the fourth as well, you will find (2 Kgs. 4:42 ff.) this whole procedure of Christ in that man of God, who, when twenty barley loaves had been offered to him, had ordered them to be distributed among the people, and when his servant, comparing in like manner the multitude and the meagreness of the food, had answered: What then, shall I set this before a hundred men? Give, he said, and they shall eat, since thus says the Lord: And they ate, and left remnants, according to the word of the Lord. O Christ, old even in new things! These things therefore, which Peter had seen and had compared with former ones, and had recognized as not only done in the past but even then already prophesying into the future, when the Lord asked who He seemed to them, answering for all: Thou art the Christ,

Editors' notes and page, col. 439

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 224)

(46) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 439

Ei Rhen.

"Ei" ("to him/her") Rhenanus.

(printed under page 224)

(47) ‹anchor: Habes tertiam› · call in col 439

Tertium Fran. Jun.

"Tertium" the Franeker edition, Junius.

(printed under page 224)

(48) ‹anchor: Si et quartam› · call in col 439

Quartum Fran. Jun.

"Quartum" the Franeker edition, Junius.

(printed under page 224)

(49) ‹anchor: resolvas› · call in col 439

Et si tertiam revolvas Wouw.

"And if you unroll the third" Wouwer.

(printed under page 224)

(50) ‹anchor: oblatos sibi viginti› · call in col 439

Decem Seml. ex graecis quibusdam exemplis et ex Ambros. l. VI Hexaem.

"Ten" Semler, from certain Greek copies and from Ambrose, Hexaemeron book VI.

(printed under page 224)

(51) ‹anchor: Quid ergo› · call in col 439

Ego Paris. Fran.

"Ego" ("I") the Paris and Franeker editions.

(printed under page 224)

(52) ‹anchor: dem in conspectu› · call in col 439

In spectum Seml.

"In spectum" Semler.

(printed under page 224)

(53) ‹anchor: centum› · call in col 439

Millibus add. Pam.

"Thousands" is added by Pamelius.

(printed under page 224)

(54) ‹anchor: quoniam haec› · call in col 439

Hoc Oberth.

"Hoc" ("this") Oberthür.

(printed under page 224)

(55) ‹anchor: et reliquerunt› · call in col 439

Manducabunt et relinquent Seml. manducabunt et relinquent, et manducaverunt et reliquerunt Jun. sic LXX.

"They will eat and will leave" Semler; "they will eat and will leave, and they ate and left" Junius; so the Septuagint.

(printed under page 224)

(56) ‹anchor: Haec itaque quae› · call in col 439

Qui Fran. Paris.

"Qui" the Franeker and Paris editions.

(printed under page 224)

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 439

De pristino scilicet more. Nimirum veteris Instrumenti seu Testamenti. Sic libro de Baptismo: « Perungitur benedicta unctione de pristina disciplina. » hoc est judaica. Rig.

That is, according to the former custom. Namely, of the old Instrument or Testament. So in the book On Baptism: "He is anointed with blessed unction according to the former discipline", that is, the Jewish. Rigault.

(printed under page 224)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 439

Sed sexcenta millia hominum protelavit. Hoc est, sexcentis hominum millibus vitae et virium tenorem continuavit, produxit, protraxit. Rig.

But he sustained six hundred thousand men. That is, he kept up, prolonged and drew out the course of life and strength for six hundred thousand men. Rigault.

(printed under page 224)

(82) ‹anchor: centum hominum› · call in col 439

Quid ergo hoc dem in conspectu centum hominum? In exemplari legitur: « Quid ergo hoc dem inspectu centum hominum. » Scribendum arbitror: « Quid ergo hoc idem inspectu centum hominum? » Rig.

What, then, shall I set this before a hundred men? In the copy it reads, "Quid ergo hoc dem inspectu centum hominum." I think one should write, "Quid ergo hoc idem inspectu centum hominum?" Rigault.

(printed under page 224)

(83) ‹anchor: Tu es Christus› · call in col 439

Tu es Christus, etc. Propter confessionem illam, B. Petrus fundamentum est et petra supra quam stat Ecclesia Dei: ἐπὶ τῇ πέτρῃ ταύτῃ τῆς ἀσφαλοῦς πίστεως οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν, ut habet S. Epiphanius Haer. 59. Le Pr.

You are the Christ, etc. Because of that confession blessed Peter is the foundation and the rock on which the Church of God stands: "upon this rock of sure faith I will build my Church", as St Epiphanius has it, Heresies 59. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 224)

Page

running head: 439 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A submovendi ante praecedit; B ginta, nec de inferioribus; C inquit, et manducabunt; D motum dicit ex opere (commentary, not set)
old-edition numerals: 410 after suprema

PL 2:440

potest non eum sensisse Christum, nisi quem noverat in Scripturis, quem jam recensebat in factis. Hoc et ipse confirmat usque adhuc patiens, imo et silentium indicens. Si enim Petrus quidem non poterat alium eum confiteri, quam Creatoris: ille autem praecepit, ne cui hoc diceret; utique id noluit provulgari, quod Petrus senserat. Imo, inquis, quia non recte senserat, noluit mendacium disseminari. Sed aliam silentii caussam edixit: Quia oporteret Filium hominis multa pati et reprobari a presbyteris et scribis et sacerdotibus, et interfici, et post tertium diem resurgere. Quae cum praedicata sint et ipsa in Christum Creatoris, sicut suis locis implebimus, sic quoque ipsum se ostendit esse, in quem praedicabantur. Certe etsi non essent praedicata, eam causam indicti silentii protulit quae non Petri errorem demonstraret, obeundarum passionum necessitatem: Qui voluerit, inquit, animam suam salvam facere, perdet illam; et qui perdiderit eam propter me, salvam faciet eam. Certe Filius hominis hanc sententiam emisit. Perspice igitur et tu cum rege Babylonio, fornacem ejus ardentem (Dan. III), et invenies illic tanquam Filium hominis (nondum enim vere erat, nondum scilicet natus ex homine), jam tunc istos exitus constituentem. Salvas facit animas trium fratrum, qui eas pro Deo perdere conspiraverant; Chaldaeorum vero perdidit, quas illi per idololatriam salvas facere maluerant. Quae est ista nova doctrina, cujus vetera documenta sunt. Quanquam et praedicationes martyriorum, tam futurorum, quam a Deo mercedem relaturorum decucurrerunt. Vide, inquit Isaias (LVIII, 1), quomodo perit justus, et nemo excipit corde; et viri justi auferuntur, et nemo considerat. Quando magis hoc fit, quam in persecutione sanctorum ejus? Utique non semplex, nec de naturae lege communis, sed illa insignis et pro fide militaris; in qua qui animam suam propter Deum perdit, servat illam: ut et hic tamen judicem adcognoscas, qui malum animae lucrum perditione ejus, et bonum animae detrimentum,

he cannot have perceived Him to be the Christ, other than the One Whom he knew in the Scriptures, Whom he was already recognizing in His deeds. This He Himself also confirms, bearing with it up to that point, nay even enjoining silence. For if Peter indeed could not confess Him to be any other than the Creator's [Christ], and He for His part commanded that he should tell this to no one, then certainly He did not wish that to be made public which Peter had perceived. Nay, you say, it was because he had not perceived rightly that He did not want a lie to be spread abroad. But He declared another cause for the silence: Because the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and scribes and priests, and be killed, and after the third day rise again. Since these things too were foretold of the Creator's Christ, as we shall make good in their proper places, so also He shows that He Himself is the One of Whom they were foretold. Certainly, even if they had not been foretold, He put forward a cause for the silence He imposed which did not demonstrate an error of Peter, namely the necessity of undergoing the sufferings: Whoever will save his soul, He says, will lose it; and whoever loses it for My sake will save it. Certainly the Son of Man uttered this sentence. Look therefore, you too, together with the Babylonian king, at his burning furnace (Dan. 3), and you will find there one as it were a Son of Man (for He was not yet truly so, being not yet born of man), even then establishing these outcomes. He saves the souls of the three brothers, who had conspired to lose them for God; but those of the Chaldeans He lost, which they had preferred to save through idolatry. What is this new doctrine, whose old proofs are extant? Moreover, predictions of martyrdoms too have gone forth, both of those to come and of those who would receive a reward from God. See, says Isaiah (Isa. 58:1), how the just man perishes, and no one takes it to heart; and just men are taken away, and no one considers. When does this happen more than in the persecution of His saints? Certainly not a simple [death], nor one common by the law of nature, but that distinguished one, fought out for the faith; in which he who loses his soul for God's sake keeps it: so that here too you may yet recognize the Judge, Who, as to the evil gain of the soul, with its loss, and as to the good loss of the soul,

Editors' notes and page, col. 440

Footnotes

(57) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 440

Non potest novum Latin.

"Non potest novum" ("cannot [be] new") Latinius.

(printed under page 224)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 440

Promulgari al.

"Promulgari" ("to be promulgated") others.

(printed under page 224)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 440

Sed add. Paris. Fran.

"Sed" ("but") is added by the Paris and Franeker editions.

(printed under page 224)

(60) ‹anchor: judicem adcognoscas› · call in col 440

Cognoscas Pam.

"Cognoscas" Pamelius.

Commentarius

(printed under page 224)

(84) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 440

Presbyteris et scribis et sacerdotibus. Maluit presbyteris retinere quam ejus vocis interpretationem vulgarem senioribus. Porro sacerdotibus non adeo mirifice cum sit ἀρχιερέων, quod Vulgatus principes sacerdotum reddit. Le Pr.

To the presbyters and scribes and priests. He preferred to keep presbyteris rather than the common rendering of that word, senioribus, "elders". Further, sacerdotibus is not so remarkable, since the Greek is archiereōn, which the Vulgate renders "chief priests". Le Prieur.

(printed under page 224)

(85) ‹anchor: de naturae lege communis› · call in col 440

Utique non simplex, nec de naturae lege communis. Haec non alio referri possunt quam ad « ea, Quae est ista nova doctrina? « utique non simplex, doctrina scilicet nec de naturae communis lege, etc. Rig.

Certainly not simple, nor common, by the law of nature. These words can be referred to nothing else than to "What is this new doctrine?": "certainly not simple", that is, a doctrine not common by the law of nature, etc. Rigault.

(printed under page 224)

Page

running head: PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 440
marginal letters: A potest non eum; B Petri errorem demonstraret; C perit justus, et nemo; D (83) Tu es Christus (beside the Commentarius, not set)
old-edition numerals: 411 after hominis
other: column ends mid-word "detrimen-"; "Salvas" partly blurred, unsure; reference printed (LVIII, 1) though the passage is Isa. 57:1, kept as printed; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (notes 83-85) at page foot not set; "caussam" and "causam" both printed as such

PL 2:441

salute ejus remuneraturus. Sed et zelotem Deum mihi exhibet, malum malo reddentem: Qui confusus, inquit, mei fuerit, et ego confundar ejus. Quando nec confusionis materia conveniat, nisi meo Christo: cujus ordo magis pudendus, ut etiam haereticorum conviciis pateat, omnem nativitatis et educationis foeditatem, ipsius etiam carnis indignitatem, quanta amaritudine possunt perorantibus. Caeterum, quomodo ille erit obnoxius confusioni, qui eam non capit? non vulva, licet virginis, tamen feminae, coagulatus; et si non semine, tamen ex lege substantiae corporalis, ex feminae humore: non caro habitus ante formam: non pecus dictus post figuram: non decem mensium cruciatu deliberatus: non subita dolorum concussione cum tanti temporis coeno per corporis cloacam effusus ad terram: nec statim lucem lacrymis auspicatus et primo retinaculi sui vulnere: nec multum ablutus, nec sale et melle medicatus: nec pannis jam sepulturae involucrum initiatus; nec exinde per immunditia inter sinus volutatus, molestus uberibus diu infans, vix puer, tarde homo: sed de coelo expositus, semel grandis, semel totus, statim Christus, spiritus et virtus, et Deus tantum. Caeterum ut non verus, qui non videbatur, ita nec de crucis maledicto erubescendus, cujus carebat veritate, carens corpore. Non poterat itaque dixisse: Qui mei confusus fuerit. Noster hoc debuit pronuntiasse: Minoratus a Patre modico citra angelos (Psal. VIII, 6); vermis, et non homo; ignominia hominis et nullificamen populi (Psalm. XXI, 6) quatenus ita voluit, ut livore ejus sanaremur (Isa. LIII, 5), ut dedecore ejus salus nostra constaret. Et merito se pro suo

with its salvation, is about to repay. But he also presents to me a jealous God, returning evil for evil: Whoever, He says, has been ashamed of Me, I too shall be ashamed of him. Since the matter for shame does not even fit anyone except my Christ, whose course is the more to be ashamed of, so that it lies open even to the taunts of heretics, who declaim with all the bitterness they can upon the whole foulness of His birth and upbringing, and even upon the unworthiness of the flesh itself. But how will he be liable to shame who does not admit it? not curdled in a womb, of a virgin indeed, yet of a woman; and if not from seed, yet by the law of bodily substance, from the fluid of a woman: not held to be flesh before taking form: not called a creature after taking shape: not delivered through the torment of ten months: not poured out onto the ground through the body's sewer with a sudden shock of pains, along with the filth of so long a time: nor at once greeting the light with tears and with the first wound of his tether: nor much washed, nor treated with salt and honey: nor initiated with swaddling clothes as already a wrapping for burial; nor thereafter rolled about through uncleanness between laps, troublesome to the breasts, long an infant, scarcely a boy, slowly a man: but set forth from heaven, grown all at once, whole all at once, immediately Christ, spirit and power, and God only. But as he was not true, since he was not seen, so neither was he to be blushed for on account of the curse of the cross, whose reality he lacked, lacking a body. He could not therefore have said: Whoever has been ashamed of Me. Ours ought to have pronounced this: Made lower by the Father a little beneath the angels (Ps. 8:6); a worm, and not a man; a disgrace of man and a nothing of the people (Ps. 21:6), inasmuch as He so willed, that by His bruise we might be healed (Isa. 53:5), that by His dishonour our salvation might be established. And rightly He laid Himself down for His own

Editors' notes and page, col. 441

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 225)

(61) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Remuneratur Paris. Fran.

"Remuneratur" ("is rewarded") the Paris and Franeker editions.

(printed under page 225)

(62) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Mihi abest Paris.

"Mihi" ("to me") is absent in the Paris edition.

(printed under page 225)

(63) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Me Seml. Oberth.

"Me" Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 225)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Eum Franeq.

"Eum" ("him") the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 225)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Ipsis conjic. Seml.

"Ipsis" ("to themselves") is conjectured by Semler.

(printed under page 225)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Perorantium codd. Wouw.

"Perorantium" Wouwer's manuscripts.

(printed under page 225)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Novem Fran.

"Novem" ("nine") the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 225)

(68) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Delibratus Fran.

"Delibratus" the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 225)

(69) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Involucro cod. Wouw.

"Involucro" ("in a wrapping") Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 225)

(70) ‹anchor: vix puer, tarde› · call in col 441

Tardius Seml. Oberth.

"Tardius" ("more slowly") Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 225)

(71) ‹anchor: Qui mei› · call in col 441

Me Pam. Fran.

"Me" Pamelius, the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 225)

(86) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Cujus ordo magis pudendus. Ordinem dicit nativitatis et educationis. Rig.

Whose order is more shameful. He means the order of birth and upbringing. Rigault.

(printed under page 225)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Ipsius etiam carnis indignitatem. Carnis videlicet passibilis et mortalis, quae sane indigna Deo videbatur. Sic adv. Jud: Primo sordidis indutus est, id est, carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate. » Vel indignitatem intellige, εἶδος οὐκ ἄξιον τυράννιδος. Rig.

The unworthiness of the flesh itself. That is, of flesh capable of suffering and mortal, which certainly seemed unworthy of God. So Against the Jews: "First he was clothed in mean garments", that is, in the unworthiness of flesh capable of suffering and mortal. Or understand "unworthiness" as "a form not worthy of royal power". Rigault.

(printed under page 225)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Ex feminae humore. Lib. d Car. Christi dixit, « humoris et sanguinis foeda coagula. » Rig.

From a woman's moisture. In the book On the Flesh of Christ he said, "the foul clots of moisture and blood". Rigault.

(printed under page 225)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Non pecus dictus post figuram. Eodem vocabulo utitur Julius Firmicus lib. VII, cap. 1: « Pecus intra viscera matris artuatim conscisum a medicis proferetur. » Rig.

Not called a brute after the shaping. Julius Firmicus uses the same word, book VII, chapter 1: "The brute, cut up limb by limb within the mother's womb, will be brought out by the physicians." Rigault.

(printed under page 225)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 441

Non decem mensium cruciatu deliberatus. Sic habent exemplaria; quae si nobis integram auctoris scripturam servavere, dixerit Septimius partum deliberari, quamdiu foetus in utero perficitur, ordine nativitatis humanae, decem mensium spatio currente, quemadmodum in Apologetico dixit, conceptum deliberari, » dum adhuc sanguis in hominem deliberatur. » Alias, minime spernenda videretur Latinii conjectura, « decem mensium cruciatu deliberatus. » Nam ejusmodi est infantis in utero situs, ut cruciari videatur, incurvus totus ac contractus. Rig.

Not brought to term by ten months' torment. So the copies have it; if they have kept the author's text whole for us, Septimius will have said that the offspring is "brought to term" while the foetus is being completed in the womb, in the order of human birth, over the course of ten months, just as in the Apology he said that the conception is "brought to term", "while the blood is still being shaped into a human being". Otherwise Latinius's conjecture, "decem mensium cruciatu deliberatus", would seem by no means to be despised. For the infant's position in the womb is such that it seems to be under torture, all bent over and drawn together. Rigault.

(printed under page 225)

Page

running head: LIB. ADV. MARCIO[NEM] (cut off at image edge), column number 441
marginal letters: A ‹tum, salute ejus remuneraturus›; B ‹cem mensium cruciatu deliberatus›; C ‹rens corpore. Non poterat itaque dixisse›; D ‹(86) Cujus ordo magis pudendus (commentary)›
old-edition numerals: 412 after ‹cruciatu›

PL 2:442

homine deposuit, pro imagine et similitudine sua, non aliena; ut, quoniam homo non erubuerat lapidem et lignum adorans, eadem constantia non confusus de Christo, pro impudentia idololatriae, satis Deo faceret per impudentiam fidei. Quid horum Christo tuo competit, Marcion, ad meritum confusionis? Plane pudere te debet, quod illum ipse finxisti.

man, as His own image and likeness, not another's; so that, since man had not blushed to adore stone and wood, by the same constancy, unashamed concerning Christ, he might make satisfaction to God, in return for the shamelessness of idolatry, through the shamelessness of faith. Which of these things befits your Christ, Marcion, so as to deserve shame? Plainly you ought to be ashamed, because you yourself fashioned Him.

CAPUT XXII.

Chapter XXII.

Nam et hoc vel maxime erubescere debuisti, quod illum cum Moyse et Elia in secessu montis conspici pateris, quorum destructor advenerat. Hoc scilicet intelligi voluit vox illa de coelo: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, hunc audite: id est, non Moysen jam et Eliam. Ergo sufficiebat vox sola sine ostentatione Moysi et Eliae. Definiendo enim quem audirent, quoscunque alios vetuisset audiri. Aut numquid Isaiam et Jeremiam caeterosque quos non ostendit, permisit audiri, si vetuit quos ostendit? Nunc et si praesentia illorum fuit necessaria, non utique in colloquio ostenderentur, quod familiaritatis indicium est: nec in consortio claritatis, quod dignationis et gratiae exemplum est: sed in sordibus aliquibus, quod destructionis argumentum est, imo in tenebris Creatoris, quibus discutiendis erat missus. Longe etiam discreti a claritate Christi, qui voces et litteras ipsas eorum ab Evangelio suo erat separaturus. Siccin alienos demonstrat illos, dum secum habet? sic relinque⟨n⟩dos docet, quos sibi jungit? sic destruit, quos de radiis suis exstruit? Quid faceret Christus ipsorum? Credo secundum perversitatem, tales eos revelasset, quales Christus Marcionis debuisset; aut quoscumque alios secum, quam prophetas suos. Sed quid tam Christus

For you ought to have blushed most of all at this too, that you allow Him to be seen with Moses and Elijah in the seclusion of the mountain, though He had come as their destroyer. This, of course, is what that voice from heaven wished to be understood: This is My beloved Son, hear Him: that is, no longer Moses and Elijah. Then the voice alone was sufficient, without the display of Moses and Elijah. For by defining whom they should hear, it would have forbidden any others whatever to be heard. Or did it permit Isaiah and Jeremiah and the rest, whom it did not show, to be heard, if it forbade those whom it showed? Now even if their presence was necessary, they would certainly not be shown in conversation, which is a sign of familiarity; nor in fellowship of glory, which is an example of esteem and favour; but in some squalor, which is evidence of destruction, nay rather in the darkness of the Creator, for the dispelling of which He had been sent. Far separated, too, from the glory of Christ, who was going to separate their very words and writings from His Gospel. Is it thus that He shows them to be strangers, while He keeps them with Him? Thus that He teaches they are to be abandoned, whom He joins to Himself? Thus that He destroys those whom He builds up out of His own rays? What would their own Christ have done? I suppose, in accordance with perversity, He would have revealed them in such a form as Marcion's Christ ought to have; or any others whatever with Him rather than His own prophets. But what [was] so [befitting] for Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 442

Footnotes

(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 442

Tunc add. Seml.

"Tunc" ("then") is added by Semler.

(printed under page 225)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 442

Diffiniendo al.

"Diffiniendo" others.

(printed under page 225)

(74) ‹anchor: separaturus. Siccin› · call in col 442

Sic in Rig. Venet.

"Sic in" Rigault, the Venice edition.

Commentarius

(printed under page 225)

(91) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 442

Cum tanti temporis coeno, etc. Lib. de Carne Christi, cap. 4, eadem ferme habet: « Ab ipsa quidem exorsus odio habita nativitate, perora; age jam spurcitias genitalium in utero, elementorum, humorum et sanguinis foeda coagula, carnis ex eodem coeno alendae per novem menses. « Per coenum intelligit id quod Hippocrates lib. de Nat. Puer. n. 136: Τὰ γὰρ καταμήνια οὐ χωρέει, ὁκόταν γυνὴ λάβῃ πρὸς ἑαυτήν, ἢν μέλλῃ τὸ παιδίον ὑγιαίνειν. « Menses non profluunt mulieri utero gestanti, si sanus puer futurus est. « Hoc in loco admirabilis humanae originis descriptio et infirmitatis imago, quam memini me legisse fere eamdem apud Plinium, qui statim exclamat: « His principiis oritur carnifex animus, » etc. Si liber esset ad manum, locum tantum exscriberem. Le Pr.

With the filth of so long a time, etc. In the book On the Flesh of Christ, chapter 4, he has almost the same: "Beginning from the very birth you hold in hatred, have your say; come, the filth of the generative parts in the womb, the foul clots of the elements, of moisture and blood, of the flesh to be nourished from that same filth for nine months." By "filth" he means what Hippocrates speaks of in the book On the Nature of the Child, n. 136: "For the monthly courses do not flow when a woman has conceived, if the child is to be healthy." "The courses do not flow for a woman carrying in the womb, if the child is to be healthy." In this place there is a wonderful description of the human origin and an image of its weakness, which I remember reading in almost the same form in Pliny, who at once exclaims, "From such beginnings springs the murderous mind", etc. If the book were to hand, I would just copy out the passage. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 225)

(92) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 442

Lucem lacrymis auspicatus, etc. A miseriis, vagitu scilicet, vitam auspicatur, eamdem in laboribus agit, atque ad malorum complementum mors est subeunda. Le Pr.

Beginning the light with tears, etc. He begins life with miseries, that is, with wailing; he spends it in toils; and to complete the evils, death must be undergone. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 225)

(93) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 442

Pro impudentia idololatriae, satis Deo facere: per impudentiam fidei. Idololatriae impudentia fuit, cum non puduit adorare lapides et ligna; impudentia fidei, cum minime pudet Deum credere natum et crucifixum. Rig.

To make amends to God for the shamelessness of idolatry by the shamelessness of faith. The shamelessness of idolatry was when one was not ashamed to adore stones and wood; the shamelessness of faith is when one is not at all ashamed to believe in a God born and crucified. Rigault.

(printed under page 225)

Page

running head: [cut at left] …3. ADV. MARCIONEM. 442
marginal letters: A homine deposuit, pro imagine; B jam et Eliam. Ergo sufficiebat; C separaturus. Siccin alienos; D (91) Cum tanti temporis coeno (commentary)
old-edition numerals: 413 after meus

PL 2:443

Christus Creatoris, quam secum ostendere praedicatores suos? cum illis videri, quibus in revelationibus, erat visus: cum illis loqui, qui eum fuerant locuti: cum eis gloriam suam communicare a quibus Dominus gloriae nuncupabatur: cum principalibus suis, quorum alter populi informator aliquando, alter reformator quandoque; alter initiator Veteris Testamenti, alter consummator Novi? Igitur et Petrus merito contubernium Christi sui agnoscens individuitate ejus suggerit consilium: Bonum est nos hic esse. Bonum plane, ubi Moyses scilicet et Elias. Et: Faciamus hic tria tabernacula, unum tibi, et Moysi unum, et Eliae unum: sed nesciens quid diceret. Quomodo nesciens? utrumne simplici errore, an ratione quam defendimus in caussa novae prophetiae, gratiae exstasin, id est, amentiam convenire? In spiritu enim homo constitutus praesertim cum gloriam Dei conspicit; vel cum per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina; de quo inter nos et Psychicos quaestio est. Interim facile est amentiam Petri probare. Quomodo enim Moysen et Eliam cognovisset, nisi in spiritu? Nec enim imagines eorum vel statuas populus habuisset et similitudines, lege prohibente, nisi quia in spiritu viderat; et ita quod dixisset, in spiritu, non in sensu constitutus, scire non poterat. Caeterum, si sic nescit quasi errans, eo quod putaret illorum esse Christum; ergo jam constat et supra Petrum interrogatum a Christo, quem se existimarent ut de Creatoris dixisse, Tu es Christus; quia si tunc alterius Dei illum cognovisset, hic quoque non errasset. Quod si ideo et hic erravit, quia et supra; ergo certus est in illum diem quoque nullam novam divinitatem a Christo revelatam, et usque adhuc non errasse Petrum, Christo usque adhuc nibil ejusmodi revelante; et tamdiu non alterius deputandum Christum, quam Creatoris, cujus omnem et hic ordinem expressit. Tres de discentibus arbitros futurae visionis et vocis assumit; et hoc Creatoris est. In tribus, inquit (Deut. XIX, 15), testibus stabit

the Christ of the Creator, as to show His own preachers with Himself? to be seen with those by whom He had been seen in revelations; to speak with those who had spoken of Him; to share His glory with those by whom He was called the Lord of glory; with His chief ones, of whom the one was once the shaper of the people, the other at another time its reshaper; the one the initiator of the Old Testament, the other the consummator of the New? Therefore Peter too, rightly recognizing the companionship of his Christ by its inseparableness, offers the counsel: It is good for us to be here. Good indeed, where, that is, Moses and Elijah are. And: Let us make here three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah: but not knowing what he was saying. How not knowing? Was it by simple error, or by the principle which we defend in the cause of the new prophecy, that ecstasy, that is, being out of one's senses, befits grace? For a man placed in the spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, or when God speaks through him, must necessarily lose his senses, overshadowed, that is, by the divine power; concerning which there is a dispute between us and the Psychics. Meanwhile it is easy to prove that Peter was out of his senses. For how would he have recognized Moses and Elijah except in the spirit? For the people would not have had images or statues or likenesses of them, since the law forbade it; [he recognized them] only because he had seen them in the spirit; and so what he had said, placed as he was in the spirit and not in his senses, he could not know. But if he does not know in this way as one in error, because he thought that Christ belonged to them, then it is already established that above also Peter, when asked by Christ whom they thought Him to be, said as of the Creator's [Christ], Thou art the Christ; since, if he had then recognized Him as belonging to another God, here too he would not have erred. But if he erred here also for this reason, because [he had erred] above as well, then it is certain that up to that day too no new divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had not erred up to that point, since Christ up to that point revealed nothing of the kind; and that for so long Christ is to be reckoned as belonging to no other than the Creator, whose whole order He expressed here too. He takes three of the disciples as witnesses of the vision and voice to come; and this too belongs to the Creator. On three witnesses, He says (Deut. 19:15), shall stand

Editors' notes and page, col. 443

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 226)

(75) ‹anchor: Petrus merito› · call in col 443

Meritum Seml. Oberth.

"Meritum" ("merit") Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 226)

(76) ‹anchor: an ratione quam› · call in col 443

Qua Jun.

"Qua" Junius.

(printed under page 226)

(77) ‹anchor: not in this column› · call in col 444

Primo Seml.

"Primo" ("first") Semler.

(printed under page 226)

(78) ‹anchor: not in this column› · call in col 444

Repromisit Oberth.

"Repromisit" ("promised in return") Oberthür.

(printed under page 226)

(79) ‹anchor: not in this column› · call in col 444

Erat Pam.

"Erat" ("was") Pamelius.

(printed under page 226)

(94) ‹anchor: cum principalibus suis› · call in col 443

Cum principalibus suis. Vatic. I. ms. cod. cum principibus suis. Sed illud magis Tertullianicum et Africanum stylum redolet, quos ita vocat auctor, quos Moyses et Elias praecipui fuerint prophetarum veterum, jamdulum ante illos, quos majores vocamus. Pam.

With his chief ones. The Vatican manuscript I has cum principibus suis, "with his princes". But the former smacks more of Tertullian's African style; the author so calls them because Moses and Elijah were the foremost of the old prophets, long before those whom we call the elders. Pamelius.

(printed under page 226)

(95) ‹anchor: amentiam convenire› · call in col 443

Quam defendimus in causa novae prophetiae, gratiae exstasin, id est amentiam convenire. Hoc fecisse videtur libris de Exstasi, quorum meminit Hieronymus. Rig

Which we maintain, in the cause of the new prophecy, that ecstasy, that is, the mind's going out of itself, belongs to grace. He seems to have done this in the books On Ecstasy, which Jerome mentions. Rigault.

(printed under page 226)

(96) ‹anchor: Psychicos quaestio est› · call in col 443

De quo inter nos et Psychicos quaestio est. Psychicorum hic primum omnium facta est ab auctore mentio; quare patet initio haereseos ab auctore hunc librum conscriptum. Rig.

About which there is a dispute between us and the Psychics. Here for the first time of all the author mentions the Psychics; it is therefore clear that this book was written by the author at the beginning of his heresy. Rigault.

(printed under page 226)

Page

running head: 443 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: A ‹Christus Creatoris, quam secum›; B ‹quid diceret. Quomodo nesciens›; C ‹Creatoris dixisse, Tu es Christus›; D beside the commentary notes ‹(94) Cum principalibus suis›, not the text
old-edition numerals: 414 after ‹lege›
misprints kept as printed: ‹nibil› (for nihil) in the text; ‹jamdulum› (for jamdudum) in note (94)
notes (77)–(79) are called in col 444, not in this column (Q1b)

PL 2:444

omne verbum. In montem secedit; agnosco formam loci. Nam et pristinum populum apud montem et visione et voce sua Creator initiarat. Oportebat in eo suggestu consignari Novum Testamentum, in quo conscriptum Vetus fuerat; sub eodem etiam ambitu nubis, quam nemo dubitavit de aere Creatoris conglobatam, nisi et nubes suas illo deduxerat, quia et ipse per coelum Creatoris viam ruperat, aut proinde et nubilo Creatoris precario usus est. Itaque nec nunc muta nubes fuit, sed vox salita de coelo, et Patris novum testimonium super Filio atque in secundo Psalmo. Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te. De quo et per Isaiam (L, 10): Quis Deum metuens, audiat vocem Filii ejus? Itaque jam repraesentans eum: Hic est Filius meus; utique subauditur, quem repromisi. Si enim repromisit aliquando, et postea dicit: Hic est; ejus est exhibentis voce uti in demonstratione promissi, qui aliquando promisit; non ejus cui possit responderi, « Ipse enim tu quis es qui dicas. Hic est filius meus, de quo non magis praemisisti, quem teipsum quod prius eras revelasti? » Hunc igitur audite, quem ab initio edixerat audiendum in nomine prophetae, quoniam et prophetes existimari habebat a populo. Prophetam, inquit Moyses (Deut. XVIII, 15), suscitabit vobis Deus ex filiis vestris (secundum carnalem scilicet censum) tanquam me: audietis illum. Omnis autem qui illum non audierit, exterminabitur anima ejus de populo suo. Sic et Isaias (L, 10): Quis in vobis metuens, exaudiat vocem filii ejus? Quam et ipse Pater commendaturus erat. Sistens enim verba filii sui, dicendo scilicet: Hic est filius meus dilectus; hunc audite, inquit. Itaque etsi facta translatio sit auditionis a Moyse et Elia in Christo, sed non ut ab alio deo, nec ad alium christum sed a Creatore in Christum ejus, secundum decessionem Veteris, et successionem Novi Testamenti. Non legatus, inquit Isaias (LXIII, 9), nec nuntius, sed ipse Dominus salvos eos fecit; ipse jam praedicans et implens Legem et Prophetas. Tradidit igitur Pater Filio discipulos novos, ostensis prius cum

every word. He withdraws onto a mountain; I recognize the pattern of the place. For the Creator too had initiated the former people at a mountain, both by vision and by His voice. It was fitting that the New Testament should be sealed on that platform on which the Old had been written; under the same encircling cloud also, which no one doubted had been gathered together out of the Creator's air, unless he [Marcion's god] had also brought his own clouds there, because he himself too had broken his way through the Creator's heaven, or else he likewise made use of the Creator's cloud on sufferance. And so now too the cloud was not mute, but there was the accustomed voice from heaven, and the Father's new testimony concerning the Son, and that also in the second Psalm: You are My Son: today I have begotten You. Concerning Whom also through Isaiah (Isa. 50:10): Who, fearing God, is to hear the voice of His Son? And so, now presenting Him: This is My Son; there is of course understood: Whom I promised. For if He promised at some time, and afterwards says: This is; it belongs to Him Who at some time promised to use the voice of one presenting, in demonstration of the promise; not to one to whom it could be replied: "Who then are you yourself, that you should say: This is my son, about whom you gave no more notice beforehand than you revealed yourself as what you previously were?" Hear Him, therefore, Whom from the beginning He had declared was to be heard under the name of prophet, since He was also to be reckoned a prophet by the people. A Prophet, says Moses (Deut. 18:15), God will raise up for you from your sons (that is, according to fleshly reckoning) like me: you shall hear Him. And everyone who does not hear Him, his soul shall be cut off from his people. So also Isaiah (Isa. 50:10): Who among you, fearing, is to hearken to the voice of His Son? And this the Father Himself was going to commend. For, establishing the words of His Son, namely by saying: This is My beloved Son; hear Him, He says. And so, although a transfer of the hearing has been made from Moses and Elijah to Christ, yet not as from another god, nor to another christ, but from the Creator to His Christ, in accordance with the departure of the Old and the succession of the New Testament. Not an envoy, says Isaiah (Isa. 63:9), nor a messenger, but the Lord Himself saved them; He Himself now preaching and fulfilling the Law and the Prophets. The Father therefore handed over to the Son new disciples, having first displayed, along with

Editors' notes and page, col. 444

Footnotes

(80) ‹anchor: carnalem scilicet censum› · call in col 444

Sensum Paris. Fran.

"Sensum" ("sense") the Paris and Franeker editions.

(printed under page 226)

(81) ‹anchor: audietis› · call in col 444

Audieritis Pam.

"Audieritis" Pamelius.

(printed under page 226)

(82) ‹anchor: Sistens enim› · call in col 444

Inquit add. Pam.

"Inquit" ("he says") is added by Pamelius.

(printed under page 226)

(83) ‹anchor: hunc audite, inquit› · call in col 444

Inquit omitt; Pam.

"Inquit" is omitted by Pamelius.

(printed under page 226)

(84) ‹anchor: et Elia in Christo› · call in col 444

Christum cod. Wouw.

"Christum" (accusative) Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 226)

(85) ‹anchor: sed ipse Dominus› · call in col 444

Deus Seml. Oberth.

"Deus" ("God") Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 226)

(86) ‹anchor: salvos eos fecit› · call in col 444

Faciet Oberth.

"Faciet" ("will make") Oberthür.

Commentarius

(printed under page 226)

(97) ‹anchor: inquit Moyses› · call in col 444

Prophetam inquit Moyses. Multo aliter hanc Scripturam citat quam hodie habetur apud LXX, sed potius secundum quod citat, Act. III et VIII, nec mirum, cum bis idipsum aliis verbis repetatur Deut. XVIII, quorum priori loco magis accedit, quod habet cum apostolo Petro auctor, Suscitabit vobis praeterquam quod ibi est tibi, ex posteriori vero loco desumpsit illud. Pam.

A prophet, says Moses. He cites this Scripture very differently from the way it now stands in the Septuagint, rather following the way it is cited in Acts III and VIII; nor is that strange, since the same thing is repeated twice in other words in Deuteronomy XVIII. The author comes closer to the first of these places in having, with the apostle Peter, He will raise up for you, except that there it is for you (singular); the rest he took from the latter place. Pamelius.

(printed under page 226)

(98) ‹anchor: verba filii sui› · call in col 444

Sistens enim, inquit, verba filii sui, etc. Rursum vertit auctor verba Isa. XLIV, filii sui, pro eo quod graece παιδός σου; pro quo alii, pueri sui; quo factum ut difficillime locus hic inveniri potuerit, maxime cum B. Hieronymus ex hebraeo vertat, suscitans verbum. Pam.

For, setting up, he says, the words of his son, etc. Again the author renders the words of Isaiah XLIV as filii sui, "of his son", for what is in Greek paidos sou; for which others have pueri sui, "of his servant"; and so this passage could be found only with great difficulty, especially since blessed Jerome translates from the Hebrew suscitans verbum, "raising up the word". Pamelius.

(printed under page 226)

Page

running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 444 (left end cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹omne verbum. In montem secedit›; B ‹Quis Deum metuens, audiat vocem›; C ‹vocem filii ejus? Quam et ipse›; D ‹(97) Prophetam inquit Moyses› (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 415 after ‹Sic›

PL 2:445

illo Moyse et Elia in claritatis praerogativa, atque ita dimissis, quasi jam et officio et honore dispunctis; ut hoc ipsum confirmaretur propter Marcionem, societatem esse etiam claritatis Christi cum Moyse et Elia. Totum autem habitum visionis istius habemus etiam apud Habacuc, ubi Spiritus ex persona interdum apostolorum (Habac. III, 2): Domine, audivi auditum tuum et extimui. Quem magis quam vocis coelestis illius, Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite. Consideravi opera tua, et excidi mente. Quando magis, quam cum visa claritate ejus, nescit quid diceret Petrus? In medio duorum animalium cognosceris, Moysi et Eliae. De quibus et Zacharias (Zachar. IV, 3 et 14) vidit in figura duarum olearum, et duorum ramulorum oleae. Nam hi sunt, de quibus dictum est illi: Duo filii opimitatis adsistunt Domino universae terrae. Et rursum idem Habacuc (Habac. III, 3): Operuit caelos virtus; utique nubilo illo. Et splendor ejus ut lux erit; utique qua etiam vestitus ejus refulsit. Et si commemoremur promissionis Moysi, hic invenietur expuncta. Cum enim desiderasset conspectum Domini Moyses dicens: Si ergo inveni gratiam coram te, manifesta te mihi ut cognoscenter videam te; eum conspectum desiderans, in quo hominem esset acturus, quod propheta sciebat. Caeterum, Dei faciem (jam audierat) nemo homo videbit me, et vivet (Exod. XXXIII, 20). Et hunc, inquit, sermonem quem dixisti, faciam tibi. Et rursus Moyses: Ostende mihi gloriam tuam. Et Dominus similiter de futuro: Ego praecedam in gloria mea; et reliqua. Et in novissimo: Et tunc videbis posteriora mea. Non lumbos, nec suras; sed quam desideraverat gloriam in posterioribus temporibus revelandam. In qua, facie ad faciem visibilem se ei repromittit, etiam ad Aaronem dicens (Num. XII, 6): Si fuerit prophetes in vobis, in visione cognoscar illi, et in visione loquar ad eum, non quomodo ad Moysen: os ad os loquar ad eum in specie (utique hominis quam erat gestaturus), non in aenigmate. Nam etsi Marcion noluit eum colloquentem Domino ostensum, sed stantem; tamen et stans os ad os stabat, et faciem ad faciem cum illo, inquit, non extra illum, in gloriam ipsius, nedum in conspectum. De qua gloria non aliter illustratus discessit a Christo, quam solebat a Creatore: proinde tunc oculos percutiens filiorum Israelis, quemadmodum et nunc excaecati Marcionis, qui hoc quoque argumentum adversus se facere non vidit. Suscipio in me personam Israelis.

Him, Moses and Elijah in the prerogative of glory, and being thus dismissed, as though their office and honour were now discharged; so that this very thing might be confirmed on account of Marcion, that there is a fellowship even in the glory of Christ with Moses and Elijah. Moreover, we have the whole character of this vision also in Habakkuk, where the Spirit [speaks] at times in the person of the apostles (Hab. 3:2): Lord, I have heard Thy hearing, and was afraid. Which [hearing] more than that of that heavenly voice, This is My beloved Son, hear Him? I have considered Thy works, and was struck out of my mind. When more so than when, upon seeing His glory, Peter does not know what he is saying? In the midst of two living creatures Thou shalt be known, namely Moses and Elijah. Of whom Zechariah too (Zech. 4:3, 14) had a vision in the figure of two olive trees and of two little branches of olive. For these are they of whom it was said to him: Two sons of fatness stand by the Lord of the whole earth. And again the same Habakkuk (Hab. 3:3): His power covered the heavens; namely with that cloud. And His splendour shall be like light; namely that with which even His raiment shone. And if we call to mind the promise to Moses, it will be found fulfilled here. For when Moses desired the sight of the Lord, saying: If therefore I have found favour before Thee, manifest Thyself to me, that I may see Thee knowingly; he was desiring that sight in which He was to act as man, which the prophet knew. But [as for] the face of God, he had already heard: No man shall see Me, and live (Exod. 33:20). And this word, He says, which you have spoken, I will do for you. And again Moses: Show me Thy glory. And the Lord likewise concerning the future: I will go before in My glory; and so on. And at the last: And then you shall see My hinder parts. Not loins, nor calves; but the glory which he had desired, to be revealed in the latter times. In which He promises him again that He will be visible face to face, saying also to Aaron (Num. 12:6): If there be a prophet among you, I will be known to him in a vision, and in a vision I will speak to him, not as to Moses: mouth to mouth I will speak to him in form (namely of man, which He was going to bear), not in a riddle. For even though Marcion would not have him shown conversing with the Lord, but standing; yet even standing he stood mouth to mouth, and face to face with Him, it says, not outside Him, in His glory, much less in His sight. Illumined by which glory he departed from Christ in no other way than he used to depart from the Creator: thus striking at that time the eyes of the sons of Israel, just as now [the eyes] of the blinded Marcion, who did not see that this argument too tells against himself. I take upon myself the person of Israel.

Editors' notes and page, col. 445

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 227)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 445

Operam tuam al.

"Operam tuam" ("your work") others.

(printed under page 227)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 445

Quanto Paris. quo Fran.

"Quanto" the Paris edition; "quo" the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 227)

(89) ‹anchor: nemo homo videbit me› · call in col 445

Me abest Rig. Venet.

"Me" is absent in Rigault and the Venice edition.

(printed under page 227)

(90) ‹anchor: se ei repromittit› · call in col 445

Repromiserat Seml.

"Repromiserat" ("had promised") Semler.

(printed under page 227)

(91) ‹anchor: prophetes in vobis› · call in col 445

Et inser. Oberth.

"Et" ("and") is inserted by Oberthür.

(printed under page 227)

(92) ‹anchor: os loquar ad eum› · call in col 445

Ad eum omitt. Seml.

"To him" is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 227)

(93) ‹anchor: sed stantem;› · call in col 445

Et add. Rig. Venet.

"Et" ("and") is added by Rigault and the Venice edition.

(printed under page 227)

(94) ‹anchor: nedum in conspectum› · call in col 445

Conspectu Oberth.

"Conspectu" (ablative) Oberthür.

(printed under page 227)

(95) ‹anchor: oculos percutiens› · call in col 445

Percutere Pam.

"Percutere" ("to strike") Pamelius.

(printed under page 227)

(99) ‹anchor: Domino ostensum› · call in col 445

Marcion noluit eum colloquentem Domino ostensum. Ex Evangelio B. Lucae deleverat colloquentes cum illo, verum premitur hic Marcion ex cap. XXXIV Exodi, in quo idem refertur. Le Pr.

Marcion would not have him shown speaking with the Lord. He had deleted from the Gospel of blessed Luke the words talking with him; but here Marcion is pressed from chapter XXXIV of Exodus, in which the same thing is related. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 227)

Page

running head: 445 LIB. IV ADV. MARC (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A illo Moyse et Elia in claritatis; B oleae. Nam hi sunt; C futuro: Ego praecedam; D tunc oculos percutiens
old-edition numerals: 416 after faciem
other: "caelos" (printed cae- or coe- at line end) UNSURE; commentary call (99) after ostensum omitted; full-width "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" editors' notes at page foot not set; right column (446) partly visible, not set

PL 2:446

CAPUT XXIII.

Chapter XXIII.

Stet christus Marcionis, et exclamet: O genitura incredula, quousque ero apud vos? quousque sustinebo vos? Statim a me audire debebit. Quisquis es, eperchomene (ἐπερχόμενε), prius ede qui sis, et a quo venias, et quod in nobis tibi jus. Usque adhuc Creatoris est totum apud te. Plane si ab illo venis, et illi agis, admittimus increpationem. Si vero ab alio, dicas velim quid nobis unquam de tuo commisisti, quod credere debuissemus, ut exprobres incredulitatem, qui nec ipsum aliquando nobis revelasti? Quam olim apud nos agere coepisti, ut tempus quaeraris? In quibus nos sustinuisti, ut patientiam imputes? Asinus de Aesopi puteo modo venis, et jam exclamas. Suscipio adhuc et personam discipulorum in quos insiliit: O natio incredula, quamdiu ero vobiscum? quamdiu vos sustinebo? Hanc eruptionem ejus utique hoc modo justissime repercuterem: Quisquis es (ἐπερχόμενε) eperchomene, prius ede qui sis, a quo venias, quod tibi jus sit in nobis? Usque adhuc, puto, Creatoris es, et ideo secuti sumus recognoscentes omnia illius in te. Quod si ab illo venis, admittimus increpationem. Si vero alii agis, oro te, dicas quid nobis aliquando commisisti dumtaxat de tuo, quod jam credidisse debuissemus, ut exprobres incredulitatem, qui nec auctorem tuum usque adhuc edis? Quam olim autem apud nos agere coepisti, ut tempus quoque opponas? In quibus autem nos sustinuisti, ut et patientiam jactes? Asinus de Aesopi puteo modo huc apparuit, et jam exclamat. Quis non ita injustitiam increpationis retudisset, si ejus eum credidisset, qui nondum queri debuisset? nisi quod nec ille eos insilisset, si non olim apud illos in Lege, in prophetis, in virtutibus et b⟨e⟩neficiis deversatus, incredulos semper fuisset expertus. Sed ecce Christus diligit parvulos, tales esse docens debere, qui semper majores velint esse. Creator autem ursos pueris immisit, ulciscens Elisaeum propheten, convicia ab eis passum (IV Reg. II). Satis impudens antithesis, cum tam diversa committit, parvulos et pueros: innocentem adhuc aetatem, et judicii jam capacem, quae conviciari poterat, ne dicam blasphemare. Qua ergo justus Deus, nec pueris impiis pepercit, exigens majori aetati honorem, et utique magis a minore. Qua vero bonus, adeo diligit parvulos, ut apud Aegyptum benefecerit obstetricibus protegentibus partus Hebraeos periclitantes edicto Pharaonis. Ita et haec affectatio Christi cum Creatore est. Jam nunc Deus.

Let the christ of Marcion stand and cry out: O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be among you? how long shall I bear with you? At once he will have to hear from me: Whoever you are, O you who come upon us (eperchomene), first declare who you are, and from whom you come, and what right you have over us. Up to now everything in you belongs to the Creator. Certainly, if you come from Him and act for Him, we accept the rebuke. But if from another, I would have you tell us what you ever entrusted to us of your own which we ought to have believed, that you should reproach our unbelief, you who have never even revealed yourself to us? How long ago did you begin to act among us, that you complain of the time? In what things have you borne with us, that you lay patience to our account? You come just now like the ass out of Aesop's well, and already you cry out. I take up further the part of the disciples too, upon whom he sprang: O unbelieving nation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? This outburst of his I would surely most justly beat back in this way: Whoever you are, O you who come upon us (eperchomene), first declare who you are, from whom you come, what right you have over us? Up to now, I think, you are the Creator's, and therefore we have followed, recognizing all His things in you. But if you come from Him, we accept the rebuke. If, however, you act for another, I pray you, tell us what you ever entrusted to us, at least of your own, which we ought already to have believed, that you should reproach our unbelief, you who even up to now do not declare your author? How long ago, moreover, did you begin to act among us, that you also object the time against us? In what things, moreover, have you borne with us, that you even boast of patience? The ass out of Aesop's well has just now appeared here, and already cries out. Who would not thus have beaten back the injustice of the rebuke, if he had believed him to belong to one who could not yet have had cause to complain? except that neither would He have sprung upon them, had He not long ago dwelt among them in the Law, in the prophets, in mighty works and benefits, and always found them unbelieving. But see, Christ loves little ones, teaching that such ought those to be who wish always to be greater. The Creator, however, sent bears upon boys, avenging Elisha the prophet, who had suffered insults from them (2 Kgs. 2). A shameless enough antithesis, when it sets side by side things so different, little ones and boys: an age still innocent, and one already capable of judgement, which could revile, not to say blaspheme. Inasmuch, then, as He is a just God, He did not spare even impious boys, exacting honour for the greater age, and indeed all the more from the lesser. Inasmuch, however, as He is good, He so loves little ones that in Egypt He did good to the midwives who protected the Hebrew births endangered by Pharaoh's edict. So this sentiment too Christ shares with the Creator. Now then, the god

Editors' notes and page, col. 446

Footnotes

(96) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 446

Quousque sustinebo vos omitt. Seml.

"How long shall I bear with you" is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 227)

(97) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 446

Es Oberth.

"Es" ("you are") Oberthür.

(printed under page 227)

(98) ‹anchor: Qua ergo justus› · call in col 446

Quia Paris. Fran.

"Quia" ("because") the Paris and Franeker editions.

Commentarius

(printed under page 227)

Page

running head: IV ADV. MARCIONEM. 446 (left part of running head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A CAPUT XXIII.; B adhuc et personam discipulorum; C jactes? Asinus de Aesopi; D bonus, adeo diligit parvulos
old-edition numerals: 417 after non

PL 2:447

Marcionis, qui connubium aversatur, quomodo videri potest parvulorum dilector, quorum tota causa connubium est. Qui semen odit, fructum quoque exsecretur necesse est. Nae ille saevior habendus Aegyptio rege: nam Pharao educari non sinebat infantes; iste nec nasci, auferens vitam illis etiam decem mensium in utero. At enim quanto credibilius, ut ejus deputetur affectio in parvulos, qui benedicendo connubium in propagationem generis humani, ipsum quoque fructum connubii benedicendo promisit, qui de infantia primus est. Repraesentat Creator ignium plagam Elia postulante in illo pseudopropheta (IV Reg. I). Agnosco Judicis severitatem; e contrario, Christi lenitatem increpantis eamdem animadversionem destinantes discipulos, super illum viculum Samaritarum. Agnoscat et haereticus ab eodem severissimo judice promitti hanc Christi lenitatem. Non contendet, inquit (Isa. XLII, 2), nec vox ejus in platea audietur. Arundinem quassatam non comminuet, et linum fumigans non exstinguet. Talis utique multo magis homines non erat crematurus. Nam et tunc ad Eliam (III Reg. XIX, 12): Non in igni, (inquit, Dominus), sed in spiritu miti. At enim humanissimus Deus, cur recusat eum, qui se tam individuum illi comitem offert? Si quia superbe, vel ex hypocrisi dixerat: Sequar te quocunque ieris; ergo aut superbiam, aut hypocrisin recusandam judicando, judicem gessit. Et utique damnavit, quem recusavit, non consecuturum scilicet salutem. Nam sicut ad salutem vocat, quem non recusat, vel etiam quem ultro vocat, ita in perditionem damnat quem recusat. Illi autem causato patris sepulturam cum respondet. Sine mortui sepeliant mortuos suos, tu autem vade, et annuntia regnum Dei: utramque legem Creatoris manifeste confirmavit, et de sacerdotio in Levitico prohibentem

of Marcion, who shuns marriage: how can he be regarded as a lover of little children, of whom marriage is the whole cause? He who hates the seed must necessarily also execrate the fruit. Truly he must be held more savage than the Egyptian king: for Pharaoh did not allow infants to be reared; this one does not allow them even to be born, taking from them even the life of ten months in the womb. But how much more credible it is that affection towards little ones should be ascribed to Him who, in blessing marriage for the propagation of the human race, by blessing promised also the very fruit of marriage, which is first of all in infancy. The Creator brings forth a plague of fire at Elijah's demand in the case of that false prophet (2 Kgs. 1). I recognize the severity of the Judge; on the contrary, the gentleness of Christ rebuking the disciples who intended the same punishment upon that little village of the Samaritans. Let the heretic also recognize that this gentleness of Christ is promised by that same most severe judge. He shall not contend, He says (Isa. 42:2), nor shall His voice be heard in the street. A shaken reed He shall not crush, and smoking flax He shall not extinguish. Such a one, surely, was much less going to burn men. For even then to Elijah (1 Kgs. 19:12): Not in fire, (says the Lord), but in a gentle spirit. But why does the most humane God refuse him who offers himself to Him as so inseparable a companion? If it was because he had said proudly, or out of hypocrisy: I will follow Thee wherever Thou goest; then by judging that either the pride or the hypocrisy must be refused, He acted as judge. And certainly He condemned him whom He refused, as one who would not, that is, attain salvation. For just as He calls to salvation him whom He does not refuse, or even him whom He calls of His own accord, so He condemns to perdition him whom He refuses. But when He answers that other, who pleaded his father's burial: Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and announce the kingdom of God: He plainly confirmed both laws of the Creator, both that concerning the priesthood in Leviticus which forbids

Editors' notes and page, col. 447

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 228)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 447

Adversatur Rig. Venet.

"Adversatur" ("opposes") Rigault, the Venice edition.

(printed under page 228)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 447

Reprehendentis cod. Wouw.

"Reprehendentis" ("of one rebuking") Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 228)

(2) ‹anchor: non consecuturum› · call in col 447

Secuturum Seml.

"Secuturum" Semler.

(printed under page 228)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 447

Patrem Oberth.

"Patrem" ("father", accusative) Oberthür.

(printed under page 228)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 447

Quorum tota causa connubium est. Totam causam accipit auctor pro pleraque; nam tria bona connubii adnotavit non uno in loco B. Augustinus, fidem, sacramentum, et prolem, cum interim plerique fere prolium causa matrimonium contrahant. Nam totum, inquit Nonius, quod plus putatur, non pro cuncto alicubi accipi potest. Id enim disertis verbis indicat auctor, cum paulo post subjungit: « Ipsum quoque fructum connubii benedicendo promisit, qui de infantia primus est. » Pam.

Whose whole cause is marriage. By "whole cause" the author means "the greater part"; for blessed Augustine noted in more than one place three goods of marriage, faith, sacrament and offspring, while in the meantime most people contract matrimony chiefly for the sake of offspring. For "whole", says Nonius, which is thought to be more, can in some places be taken not for "all". The author shows this in plain words when a little later he adds: "He also promised by blessing the very fruit of marriage, which is the first that comes from infancy." Pamelius.

(printed under page 228)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 447

Nam et tunc ad Eliam non in igni. Alludit ad historiam Eliae, III Reg. XIX. Quod autem ait: Nam et tunc ad Eliam, hoc est, etiam in Veteri Testamento Deum esse mitem et misericordem et placabilem. Procopius: Ὅτι δὲ οὐ πῦρ ὁ τῆς Παλαιᾶς Θεός, Ἠλίας διδάσκεται, καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ πάντες ἡμεῖς· ἀλλ' οὐδὲ αὔρα λεπτή, δι' αὔρας δὲ λέγεται παρεῖναι λεπτῆς. Vide quae ad lib. de Pat. Rig.

For then too, to Elijah, not in fire. He alludes to the story of Elijah, III Kings XIX. When he says, For then too, to Elijah, he means that even in the Old Testament God is gentle, merciful and easily appeased. Procopius: "That the God of the Old Testament is not fire, Elijah is taught, and through him all of us; nor even is he a light breeze, but he is said to be present by way of a light breeze." See what is said on the book On Patience. Rigault.

(printed under page 228)

Page

running head: 447 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A Marcionis, qui connubium aversatur; B stinantes discipulos, super illum viculum Samari-; C quem recusavit, non consecuturum; D (1) Quorum tota causa connubium est (in the commentary)
old-edition numerals: 418 after Non

PL 2:448

sacerdotes supremis etiam parentum interesse: Super omnem, inquit (Levit. XXI, 1) animam defunctam sacerdos non introibit et super parentem suum non contaminabitur. Et de devotione in Arithmis (Num. VI, 6 et 7); nam et illic, qui se Deo voverit, inter coetera jubet, ne super ullam animam introeat defunctam, ne super patris quidem, aut matris aut fratris. Puto autem et devotioni et sacerdotio destinabat, quem praedicando regno Dei imbuerat. Aut si non ita est, satis impius pronuntiandus, qui nulla ratione legis intercedente, sepulturas parentum despici a filiis imperabat. Cum vero et tertium, prius suis valedicere parantem, prohibet retro respectare, sectam Creatoris exsequitur. Hoc et ille noluerat fecisse quos ex Sodomis liberarat.

priests to be present even at the last rites of parents: Over every dead soul, it says (Lev. 21:1), the priest shall not enter, and over his parent he shall not be defiled. And concerning the vow, in Numbers (Num. 6:6–7); for there too it commands him who has vowed himself to God, among other things, not to enter over any dead soul, not even over that of his father, or mother or brother. I think, moreover, that He was destining for both the vow and the priesthood the man whom He had imbued with the preaching of the kingdom of God. Or if it is not so, He must be pronounced quite impious, Who, with no reason of the law intervening, commanded that the burials of parents be disregarded by sons. When, indeed, He also forbids a third, who was preparing first to bid farewell to his own, to look back, He follows the way of the Creator. He too had not wished those whom He had freed from Sodom to have done this.

CAPUT XXIV.

Chapter XXIV.

Allegit et alios septuaginta apostolos super duodecim (Luc. X). Quo enim duodecim secundum totidem fontes in Elim, si non et septuaginta, secundum totidem arbusta palmarum? Antitheses plurimum causarum diversitas fecit, non potestatum. Sed qui diversitatem causarum non respexit, facile eam potestatem existimavit. Profectionem filiorum Israelis, Creator, etiam illis spoliis aureorum et argenteorum vasculorum, et vestium, praeter oneribus consparsionum offarcinatam eduxit de Aegypto: Christus autem nec virgam discipulis in viam ferre praescripsit. Illi enim in solitudinem promovebantur; hi autem in civitates mittebantur. Considera causarum offerentiam et intelliges unam et eamdem potestatem, quae secundum penuriam et copiam expeditionem suorum disposuit; proinde per civitates abundaturam circumcidens, sicut et egituram per solitudinem struxerat. Etiam calceamenta portare vetnit illos. Ipse enim erat, sub quo nec in solitudine per tot annos populus calceamenta detriverat.

He chose also seventy other apostles besides the twelve (Luke 10). For why twelve, after the same number of springs in Elim, if not also seventy, after the same number of palm trees? It is for the most part a diversity of causes, not of powers, that has produced the antitheses. But he who did not regard the diversity of causes readily supposed it to be [a diversity] of power. The Creator led the departure of the sons of Israel out of Egypt stuffed even with those spoils of gold and silver vessels and of garments, besides the burdens of dough: but Christ prescribed that the disciples should not carry even a staff on the road. For those were being sent forth into the wilderness; these, however, were being sent into cities. Consider the difference of the causes and you will understand one and the same power, which arranged the setting out of its own according to scarcity and plenty; accordingly, cutting down that [setting out] which would have plenty through the cities, just as it had equipped that which would be in want through the wilderness. He even forbade them to carry shoes. For He it was under Whom not even in the wilderness, through so many years, had the people worn out their shoes.

Editors' notes and page, col. 448

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: eduxit de› · call in col 448

Ex Seml.

"Ex" ("out of") Semler.

(printed under page 228)

(5) ‹anchor: nec virgam› · call in col 448

Peram Fran.

"Peram" ("wallet") the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 228)

(6) ‹anchor: solitudinem struxerat› · call in col 448

Strinxerat notat Rhen.

"Strinxerat" is noted by Rhenanus.

Commentarius

(printed under page 228)

(3) ‹anchor: oneribus consparsionum› · call in col 448

Praeter oneribus consparsionum. Sic legitur in exemplari. Itaque hic praeter adverbiascit, et significat praeterea. Onera autem consparsionum dicit farinae massam aquae conspargine coactam. Exodi XII, 34: Ἀνέλαβε δὲ ὁ λαὸς τὸ σταῖς αὐτῶν. Hesychius: Σταῖς, φύραμα ἀλεύρου πυροῦ. Glossarium vetus σταῖς, adeps. Item, φύραμα, massa, conspersio; sic adversus Valentinianos: « In conspersionis alvearia absconderit, donec totum confermentetur. » Versio vulgata Epistolarum Pauli ad I Cor. V, 7: Ut sitis nova conspersio, sicut estis azymi. Rig.

Besides, with loads of kneaded dough. So it reads in the copy. Here, then, praeter becomes an adverb and means "besides". By "loads of kneaded dough" he means the lump of flour bound together by a sprinkling of water. Exodus XII, 34: "And the people took up their dough." Hesychius: "Stais: a kneading of wheat flour." An old glossary: stais, "fat". Again, phyrama, "lump", "dough"; so in Against the Valentinians: "She hid it in the troughs of dough, until the whole was leavened." The Vulgate version of Paul's Epistles, I Cor. V, 7: That you may be a new dough, as you are unleavened. Rigault.

(printed under page 228)

(4) ‹anchor: offarcinatam› · call in col 448

Offarcinatam. Exod. τὰ φυράματα αὐτῶν ἐνδεδεμένα ἐν τοῖς ἱματίοις αὐτῶν. Rig.

Packed up. Exodus: "their kneaded dough bound up in their garments." Rigault.

(printed under page 228)

(5) ‹anchor: virgam discipulis› · call in col 448

Christus autem nec virgam discipulis, etc. Legerem cum Pamelio, nec peram; congruit enim plane lectio haec cum Evang. B. Lucae. Le Pr.

But Christ not even a staff to the disciples, etc. I would read with Pamelius, nec peram, "not even a wallet"; for this reading agrees plainly with the Gospel of blessed Luke. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 228)

(6) ‹anchor: vetuit illos› · call in col 448

Etiam calceamenta portare vetuit illos. Non ita haec accipe, ut discipulos albis pedibus incedere voluerit Christus Dominus; sed tantum ne de calceamentis sibi providerent, quibus uti possent, ubi ea quae in pedibus habebant, attrita essent. Ut enim cum Veteri Testamento illud congruat, qui Israelitas adeo salvos et incolumes per an. 40 praestitit, ut neque vestes neque calcei contererentur, idem in Novo suis eamdem fiduciam praestare poterit et securitatem. Id enim contextus ipse exigit. Le Pr.

He even forbade them to carry shoes. Do not take this to mean that Christ the Lord wanted the disciples to go barefoot; only that they should not provide themselves with shoes to use once those they had on their feet were worn out. For so that it may agree with the Old Testament: he who kept the Israelites so safe and sound for forty years that neither their clothes nor their shoes wore out could give his own in the New the same confidence and security. The context itself requires this. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 228)

Page

running head: [cut off at left]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 448
marginal letters: A ‹sacerdotes supremis etiam›; B ‹CAPUT XXIV.›; C ‹in civitates mittebantur›; D ‹Exodi XII, 34 (in the Commentarius, not set)›
old-edition numerals: 419 after ‹Christus›

PL 2:449

Neminem, inquit, per viam salutaveris. O Christum destructorem prophetarum, a quibus hoc quoque accepit! Elisaeus, cum Giezin, puerum suum mitteret in viam ad filium Sunamitidis resuscitandum de morte, puto, sic ei praecepit (IV Reg. IV, 29): Accinge lumbos tuos, et sume bacillum meum in manum, et vade: quemcunque conveneris in via, ne benedixeris eum; id est, ne salutaveris: et qui te benedixerit, ne responderis ei, id est, ne resalutaveris. Quae est enim inter vias benedictio, nisi ex occursu mutua salutatio? Sic et Dominus, in quam introissent domum, pacem ei dicere, exemplo eodem est. Mandavit enim et hoc Elisaeus, cum introisset ad Sunamitin, diceret ei: Pax viro tuo, pax filio tuo. Haec erunt potius nostrae antitheses, quae comparant, non quae separant Christum. Dignus est autem operarius mercede sua, quis magis pronuntiarit quam Deus judex? Quia et hoc ipsum judicare est, dignum facere mercede operarium. Nulla retributio non ex judicatione constitit. Jam nunc et hic lex consignatur Creatoris, etiam boves operantes dignos operarios mercede judicantis; Bovi, inquit (Deut. XXV, 4), terenti os non colligabis. Quis tam praestans in homines, nisi qui et in pecudes? Quod si et Christus dignos mercede pronuntiat operarios, excusavit praeceptum illud Creatoris, de vasis aureis et argenteis Aegyptiorum auferendis. Qui enim villas et urbes operati fuerant Aegyptiis, digni utique operarii mercede, non ad fraudem sunt instructi, sed ad mercedis compensationem, quam alias a dominatoribus exigere non poterant. Regnum Dei, neque novum neque i⟨n⟩auditum, sic quoque confirmavit, dum illud jubet adnuntiari appropinquasse. Quod enim longe fuerit aliquando, id potest dici appropinquasse. Si autem nunquam retro fuisset, antequam appropinquasset, nec dici potuisset appropinquasse, quod nunquam longe fuisset. Omne quod novum et incognitum est, subitum est. Omne quod subitum est, cum annuntiatur, tunc primum speciem inducens, tunc primum accipit tempus. Caeterum, nec retrotardasse poterit, quamdiu non annuntiabatur; nec ex quo annuntiari coeperit, appropinquasse. Etiam adjicit, ut eis

Greet no one, He says, along the way. O Christ, destroyer of the prophets, from whom He received this too! Elisha, when he was sending Gehazi, his servant, on the way to the son of the Shunammite woman, to raise him from death, gave him, I think, this command (2 Kgs. 4:29): Gird your loins, and take my staff in your hand, and go: whomever you meet on the way, do not bless him; that is, do not greet him: and whoever blesses you, do not answer him, that is, do not return his greeting. For what blessing is there along the roads, except a mutual greeting arising from a meeting? So also the Lord, [in bidding them] say peace to whatever house they entered, follows the same example. For Elisha also commanded this, that when he had gone in to the Shunammite woman he should say to her: Peace to your husband, peace to your son. These will rather be our antitheses, which compare Christ, not those which separate Him. But the labourer is worthy of his wage: who would sooner have pronounced this than God the judge? For this very thing is judging, to deem the labourer worthy of his wage. No recompense has ever stood except by judgement. Even now here too the law of the Creator is sealed, Who judges even oxen that labour to be labourers worthy of wage: To the ox, He says (Deut. 25:4), that treads out [the grain] you shall not bind the mouth. Who is so generous towards men, except He Who is so also towards cattle? But if Christ too pronounces labourers worthy of wage, He has vindicated that precept of the Creator concerning the carrying off of the gold and silver vessels of the Egyptians. For those who had built farms and cities for the Egyptians, labourers surely worthy of wage, were not instructed to fraud, but to the compensation of their wage, which they could not otherwise exact from their masters. The kingdom of God, neither new nor unheard of, He thus also confirmed, when He orders it to be announced as having drawn near. For what was once far off, that can be said to have drawn near. But if it had never existed before it drew near, neither could it have been said to have drawn near, since it had never been far off. Everything which is new and unknown is sudden. Everything which is sudden, when it is announced, then first taking on its appearance, then first receives time. Moreover, it could neither have been delayed for as long as it was not being announced, nor have drawn near from the time it began to be announced. He even adds, that to them

Editors' notes and page, col. 449

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 229)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

In via Oberth.

"In via" ("on the way") Oberthür.

(printed under page 229)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

Ut in q... dicerent alii.

"Ut in q... dicerent" others.

(printed under page 229)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

Tuo omitt. Sem.

"Tuo" ("your") is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 229)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

Est omitt. Oberth.

"Est" ("is") is omitted by Oberthür.

(printed under page 229)

(11) ‹anchor: sunt instructi› · call in col 449

Instincti Pam.

"Instincti" ("prompted") Pamelius.

(printed under page 229)

(12) ‹anchor: Etiam adjicit› · call in col 449

Dicit alii; edicit al.

"Dicit" ("says") others; "edicit" ("decrees") others.

(printed under page 229)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

Adhaerentiam Paris. adhorrentiam Fran.; horrentiam Jun.

"Adhaerentiam" the Paris edition; "adhorrentiam" the Franeker edition; "horrentiam" Junius.

(printed under page 229)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

Et haerentiam terrae eorum. In exemplari scribitur: « Sic et pulverem jubet et excuti in illos in testificationem ei: hoer et etiam terrae cor. » Haerentiam terrae dixisse videtur, ut explicaret quod pulveris nomine Lucas intelligi voluerat. Rig.

And the clinging of their earth. In the copy it is written: "Sic et pulverem jubet et excuti in illos in testificationem ei: hoer et etiam terrae cor." He seems to have said "clinging of earth" to explain what Luke had meant by the word "dust". Rigault.

(printed under page 229)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

Ammonitas et Moabitas prohibeat recipi in Ecclesiam. Ecclesiae vocabulum Septimius accommodat Judaicis temporibus. Rig.

Should forbid Ammonites and Moabites to be received into the Church. Septimius applies the word "Church" to Jewish times. Rigault.

(printed under page 229)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 449

Communicationis interdictum. Sic lib. de Monogamia: « Sed illam quidem a communicatione depellunt. » Rig. — Communicationis interdictum. De interdictis Ecclesiae id explicari potest. Diligens etenim formularum forensium observator et juris Tertullianus id opposuit. Apud Jureconsultos interdictum est quod ad tempus a judice dicitur, et glossae, διαλεγόμενον δύο ἀμφισβητούντων περὶ νομῆς; sic interdictum Ecclesiae est separatio a communi coetu fidelium ad tempus, donec qui ἀκοινώνητος est pro delictis satisfecerit. Interdictum, quasi interim dictum, ut apud Tull. lib. VII Epist. famil. epist. 32: « Urbanitatis possessionem, amabo, quibusvis interdictis defendamus? » Justinianus tamen Aug. dictum esse vult, quasi inter duos dictum. Le Pr.

An interdict from communion. So in the book On Monogamy: "But her they drive from communion." Rigault. — An interdict from communion. This can be explained of the Church's interdicts. For Tertullian, a careful observer of forensic formulas and of law, set this against it. Among the jurists an interdict is what is pronounced by a judge for a time, and the glosses say, "spoken between two parties disputing about possession"; so the Church's interdict is a separation from the common assembly of the faithful for a time, until he who is excommunicate has made satisfaction for his offences. "Interdictum", as though interim dictum, "said for the meantime", as in Tully, Letters to Friends book VII, letter 32: "Shall we, I pray, defend our possession of wit by any interdicts whatever?" The Emperor Justinian, however, will have it called so as though inter duos dictum, "said between two". Le Prieur.

(printed under page 229)

Page

running head: 449 LIB. IV ADV. MARCI (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A verat. Neminem, inquit; B tum. Dignus est autem; C fraudem sunt instructi; D (none)
old-edition numerals: 420 after inauditum,

PL 2:450

qui illos non recepissent, dicerent: Scitote tamen appropinquasse regnum Dei. Si hoc non et comminationis gratia mandat, vanissime mandat. Quid enim ad illos si appropinquaret regnum, nisi quia cum judicio appropinquat? in salutem scilicet eorum, qui annuntiationem ejus recepissent. Quomodo? si comminatio non potest sine exsecutione, habes Deum exsecutorem in comminatore, et judicem in utroqne? Sic et pulverem jubet excuti in illos, in testificationem, et haerentiam terrae eorum, nedum communicationis reliquae. Si enim inhumanitas et inhospitalitas nullam ab eo relaturae sunt ultionem, cui rei praemittit testificationem, minas utique portendentem? Porro, cum etiam Creator in Deuteronomio (XXIII, 3), Ammonitas et Moabitas prohibeat recipi in Ecclesiam, quod populum Aegypto profectum inhumane et inhospitaliter copiis defraudassent: ergo in Christum inde manasse constabit communicationis interdictum; ubi habet formam: Qui vos spernit, me spernit. Hoc et Moysi Creator (Num. XIV, 27): Non te contempserunt, sed me. Tam enim apostolus Moyses, quam et apostoli prophetae. Aequanda erit auctoritas utriusque officii, ab uno eodemque Domino apostolorum et prophetarum. Quis nunc dabit potestatem calcandi super colubros et scorpios? Utrumne omnium animalium Domiuus, an nec unius lacertae Deus? Sed bene quod Creator hanc potestatem parvulis pueris per Isaiam (XI, 8) repromisit, conjicere manum in cavernam aspidum, et in cubile natorum aspidum, nec omnino laedi. Et utique scimus (salva simplicitate Scripturae; nam nec et ipsae bestiae nocere poterunt, ubi fides fuerit) figurate scorpios et colubros portendi spiritalia malitiae, quorum ipse quoque princeps in serpentis, et draconis, et immanissimae cujusque bestiae nomine deputetur penes Creatorem, largitum hanc potestatem priori Christo suo; sicut nonagesimus Psalmus ad eum (Psal. XC, 13): Super aspidem et basiliscum incedes, et conculcabis leonem et draconem; sicut etiam Isaias (XXVII, 1): Illa die superducet Dominus Deus machaeram sanctam, magnam et fortem, Christum scilicet suum, in draconem illum colubrum magnum

who had not received them, they should say: Know nevertheless that the kingdom of God has drawn near. If He does not command this also by way of threat, He commands it most idly. For what was it to them if the kingdom drew near, unless because it draws near with judgement? for the salvation, that is, of those who had received the proclamation of it. How so? If a threat cannot exist without execution, do you not have in the One who threatens God as executor, and a judge in both? So too He orders the dust to be shaken off against them, for a testimony, even the dust of their land that clings [to them], let alone any other intercourse. For if inhumanity and inhospitality are to receive no vengeance from Him, to what end does He send ahead a testimony which certainly portends threats? Moreover, since the Creator too in Deuteronomy (Deut. 23:3) forbids the Ammonites and Moabites to be received into the church, because they had inhumanly and inhospitably defrauded of provisions the people that had set out from Egypt, it will therefore be evident that the interdict from intercourse flowed from there into Christ; where it has its pattern: He who despises you despises Me. This the Creator also [said] to Moses (Num. 14:27): They have not despised you, but Me. For Moses is as much an apostle as the apostles too are prophets. The authority of both offices will have to be held equal, [proceeding] from one and the same Lord of the apostles and the prophets. Who now will give the power to tread upon snakes and scorpions? Is it the Lord of all living creatures, or a god not even of a single lizard? But it is well that the Creator promised this power to little children through Isaiah (Isa. 11:8), to thrust a hand into the hole of asps and into the lair of the young of asps, and not be hurt at all. And indeed we know (saving the plain sense of Scripture; for not even the beasts themselves will be able to do harm where there is faith) that by scorpions and snakes are figuratively signified the spiritual forces of wickedness, whose prince himself is also reckoned with the Creator under the name of the serpent, and of the dragon, and of every most savage beast, [the Creator] having bestowed this power on His own Christ beforehand; as the ninetieth Psalm [says] to Him (Ps. 90:13): You will walk upon the asp and the basilisk, and you will trample the lion and the dragon; as Isaiah too (Isa. 27:1): On that day the Lord God will bring on the holy sword, great and strong, namely His Christ, against that dragon, the great snake

Editors' notes and page, col. 450

Footnotes

(14) ‹anchor: nec unius lacertae› · call in col 450

Lacertae omitt. Seml.

"Of a lizard" is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 229)

(15) ‹anchor: parvulis pueris› · call in col 450

Puerulis Oberth.

"Puerulis" ("to little boys") Oberthür.

(printed under page 229)

(16) ‹anchor: et immanissimae› · call in col 450

Eminentissimae Pam.

"Eminentissimae" ("most eminent") Pamelius.

Commentarius

(printed under page 229)

Page

running head: [LIBER] IV ADV. MARCIONEM. (left part cut off at image edge; 450 at right)
marginal letters: A qui illos non recepissent; B quod populum Aegypto profectum; C repromisit, conjicere manum
old-edition numerals: 191 after nec

PL 2:451

et tortuosum, et interficiet eum illa die. Sed cum idem (XXXV, 8): Via munda et via sancta vocabitur, et non transibit illic immundum, nec erit illic via immunda: qui autem dispersi erunt, vadent in ea, et non errabunt; et non erit jam illic leo, nec ex bestiis pessimis quicquam ascendet in eam, nec invenietur illic. Cum via fidem demonstret, per quam ad Deum perveniemus, jam tunc eidem viae, id est fidei, hanc erogationem et subjectionem bestiarum pollicetur. Denique et tempora promissionis congruere invenias, si quae antecedunt, legas (XXXV, 3): Invalescite, manus dimissae, et genua resoluta. Tunc patefient oculi caecorum, et aures exaudient surdorum. Tunc saliet claudus ut cervus, et clara erit lingua mutorum. Igitur ubi medicinarum edidit beneficia, tunc et scorpios et serpentes sanctis suis subdidit, ille scilicet qui hanc potestatem, ut et aliis praestaret, prior acceperat a Patre, et secundum ordinem praedicationis exhibuit.

and crooked, and He will slay him on that day. But since the same [prophet says] ([Isa.] 35:8): The way shall be called clean and a holy way, and the unclean shall not pass over there, nor shall there be an unclean way there; but those who have been scattered shall walk in it, and shall not go astray; and there shall no longer be a lion there, nor shall any of the worst beasts go up onto it, nor shall it be found there. Since the way signifies faith, by which we shall come to God, already then to that same way, that is, to faith, He promises this bestowal and this subjection of the beasts. Moreover, you would find that the times of the promise also agree, if you read what precedes ([Isa.] 35:3): Be strong, you slackened hands and loosened knees. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear. Then the lame shall leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be clear. Therefore when He had brought forth the benefits of healing, then also He made scorpions and serpents subject to His saints, He namely who had first received this power from the Father, so that He might grant it to others as well, and displayed it according to the order of the prophecy.

CAPUT XXV.

Chapter XXV.

Quis Dominus coeli invocabitur, qui non prius factor ostenditur? Gratias enim, inquit, ago et confiteor, Domine caeli, quod ea quae erant abscondita sapientibus et prudentibus, revelaveris parvulis (Matth. XI, 25). Quae ista? et cujus? et a quo abscondita? et a quo revelata? Si a Deo Marcionis abscondita et revelata, qui omniuo nihil praemiserat, in quo aliquid absconditum esse potuisset, non prophetias, non parabolas, non visiones, non ulla rerum, aut verborum, aut nominum argumenta, per allegorias et figuras, vel aenigmatum nebulas obumbrata; sed ipsam magnitudinem sui absconderat, quam cum maxime per Christum revelabat, satis inique. Quid enim deliquerant sapientes et prudentes, ut absconderetur illis Deus? ad quem cognoscendum non suffecerat sapientia atque prudentia illorum, nulla via data ab ipso per aliquam operum praedicationem; vel vestigia, per quae sapientes atque prudentes deducerentur. Quanquam et si in aliquo deliquissent erga Deum ignotum, pone tunc notum; non tamen zelotem eum experiri debuissent, qui dissimilis Creatoris inducitur. Igitur si nec materias praemiserat, a quibus aliquid occultasset; nec reos habuerat, a quibus occultasset; nec debuerat occultasse, etiam si habuisset: jam nec revelator ipse erit, qui absconditor non fuit: ita nec Dominus coeli, nec Pater Christi; sed ille, in quem competunt omnia. Nam et abscondit praemisso

Who will be invoked as Lord of heaven who is not first shown to be its maker? For, He says, I give thanks and confess to Thee, Lord of heaven, that the things which were hidden from the wise and prudent Thou hast revealed to little ones (Matt. 11:25). What are these things? and whose? and by whom hidden? and by whom revealed? If they were hidden and revealed by Marcion's god, who had sent forth nothing at all beforehand in which anything could have been hidden (no prophecies, no parables, no visions, no evidences of things or words or names, overshadowed by allegories and figures or by the clouds of riddles), but had hidden his very greatness, which he was just then revealing through Christ, [he acted] very unjustly. For what wrong had the wise and prudent done, that God should be hidden from them? for the knowing of whom their wisdom and prudence had not sufficed, since no way had been given by him through any proclamation of works, nor traces by which the wise and prudent might be led. And even if they had offended in some respect against an unknown god, suppose him then known; still they ought not to have experienced as a jealous one him who is presented as unlike the Creator. Therefore, if he had neither sent forth beforehand any materials from which he might have concealed something, nor had any guilty from whom he might have concealed it, nor ought to have concealed it even if he had had them, then neither will he be a revealer, who was no hider; thus neither [is he] Lord of heaven nor Father of Christ, but He [is], to whom all these things belong. For He both hid, having first sent forth the

Editors' notes and page, col. 451

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 230)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 451

Evacuationem Pam. evocationem Paris

"Evacuationem" ("emptying") Pamelius; "evocationem" ("calling out") the Paris edition.

(printed under page 230)

(18) ‹anchor: pone tunc› · call in col 451

Nunc Seml.

"Nunc" ("now") Semler.

Commentarius

(printed under page 230)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 451

Signa ventriloquorum. Vertit auctor ex graeco ἐγγαστριμύθων, idque non hic modo, sed ubicumque B. Hieronymus vertit Pythones, ita dictos, juxta Cyrilli et Hesychii lexica, quod fingerent se deos habere in ventre atque ideo ex ventre loquerentur, quo fit ut mulieres pythonicae frequentiores viris fuerint. Pam.

The signs of the ventriloquists. The author translates from the Greek engastrimythōn, and not only here but wherever blessed Jerome renders Pythones; they were so called, according to the lexicons of Cyril and Hesychius, because they pretended to have gods in their belly and so spoke from the belly; whence it comes that pythonic women were more frequent than men. Pamelius.

(printed under page 230)

Page

running head: 451 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS. II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A et tortuosum, et interficiet eum illa die; B subdidit, ille scilicet qui hanc potestatem; C maxime per Christum revelabat, satis inique; D in quem competunt omnia. Nam et abscondit prae-
old-edition numerals: 499 after aliquo

PL 2:452

obscuritatis propheticae instrumento, cujus intellectum fides mereretur: Nisi enim credideritis, non intelligetis (Isa. VII, 9); et reos habuit (Rom. I) sapientes atque prudentes, ex ipsius operibus tot ac tantis intelligibilem Deum non requirentes, vel perperam in illum philosophantes, et ingenia haereticis subministrantes; et novissime, zelotes est. Denique olim hoc per Isaiam concionabatur, quod Christus gratulatur: Perdam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium celabo (Isa. XXXIX, 14). Sicut et alibi tam abscondisse, quam revelatum esse significat. Et dabo illis thesauros absconditos, invisibiles aperiam illis (Isa. XLV, 3). Et rursus: Quis alius disjiciet signa ventriloquorum et divinationes ex corde; avertens in posteriora sapientes, et cogitationes eorum infatuans? (Isa. XLIV, 20.) Si autem et Christum suum illuminatorem nationum designavit: Posuit te in lucem nationum (Isa. XLII, 6); quas interpretamur in nomine parvulorum, sensu scilicet retro parvas, et imprudentia infantes; jam vero et humilitate fidei pusillas: facilius utique credemus eumdem etiam parvulis revelasse per Christum, qui et retro absconderit, et per Christum revelationem repromiserit. Aut si Deus Marcionis ea quae a Creatore abscondita retro fuerant, patefecit; ergo jam Creatori negotium gessit, res ejus edisserens. Sed in destructionem, inquis, uti traduceret eas: ergo illis traduxisse debuerat, quibus Creator abscondidit, sapientibus et prudentibus. Si enim benignitate faciebat, illis erat agnitio praestanda, quibus fuerat negata; non parvulis, quibus nihil Creator inviderat. Et tamen usque adhuc, puto, probamus exstructionem potius Legis et Prophetaram inveniri in Christo, quam destructionem. Omnia sibi tradita dicit a Patre. Credas si Creatoris est Christus, cujus omnia; qui non minori se tradidit omnia Filio Creator, quae per eum condidit, per sermonem suum scilicet. Caeterum, si eperchomenos ἐπερχομενος ille, quae sunt omnia quae illi a Patre sunt tradita? quae sunt Creatoris? Ergo bona sunt quae Pater Filio tradidit; et bonus jam Creator, cujus omnia bona sunt; et ille jam non bonus, qui in aliena bona invasit, ut Filio traderet, docens alieno abstinere. Certe mendicissimus, qui nec filium unde ditaret habuit, nisi de alieno. Aut si nihil de Creatoris traditum est ei a Patre, et quomodo hominem Creatoris sibi vindicat? Aut si solus homo ei traditus est, omnia homo non est. Scriptura autem omnium edicit traditionem

instrument of prophetic obscurity, whose understanding faith was to merit: For unless you believe, you will not understand (Isa. 7:9); and He held guilty (Rom. 1) the wise and prudent, who did not seek out God, Who is knowable from His so many and so great works, or who philosophized perversely about Him and supplied talents to heretics; and lastly, He is jealous. In short, He long ago proclaimed through Isaiah that for which Christ gives thanks: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will hide (Isa. 29:14). Just as elsewhere too He signifies both that He has hidden and that it has been revealed: And I will give them hidden treasures, invisible ones I will open to them (Isa. 45:3). And again: Who else will scatter the signs of the ventriloquists and divinations out of the heart, turning the wise backwards and making their thoughts foolish? (Isa. 44:20.) But if He also designated His Christ as the enlightener of the nations: He has set Thee for a light of the nations (Isa. 42:6), nations which we interpret under the name of little ones, that is, formerly small in understanding and infants in imprudence, but now also little in the humility of faith, then we shall surely more readily believe that the same God has revealed to the little ones too through Christ, He Who both hid in former times and promised revelation through Christ. Or if Marcion's god disclosed the things that had formerly been hidden by the Creator, then he was already doing the Creator's business, expounding His affairs. But it was for their destruction, you say, so as to expose them: then he ought to have exposed them to those from whom the Creator hid them, the wise and prudent. For if he was acting out of kindness, knowledge was to be bestowed on those to whom it had been denied, not on the little ones, whom the Creator had begrudged nothing. And yet up to now, I think, we are proving that it is rather the building up of the Law and the Prophets that is found in Christ, not their destruction. He says that all things have been delivered to Him by the Father. You may believe it if Christ belongs to the Creator, Whose are all things; for the Creator delivered all things to a Son not less than Himself, the things which He founded through Him, that is, through His Word. But if he is that eperchomenos, the intruder, what are the all things that have been delivered to him by the Father? Are they the Creator's? Then the things the Father delivered to the Son are good; and the Creator is now good, all of Whose things are good; and that one is now not good who invaded another's goods in order to deliver them to his son, while teaching abstinence from what belongs to another. Surely he is most beggarly, who did not even have the means to enrich his son except from what belonged to another. Or if nothing of the Creator's has been delivered to him by the Father, how then does he claim the Creator's man for himself? Or if man alone has been delivered to him, man is not all things. But Scripture declares that a delivery of all things was made

Editors' notes and page, col. 452

Footnotes

(11) ‹anchor: a Patre› · call in col 452

Omnia sibi tradita dicit a Patre. Pergit iterum in verbis evangelicis. Atqui contra Arianos facit et quosdam arianizantes hodiernos, quod addit hic auctor. « Quia non minori se tradidit omnia Filio Creator. » Eodem modo etiam istum locum interpretantur BB. Hilarius et Augustinus alicubi. Pam.

He says that all things have been delivered to him by the Father. He goes on again in the words of the Gospel. And what the author adds here tells against the Arians and certain Arianizers of today: "Because the Creator delivered all things to a Son not less than himself." Blessed Hilary and Augustine also interpret this passage in the same way somewhere. Pamelius.

(printed under page 230)

Page

running head: ...UM PARS. II. — SERIES 1, POLEMICA. 452 (cut off at left edge; letters blurred, read as SBRIES / POLBMICA)
marginal letters: A misso obscuritatis propheticae; B et Christum suum illuminatorem; C niri in Christo, quam destructionem; D non est. Scriptura autem
old-edition numerals: 448 after Creator,

PL 2:453

Filio factam. Sed etsi omnia ad hominum genera, id est, ad omnes nationes interpretaberis, et has Filio tradidisse Creatoris est: Dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terrae (Psal. II, 8). Aut si habet et ipse aliqua sua, quae omnia Filio traderet, pariter cum homine Creatoris, ostende unum aliquod ex omnibus, in fidem, in exemplum; ne tam merito non credam ejus esse omnia cujus nihil video, quam merito credam, etiam quae non video ejus esse, cujus sunt universa quae video. Sed Nemo scit qui sit Pater nisi Filius; et qui sit Filius nisi Pater et cuicunque Filius revelaverit (Matth. XI, 27). Atque ita Christus ignotum Deum praedicavit. Hinc enim et alii haeretici fulciuntur, opponentes Creatorem omnibus notum, et Israeli, secundum familiaritatem, et nationibus secundum naturam. Et quomodo ipse testatur nec Israeli cognitum se: Israel autem me non cognovit, et populus me non intellexit? (Isa. I, 3) nec nationibus: Ecce enim nec de nationibus, inquit, nemo? (Isa. LXV, 5). Propter quod et illas stillicidium situlae deputavit, et Sionem tanquam speculam in vinea dereliquit (Isa. LXVI, 15). Vide ergo an confirmatio sit propheticae vocis, exprobrantis ignorantiam in Deum humanam, quae fuerit ad Filium usque. Nam et ideo subtexuit, ab eo cognosci Patrem, cui Filius revelaverit quoniam ipse erat, qui positus a Patre illuminatio nationum (Isa. XLII): annuntiabatur, utique Deo illuminandarum etiam Israelis, utique per agnitionem Dei pleniorem. Ita non proficient argumenta in fidem Dei alterius, quae Creatori competere possunt; quia quae non competent Creatori, haec poterunt in fidem proficere Dei alterius. Si et sequentia inspicias: Beati oculi qui vident quae videtis: dico enim vobis quia prophetae non viderunt qvae vos videtis, de superiori sensu descendunt; adeo neminem ut decuit, Deum cognovisse: quando nec prophetae vidissent quae sub Christo videbantur. Nam si non meus esset Christus, nec prophetarum hoc in loco mentionem collocasset. Quid enim mirum si non viderant res Dei ignoti, et tanto post aevo revelati? Quae autem fuisset felicitas eorum qui tunc videbant, quae alii merito vidisse non poterant, si non erant consecuti repraesentationem eorum quae nunquam praedicarant, nisi quoniam poterant vidisse, qui Dei sui res quas etiam praedicaverant, non tamen viderant? Haec autem felicitas erit aliorum, qui videbant, quae alii tantum praedicaverant. Denique ostendemus, et jam

to the Son. But even if you interpret "all things" as the races of men, that is, as all the nations, to have handed these too over to the Son belongs to the Creator: I will give You the nations as Your inheritance, and as Your possession the ends of the earth (Ps. 2:8). Or if he too has some things of his own, all of which he was to hand over to the Son together with the Creator's man, show me some one thing out of them all, as proof, as an example; so that I may not be as justified in not believing that all things belong to him of whom I see nothing, as I am justified in believing that even the things I do not see belong to Him to Whom belong all the things I do see. But: No one knows who the Father is except the Son; and who the Son is except the Father and anyone to whom the Son has revealed [Him] (Matt. 11:27). And thus Christ preached an unknown God. For from this other heretics too are propped up, setting against [it] that the Creator is known to all, both to Israel by familiarity and to the nations by nature. And how does He Himself testify that He was known neither to Israel: But Israel has not known Me, and the people has not understood Me? (Isa. 1:3), nor to the nations: For behold, not even from the nations, He says, is there no one? (Isa. 65:5). For which reason He also reckoned them as a drop from a bucket, and left Zion like a watchtower in a vineyard (Isa. 66:15). See, then, whether this is not a confirmation of the prophetic voice reproaching human ignorance towards God, which lasted right up to the Son. For that is also why He added that the Father is known by him to whom the Son has revealed [Him], since it was He Himself Who, appointed by the Father as the light of the nations (Isa. 42), was being proclaimed: surely of the nations to be enlightened by God, and of Israel too, surely through a fuller knowledge of God. Thus arguments which can apply to the Creator will not avail for belief in another god; because it is those which will not apply to the Creator that will be able to avail for belief in another god. If you also look at what follows: Blessed are the eyes that see what you see; for I tell you that the prophets did not see what you see, these words come down from the preceding sense: namely, that no one had known God as was fitting, since not even the prophets had seen the things that were being seen under Christ. For if Christ were not mine, He would not have placed a mention of the prophets in this passage either. For what wonder is it if they had not seen the things of an unknown god, and one revealed so long an age afterwards? But what would the happiness have been of those who were then seeing what others with good reason had been unable to see, if they had not attained the manifestation of things which they had never foretold, unless it was because they could have seen them, they who nevertheless had not seen the things of their own God which they had even foretold? But this happiness will belong to the others, who were seeing what the others had only foretold. Finally we shall show, and already

Editors' notes and page, col. 453

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 231)

(19) ‹anchor: unum aliquod› · call in col 453

Aliquem Pam.

"Aliquem" ("someone") Pamelius.

(printed under page 231)

(20) ‹anchor: Filius revelaverit (Matth.› · call in col 453

Et cuicumque Filius revelaverit omitt. Seml. tum iterando scribit: Nemo enim scit Patrem. nisi Filius, et Filium nisi Pater, et cuicumque Filius revelaverit.

"And to whomever the Son has revealed him" is omitted by Semler, who then, repeating, writes: "For no one knows the Father except the Son, and the Son except the Father, and to whomever the Son has revealed him."

(printed under page 231)

(21) ‹anchor: quae non competent› · call in col 453

Competunt Pam.

"Competunt" (indicative) Pamelius.

(printed under page 231)

(22) ‹anchor: quae vos› · call in col 453

Vos abest. Fran.

"Vos" ("you") is absent in the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 231)

(23) ‹anchor: nisi quoniam› · call in col 453

Qui add. Pam.

"Qui" ("who") is added by Pamelius.

(printed under page 231)

(24) ‹anchor: poterant vidisse, qui› · call in col 453

Hi vult Jun.

Junius wants "hi" ("these").

(printed under page 231)

(12) ‹anchor: haeretici fulciuntur› · call in col 453

Hinc enim alii haeretici fulciuntur. Quales nempe fuerunt ii, qui propter frequentes revelationes in Scriptura expressas Patrem cum Filio confundebant, eumdemque esse asserebant: in ejusmodi impia deliria impegit Praxeas. Le Pr.

For from this other heretics prop themselves up. Such, namely, were those who, because of the frequent revelations expressed in Scripture, confused the Father with the Son and asserted that he was the same: Praxeas ran aground on such impious ravings. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 231)

Footnotes

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 454

Aeternae add. Oberth.

"Eternal" is added by Oberthür.

(printed under page 231)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 454

Dedit Seml.

"Dedit" ("gave") Semler.

(printed under page 231)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 454

Spei Rhen.

"Spei" ("of hope") Rhenanus.

(printed under page 231)

(28) ‹anchor: opus est diligi› · call in col 454

Diligendi Dei praeceptum cod. Wouw.

"The precept of loving God" Wouwer's manuscript.

Commentarius

(printed under page 231)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:455

CAPUT XXVI.

Chapter XXVI.

Cum in quodam loco (Luc. XI) orasset ad Patrem illum superiorem, satis impudentibus et temerariis oculis suspiciens ad coelum Creatoris, a quo tam aspero et saevo, et grandine et fulmine potuisset elidi, sicut et Jerusalem suffugi ab eo potuit; aggressus eum ex discipulis quidam: Domine, inquit, doce nos orare, sicut et Joannes discipulos suos docuit; scilicet quia alium Deum aliter existimaret orandum. Hoc qui praesumpserat, prius est probet alium Deum editum a Christo. Nemo enim ante voluisset orare nosse, quam didicisset quem oraret. Igitur si didicerat, proba. Si nusquam usque adhuc probas, scito illum in Creatorem formam orationis postulasse, in quem etiam discipuli Joannis orabant. Sed quia et Joannes novum aliquem ordinem orationis induxerat, ideo hoc et a Christo discipulus ejus postulandum non immerito praesumpserat, ut et illi de proprio magistri sui instituto, non alium, sed aliter Deum orarent. Proinde nec Christus ante orationis notitiam discipulo contulisset, quam Dei ipsius. Ita et ipse in eum docuit orationem, quem discipulus usque adhuc noverat. Denique sensus orationis quem Deum sapiant recognosce. Cui dicam, Pater? Et qui me omnino non fecit? a quo originem non traho? An ei qui me faciundo et instruendo generavit? A quo Spiritum sanctum postulem? A quo nec mundialis spiritus praestatur? An a quo fiunt etiam angeli spiritus? cujus et in primordio spiritus super aquas ferebatur? Ejus regnum optabo venire, quem nunquam regem gloriae audivi? an in cujus manu etiam corda sunt regum? Quis dabit mihi panem quotidianum; qui nec milium mihi condit, an qui etiam de coelo panem angelorum quotidianum populo suo praestitit? Quis mihi delicta dimittet? qui ea non judicando non retinet, an qui si non dimiserit, retinebit ut judicet? Quis non sinet nos deduci in tentationem? quem poterit tentator non timere, an qui a primordio tentatorem angelum praedamnavit? Hoc ordine, qui alii Deo supplicat et non Creatori, non orat illum, sed infamat. Proinde a quo petam, ut accipiam? apud quem quaeram, ut inveniam? ad quem pulsabo, ut aperiatur mihi? Quis habet petenti dare, nisi cujus omnia, cujus sum etiam

When in a certain place (Luke 11) He had prayed to that superior Father, looking up with rather shameless and rash eyes to the heaven of the Creator, by Whom, so harsh and cruel, He could have been crushed with both hail and lightning, just as He was also able to escape from Him at Jerusalem; one of the disciples approached Him: Lord, he said, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples; that is to say, because he thought that another God was to be prayed to in another way. Whoever had presumed this, the first thing is that he prove that another God was brought forth by Christ. For no one would have wished to know how to pray before he had learned to whom he should pray. Therefore, if he had learned it, prove it. If up to now you nowhere prove it, know that he asked for a form of prayer to the Creator, to Whom the disciples of John also prayed. But because John too had introduced some new order of prayer, therefore His disciple had not without reason presumed that this was to be asked of Christ as well, so that they too, by their own master's institution, might pray not to another God, but to God in another way. Accordingly Christ would not have conferred the knowledge of prayer on the disciple before the knowledge of God Himself. Thus He too taught a prayer to Him Whom the disciple had known until then. Finally, recognize which God the meanings of the prayer savour of. To whom shall I say, Father? To one who did not make me at all? from whom I do not draw my origin? Or to Him Who begot me by making and fashioning me? From whom shall I ask the Holy Spirit? From one by whom not even the spirit of the world is furnished? Or from Him by Whom even angels are made spirits? Whose Spirit also in the beginning was borne over the waters? Shall I wish that his kingdom come, whom I never heard of as king of glory? or His in Whose hand are even the hearts of kings? Who will give me daily bread; one who does not even produce millet for me, or He Who even from heaven furnished the bread of angels daily to His people? Who will forgive me my offences? one who, by not judging them, does not retain them, or He Who, if He does not forgive, will retain them so that He may judge? Who will not allow us to be led into temptation? one whom the tempter will be able not to fear, or He Who from the beginning condemned beforehand the tempter angel? In this order, whoever makes supplication to another God and not to the Creator does not pray to that one, but defames him. Accordingly, from whom shall I ask, that I may receive? with whom shall I seek, that I may find? at whose [door] shall I knock, that it may be opened to me? Who has [the power] to give to one who asks, except He Whose are all things, Whose I am also

Editors' notes and page, col. 455

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 232)

(29) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 455

Suffigi Paris.

"Suffigi" ("to be fastened") the Paris edition.

(printed under page 232)

(30) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 455

Et abest Paris.

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

(printed under page 232)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 455

Praesumpserit cod. Wouw.

"Praesumpserit" ("will have presumed") Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 232)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 455

Expostulandum Seml.

"Expostulandum" Semler.

(printed under page 232)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 455

Fugatus Paris.

"Fugatus" ("put to flight") the Paris edition.

(printed under page 232)

(13) ‹anchor: Cui dicam, Pater› · call in col 455

Cui dicam Pater. Recte hoc unum Auctor, quia etsi Graece hodie legatur, Πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, et similiter Syriace, tamen in Latinis codicibus non legitur amplius, Lucae II, quam Pater; suspicor illud graece adjectum ex Evangelio Matthaei VI, secundum quem legitur lib. de orat. cap. 2, Pater noster qui in coelis es. Pam.

To whom shall I say, Father. The author rightly has this one word, because although the Greek today reads "Our Father who art in heaven", and likewise the Syriac, yet in the Latin manuscripts, Luke II [as printed], nothing more is read than Father; I suspect it was added in the Greek from the Gospel of Matthew VI, following which one reads in the book On Prayer, chapter 2, Our Father who art in heaven. Pamelius.

(printed under page 232)

(14) ‹anchor: Spiritum sanctum› · call in col 455

Spiritum sanctum. Pro eo: sanctificetur nomen tuum, istud Gregor. Nyssenus habet. Seml.

The Holy Spirit. Gregory of Nyssa has this in place of "hallowed be Thy name". Semler.

(printed under page 232)

(15) ‹anchor: panem quotidianum› · call in col 455

Quis dabit mihi panem quotidianum. Prohibet nimirum Christus, ne de crastino solliciti simus, vita quippe nostra instabilis est. Ita explicat conc. IV Tolet. cap. 9. Is autem panis est Christus, ut ipsemet ait. Cum autem dixit panem quotidianum, significavit necessitatem quam habent homines ejus auxilii, atque etiam submonuit vitam esse diariam, ζωὴν εἶναι ἐφήμερον. Le Pr.

Who will give me daily bread. Christ of course forbids us to be anxious about tomorrow, since our life is unstable. So the Fourth Council of Toledo explains it, chapter 9. And that bread is Christ, as he himself says. When he said daily bread, he signified the need men have of his help, and also hinted that life lasts from day to day, "that life is for a day". Le Prieur.

(printed under page 232)

(16) ‹anchor: non sinet nos deduci› · call in col 455

Quis non sinet nos in tentationem deduci? Sensus est, Deum nos orare ne nos tentationi succumbere permittat. Le Pr.

Who will not allow us to be led into temptation? The sense is that we pray God not to let us give way to temptation. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 232)

Footnotes

(34) ‹anchor: Nationibus clauserat› · call in col 456

Cluserit Venet.

"Cluserit" the Venice edition.

Commentarius

(printed under page 232)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:457

et in ista specie curationis Isaiae (XXIX, 3) occurrisset in Beelzebule dictus ejicere daemonia: Si ego inquit, in Beelzebule ejicio daemonia, filii vestri in quo ejiciunt? Hac quid magis portendit, quam in eo ejicere se, in quo et filii eorum. In virtute scilicet Creatoris. Nam si putas sic accipiendum, Si ego in Beelzebule ejicio daemonia, filii vestri in quo? quasi illos sugillaret in Beelzebule ejicientes, resistet tibi prior sensus, non posse Satanam dividi adversus semetipsum. Adeo nec illi in Beelzebule ejiciebant; sed ut diximus, in virtute Creatoris: quam ut intelligi faceret, subjungit: Quod si ego in digito Dei expello daemonia, ergone appropinquavit in vos regnum Dei? Apud Pharaonem enim venefici illi adhibiti adversus Moysen, virtutem Creatoris digitum Dei appellaverunt (Exod. VIII, 19): Digitus Dei est hoc; quod significaret etiam modicum, validissimum tamen. Hoc et Christus ostendens, commemorator, non obliterator vetustatum, scilicet suarum, virtutem Dei digitum Dei dixit non alterius intelligendam, quam ejus apud quem hoc erat appellata. Ergo et regnum ipsius appropinquaverat, cujus et virtus digitus vocabatur. Merito igitur applicuit ad parabolam fortis illius armati, quem validior alius oppressit, principem daemoniorum, quem Beelzebulem et Satanam supra dixerat, significans digito Dei oppressam, non Creatorem ab alio Deo subactum. Caeterum, quomodo adhuc staret regnum ejus in suis terminis, et legibus, et officiis, quem licet integro mundo vel sic potuisset videri superasse validior ille Deus Marcionis, si non secundum legem ejus etiam Marcionitae morerentur, in terram defluendo, saepe et a scorpio docti non esse superatum Creatorem. Exclamabat mulier de turba, Beatum uterum qui illum portasset, et ubera quae illum educassent. Et Dominus: Imo, beati qui sermonem Dei audiunt, et faciunt Quia et retro sic rejecerat matrem aut fratres, dum auditores et obsecutores Dei praefert. Nam nec hic mater assistebat illi. Adeo nec retro negaverat, ut ne tum cum id rursus audit; rursus proinde felicitatem ab utero et uberibus

and in this kind of healing of Isaiah (Isa. 29:3) had met with [the charge], when He was said to cast out demons in Beelzebul: If I, He says, cast out demons in Beelzebul, in whom do your sons cast them out? What does this portend more than that He casts out in the one in whom their sons also do? In the power, namely, of the Creator. For if you think it is to be taken thus, If I cast out demons in Beelzebul, in whom do your sons? as though He were taunting them as casting out in Beelzebul, the former sense will stand against you, that Satan cannot be divided against himself. So neither did they cast out in Beelzebul, but, as we have said, in the power of the Creator; and to make this understood He adds: But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, has not then the kingdom of God drawn near to you? For in Pharaoh's presence those sorcerers who were brought in against Moses called the power of the Creator the finger of God (Exod. 8:19): This is the finger of God; which would signify something small indeed, yet most powerful. Christ too, showing this, as one who recalls, not one who obliterates, ancient things, namely His own, said that the power of God, the finger of God, was to be understood as belonging to no other than Him with whom it had been so named. Therefore His kingdom also had drawn near, whose power too was called a finger. Fittingly, therefore, He applied to the parable of that strong man armed, whom another stronger man overpowered, the prince of demons, whom He had above called Beelzebul and Satan, signifying him as overpowered by the finger of God, not the Creator subdued by another god. Besides, how would his kingdom still stand within its boundaries and laws and offices, which, although the world remained intact, that stronger god of Marcion could even so have seemed to have overcome, if the Marcionites too did not die according to his law, flowing down into the earth, often taught even by the scorpion that the Creator has not been overcome? A woman from the crowd cried out, Blessed the womb that bore Him, and the breasts that nourished Him. And the Lord: Yes rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and do it Because previously too He had in the same way rejected His mother or brothers, while He prefers the hearers and obeyers of God. For neither here was His mother standing by Him. So He had not denied her previously either, so as not to [deny her] now when He hears this again; again therefore the happiness from the womb and breasts

Editors' notes and page, col. 457

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 233)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 457

Ejicio daemonia omitt. Oberth.

"I cast out demons" is omitted by Oberthür.

(printed under page 233)

(36) ‹anchor: ut ne› · call in col 457

Quo Latin.

"Quo" Latinius.

(printed under page 233)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 457

Exclamat Pam.

"Exclamat" ("cries out", present) Pamelius.

(printed under page 233)

(39) ‹anchor: Exclamabat (call number as printed)› · call in col 457

Nec Jun.

"Nec" ("nor") Junius.

(printed under page 233)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 457

Si ego in Beelzebut ejicio daemonia. Etsi apud sanctos Marcum et Lucam legatur Beelbebul, vocis tamen etymon Beelzebul postulat בעלזביב Beelzebub) id est princeps muscarum. Si enim Beelzebut legis, aut nomen erit nullius significationis, aut melioris quam par esset. זבל (Zebul) enim habitationem significat, et aliquando coelum. Le Pr.

If I cast out demons by Beelzebut. Although in Saints Mark and Luke one reads "Beelbebul" [as printed], the etymology of the word Beelzebul calls for Baal-zebub, that is, prince of flies. For if you read Beelzebut, either the name will have no meaning, or a better one than is fitting. For zebul means a dwelling, and sometimes heaven. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 233)

(18) ‹anchor: virtus digitus› · call in col 457

Cujus et virtus digitus. Elegans illa interpretatio digiti Dei, de virtute et potentia Dei, ab omnibus usurpatur. Magi autem Pharaonis, cum cinifes producere nequirent, in Dei digitum seu virtutem, quae sibi erat impedimento, id rejiciebant. Le Pr.

Whose power, too, is a finger. That elegant interpretation of the finger of God as God's power and might is used by everyone. Pharaoh's magicians, when they could not produce the gnats, put it down to the finger, or power, of God, which stood in their way. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 233)

Page

running head: LIB. IV ADV. MARCI[ONEM] (cut off at image edge after MARCI)
marginal letters: A et in ista specie curationis; B virtutem Creatoris digitum Dei appellaverunt; C mundo vel sic potuisset; D (17) Si ego in Beelzebut (in the commentary at page foot, not set)
old-edition numerals: 427 after in quo

PL 2:458

matris suae transtulit in discipulos; a qua non transtulisset, si eam non haberet.

of His mother He transferred to the disciples; from her He would not have transferred it if He did not have her.

CAPUT XXVII.

Chapter XXVII.

Alibi malo purgare quae reprehendunt Marcionitae in Creatore. Hic enim sufficit, si ea in Christo reperiuntur. Ecce inaequalis, et ipse inconstans, levis, aliud docens, aliud faciens: jubet omni petenti dare, et ipse signum petentibus non dat. Tanto aevo lucem suam ab hominibus abscondit, et negat lucernam abstruendam; sed confirmat super candelabrum proponendam, ut omnibus luceat. Vetat remaledicere, multo magis utique maledicere: et vae ingerit Pharisaeis et doctoribus legis. Quis est tam similis Dei mei Christus, nisi ipsius? Saepe jam fiximus, nullo modo potuisse illum destructorem legis denotari, si alium Deum promulgasset. Ideo et tunc Pharisaeus, qui illum vocarat ad prandium, retractabat penes se, cur non prius tinctus esset quam recubuisset secundum legem, qui Deum legis circumferret? Jesus autem etiam interpretatus est ei legem, dicens, illos calicis et catini exteriora emundare: interiora autem ipsorum plena esse rapina et iniquitate: ut significaret vasculorum munditias hominum esse intelligendas apud Deum: quia et Pharisaeus de homine, non de calice illoto, apud se tractaverat. Ideo, Exteriora, inquit, calicis lavatis, id est carnem, interiora autem vestra non emundatis, id est animam, adjiciens: Nonne qui exteriora fecit, id est carnem, et interiora fecit, id est animam? quo dicto aperte demonstravit, ad eumdem Deum pertinere munditias hominis exterioris et interioris, cujus uterque sit, praeponentis misericordiam non modo lavacro hominis, sed etiam sacrificio (Osee VII, 6). Subjungit enim: Date quae habetis eleemosynam, et omnia munda erunt vobis. Quod si et alius potest Deus misericordiam mandasse, non tamen antequam cognitus. Porro et hic apparet, illos non de Deo increpitos, sed de ejus disciplina, a quo illis et figurate vasculorum munditiae, et manifeste misericordiarum

Elsewhere I prefer to clear away the things which the Marcionites find fault with in the Creator. For here it suffices if those things are found in Christ. See, He too is inconsistent, inconstant, fickle, teaching one thing and doing another: He bids us give to everyone who asks, and He Himself does not give a sign to those who ask. For so long an age He hid His light from men, and yet He says that a lamp is not to be hidden away, but affirms that it is to be set upon a lampstand, so that it may give light to all. He forbids cursing in return, and much more surely cursing at all: and yet He heaps woe upon the Pharisees and the doctors of the law. Who is so like my God as Christ, unless He is His? We have often now established that He could in no way have been branded a destroyer of the law if He had proclaimed another God. Therefore also the Pharisee who had invited Him to dinner was then turning over within himself why He had not washed before He reclined, according to the law, He Who carried about with Him the God of the law. But Jesus also interpreted the law to him, saying that they cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but that their insides are full of plunder and iniquity: so as to signify that the cleannesses of vessels are to be understood before God as those of men: because the Pharisee too had been debating within himself about a man, not about an unwashed cup. Therefore He says: You wash the outside of the cup, that is, the flesh, but you do not cleanse your inside, that is, the soul; adding: Did not He Who made the outside, that is, the flesh, make the inside also, that is, the soul? By this saying He plainly showed that the cleanness of the outer and of the inner man belongs to the same God, Whose both are, the God Who prefers mercy not only to the washing of man but even to sacrifice (Hos. 7:6). For He adds: Give what you have as alms, and all things will be clean for you. But even if another god could have commanded mercy, yet he could not have done so before he was known. Moreover here too it appears that they were rebuked not concerning God but concerning His discipline, by Whom, for them, both figuratively the cleannesses of vessels and manifestly, in the matter of mercies,

Editors' notes and page, col. 458

Footnotes

(37) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 458

Significarent Paris. Fran.

"Significarent" (plural) the Paris and Franeker editions.

(printed under page 233)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 458

Finximus Pam.

"Finximus" ("we have fashioned") Pamelius.

(printed under page 233)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 458

Vocaret Paris. Rig. Venet.

"Vocaret" the Paris edition, Rigault, the Venice edition.

Commentarius

(printed under page 233)

(19) ‹anchor: eleemosynam› · call in col 458

Date quae habetis, eleemosynam, etc. Vertit auctor recte quae habetis, et Syrus interpres: id quod est, quod Graece τὰ ἐνόντα, ac si dicat, sicuti Theophylactus, non quae rapuistis. sed quae vestra sunt; quo adeo respexit Vulgatus interpres, transferens, quod superest, nempe ultra rapinam et iniquitatem. Quo sensu explicato, nihil opus est legere cum Erasmo et Cajetano, datis pro date. B. Cyprianus interim, lib. III adv. Quirinum cap. 1, neutrum legit, neque etiam B. Ambrosius in Comment., aut B. Augustinus Enchirid. cap. 75. Cum autem etiam eumdem sensum recipiat, ut diximus, vulgata versio, repetendum est hic, quod non semel diximus, nimis liberam esse castigationem Isidori Clarii, de iis quae vobis suppetunt, ac si altera lectio minime tolerari posset. Pam.

Give what you have as alms, etc. The author rightly translates what you have, and the Syriac translator: that which is, in Greek ta enonta, as if he were to say, with Theophylact, not what you have seized, but what is yours; which the Vulgate translator had in view in rendering what remains, that is, beyond the plunder and iniquity. With the sense explained in this way, there is no need to read datis for date, with Erasmus and Cajetan. Blessed Cyprian, for his part, in book III Against Quirinus, chapter 1, reads neither, nor does blessed Ambrose in his Commentary, or blessed Augustine, Enchiridion, chapter 75. And since the Vulgate version also admits the same sense, as we have said, we must repeat here what we have said more than once: Isidore Clarius's correction, from what is at your disposal, is too free, as though the other reading could not be tolerated at all. Pamelius.

(printed under page 233)

Page

running head: …V ADV. MARCIONEM. 458 (start of the running head cut off at the left edge)
marginal letters: A ‹matris suae transtulit›; B ‹Christus, nisi ipsius?›; C ‹fecit, id est carnem›; D ‹auctor recte quae habetis› (in the Commentarius at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 428 after ‹reperiuntur.›

PL 2:459

opera imperabantur. Sic et oluscula decimantes, vocationem autem et dilectionem Dei praetereuntes objurgat. Cujus Dei vocationem et dilectionem, nisi cujus et rutam et mentam, ex forma Legis de decimis, offerebant? Totum enim exprobrationis hoc erat, quod modica curabant; ei utique, cui majora non exhibebant, dicenti (Deut. VI, 5): Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex totis viribus tuis, qui te vocavit ex Aegypto. Caeterum, nec tempus admisisset, ut Christus tam praecoquam, imo tam acerbam adhuc dilectionem expostularet novo et recenti Deo, ne dixerim nondum palam facto. Primatum quoque captantes locorum, et honorem salutationum, cum incusat, sectam Creatoris administrat, ejusmodi principes Sodomorum archontas appellantis (Isa. I, 23), prohibentis etiam confidere in praepositos, imo et in totum miserrimum hominem, pronuntiantis, « Qui spem habet in homine » (Psal, CXVII, 8, 9). Quod si propterea quis affectat principatum, ut de officiis aliorum glorietur, quia officia vetuit ejusmodi sperandi et confidendi in hominem (Jerem. XVII, 5), idem et affectatores principatuum increpuit. Invehitur et in doctores ipsos legis, quod onerarent alios importabilibus oneribus quae ipsi ne digito quidem aggredi auderent: non Legis onera sugillans quasi detestator ejus; quomodo enim detestator, qui cum maxime potiora legis praetereuntes incusabat, eleemosynam et vocationem et dilectionem Dei, ne haec quidem gravia, nedum decimas rutarum, et munditias catinorum? Caeterum, excusandos potius censuisset, si importabilia portare non possent. Sed quae onera taxat? Quae ipsi de suo exaggerabant, docentes praecepta, doctrinas hominum, commodorum suorum causa (Isa. V, 23), jungentes domum ad domum, ut quae proximi sunt auferrent, clamantes populum, amantes munera, sectantes retributionem, diripientes judicata pauperum; uti esset illis vidua in rapinam, et pupillus in praedam. De quibus idem Isaias (XXVIII, 15): Vae qui valent in Jerusalem: et rursus (III, 3): Qui vos postulant, dominantur vestri. Qui magis, quam legis doctores? Hi si et Christo displicebant, ut sui displicebant. Alienae enim legis doctores non omnino pulsasset. Cur autem vae audiunt etiam, quod aedificarent prophetis monumenta interemptis a patribus eorum, laude potius digni, qui ex isto opere

the works were commanded. So too He rebukes those who tithe the little herbs but pass over the calling and the love of God. The calling and love of what God, if not of Him to Whom they offered both rue and mint, according to the form of the Law concerning tithes? For the whole of the reproach was this, that they took care of small things; certainly towards Him to Whom they did not render the greater things, Who says (Deut. 6:5): You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, Who called you out of Egypt. Besides, the time would not have allowed Christ to demand so premature, indeed so unripe a love as yet for a new and recent god, not to say one not yet made openly known. When He also accuses those who grasp at the first places and the honour of salutations, He carries out the course of the Creator, Who calls rulers of this kind archons of Sodom (Isa. 1:23), Who forbids even trusting in those set over [us], indeed and altogether pronounces most wretched the man "who has hope in man" (Ps. 117:8–9). But if anyone strives after primacy for this reason, that he may glory in the services of others, then since He forbade services of this kind, of hoping and trusting in man (Jer. 17:5), the same [God] also rebuked those who strive after primacies. He inveighs also against the very teachers of the law, because they loaded others with unbearable burdens which they themselves did not dare to touch even with a finger: not censuring the burdens of the Law as though He were its detester; for how a detester, He Who was above all accusing those who passed over the weightier things of the law, almsgiving and the calling and the love of God, not even these as heavy, much less the tithes of rue and the cleanness of dishes? Besides, He would rather have judged that they should be excused, if they could not bear things unbearable. But what burdens does He censure? Those which they themselves heaped up of their own, teaching precepts, the doctrines of men, for the sake of their own advantage (Isa. 5:23), joining house to house, so that they might take away what belongs to their neighbours, crying out at the people, loving gifts, pursuing reward, plundering the judgements of the poor, so that the widow might be their spoil and the orphan their prey. Of whom the same Isaiah says (28:15): Woe to those who are strong in Jerusalem; and again (3:3): Those who make demands of you rule over you. Who more so than the teachers of the law? If these displeased Christ too, it was as His own that they displeased Him. For He would not altogether have struck at the teachers of an alien law. But why do they also hear woe because they built monuments for the prophets slain by their fathers, worthy rather of praise, since by that work

Editors' notes and page, col. 459

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 234)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 459

Tuo omitt. Seml.

"Tuo" ("your") is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 234)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 459

Et abest Paris.

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

(printed under page 234)

(44) ‹anchor: rutarum, et› · call in col 459

Et abest Paris.

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

(printed under page 234)

(45) ‹anchor: in Jerusalem› · call in col 459

Israele Oberth.

"Israele" ("in Israel") Oberthür.

(printed under page 234)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 459

Vocationem. Videtur κλῆσιν (vocationem) legisse pro κρίσιν (judicium), vel potius ex evangelio Marcionis (qui judicium negabat Dei boni esse) usurpasse, tanquam rem confessam. Junius.

Calling. He seems to have read klēsin ("calling") for krisin ("judgement"), or rather to have taken it from Marcion's gospel (Marcion denied that judgement belonged to the good God), as a thing admitted. Junius.

(printed under page 234)

(21) ‹anchor: legis doctores› · call in col 459

Alienae enim legis doctores. Saepius hic ex alibi legis doctores legisperiti et Pharisaei dicuntur (Graece οἱ νομικοί). Le Pr.

For the doctors of another's law. Here and elsewhere the doctors of the law are quite often called lawyers and Pharisees (in Greek hoi nomikoi). Le Prieur.

(printed under page 234)

Page

running head: TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at image edge); column number 459
marginal letters: A ‹sericordiarum opera imperabantur›; B ‹strat, ejusmodi principes Sodomorum archontas›; C ‹cationem et dilectionem Dei, ne haec quidem gravia›; D ‹bant. Alienae enim legis doctores›
old-edition numerals: 429 after ‹et ex›

PL 2:460

pietatis testabantur se non consentire factis patrum; si non erat zelotes, qualem arguunt Marcionitae, delicta patrum de filiis exigentem usque in quartam nativitatem? Quam vero clavem habebant legis doctores, nisi interpretationem legis? ad cujus intellectum neque ipsi adibant, non credentes scilicet: Nisi enim credideritis, non intelligetis; neque alios admittebant, utique docentes praecepta potius et doctrinas hominum. Qui ergo nec ipsos introeuntes, nec aliis aditum praestantes, increpabat, obtrectator habendus est legis, an fautor? Si obtrectator, placere debebant et praeclusores legis: si fautor, jam non et aemulus legis. Sed haec omnia ad infuscandum Creatorem ingerebat ut saevum, erga quem delinquentes vae habituri essent. Et quis saevum non potius timeret provocare, deficiendo ab eo? Tanto magis ergo demerendum docebat, quem timendum ingerebat. Sic oportebat Christum Creatoris.

of piety testified that they did not consent to the deeds of their fathers; if He was not a jealous [God], such as the Marcionites accuse [Him of being], exacting the sins of the fathers from the sons even to the fourth generation? But what key did the doctors of the law have, if not the interpretation of the law? To the understanding of which they did not themselves approach, not believing, namely: For unless you believe, you will not understand; nor did they admit others, teaching indeed rather the precepts and doctrines of men. He, then, who rebuked those who neither entered themselves nor granted entry to others, is He to be held a detractor of the law, or a supporter? If a detractor, then those who shut off the law also ought to have pleased Him; if a supporter, then He is no longer also a rival of the law. But all these things He was urging in order to darken the Creator as cruel, towards Whom those who offended would have woe. And who would not rather fear to provoke a cruel [God] by falling away from Him? So much the more, then, did He teach that He must be won over Whom He urged must be feared. Thus it behoved the Christ of the Creator [to act].

CAPUT XXVIII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Merito itaque non placebat hypocrisis Pharisaeorum, labiis scilicet amantium Deum, non corde. Cavete, inquit (Luc. XII) discipulis, a fermento Pharisaeorum, quod est hypocrisis, non praedicatio Creatoris. Odit contumaces Patris Filius; non vult suos tales exsistere in illum: non in alium, in quem hypocrisis fuisset admissa, cujus exemplum a discipulis caveretur. Ita Pharisaeorum prohibet exemplum: in eum prohibebat illud admitti, in quem admittebant Pharisaei. Igitur quoniam hypocrisim eorum taxarat, utique celantem occulta cordis, et incredulitatis secreta superficialibus officiis obumbrantem; quae clavem agnitionis habens, nec ipsa introiret, nec alius sineret; ideo adjicit: Nihil autem opertum, quod non patefiet; et nihil absconditum, quod non dignoscetur; ne quis existimet illum Dei ignoti retro et occulti, revelationem et adagnitionem intentare, cum subjiciat etiam quae inter se mussitarent vel tractarent, scilicet super ipso dicentes: Hic non expellit daemonia nisi in Beelzebule, in apertum processura, et in ore hominum futura, ex Evangelii promulgatione. Deinde conversus ad discipulos: Dico autem, inquit, vobis amicis meis, nolite terreri ab eis qui vos solummodo occidere possunt, nec post hoc ullam in vobis habent potestatem. Sed iis erit Isaias praedicens (LVII, 1): Vide quomodo justus aufertur,

Rightly, then, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees displeased [Him], of those, namely, who loved God with the lips, not with the heart. Beware, He says (Luke 12) to the disciples, of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy, not the preaching of the Creator. The Son hates those who are contumacious towards the Father; He does not want His own to be such towards Him: not towards another, towards whom hypocrisy might have been admitted, whose example the disciples were to beware of. Thus He forbids the example of the Pharisees: He was forbidding that it be admitted towards Him towards Whom the Pharisees admitted it. Therefore, since He had censured their hypocrisy, which indeed concealed the hidden things of the heart and overshadowed the secrets of unbelief with superficial observances, [a hypocrisy] which, having the key of knowledge, would neither itself enter nor allow another to, He accordingly adds: But nothing is covered which will not be laid open, and nothing hidden which will not be known; lest anyone should think that He was holding out a revelation and recognition of the God hitherto unknown and hidden, since He subjoins that even the things which they were muttering or discussing among themselves, namely when they said concerning Him: This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul, would come forth into the open and be in the mouths of men, through the promulgation of the Gospel. Then, turning to the disciples: But I say, He says, to you My friends, do not be frightened by those who can only kill you, and after this have no power over you. But for them there will be Isaiah, foretelling (Isa. 57:1): See how the just man is taken away,

Editors' notes and page, col. 460

Footnotes

(46) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 460

Docebant Seml.

"Docebant" ("they taught") Semler.

(printed under page 234)

(47) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 460

Despiciendo quidam.

"Despiciendo" ("by despising") some.

(printed under page 234)

(48) ‹anchor: Pharisaeorum prohibet› · call in col 460

Perhibet al.

"Perhibet" ("presents") others.

(printed under page 234)

(49) ‹anchor: nec› · call in col 460

In inser. Pam.

"In" is inserted by Pamelius.

(printed under page 234)

(50) ‹anchor: Deinde› · call in col 460

Dehinc Pam.

"Dehinc" ("thereafter") Pamelius.

(printed under page 234)

(51) ‹anchor: vobis amicis meis› · call in col 460

Meis in aliis abest.

"Meis" ("my") is absent in others.

Commentarius

(printed under page 234)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 460

Labiis scilicet amantium Deum, etc. Litteram occidentem, non autem spiritum legis vivificantem sequebantur: clavem scilicet, hoc est interpretationem legis, ut modo dixit, non habebant. Dum enim exteriora quaedam superstitiose observabant, negligebant quod erat praecipuum. Le Pr.

That is, of those who love God with their lips, etc. They followed the letter that kills, not the life-giving spirit of the law: they did not have the key, that is, the interpretation of the law, as he has just said. For while they superstitiously observed certain outward things, they neglected what was chief. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 234)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 235)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 461

Significans omitt. Seml.

"Significans" ("signifying") is omitted by Semler.

(printed under page 235)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 461

Hic Rigalt. Venet.

"Hic" Rigault, the Venice edition.

(printed under page 235)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 461

Sustinendam Oberth.

"Sustinendam" ("to be endured") Oberthür.

(printed under page 235)

(55) ‹anchor: qui autem› · call in col 461

Illi autem qui Pam.

"But he who" (with "illi") Pamelius.

(printed under page 235)

(56) ‹anchor: hujus› · call in col 461

Cujus Seml.

"Cujus" ("whose") Semler.

(printed under page 235)

(57) ‹anchor: Perductos› · call in col 461

Productos al.

"Productos" ("brought forward") others.

(printed under page 235)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 461

Eloquamini al.

"Eloquamini" ("you are to speak out") others.

(printed under page 235)

(23) ‹anchor: in Filium hominis› · call in col 461

Qui dixerit in Filium hominis, etc. Etsi non exprimat, tamen subintelligitur ab auctore, qui dixerit blasphemiam, pro eo quod alii: qui blasphemaverit, tam ex Graeco quam Syriaco, sicuti patet ex verbis sequentibus, hujus erit Spiritus sanctus non blasphemandus. Pam.

Whoever speaks against the Son of Man, etc. Although he does not express it, the author understands whoever speaks blasphemy, for what others have, whoever blasphemes, from the Greek as well as the Syriac, as is clear from the following words, his will be the Holy Spirit not to be blasphemed. Pamelius.

(printed under page 235)

(24) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 461

Moyses rixantibus fratribus ultro intercedit. Fratres vocat, qui ex eodem essent genere Israel, paulo post proprie accipit, et injuriosum transtulit una voce quod Graece est Exod. II, ἀδικοῦντι pro eo, qui injuriam faciebat; et quod mirum est, magistrum transtulit, quod Graece est ἄρχοντα pro quo ubique alibi, et proprie, principem. Pam.

Moses of his own accord intervenes between brothers quarrelling. He calls "brothers" those who were of the same race, Israel; a little later he takes it in its proper sense. He rendered by the one word injuriosum, "the wrongdoer", what in the Greek of Exodus II is adikounti, for the one who was doing the wrong; and, strangely, he rendered as magistrum, "master", what in Greek is archonta, for which everywhere else, and properly, principem, "ruler". Pamelius.

(printed under page 235)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:462

Spiritus docebit vos ipsa hora quid eloqui debeatis. Si ejusmodi documentum Creatoris est, ejus erit et praeceptum, cujus praecessit exemplum. Balaam prophetes in Arithmis (Num. XXII), arcessitus a rege Balach ad maledicendum Israelem, cum quo praelium inibat, simul Spiritu implebatur; non ad quam venerat maledictionem, sed quam illi ipsa hora Spiritus suggerebat, benedictionem pronuntiabat, ant⟨e⟩ professus apud nuntios regios, mox etiam apud ipsum, id se pronuntiaturum quod Deus ori ejus indidisset. Hae sunt novae doctrinae novi Christi, quas olim famuli Creatoris initiaverunt. Ecce plane diversum exemplum Moysi et Christi. Moyses rixantibus fratribus ultro intercedit, injuriosum increpat: Quid proximum tuum percutis? et rejicitur ab illo: Quis te constituit magistrum aut judicem super nos? Christus vero postulatus a quodam, ut inter illum et fratrem ipsius de dividenda haereditate componeret, operam suam, et quidam tam probae causae, denegavit. Jam ergo melior Moyses meus Christo tuo, fratrum paci studens, injuriae occurrens. Sed enim optimi et non judicis Dei Christus: Quis me, inquit, judicem constituit super vos? Aliam vocem excusationis invenire non potuit, ne ea uteretur qua improbus vir, et impius frater assertorem probitatis atque pietatis excusserat. Denique probavit malam vocem, utendo ea, et malum factum, pacis inter fratres componendae declinatione. Aut numquid indigne tulerit, hoc dicto fugatum Moysen? ideoque in causa pari disceptantium fratrum, voluit illos commemoratione ejusdem dicti confudisse? Plane ita. Ipse enim tunc fuerat in Moyse, qui talia audierat, spiritus scilicet Creatoris. Puto jam alibi satis commendasse nos divitiarum gloriam damnari a Deo nostro, ipsos dynastas detrahente de solio, et pauperes allevante de sterquilinio (Psal. CXII, 13). Ab eo ergo erit et parabola divitis blandientis sibi de proventu agrorum suorum, cui Deus dicit; Stulte, hac nocte animam tuam reposcent: quae autem parasti, cujus erunt? Sic denique rex de gazis et apothecis deliciarum suarum apud Persas gloriatus, per Isaiam (cap. XXXIX) male audivit.

the Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to speak. If an instruction of this kind is the Creator's, His too will be the precept whose example went before. Balaam the prophet in Numbers (Num. 22), summoned by King Balak to curse Israel, with whom he was entering into battle, was at once filled with the Spirit; he pronounced not the curse for which he had come, but the blessing which the Spirit suggested to him in that very hour, having declared beforehand before the royal messengers, and soon also before [the king] himself, that he would pronounce what God had put into his mouth. These are the new doctrines of the new Christ, which long ago the servants of the Creator initiated. Behold a plainly different example of Moses and of Christ. Moses, when brothers were quarrelling, intervenes of his own accord and rebukes the wrongdoer: Why do you strike your neighbour? and is rejected by him: Who appointed you master or judge over us? But Christ, when asked by someone to settle between him and his brother concerning the dividing of an inheritance, refused His help, and that indeed in so upright a cause. So then my Moses is better than your Christ, zealous for the peace of brothers, confronting wrongdoing. But of course this is the Christ of the supremely good and non-judging God: Who, He says, appointed Me judge over you? He could find no other expression of excuse, lest He should use that with which a wicked man and impious brother had rejected the champion of uprightness and piety. In short, He approved the bad expression by using it, and the bad deed by declining to settle peace between brothers. Or was He not indignant that Moses had been put to flight by this saying, and therefore, in a like case of disputing brothers, wished to confound them by recalling the same saying? Plainly so. For He Himself had at that time been in Moses, He who had heard such things, namely the Spirit of the Creator. I think I have already shown sufficiently elsewhere that the glory of riches is condemned by our God, who drags the very potentates down from the throne and raises the poor from the dunghill (Ps. 112:13). From Him, therefore, will also be the parable of the rich man flattering himself on the yield of his fields, to whom God says: Fool, this night they will demand back your soul: and the things you have prepared, whose will they be? So, in the end, the king who had boasted before the Persians of the treasures and storehouses of his delights was rebuked through Isaiah (ch. 39).

CAPUT XXIX.

Chapter XXIX.

Quis nollet curam nos agere animae de victu, et corporis de vestitu, nisi qui ista homini ante prospexit, et exinde praestans, merito curam eorum

Who would not wish us to take care for the soul as to food, and for the body as to clothing, except He who provided these things for man beforehand, and, thenceforth supplying them, deservedly the care of them

Editors' notes and page, col. 462

Footnotes

(59) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 462

Regis Seml.

"Regis" ("of the king") Semler.

(printed under page 235)

(60) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 462

Et praemitt. Rhen.

"Et" ("and") is placed before by Rhenanus.

(printed under page 235)

(61) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 462

De omitt. Venet.

"De" is omitted by the Venice edition.

(printed under page 235)

(62) ‹anchor: cujus› · call in col 462

Cui Lat.

"Cui" ("to whom") Latinius.

Commentarius

(printed under page 235)

Page

running head: [LIBER] IV ADV. MARCIONEM. 462 (left part of head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A Spiritus docebit vos ipsa hora; B tis? et rejicitur ab illo; C tulerit, hoc dicto fugatum Moysen; D CAPUT XXIX.
old-edition numerals: 432 after proximum

PL 2:463

tanquam aemulam liberalitatis suae, prohibet, qui et substantiam ipsius animae accommodavit potiorem esca, et materiam ipsius corporis figuravit potiorem tunica; cujus et corvi non serunt, nec metunt, nec in apothecas condunt, et tamen aluntur ab ipso; cujus et lilia et fenum non texunt, nec nent, et tamen vestiuntur ab ipso; cujus et Salomon gloriosissimus nec ullo tamen flosculo cultior? Caeterum nihil tam abruptum, quam ut alius praestet, alius de praestantia ejus secure agere mandet, et quidem derogator ipsius. Denique, si, quasi derogator Creatoris, non vult de ejusmodi frivolis cogitari, de quibus nec corvi nec lilia laborent, ultro scilicet pro sua vilitate subjectis, paulo post patebit. Interim cur illos modicae fidei incusat, id est cujus fidei? ejusne quam nondum poterant perfectam exhibere Deo, tantum quod velato cum maxime discentes eum, an quam hoc ipso titulo debebant Creatori, uti crederent haec illum ultro generi humano sumministrare, nec de eis cogitarent? Nam et cum subjicit, Haec enim nationes mundi quaerunt, non credendo scilicet in Deum conditorem omnium et praebitorem, quos pares gentium nolebat, in eumdem Deum modicos fidei increpabat, in quem gentes incredulas notabat. Porro cum et adjicit, Scit autem Pater opus esse haec vobis, prius quaeram quem patrem intelligi velit Christus. Si ipsorum Creatorem demonstrat, et bonum confirmat, qui scit quid filiis opus sit. Sin alium Deum: quomodo scit necessarium esse homini victum atque vestitum, quorum nihil praestitit? Si enim scisset, praestitisset. Caeterum, si scit quae sunt homini necessaria, nec tamen praestitit, aut malignitate, aut infirmitate non praestitit. Professus autem necessaria haec homini, utique bona confirmavit. Nihil enim mali necessarium. Et non erit jam depretiator operum et indulgentiarum Creatoris, ut quod supra distuli, expunxerim. Porro, si quae necessaria scit homini, alius et prospexit et praestat, quomodo haec ipse repromittit? An de alieno bonus est? Quaerite enim, inquit, regnum Dei, et haec vobis adjicientur. Utique ab ipso. Quod si ab ipso, qualis est qui aliena praestabit? Si a Creatore cujus et sunt, quis est qui aliena promittat? Ea in regno accedent, secundo gradu restituenda; ejus est secundus gradus, cujus et primus; ejus victus atque vestitus, cujus et regnum. Ita tota promissio Creatoris est parabolarum status, similitudinem peraequatio, si

as a rival of His own liberality, forbids: He Who both fitted the very substance of the soul to be better than food, and shaped the very material of the body to be better than clothing; Whose also are the ravens that neither sow nor reap nor store in storehouses, and yet are fed by Him; Whose also are the lilies and the grass that neither weave nor spin, and yet are clothed by Him; Whose also was Solomon, most glorious, and yet not more adorned than any little flower? Moreover, nothing is so abrupt as that one should provide, and another should bid [men] be unconcerned about his provision, and that as one who disparages him. Next, whether, as a disparager of the Creator, he does not wish thought to be taken about such trifles, about which neither ravens nor lilies toil, since they are readily put at hand on account of their very cheapness, will become plain a little later. Meanwhile, why does He accuse them of little faith, that is, of what faith? Was it that faith which they could not yet show perfected towards God, having only just then begun to learn Him while He was veiled, or that which by this very title they owed to the Creator, so as to believe that He of His own accord supplies these things to the human race, and not to take thought about them? For when He also adds, For these things the nations of the world seek, namely by not believing in God the maker and provider of all things, He was rebuking as of little faith towards the same God those whom He did not wish to be like the gentiles, the same God towards Whom He was marking the gentiles as unbelieving. Further, when He also adds, But the Father knows that you have need of these things, I shall first ask which father Christ wishes to be understood. If He points to their own Creator, He also affirms Him to be good, Who knows what His sons have need of. But if another god: how does he know that food and clothing are necessary to man, of which he has provided nothing? For if he had known, he would have provided. Moreover, if he knows what things are necessary to man, and yet has not provided them, he has failed to provide them either from malice or from weakness. But in declaring these things necessary to man, He has certainly affirmed them to be good. For nothing evil is necessary. And He will no longer be a depreciator of the works and indulgences of the Creator, so that I have now discharged what I deferred above. Further, if another both foresaw and provides the things which he knows to be necessary to man, how does this one himself promise them in turn? Is he good out of what belongs to another? For seek, He says, the kingdom of God, and these things shall be added to you. Surely by himself. But if by himself, what sort of being is he who will provide what belongs to another? If by the Creator, Whose they also are, who is he that promises what belongs to another? These things will be added in the kingdom, to be restored in the second rank; His is the second rank Whose also is the first; His the food and clothing Whose also is the kingdom. Thus the whole promise is the Creator's, the setting of the parables, the levelling of the similitudes, if

Editors' notes and page, col. 463

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 236)

(63) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 463

Securos Oberth.

"Securos" ("free from care") Oberthür.

(printed under page 236)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 463

Revelata Lat.

"Revelata" ("revealed") Latinius.

(printed under page 236)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 463

Ne Lat.

"Ne" ("lest") Latinius.

(printed under page 236)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 463

Probatorem Seml.

"Probatorem" ("approver") Semler.

(printed under page 236)

(67) ‹anchor: gentes incredulas› · call in col 463

Incredulos Seml.

"Incredulos" (masculine) Semler.

(printed under page 236)

(68) ‹anchor: qui scit› · call in col 463

Sciat cod. Wouw.

"Sciat" (subjunctive) Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 236)

(69) ‹anchor: haec ipse repromittit› · call in col 463

Promittit Pam.

"Promittit" ("promises") Pamelius.

(printed under page 236)

(70) ‹anchor: in regno accedent› · call in col 463

Accedunt Oberth.

"Accedunt" (present) Oberthür.

(printed under page 236)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 463

De praestantia. Praestantia idem hic significat ac praestatio, exhibitio. Seml.

Of the providing. Praestantia here means the same as praestatio, provision, supply. Semler.

(printed under page 236)

Page

running head: 463 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A tanquam aemulam liberalitatis suae; B sua vilitate subjectis, paulo post patebit; C esse homini victum atque vestitum; D est qui aliena promittat? Ea in regno accedent
old-edition numerals: 433 after incusat,

PL 2:464

nec in alium spectant, quam cui per omnia pariaverint. Id sumus servi, Dominum enim habemus Deum. Succingere debemus lumbos, id est, expediti esse ab impedimentis laciniosae vitae et implicitae; item, lucernas ardentes habere, id est, mentes a fide accensas, et operibus veritatis relucentes; atque ita exspectare Dominum, id est Christum. Unde redeuntem? Si a nuptiis: Creatoris est, cujus nuptiae. Si non Creatoris: nec ipse Marcion invitatus ad nuptias isset, Deum suum intuens detestatorem nuptiarum. Defecit itaque parabola in persona Domini, si non esset cui nuptiae competunt. In sequenti quoque parabola satis errat, qui furem illum, cujus horam si paterfamilias sciret, non sineret suffodi domum suam, in personam disponit Creatoris. Fur enim Creator quomodo videri potest Dominus totius hominis? Nemo sua furatur aut suffodit, sed ille potius qui in aliena descendit, et hominem a Domino ejus alienat. Porro, cum furem nobis diabolum demonstret, cujus horam etiam in primordio si homo scisset, nunquam ab eo suffossus esset; propterea jubet ut parati simus, quia qua non putamus hora, Filius hominis adveniet; non quasi ipse sit fur, sed judex, scilicet eorum qui se non paraverint, nec caverint furem. Ergo si ipse est Filius hominis, judicem teneo, et in judice Creatorem defendo. Si vero Christum Creatoris in nomine Filii hominis hoc loco ostendit, ut eum furem portendat, qui quando venturus sit, ignoremus, habes supra scriptum, neminem rei suae furem esse: salvo et illo, quod in quantum timendum Creatorem ingerit, in tantum illi negotium agens, Creatoris est. Itaque interroganti Petro in illos, an et in omnes parabolam dixisset; ad ipsos et ad universos qui Ecclesiis praefuturi essent, proponit actorum similitudinem quorum qui bene tractaverit conservos absentia Domini, reverso eo omnibus bonis praeponetur, qui vero secus egerit, reverso Domino qua die non putaverit, hora qua non scierit, illo scilicet Filio hominis Christo Creatoris, non fure, sed judice, segregabitur, et pars ejus cum infidelibus ponetur. Proinde igitur aut et hic judicem Dominum opponit, et illi catechizat; aut si Deum optimum, jam et illum judicem affirmat, licet nolit haereticus. Temperare enim tentant hunc sensum, cum Deo ejus vindicatur: quasi tranquillitatis sit et mansuetudinis, segregare solummodo et partem ejus cum infidelibus

they look to no other than Him with Whom they have settled accounts in all things. This is what we are, servants, for we have God as Lord. We ought to gird up our loins, that is, to be free of the encumbrances of a trailing and entangled life; likewise to have lamps burning, that is, minds kindled by faith and shining with the works of truth; and so to await the Lord, that is, Christ. Returning from where? If from a wedding: He belongs to the Creator, Whose the wedding is. If He is not the Creator's: not even Marcion himself, if invited to a wedding, would have gone, seeing that his god is a detester of weddings. The parable, then, would have failed in the person of the Lord, if He were not one to whom weddings pertain. In the following parable too he goes quite astray who assigns to the person of the Creator that thief whose hour, if the father of the household knew it, he would not allow his house to be broken into. For how can the Creator, Lord of the whole man, be regarded as a thief? No one steals or breaks into what is his own, but rather he who descends upon what belongs to another, and alienates man from his Lord. Moreover, since He shows us that the thief is the devil, whose hour, if man had known it even in the beginning, he would never have been broken into by him, He therefore commands that we be ready, because at an hour we do not think the Son of Man will come; not as though He Himself were the thief, but the judge, namely of those who have not made themselves ready nor guarded against the thief. Therefore if He Himself is the Son of Man, I hold Him as judge, and in the judge I defend the Creator. But if in this place he shows the Christ of the Creator under the name of the Son of Man, so as to represent Him as a thief, of Whom we do not know when He will come, you have it written above that no one is a thief of his own property: that point also being kept safe, that inasmuch as he urges the Creator upon us as one to be feared, so far, doing His business, he belongs to the Creator. And so, when Peter asked whether He had spoken the parable with regard to them, or also with regard to all, He sets before them, and before all who were to preside over the churches, the likeness of stewards, of whom he who has dealt well with his fellow servants in the absence of the Lord will, on His return, be set over all His goods, but he who has acted otherwise will, when the Lord returns on a day he did not think and at an hour he did not know (namely that Son of Man, the Christ of the Creator, not a thief but a judge), be cut off, and his portion will be placed with the unbelievers. Accordingly, therefore, either here too He sets forth the Lord as judge, and gives instruction on His behalf; or, if [He sets forth] the most good god, He affirms that he too is a judge, even though the heretic does not wish it. For they try to soften this meaning when it is claimed for his god: as though it belonged to tranquillity and gentleness merely to cut off, and his portion with the unbelievers

Editors' notes and page, col. 464

Footnotes

(71) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 464

In abest Rig. Venet.

"In" is absent in Rigault and the Venice edition.

(printed under page 236)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 464

Paria venerint al.

"Paria venerint" others.

(printed under page 236)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 464

Id abest Rig. Venet.

"Id" ("it") is absent in Rigault and the Venice edition.

(printed under page 236)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 464

Metuens Lat.

"Metuens" ("fearing") Latinius.

(printed under page 236)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 464

Effodi Par.

"Effodi" ("to be dug through") the Paris edition.

(printed under page 236)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 464

Demonstrarit al.

"Demonstrarit" ("will have shown") others.

Commentarius

(printed under page 236)

(26) ‹anchor: actorum similitudinem› · call in col 464

Actorum similitudinem. Actor, id est procurator. Seml.

The likeness of the stewards. Actor, that is, a steward. Semler.

(printed under page 236)

(27) ‹anchor: absentia Domini› · call in col 464

Quorum qui bene tractaverit conservos absentia Domini, etc. Generaliter bene tractaverit, transtulit hic auctor, pro eo quod Lucas, τοῦ διδόναι ἐν καιρῷ τὸ σιτομέτριον, hoc est, sicut vulgatus interpres Latinus: Ut det illis in tempore tritici mensuram. Quod etsi ad omnem cibum pertineat, tamen nimis libere etiam hic castigavit Clarius, demensum. Oportebat itaque potius suam versionem nuncupasse, quam vulgati interpretis castigationem. Pam.

Of whom, he who has treated his fellow servants well in the Lord's absence, etc. The author here has rendered generally as bene tractaverit, "has treated well", what Luke has as tou didonai en kairō to sitometrion, that is, as the Latin Vulgate translator puts it: To give them their measure of wheat in due season. Although this applies to every kind of food, Clarius here too corrected it too freely, to demensum, "ration". He ought rather, then, to have called it his own version than a correction of the Vulgate translator. Pamelius.

(printed under page 236)

Page

running head: …M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (cut off at the left edge of the image; column number 464 not set)
marginal letters: A nec in alium spectant; B errat, qui furem illum; C quando venturus sit; D et illi catechizat
old-edition numerals: 434 after sciret,

PL 2:465

ponere, ac si non et hoc ipsum judicato fiat. Stultitia! Quis erit exitus segregatorum? Nonne amissio salutis? Siquidem ab eis segregabuntur, qui salutem consequentur. Quis igitur infidelium status? Nonne damnatio? Aut si nihil patientur segregati et infideles, aeque in diverso nihil consequentur retenti et fideles. Si vero consequentur salutem retenti et fideles, hanc amittant necesse est ex diverso segregati et infideles. Hoc erit judicium, quod qui intendit, Creatoris est. Quem alium intelligam, caedentem servos paucis aut multis plagis, et prout commisit illis, ita et exigentem ab eis, quam retributorem Deum? Cui me decet obsequi, nisi remuneratori? Proclamat Christus tuus: Ignem veni mittere in terram, ille optimus, nullius gehennae Dominus; qui paulo ante discipulos, ne ignem postularent inhumanissimo viculo, coercuerat. Quando iste Sodomam et Gomorrham nimbo igneo exussit? Quando cantatum est: Ignis ante ipsum praecedet, et cremabit inimicos ejus (Psal. XCIII, 3)? Quando et per Osee comminatus est: Ignem emittam in civitates Judae (VIII, 14)? vel per Isaiam: Ignis exarsit ex indignatione mea (XXX, 27)? Non mentiatur. Si non est ille qui de rubo quoque ardenti vocem suam emisit, viderit quem ignem intelligendum contendat. Etiamsi figura est, hoc ipso quod de meo elemento argumenta sensui suo sumit, meus est, qui de meis utitur. Illius erit similitudo ignis, cujus et veritas. Ipse melius interpretabitur ignis istius qualitatem, adjiciens: Putatis venisse me pacem mittere in terram? Non, dico vobis, sed separationem. Machaeram quidem scriptum est; sed Marcion emendat, quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae. Igitur et ignem eversionis intendit, qui pacem negavit. Quale praelium, tale et incendium. Qualis machaera, talis et flamma, neutra congruens Domino. Denique, Dividetur, inquit, pater in filium, et filius in patrem; et mater in filiam et filia in matrem, et nurus in socrum, et socrus in nurum. Hoc praelium inter parentes si in ipsis verbis tuba

to place, as though this very thing too did not come about by judgement. Folly! What will be the outcome for those set apart? Is it not the loss of salvation? For they will be set apart from those who will attain salvation. What, then, is the state of the unbelievers? Is it not condemnation? Or if those set apart and the unbelievers will suffer nothing, equally on the other side those retained and the faithful will attain nothing. But if those retained and the faithful will attain salvation, it is necessary that on the other side those set apart and the unbelievers lose it. This will be a judgement, and He Who intends it is the Creator's. Whom else am I to understand as beating servants with few or many stripes, and, according as He entrusted to them, so also requiring from them, than God the Requiter? Whom is it fitting for me to obey, if not the Rewarder? Your Christ proclaims: I have come to send fire upon the earth, He, the Most Good, Lord of no Gehenna; Who a little before had restrained the disciples from calling for fire upon a most inhuman village. When did this one burn up Sodom and Gomorrah with a fiery storm? When was it sung: Fire shall go before Him, and shall burn up His enemies (Ps. 93:3)? When did He also threaten through Hosea: I will send fire into the cities of Judah (Hos. 8:14)? or through Isaiah: Fire has blazed out from My indignation (Isa. 30:27)? Let Him not lie. If He is not the One Who also sent forth His voice from the burning bush, let him see to it what fire he contends is to be understood. Even if it is a figure, by this very fact that He takes from my element the proofs for His meaning, He is mine, Who makes use of what is mine. The likeness of fire will belong to Him to Whom the reality also belongs. He Himself will better interpret the quality of that fire, adding: Do you think that I have come to send peace upon the earth? No, I tell you, but separation. A sword, indeed, is what is written; but Marcion emends it, as though separation too were not the work of a sword. Therefore He Who denied peace intends also the fire of overthrow. As the battle is, so also is the conflagration. As the sword is, so also is the flame, neither befitting the Lord. Finally, Father, He says, shall be divided against son, and son against father; and mother against daughter and daughter against mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law, and mother-in-law against daughter-in-law. This battle between kinsfolk, if in the very words the trumpet

Editors' notes and page, col. 465

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 237)

(77) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 465

Quid Pam.

"Quid" ("what") Pamelius.

(printed under page 237)

(78) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 465

Docet Fran. Pam.

"Docet" ("teaches") the Franeker edition, Pamelius.

(printed under page 237)

(79) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 465

Procedet Pam.

"Procedet" ("will go forth") Pamelius.

(printed under page 237)

(80) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 465

Judaeae Seml.

"Judaeae" ("of Judaea") Semler.

(printed under page 237)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible› · call in col 465

Jeremiam leg. Jun., diserta verba exstant Jeremiae XV, 14.

Junius reads "Jeremiam": the words stand expressly in Jeremiah XV, 14.

(printed under page 237)

(82) ‹anchor: viderit› · call in col 465

Videris Seml.

"Videris" ("you will see to it") Semler.

(printed under page 237)

(83) ‹anchor: intelligendum contendat› · call in col 465

Contendas Pam.

"Contendas" ("you contend") Pamelius.

(printed under page 237)

(28) ‹anchor: quidem scriptum est› · call in col 465

Machaeram quidem scriptum est. In Evangelio scilicet Marcionis, hoc est, Lucae a Marcione adulterato. Cujusmodi Evangelium provocare se dicit Tertullianus initio hujus libri, ut ex eo ipso Marcionem convincat insaniae. Rig.

"Sword", indeed, is what is written. That is, in Marcion's Gospel, Luke as adulterated by Marcion. Tertullian says at the beginning of this book that he appeals to that Gospel, so as to convict Marcion of madness out of it. Rigault.

(printed under page 237)

(29) ‹anchor: Marcion emendat› · call in col 465

Sed Marcion emendat. Etenim Lucas dixit, διαμερισμόν. Rig.

But Marcion corrects it. For Luke said diamerismon, "division". Rigault.

(printed under page 237)

(30) ‹anchor: opus sit machaerae› · call in col 465

Quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae. Eoque sensu dixerat Matthaeus μάχαιραν quod Lucas διαμερισμόν, ut jam vana sit Marcionis in Lucam emendatio. Hujusce autem non meminit Epiphanius. Rig.

As though separation too were not the work of a sword. And in that sense Matthew had said machairan, "sword", where Luke has diamerismon, "division", so that Marcion's correction of Luke is now empty. Epiphanius, however, does not mention this one. Rigault.

(printed under page 237)

Page

running head: 465 LIB. IV ADV. MARC (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A delibus ponere, ac si non; B gehennae Dominus; qui paulo ante; C utitur. Illius erit similitudo ignis; D beside the commentary at the page foot, (28) Machaeram quidem scriptum est
old-edition numerals: 135 after remuneratori?
other: column begins with the fragment "delibus" (rest of infidelibus from the previous column); the column ends mid-sentence at "tuba"; damaged letters in "infideles" (the second one), "intendit" and "Qualis" are read as the intended words; the printed reference Psal. XCIII, 3 and the Isaiah citation XXX, 27 are set as printed (the variae lectiones note the second quotation as Jeremiah 15:14); the Variae lectiones and Commentarius notes (28) to (31) at the page foot are not set; the right-hand column, cut off at the image edge, is not set

PL 2:466

cecinit prophetae, vereor ne Michaeas (VII, 6) Christo Marcionis praedicarit. Et ideo hypocritas pronuntiabat, caeli quidem et terrae faciem probantes, tempus vero illud non dinoscentes, quo scilicet adimplens omnia quae super ipsos fuerunt praedicata, nec aliter docens, debuerat agnosci. Caeterum, quis posset ejus tempora nosse, cujus per quae probaret non habebat? Merito exprobrat etiam, quod justum non a semetipsis judicarent. Olim hoc mandat per Zachariam (VIII, 16): Justum judicium et pacatorium judicate. Per Jeremiam (XXII, 3): Facite judicium et justitiam. Per Isaiam (I. 17; V, 6): Judicate pupillo, et justificate viduam, imputans etiam vineae Sorech, quod non judicium fecisset, sed clamorem. Qui ergo docuerat ut facerent ex praecepto, is exigebat ut facerent et ex arbitrio. Qui seminaverat praeceptum, ille et redundantiam ejus urgebat. Jam vero quam absurdum ut ille mandaret juste judicare, qui Deum judicem justum destruebat! Nam et judicem qui mittit in carcerem, nec ducit inde, nisi soluto etiam novissimo quadrante, in persona Creatoris obtrectationis nomine disserunt. Ad quod necesse habeo eodem gradu occurrere. Quotiescunque enim severitas Creatoris opponitur, totiens illius est Christus, cui per timorem cogit obsequium.

of the prophet sounded, I fear that Micah (Mic. 7:6) prophesied for Marcion's Christ. And therefore He was declaring them hypocrites, approving indeed the face of the sky and of the earth, but not discerning that time in which, namely, He ought to have been recognized, fulfilling all the things which had been foretold concerning them, and teaching nothing otherwise. Besides, who could know the times of one for whom he had no means by which to prove [them]? Deservedly He also reproaches them that they did not judge what is just of themselves. Long ago He commands this through Zechariah (Zech. 8:16): Judge a just and peaceable judgement. Through Jeremiah (Jer. 22:3): Do judgement and justice. Through Isaiah (Isa. 1:17; 5:6): Judge for the orphan, and justify the widow, charging also against the vineyard of Sorek that it had produced not judgement but an outcry. He therefore who had taught them to act from precept was the one demanding that they act also from free choice. He who had sown the precept was also urging its overflowing abundance. Now indeed how absurd that he should command men to judge justly who was destroying God as a just judge! For they also discourse about the judge who sends into prison and does not bring out thence unless even the last farthing has been paid, in the person of the Creator, by way of disparagement. To this I must respond at the same step. For as often as the severity of the Creator is set up as an objection, so often is Christ His, for Whom it compels obedience through fear.

CAPUT XXX.

Chapter XXX.

Quaestionem rursus de curatione Sabbato facta, quomodo discussit: Unusquique vestrum Sabbatis non solvit asinum aut bovem suum a praesepi, et ducit ad potum? Ergo secundum conditionem Legis operatus, Legem confirmavit, non dissolvit, jubentem nullum opus fieri, nisi quod fieret omni animae, quanto potius humanae! Parabolarum congruentiam ubique recognoscor exigere. Simile est regnum Dei, inquit, grano sinapis, quod accepit homo, et seminavit in horto suo. Quis in persona hominis intelligendus? Utique Christus: quia licet Marcionis, filius hominis est dictus, qui accepit a Patre semen regni, sermonem scilicet Evangelii, et

The question again about the healing done on the Sabbath, how He settled it: Does not each of you on the Sabbaths loose his ass or his ox from the manger, and lead it to drink? Therefore, having worked according to the condition of the Law, He confirmed the Law, did not dissolve it, [the Law] commanding that no work be done except what would be done for every soul, how much more for a human one! I am acknowledged to require the congruence of the parables everywhere. The kingdom of God, He says, is like a grain of mustard, which a man took and sowed in his garden. Who is to be understood in the person of the man? Christ, certainly: because, although Marcion's, He was called the Son of Man, Who received from the Father the seed of the kingdom, namely the word of the Gospel, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 466

Footnotes

(84) ‹anchor: ubique recognoscor› · call in col 466

Recognoscite Lat.

"Recognoscite" ("recognize", plural imperative) Latinius.

Commentarius

(printed under page 237)

(31) ‹anchor: non solvit asinum› · call in col 466

Unusquisque vestrum Sabbatis non solvit asinum, etc. Istud (in quo solum ab aliis auctor differt, legens Sabbatis pro Sabbato) non ursit Epiphanius, sed (confut. 39) illud Christi quod sequitur: « Hanc autem filiam Abrahae, quam alligavit Satanas; » ex quo probat, Christum esse ejusdem Dei, cujus Abraham. Idque eo magis, uti (confut. 40) prosequitur, quod etiam resciderat illud sub finem hujus cap. Lucae: Cum videritis Abraham, Isaac et Jacob, et omnes prophetas in regno Dei, legens duntaxat, Cum omnes justos videritis in regno Dei. Ita quod auctor omisit, ille fere urget, adv. Marc. Pam.

Does not each of you on the Sabbaths untie his ass, etc. Epiphanius did not press this (in which alone the author differs from the others, reading Sabbatis for Sabbato), but (refutation 39) the words of Christ that follow: "But this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan bound"; from which he proves that Christ belongs to the same God as Abraham. And all the more because, as he goes on (refutation 40), Marcion had also cut out the words towards the end of this chapter of Luke, When you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, reading only, When you see all the just in the kingdom of God. So what the author left out, Epiphanius presses hard, Against Marcion. Pamelius.

(printed under page 237)

(32) ‹anchor: omni animae› · call in col 466

Nullum opus fieri, nisi quod fieret omni animae. Jam adnotavimus versionem LXX interpretum, quam sequebatur Tertullianus, alio modo posse intelligi, qui cum ingenio Graecae linguae et significatione Hebraicae lectionis magis conveniat. Vide in cap. 12 hujus libri. Edd.

That no work be done, except what would be done for every soul. We have already noted that the Septuagint version, which Tertullian followed, can be understood in another way, one that agrees better with the genius of the Greek language and the meaning of the Hebrew reading. See chapter 12 of this book. The Editors.

(printed under page 237)

Page

running head: IV ADV. MARCIONEM. 466
marginal letters: A ‹cecinit prophetae, vereor›; B ‹rent ex praecepto, is›; C ‹Quaestionem rursus de curatione›; D ‹« Hanc autem filiam Abrahae› (in the Commentarius at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 436 after ‹vineae›
misprints kept as printed: ‹Unusquique› (for Unusquisque) in the text

PL 2:467

seminavit in horto suo, utique in mundo, puta nunc in homine. Sed cum in suo horto dixerit, nec mundus autem nec homo illius sit, sed Creatoris; ergo qui in suum seminarit, nec Creator ostenditur. Aut si, ut hunc laqueum evadant, converterint hominis personam a Christo in hominem, accipientem semen regni, et seminantem in horto cordis sui; nec ipsa materia alii conveniet quam Creatori. Quale est enin ut lenissimi Dei regnum significet semen, quod etiam judicii fervor lacrymosa austeritate subsequitur? Dei sequenti plane similitudine vereor, ne forte alterius Dei regno portendat. Fermento enim comparavit illud, non azymis, quae familiariora sunt Creatori. Congruit et haec conjectura mendicantibus argumenta. Itaque et ego vanitatem vanitate depellam, fermentationem quoque congruere dicens regno Creatoris, qui post illam clibanus vel furnus gehennae sequatur. Quoties adhuc se judicem ostendit, et in judice Creatorem! Quoties utique ejecit, et damnat rejiciendo! Sicut hic quoque: Cum surrexerit, inquit, paterfamilias. Quo, nisi quo dixit Isaias (II, 19): Cum surrexerit comminuere terram? Et cluserit ostium, utique excludendis iniquis, quibus pulsantibus respondebit: Nescio unde sitis? Et rursus: Enumerantibus quod coram illo ederint, et biberint, et in plateis eorum docuerit, adjiciet: Recedite a me onnes operarii iniquitatis: illic erit fletus et frendor dentium. Ubi? Foris scilicet, ubi erunt exclusi, ostio cluso ab eo: ergo erit poena, a quo fit exclusio in poenam, cum videbunt justos introeuntes in regnum Dei, se vero detineri foris. A quo? Si a Creatore, quis erit ergo intus recipiens justos in regnum? Deus bonus. Quid ergo illuc Creatori, ut foris detineat in poenam, quos adversarius ejus exclusit, suscipiendos a se, utique magis in adversarii bilem? Sed et ille exclusurus iniquos, sciat utique Creatorem illos detenturum in poenam, aut non sciat oportet. Ergo, aut nolente eo detinebuntur, et minor est illo qui detinet, cedens ei nolens; aut si vult ita fieri, ipse ita faciendum judicavit, et non erit melior Creatore, ipse auctor infamiae Creatoris. Haec si nulla ratione consistunt, ut alius punire, alius liberare credatur, unius erit tam judicium quam et regnum; et dum unius est utrumque, qui et judicat, Creatoris est.

sowed in his garden, that is, in the world, or suppose now in man. But since He said "in his own garden", while neither the world nor man is his, but the Creator's, then he who sowed in his own, is he not shown to be the Creator? Or if, to escape this snare, they turn the person of the man from Christ to a man receiving the seed of the kingdom and sowing it in the garden of his heart, even the matter itself will suit no one other than the Creator. For how is it that the seed should signify the kingdom of the most gentle God, a kingdom which even the heat of judgement follows with tearful severity? From the following comparison I am plainly afraid that perhaps it may point to the kingdom of the other God. For He compared it to leaven, not to unleavened bread, which are more familiar to the Creator. This conjecture too suits those who go begging for arguments. And so I too will drive out vanity with vanity, saying that fermentation also fits the kingdom of the Creator, since after it there follows the oven or furnace of Gehenna. How often still does He show Himself a judge, and in the judge the Creator! How often indeed has He cast out, and condemns by rejecting! As here also: When, He says, the master of the house has risen. To what end, if not to that of which Isaiah spoke (Isa. 2:19): When He has risen to shatter the earth? And has shut the door, namely for the wicked who are to be shut out, to whom, when they knock, He will answer: I do not know where you are from? And again: To those recounting that they ate and drank in His presence, and that He taught in their streets, He will add: Depart from Me, all workers of iniquity: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Where? Outside, of course, where they will be shut out, the door having been shut by Him: therefore the punishment will come from Him by whom the exclusion into punishment is made, when they see the righteous entering into the kingdom of God, but themselves held outside. By whom? If by the Creator, who then will be within, receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good God. What then is the Creator doing there, that He should hold outside in punishment those whom His adversary has shut out, when He ought rather to take them up Himself, all the more to provoke His adversary's bile? But that other one too, when he is about to shut out the wicked, must either know that the Creator will hold them in punishment, or not know it. Therefore either they will be held against his will, and he is less than the One who holds them, yielding to Him unwillingly; or, if he wills it to be so, he himself has judged that it should be done so, and he will not be better than the Creator, being himself the author of the Creator's infamy. If these things on no account hold together, so that one is believed to punish and another to set free, then both the judgement and the kingdom will belong to one; and since both belong to one, He who also judges is the Creator.

CAPUT XXXI.

Chapter XXXI.

Ad prandium vel ad coenam quales vocari jubet? Quales ostenderat per Isaiam (LVIII, 7): Confringe panem tuum esurienti et mendicos, et qui sine

To a luncheon or to a dinner, what sort of people does He bid be called? Those whom He had pointed out through Isaiah (Isa. 58:7): Break your bread for the hungry, and the beggars, and those who are without

Editors' notes and page, col. 467

Variae lectiones

85 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Nec omitt. Pam.

"Nec" is omitted by Pamelius.

86 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Significet semen non habet Pam. Sed est in cod. Wouw.

Pamelius does not have "significet semen"; but it is in Wouwer's codex.

87 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Judicium fervoris lacrymosae austeritates, subsequuntur cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's codex reads "Judicium fervoris lacrymosae austeritates, subsequuntur".

88 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Familiae Pam.

Pamelius reads "Familiae".

89 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Expendo Pam.

Pamelius reads "Expendo".

Commentarius

(printed under page 238)

(33) ‹anchor: et mendicos› · call in col 467

Confringe panem tuum esurienti, et mendicos, etc. Mendicos, pro quo Vulgatus egenos, sive πτωχούς. PAM.

Break your bread to the hungry, and the beggars, etc. "Beggars": for which the Vulgate has egenos ("the needy"), that is, πτωχούς. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 238)

Page

running head: 467 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A seminavit in horto suo; B vanitatem vanitate depellam; C cluso ab eo; D et judicat, Creatoris est
old-edition numerals: 437 after vanitate

PL 2:468

tecto sunt, induc in domum tuam; qui scilicet humanitatis istius vicem retribuere non possint. Hanc si Christus captari vetat, in resurrectione eam repromittens, Creatoris est forma, cui non placent amantes munera, sectantes retributionem. Etiam invitatoris parabola cui magis parti occurrat, expende. Homo quidam fecit coenam, et vocavit multos. Utique coenae paratura vitae aeternae saturitatem figurat. Dico primo, extraneos et nullius juris affines invitari ad coenam non solere; certe facilius solere domesticos et familiares. Ergo Creatoris est invitasse, ad quem pertinebant qui invitabantur, et per Adam qua homines, et per patres qua Judaici, non ejus ad quem neque natura pertinebant, neque praerogativa. Dehinc, si is mittit ad convivas, qui coenam paravit, sic quoque Creatoris est coena, qui misit ad convivas admonendos, ante jam vocatos per patres, admonendos autem per prophetas: non qui neminem miserit ad monendum, nec qui nihil prius egerit ad vocandum, sed ipse descenderit subito: tantum quod innotescens, jam invitans; tantum quod invitans, jam in convivium cogens; eamdem faciens horam coenandi, et ad coenam invitandi. Excusant se invitanti. Si ab alio Deo, merito, quia subito invitati. Si non merito, ergo nec subito. Si autem non subito invitati, ergo a Creatore, a quo olim. Cujus denique declinaverant vocationem, tunc primo dicentes ad Aaronem (Exod. XXXII, 1): Fac nobis deos, qui praeeant nobis; atque exinde (Isa. VI, 10): Aure audientes et non audientes, vocationem scilicet Dei; qui pertinentissime ad hanc parabolam per Jeremiam (XI, 40 seqq.), Audite, inquit, vocem meam, et ero vobis in Dominum, et vos mihi in populum; et ibitis in omnibus viis meis quascunque mandavero vobis. Ecce invitatio Dei. Et non audierunt, inquit, et non adverterunt aurem suam. Ecc⟨e⟩ recusatio populi. Sed abierunt in iis quae concupierunt corde suo malo. Agrum emi, et boves mercatus sum, et uxorem duxi. Et adhuc ingerit (VII, 24 seqq.): Et emisi ad vos omnes famulos meos prophetas. Hic erit Spiritus sanctus admonitor convivarum, die et ante lucem. Et non audiit populus meus, et non intendit auribus suis, et obduravit collum suum. Hoc ut patrifamilias renuntiatum est, motus tunc (bene quod et motus; negat enim Marcion moveri Deum suum, ita et hoc meus est), mandat de plateis et vicis civitatis facere sublectionem. Videamus an eo sensu quo rursus per Jeremiam (II, 31): Numquid solitudo factus sum domui Israelis? aut terra in incultum derelicta? id est, Numquid non habeo quod allegam, aut unde allegam? Quoniam dixit populus

a roof, bring into your house; those, that is, who cannot repay the return for this kindness. If Christ forbids this to be sought, promising it again in the resurrection, it is the pattern of the Creator, Who is not pleased with those who love gifts and pursue recompense. Weigh also to which side the parable of the inviter rather applies. A certain man made a supper, and called many. Certainly the preparation of the supper figures the fullness of eternal life. I say first that strangers, connected by no tie of right, are not usually invited to a supper; certainly members of the household and intimates are more readily so. Therefore it belongs to the Creator to have invited, to Whom those who were invited belonged, both through Adam as men and through the fathers as Jews, not to him to whom they belonged neither by nature nor by prerogative. Next, if he who prepared the supper is the one who sends to the guests, so too the supper is the Creator's, Who sent to remind the guests, already called beforehand through the fathers, and to be reminded through the prophets: not his who sent no one to remind, nor did anything beforehand towards calling, but came down himself suddenly: no sooner making himself known than already inviting; no sooner inviting than already compelling into the banquet; making the hour of supping the same as that of inviting to supper. The invited excuse themselves. If by another god, deservedly, since they were invited suddenly. If not deservedly, then not suddenly either. But if they were not invited suddenly, then it was by the Creator, by Whom it was long ago. Whose calling, in fact, they had declined, first then saying to Aaron (Exod. 32:1): Make us gods who may go before us; and from then on (Isa. 6:10): Hearing with the ear and not hearing, namely the calling of God; Who, most pertinently to this parable, through Jeremiah (Jer. 11:40 ff.) says, Hear My voice, and I will be to you as Lord, and you to Me as a people; and you will walk in all My ways, whatever I shall command you. Behold the invitation of God. And they did not hear, He says, and did not incline their ear. Behold the refusal of the people. But they went off in the things which they desired in their evil heart. I have bought a field, and I have purchased oxen, and I have married a wife. And He presses still further (Jer. 7:24 ff.): And I sent to you all My servants the prophets. This will be the Holy Spirit, the reminder of the guests, by day and before dawn. And My people did not hear, and did not attend with their ears, and hardened their neck. When this was reported to the householder, being moved then (good that he is also moved; for Marcion denies that his god is moved, so this too is mine), he orders a substitute gathering to be made from the streets and lanes of the city. Let us see whether this is in the sense in which again through Jeremiah (Jer. 2:31): Have I become a wilderness to the house of Israel? or a land left untilled? that is, Have I not whom I may enlist, or whence I may enlist them? Since My people said

Editors' notes and page, col. 468

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 468 (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A tecto sunt, induc in domum tuam; B hinc, si is mittit ad convivas; C 10) : Aure audientes et non audientes; D veri Deum suum, ita et hoc meus est
old-edition numerals: 138 after descenderit

PL 2:469

meus, Non venimus ad te. Itaque misit ad alios vocandos, ex eadem adhuc civitate. Dehinc loco abundante, praecepit etiam de viis et sepibus colligi, id est, nos jam de extraneis gentibus; illa scilicet aemulatione, qua in Deuteronomio (XXXII, 20): Avertam faciem meam ab eis, et monstrabo quid illis in novissimis, id est alios possessuros locum eorum: quoniam genitura perversa est, filii in quibus fides non est. Illi obaemulati sunt me in non Deo, et provocaverunt in iram in idolis suis; et ego obaemulabor eos in non natione, in natione insipienti provocabo eos in iram; in nobis scilicet, quorum spem Judaei gerunt, de qua illos gustaturos negat Dominus: derelicta Sione (Isa. I, 8) tanquam specula in vinea et in cucumerario casula, posteaquam et novissimam in Christo invitationem recusavit. Quid ex hoc ordine secundum dispositiones et praedicationes Creatoris recensendo competere potest illi, cujus nec ordinem habet, nec dispositionem ad parabolae conspirationem, qui totum opus semel fecit? Aut quae erit prima vocatio ejus, et quae secundo actu admonitio? Ante debent alii excusare, postea alii convenisse. Nunc autem pariter utramque partem invitare venit, de civitate, de sepibus, adversus speculum parabolae. Nec potest jam fastidiosos judicare, quos nunquam retro invitavit, quos cum maxime aggreditur. Aut si de futuro eos judicat contempturos vocationem, ergo et sublectionem loco eorum ex gentibus de futuro portendit. Plane ad hoc secundo venturus est ut gentibus praedicet. Etsi venturus est autem, puto, non quasi vocaturus adhuc convivas, sed jam collocaturus. Interea qui coenae istius vocationem coeleste convivium interpretaris spiritalis saturitatis et jucunditatis, memento et terrenas promissiones vini et olei et frumenti, et ipsius civitatis, aeque in spiritalia figurari a Creatore.

We do not come to Thee. Therefore He sent to call others, still from the same city. Then, there being room to spare, He commanded that they be gathered also from the roads and the hedges, that is, us, now from the foreign nations; namely by that jealousy of which [He speaks] in Deuteronomy (Deut. 32:20): I will turn away My face from them, and I will show what [shall befall] them at the last, that is, that others shall possess their place: for it is a perverse generation, sons in whom there is no faith. They have provoked Me to jealousy with what is not God, and have provoked [Me] to anger with their idols; and I will provoke them to jealousy with what is not a nation, with a foolish nation I will provoke them to anger; in us, namely, whose hope the Jews bear, of which the Lord denies that they shall taste: Sion being left (Isa. 1:8) as a watchtower in a vineyard and as a hut in a cucumber field, after it had refused even the last invitation in Christ. What of this order, reviewed according to the dispositions and predictions of the Creator, can apply to him who has neither the order nor the dispensation to accord with the parable, who made the whole work at once? Or what will be his first calling, and what the admonition at the second stage? Some ought first to have excused themselves, others afterwards to have come together. But now he comes to invite both parties alike, from the city, from the hedges, contrary to the mirror of the parable. Nor can he now judge as disdainful those whom he never before invited, whom he is approaching at this very moment. Or if he judges that they will in future despise the calling, then he also foretells as future the substitution of the gentiles in their place. Clearly he is to come a second time for this purpose, to preach to the gentiles. Yet even if he is to come, he will come, I think, not as though still to call guests, but now to seat them. Meanwhile you who interpret the calling to that supper as a heavenly banquet of spiritual satiety and delight, remember that the earthly promises also, of wine and oil and corn, and of the city itself, are equally figured by the Creator into spiritual things.

CAPUT XXXII.

Chapter XXXII.

Ovem et drachmam perditam quis requirit? Nonne qui perdidit? Quis autem perdidit? Nonne qui habuit? Quis vero habuit? Nonne cujus fuit? Si igitur homo non alterius est res, quam Creatoris; is eum habuit, cujus fuit. Is perdidit, qui habuit. Is requisivit, qui perdidit. Is invenit, qui quaesivit. Is exsultavit, qui invenit. Ita utriusque parabolae argumentum

Who seeks the lost sheep and the drachma? Is it not he who lost it? But who lost it? Is it not he who had it? And who had it? Is it not he whose it was? If therefore man is the property of no other than the Creator, He had him whose he was. He who had him lost him. He who lost him sought him. He who sought found him. He who found him rejoiced. Thus the argument of each parable

Editors' notes and page, col. 469

Variae lectiones

90 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Speciem Lat.

Latinius reads "Speciem".

91 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Christum Pam. Fran. Rig. Par.

Pamelius, Franeker, Rigault and the Paris edition read "Christum".

92 ‹anchor: istius vocationem› · call in col 469 In abesse vult Ciaccon.

Ciacconius would have "In" absent.

93 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Diminuit Pam.

Pamelius reads "Diminuit".

Commentarius

(printed under page 239)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

De qua illos gustaturos negat Dominus. Docet haec interpretatio repudiatos ob pervicaciam Judaeos, Christianosque ad coenam, seu, ut explicat, ad vitae coelestis saturitatem vocatos. LE PR.

Of which the Lord says they shall not taste. This interpretation teaches that the Jews were rejected for their obstinacy, and the Christians called to the supper, or, as he explains it, to the fullness of heavenly life. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 239)

(35) ‹anchor: vini et olei› · call in col 469

Terrenas promissiones vini et olei. Quales habentur saepissime in Veteri Testamento. LE PR.

Earthly promises of wine and oil. Such as are found very often in the Old Testament. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 239)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Exsultare illius est de poenitentia peccatoris. Non video cur tantopere se torqueat Pamelius ut hunc locum explicet. Cum enim angelorum esse ait ex contextu evangelico, ideoque hic Deo tribuit quod de angelis dictum est, attendat sedulo ne seriem sermonis interturbet disjungatque; nam ordo et sensus facilis est, de eo qui dixit (Deo scilicet): Malo poenitentiam peccatoris, quam mortem. LE PR.

To exult over the repentance of a sinner is his. I do not see why Pamelius twists himself so much to explain this passage. For when he says from the Gospel context that it belongs to the angels, and that here he therefore attributes to God what was said of the angels, let him take careful heed not to disturb and break up the sequence of the discourse; for the order and sense are easy: it concerns him who said (God, that is): I would rather the repentance of the sinner than his death. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 239)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Mammonam quem intelligi velit. Quod Punici dicunt mammon, Latine lucrum vocatur. August. serm. 35, de Verb. Dom. RIG.

Whom he would have understood by mammon. What the Punic speakers call mammon is called in Latin lucrum, "gain". Augustine, sermon 35, On the Words of the Lord. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 239)

Page

running head: 469 LIB. IV AD. MARCIO[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A meus, Non venimus ad te; B in Christo invitationem recusavit; C ad hoc secundo venturus est; D sivit, qui perdidit
old-edition numerals: 439 after convenisse.

PL 2:470

vacat circa eum, cujus non est ovis neque drachma, id est homo. Non enim perdidit, quia non habuit; nec requisivit, quia non perdidit; nec invenit, quia nec requisivit; nec exsultavit, quia non invenit. Atque adeo exsultare illius est de poenitentia peccatoris, id est, de perditi recuperatione, qui se professus est olim male peccatoris poenitentiam quam mortem.

idle with regard to him to whom neither the sheep nor the drachma belongs, that is, man. For he did not lose, because he did not have; nor did he seek, because he did not lose; nor did he find, because he did not even seek; nor did he rejoice, because he did not find. And so to rejoice over the repentance of a sinner, that is, over the recovery of what was lost, belongs to Him who long ago declared that He preferred the repentance of a sinner to his death.

CAPUT XXXIII.

Chapter XXXIII.

Quibus duobus dominis neget posse serviri, quia alterum offendi sit necesse, alterum defendi, ipse declarat, Deum proponens et mammonam. Deinde mammonam quem intelligi velit, si interpretem non habes, ab ipso potes discere. Admonens enim nos, de saecularibus suffragia nobis prospicere amicitiarum, secundum servi illius exemplum, qui ab actus ummotus, dominicos debitores diminutis cautionibus revelat in subsidium sibi. Et ego, inquit, dico vobis, facite vobis amicos de mammona injustitiae; de nummo scilicet, de quo et servus ille. Injustitiae enim auctorem et dominatorem totius saeculi nummum scimus omnes. Cui famulatam videns Pharisaeorum cupiditatem, ammentavit hanc sententiam: Non potestis Deo servire et mammonae. Irridebant denique Pharisaei pecuniae cupidi, quod intellexissent scilicet mammonam de nummo dictum, ne quis existimet in mammona Creatorem intelligendum, et Christum a Creatoris illos servitute revocasse. Quid? nunc potius ex hoc disce, unum a Christo Deum ostensum. Duos enim dominos nominavit, Deum et mammonam, Creatorem et nummum. Denique, non potestis Deo servire: utique ei, cui servire videbantur; et mammonae, cui magis destinabantur. Quod si ipse alium se ageret, non duas dominos, sed tres demonstrasset. Et Creator enim Dominus, quia Deus. Et utique magis dominus, quam mammonas; magisque observandus, qua magis dominus. Quare est enim, ut qui mammonam dominum dixerat, et cum Deo junxerat, vere ipsorum dominum taceret, id est Creatorem? Aut numquid tacendo eo, concessit serviendum ei esse, si solummodo sibi et mammonae negavit posse serviri? Ita, cum unum Deum ponit nominaturus et Creatorem. si alius esset ipse, Creatorem nominavit, quem dominum sine alio Deo non posuit. Et illud itaque

Which two masters He says cannot be served, because one must of necessity be offended and the other defended, He Himself declares, setting forth God and mammon. Then whom He wishes mammon to be understood to be, if you do not have an interpreter, you can learn from Himself. For, admonishing us to provide for ourselves the support of friendships out of worldly things, after the example of that servant who, removed from his office, relieves his master's debtors by reducing their bonds, as an aid for himself, "And I," He says, "say to you, make for yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness"; of money, that is, the same about which that servant also [was concerned]. For we all know money to be the author of unrighteousness and the lord of the whole world. Seeing the covetousness of the Pharisees enslaved to it, He hurled this sentence: You cannot serve God and mammon. The Pharisees, lovers of money, accordingly mocked, because, of course, they had understood that mammon was said of money, lest anyone think that by mammon the Creator is to be understood, and that Christ had called them back from the service of the Creator. What? Rather learn now from this that one God was shown by Christ. For He named two masters, God and mammon, the Creator and money. Then: you cannot serve God, surely Him whom they seemed to serve; and mammon, to whom they were more devoted. But if He were acting as another, He would have shown not two masters but three. For the Creator too is Lord, because He is God. And surely more a lord than mammon; and more to be observed, inasmuch as He is more a lord. For how is it that He who had called mammon a master, and had joined it with God, should keep silent about their true Lord, that is, the Creator? Or did He, by keeping silent about Him, grant that He was to be served, if He denied only that He Himself and mammon could be served? So, when He sets down one God, being about to name the Creator also. if He Himself were another, He named the Creator, whom He did not set down as lord without another God. And that saying therefore

Editors' notes and page, col. 470

Footnotes

(38) ‹anchor: hanc sententiam› · call in col 470

Ammentavit hanc sentantiam. Ut jaculum intorsit. Varie scribitur in MSS. Amentum, Admentum et Ammentum. Graecum est ἅμμα. RIG. — Id est, jaculatus est, emisit: ab amento, quod lorum significat, deductum verbum amentare. RHEN.

He hurled this sentence by its thong. He launched it like a javelin. It is written variously in the manuscripts: amentum, admentum and ammentum. The Greek is ἅμμα. RIGAULT. — That is, he hurled it, let it fly: the verb amentare is derived from amentum, which means a thong. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 239)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] V AD. MARCIONEM. 470
marginal letters: A tum vacat circa eum; B non habes, ab ipso potes discere; C revocasse. Quid? nunc potius; D si alius esset ipse
old-edition numerals: 440 after mammonam
other: column begins with fragment "tum" of a word broken from the previous column; "es t" printed with a gap, set as est; dotless i in serviri; "Creatorem. si" lowercase after full stop set as printed; "Quare est enim" set as printed (perhaps for Quale); English follows the intended readings relevat/malle; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes 36-38) at page foot not set

PL 2:471

relucebit, quomodo dictum: Si in mammona injusto fideles non exstitistis, quod verum est quis vobis credet? In nummo scilicet injusto, non in Creatore, quem et Marcion justum facit. Et si in alieno fideles inventi non estis, quod meum est quis dabit vobis? Alienum enim debet esse a servis Dei, quod injustum est. Creator autem, quomodo alienus erat Pharisaeis, proprius Deus Judaicae gentis? Si ergo haec non cadunt in Creatorem, sed in mammonam, quis vobis credet quod verius est? et quis vobis dabit quod meum est? Non potest quasi alius dixisse de alterius Dei gratia. Tunc enim videretur ita dixisse, si eos in Creatorem, non in mammonam infideles notando, per Creatoris mentionem distinctiones fecisset Dei alterius, non commissuri suam veritatem infidelibus Creatoris. Quomodo tunc alterius videri potest, si non ad hoc proponatur, ut a re de qua agitur separetur? Si autem et justificantes se coram hominibus Pharisaei, spem mercedis in homine ponebant, illo eos sensu increpabat, quo et propheta Jeremias (XVII, 5): Miser homo, qui spem habet in homine. Si et adjecit: Scit autem Deus corda vestra; illius Dei vim commemorabat, qui lucernam se pronuntiabat, scrutantem renes et corda. Si superbiam tangit: Quod elatum est apud homines, perosum est Deo, Isaiam (II, 12) ponit ante oculos: Dies enim Domini Sabaoth, in omnem contumeliosum et superbum, in omnem sublimem et elatum; et humiliabuntur. Possum jam colligere, cur tanto aevo Deus Marcionis fuerit in occulto. Exspectabat, opinor, donec haec omnia disceret a Creatore. Didicit ergo usque ad Joannis tempora, atque ita exinde processit annuntiare regnum Dei dicens: Lex et prophetae usque ad Joannem, ex quo regnum Dei annuntiatur. Quasi non et nos limitem quemdam agnoscamus Joannem constitutum inter vetera et nova, ad quem desineret Judaismus, et a quo inciperet Christianismus: non tamen ut ab alia virtute facta sit sedatio Legis et prophetarum, et initiatio Evangelii, in quo est Dei regnum, Christus ipse. Nam etsi probavimus et vetera transitura et nova successura (Isa. XLIII, 19) praedicari a Creatore; si et Joannes antecursor et praeparator ostenditur viarum Domini, Evangelium superducturi, et regnum Dei promulgaturi; et ex hoc jam quod Joannes venit, ipse erit Christus, qui Joannem erat subsecuturus, ut antecursorem; et si desierunt vetera, et coeperunt

will shine forth, as it is said: If you have not been faithful in unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you what is true? In unrighteous money, that is, not in the Creator, whom even Marcion makes just. And if you have not been found faithful in what is another's, who will give you what is mine? For what is unjust must be foreign to the servants of God. But the Creator, how was He foreign to the Pharisees, being the proper God of the Jewish nation? If therefore these things do not fall upon the Creator but upon mammon, who will entrust to you what is truer? and who will give you what is mine? He cannot have spoken as one other [than the Creator] concerning the grace of another God. For then He would seem to have spoken thus, if, by marking them as unfaithful towards the Creator and not towards mammon, He had through the mention of the Creator drawn distinctions on behalf of the other God, as one who would not commit His truth to those unfaithful to the Creator. How then can it seem to belong to another, if it is not put forward for this purpose, that it be separated from the matter under discussion? If, moreover, the Pharisees, justifying themselves before men, placed their hope of reward in man, He rebuked them in that sense in which the prophet Jeremiah also did (Jer. 17:5): Wretched is the man who has hope in man. If He also added: But God knows your hearts, He was recalling the power of that God who declared Himself a lamp, searching the reins and the hearts. If He touches on pride: What is exalted among men is hateful to God, He sets Isaiah (Isa. 2:12) before their eyes: For the day of the Lord Sabaoth [is] upon everyone insolent and proud, upon everyone lofty and exalted; and they shall be humbled. I can now gather why for so long an age the god of Marcion was in hiding. He was waiting, I suppose, until he should learn all these things from the Creator. So he learned until the times of John, and thus from then on he proceeded to announce the kingdom of God, saying: The law and the prophets until John, from whom the kingdom of God is announced. As if we too did not acknowledge John as a certain boundary set between the old and the new, at which Judaism was to cease and from which Christianity was to begin: not, however, so that the bringing to rest of the Law and the prophets, and the inauguration of the Gospel, in which is the kingdom of God, Christ Himself, was effected by another power. For even if we have proved that both the passing away of the old things and the succession of the new are foretold by the Creator (Isa. 43:19); if John too is shown to be the forerunner and preparer of the ways of the Lord, who was to bring in the Gospel and to promulgate the kingdom of God; and from this very fact that John came, He will be the Christ, who was to follow after John as His forerunner; and if the old things have ceased and there have begun

Editors' notes and page, col. 471

Footnotes

(39) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Miser homo qui spem habet, etc. Debuit dicere maledictus, nam Graece est ἐπικατάρατος. LE PR.

Wretched the man who puts his hope, etc. He should have said "cursed", for the Greek is ἐπικατάρατος. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 240)

(40) ‹anchor: usque ad Joannem› · call in col 471

Lex et prophetae usque ad Joannem, etc. Frequentissime hanc scripturam allegavit auctor adv. Marcionem hoc ipso libro, eo quod eam citaret pro se Marcion; sed pulchre deducit, etiam Joannes adventum praedictum a Creatore, tum hic, tum alibi. Quid? quod Epiphanius (confut. 43) inde probet, eumdem esse Deum Creatorem, et Deum Christi, quod nominans legem et prophetas, neque iniquitatem illis adscribens, eidem testimonium praebeat. Atqui Epiphanius magis clare vertit, ex eo tempore, nam Graece apud Lucam est ἀπὸ τότε, et auctor obscurius, ex quo. PAM.

The Law and the prophets until John, etc. The author cited this scripture very often in this very book against Marcion, because Marcion cited it in his own favour; but he finely draws out that the coming of John too was foretold by the Creator, both here and elsewhere. What more? Epiphanius (refutation 43) proves from it that the Creator God and the God of Christ are the same, because in naming the law and the prophets, and ascribing no iniquity to them, he bears witness to them. Yet Epiphanius renders it more clearly, "from that time", for in Luke the Greek is ἀπὸ τότε, and the author more obscurely, ex quo. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 240)

Page

running head: 471 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A relucebit, quomodo dictum; B infidelibus Creatoris. Quomodo tunc alterius videri-; C Marcionis fuerit in occulto. Exspectabat; D Domini, Evangelium superducturi
old-edition numerals: 441 after Possum

PL 2:472

nova interstite Joanne, non erit mirum quod ex dispositione est Creatoris, ut aliunde magis probetur, quam ex Legis et prophetarum in Joannem occasu, et exinde ortu, regnum Dei. Transeat igitur caelum et terra citius, sicut et Lex et prophetae, quam unus apex verborum Domini. Verbum enim, inquit Isaias (XL, 8), Dei nostri manet in aevum. Nam quoniam in Isaia jam tunc Christus, Sermo scilicet et spiritus Creatoris, Joannem praedicarat, vocem clamantis in deserto, parare viam Domini, in hoc venturum ut Legis et prophetarum ordo exinde cessaret, per adimpletionem, non per destructionem, et regnum Dei a Christo annuntiaretur; ideo subtexuit, facilius elementa transitura, quam verba sua, confirmans hoc quoque, quod de Joanne dixerat, non praeteriisse.

new things, with John standing between, it will be no wonder that it is from the disposition of the Creator that the kingdom of God is proved from elsewhere rather than from the setting of the Law and the prophets at John and the rising from then on. Let heaven and earth, then, pass away sooner, as also the Law and the prophets, than one tittle of the words of the Lord. For the word, says Isaiah (Isa. 40:8), of our God abides for ever. For since already then in Isaiah Christ, namely the Word and Spirit of the Creator, had foretold John, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, to prepare the way of the Lord, as coming for this purpose, that the order of the Law and the prophets should cease from then on, through fulfilment, not through destruction, and that the kingdom of God should be announced by Christ; therefore He added that the elements would pass away more easily than His words, confirming this also, that what He had said about John had not passed away.

CAPUT XXXIV.

Chapter XXXIV.

« Sed Christus divortium prohibet, dicens: Qui dimiserit uxorem suam, et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit: qui dimissam a viro duxerit aeque adulter est. Ut sic quoque prohibeat divortium, illicitum facit repudiatae matrimonium. Moyses vero permittit repudium in Deuteronomio (XXIV, 1): Si sumpserit quis uxorem, et habitaverit cum ea, et evenerit non invenire eam apud eum gratiam, eo quod inventum sit in illa impudicum negotium, scribet libellum repudii, et dabit in manu ejus, et dimittet illam de domo sua. Vides diversitatem Legis et Evangelii, Moysi et Christi? » Plane. Non enim recepisti illud quoque Evangelium (Matth. XIX, 8) ejusdem veritatis, et ejusdem Christi, in quo prohibens divortium, propriam quaestionem ejus absolvit: Moyses propter duritiam cordis vestri praecepit libellum repudii dari; a primordio autem non fuit sic, quia scilicet qui marem et feminam fecerat, Erunt duo, dixerat, in carne una; quod Deus itaque junxit, homo disjunxerit? Hoc enim responso, et Moysi constitutionem protexit, ut sui; et Creatoris institutionem direxit, ut Christus ipsius. Sed quatenus ex his revincendus es, quae recepisti, sic tibi occurram, ac si meus Christus. Nonne et ipse prohibens divortium, et patrem tamen gestans eum qui marem et feminan junxit, excusaverit potius quam destruxerit Moysi constitutionem? Sed ecce sic tuus sit iste Christus contrarium docens Moysi et Creatori, ut si non contrarium ostendero, meus sit. Dico

"But Christ forbids divorce, saying: Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery; whoever marries a woman put away by her husband is likewise an adulterer. So that He may forbid divorce in this way too, He makes the marriage of a repudiated woman unlawful. Moses, however, permits repudiation in Deuteronomy (Deut. 24:1): If anyone takes a wife and dwells with her, and it comes about that she does not find favour with him, because some shameful matter has been found in her, he shall write a bill of repudiation, and shall give it into her hand, and shall send her away from his house. Do you see the difference between the Law and the Gospel, between Moses and Christ?" Plainly. For you have not received that Gospel too (Matt. 19:8), of the same truth and of the same Christ, in which, while forbidding divorce, He resolved the question proper to it: Moses because of the hardness of your heart commanded a bill of repudiation to be given; but from the beginning it was not so, because, that is, He Who had made male and female had said, The two shall be in one flesh; what therefore God has joined, shall man have disjoined? For by this answer He both protected the ordinance of Moses, as His own, and directed the institution of the Creator, as being His Christ. But inasmuch as you are to be refuted from those things which you have received, I shall meet you thus, as if your Christ were mine. Did not He too, while forbidding divorce, and yet bearing as Father Him Who joined male and female, excuse rather than destroy the ordinance of Moses? But look, let this Christ of yours be thus, teaching the contrary to Moses and the Creator, on condition that, if I do not show it to be contrary, He is mine. I say

Editors' notes and page, col. 472

Variae lectiones

94 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Estis meum quis Seml.

Semler reads "Estis meum quis".

95 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Autem alio modo Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "Autem alio modo".

96 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Unde Pam. unde unde Lat.

Pamelius reads "Unde"; Latinius "unde unde".

97 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible In carnem unam Fran.

The Franeker edition reads "In carnem unam".

98 ‹anchor: homo disjunxerit› · call in col 472 Non disjungit Fr.

The Franeker edition reads "Non disjungit".

98 [so printed; the call in the text is 99] ‹anchor: patrem tamen gestans› · call in col 472 Testans Lat.

Latinius reads "Testans".

Commentarius

(printed under page 240)

Page

running head: ...M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 472
marginal letters: A ‹runt nova interstite Joanne›; B ‹xerat, non praeteriisse.›; C ‹Evangelii, Moysi et Christi?›; D ‹et feminan junxit, excusaverit›
old-edition numerals: 442 after ‹negotium,›

PL 2:473

enim illum conditionaliter nunc fecisse divortii prohibitionem, si ideo quis dimittat uxorem, ut aliam ducat: Qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem, et aliam duxerit, adulterium commisit, et qui a marito dimissam duxerit, aeque adulter est; ex eadem utique caussa, qua non licet dimitti, ut alia ducatur: illicite enim dimissam pro indimissa ducens, adulter est. Manet enim matrimonium quod non rite diremptum est. Manente matrimonio, nubere adulterium est. Ita si conditionaliter prohibuit dimittere uxorem, non in totum prohibuit; et quod non prohibuit in totum, permisit alias, ubi caussa cessat ob quam prohibuit. Etiam non contrarium Moysi docet, cujus praeceptum alicubi conservat, nondum dico, confirmat. Aut si omnino negas permitti divortium a Christo, quomodo tu nuptias dirimis, nec conjungens marem et feminam, nec alibi conjunctos ad sacramentum baptismatis et Eucharistiae admittens, nisi inter se conjuraverint adversus fructum nuptiarum, ut adversus ipsum Creatorem? Certe quid facit apud te maritus, si uxor ejus commiserit adulterium? habebitne illam? Sed nec tuum apostolum sinere scis conjungi prostitutae membra Christi. Habet itaque et Christum assertorem justitia divortii. Jam hinc confirmatur ab illo Moyses, ex eodem titulo prohibens repudium, quo et Christus, si inventum fuerit in muliere negotium impudicum. Nam et in Evangelio Matthaei (V. 32): Qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem suam praeter causam adulterii, facit eam adulterari; atque ita adulter censetur et ille, qui dimissam a viro duxerit. Caeterum, praeter ex causa adulterii, nec Creator disjungit, quod ipse scilicet conjunxit, eodem alibi Moyse constituente (Deut. XXII, 28) eum qui ex compressione matrimonium fecerat, non posse dimittere uxorem in omne tempus. Quod si ex violentia coactum matrimonium stabit, quanto magis ex convenientia voluntarium? sicut et prophetiae auctoritate (Malach. II, 15): Uxorem juventutis tuae non dimitte. Habes itaque Christum ultro

indeed, that He had now made the prohibition of divorce conditionally, if anyone puts away his wife for this reason, that he may marry another: Whoever has put away, He says, his wife, and has married another, has committed adultery, and whoever has married a woman put away by her husband is likewise an adulterer; for the very same reason, that is, for which it is not lawful for a wife to be put away so that another may be married: for he who marries a woman unlawfully put away as though she were not put away is an adulterer. For a marriage which has not been duly dissolved remains. While the marriage remains, to marry is adultery. Thus, if He prohibited putting away a wife conditionally, He did not prohibit it altogether; and what He did not prohibit altogether, He permitted in other cases, where the cause on account of which He prohibited it ceases. Moreover, He teaches nothing contrary to Moses, whose precept He in some respect preserves, I do not yet say confirms. Or if you deny altogether that divorce is permitted by Christ, how is it that you dissolve marriages, neither joining male and female, nor elsewhere admitting those already joined to the sacrament of baptism and of the Eucharist, unless they have sworn together against the fruit of marriage, as against the Creator Himself? Surely, what does a husband among you do, if his wife has committed adultery? Will he keep her? But you know that not even your apostle allows the members of Christ to be joined to a prostitute. Therefore the justice of divorce has even Christ as its champion. From this already Moses is confirmed by Him, forbidding repudiation on the same ground as Christ does, if some shameful matter has been found in the woman. For in the Gospel of Matthew also (Matt. 5:32): Whoever has put away, He says, his wife except for the cause of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and thus he too is reckoned an adulterer who has married a woman put away by her husband. For the rest, except on account of adultery, the Creator does not part what He Himself, of course, has joined, the same Moses elsewhere ordaining (Deut. 22:28) that he who had made a marriage through violation could not put away his wife for all time. But if a marriage forced by violence will stand, how much more one entered voluntarily by agreement? as also by the authority of prophecy (Mal. 2:15): Do not put away the wife of your youth. You have, therefore, Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 473

Variae lectiones

1 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Dimissam add. Oberth.

Oberthür adds "Dimissam".

2 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Faciet cod. Wouwer.

Wouwer's codex reads "Faciet".

3 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Scis omitt. Rhen.

Rhenanus omits "Scis".

4 ‹anchor: atque ita› · call in col 473 Ita omitt. Seml. aeque ita, Par.

Semler omits "Ita"; the Paris edition reads "aeque ita".

5 ‹anchor: sicut et prophetiae› · call in col 473 Prophetae Lat.

Latinius reads "Prophetae".

6 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Suppararetur Pam.

Pamelius reads "Suppararetur".

7 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Herode omitt. Oberth.

Oberthür omits "Herode".

8 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Figura Pam. fulgara, Ciaccon.

Pamelius reads "Figura"; Ciacconius "fulgara".

9 ‹anchor: proficiet etiam› · call in col 474 Ad inser. Seml.

Semler inserts "Ad".

10 ‹anchor: et suggillatui› · call in col 474 Suggillati Pam.

Pamelius reads "Suggillati".

11 ‹anchor: Herodis male meritati› · call in col 474 Maritati Par. irritati, Jun.

The Paris edition reads "Maritati"; Junius "irritati".

Commentarius

(printed under page 241)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Et quod non prohibuit in totum, permisit. Aliud est ubi caussa cessat. In exemplari legitur: « in totum permisit. Alia subjici caussa cessat » Ex cujus scripturae vestigiis sic emendari debere hunc locum arbitramur: « Et quod non prohibuit in totum, permisit alias, ubi caussa cessat ob quam prohibuit. » RIG.

And what he did not forbid altogether, he permitted. It is otherwise where the cause ceases. The copy reads: "in totum permisit. Alia subjici caussa cessat." From the traces of this writing we judge that the passage ought to be emended thus: "And what he did not forbid altogether, he permitted at other times, where the cause for which he forbade it ceases." RIGAULT.

(printed under page 241)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Adversus fructum nuptiarum. Quod nempe, cap. 23, fructum connubii dixit, hoc est liberorum procreationem. De his nos alibi. LE PR.

Against the fruit of marriage. That is, what he called the fruit of wedlock in chapter 23, namely the begetting of children. On these we speak elsewhere. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 241)

(43) ‹anchor: assertorem justitia divortii› · call in col 473

Justitia divortii. Hic videtur illorum favere sententiae, qui etsi per se mala res esset divortium, tamen ex quo per Moysen permissum fuit, justum atque licitum fuisse volunt. Verum si sequentia diligenter inspiciantur, illud solum intelligitur permissum, si inventum fuerit in muliere negotium impudicum, pro quo facit etiam prophetia Malachiae II, quam mox citat juxta LXX: Uxorem juventutis tuae non dimittes. Cui addi potest, quod ibidem subjungit propheta: Sed si odio habens dimiseris eam, dicit Dominus Deus Israel, operiet impietas cogitationes tuas. PAM.

The justice of divorce. Here he seems to favour the opinion of those who hold that, although divorce was a bad thing in itself, yet from the time it was permitted through Moses it was just and lawful. But if what follows is examined carefully, only this is understood to be permitted: if a shameful thing has been found in the woman; and in support of this is the prophecy of Malachi II, which he presently cites according to the Seventy: You shall not put away the wife of your youth. To which may be added what the prophet subjoins in the same place: But if, hating her, you put her away, says the Lord God of Israel, ungodliness shall cover your thoughts. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 241)

(44) ‹anchor: matrimonium fecerat› · call in col 473

Qui ex compressione matrimonium fecerat. Vim illatam aut stuprum innuit, in quibus seu adulter seu impurus homo βιάζεται τὴν θήλειαν. Le PR.

Who had made a marriage by ravishment. He hints at violence done, or seduction, in which the adulterer or the impure man βιάζεται τὴν θήλειαν, "forces the woman". LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 241)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Quam si frater illiberis. Quod Graecis est ἄπαις. Le PR.

Than if the brother were childless. Which in Greek is ἄπαις. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 241)

Page

running head: 473 LIB. IV ADV. MARCI[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A enim illum conditionaliter nunc fecisse divortii pro-; B Christo, quomodo tu nuptias dirimis, nec conjun-; C ter causam adulterii, facit eam adulterari; at-; D (41) Et quod non prohibuit in totum, permisit. (in the Commentarius, not in the text)
old-edition numerals: 443 after hinc
other: the word ultro was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 474

PL 2:474

vestigia ubique Creatoris ineuntem, tam in permittendo repudio, quam in prohibendo. Habes etiam nuptiarum quoquo velis prospectorem, quas nec separari vult, prohibendo repudium; nec cum macula haberi, tunc permittendo divortium. Erubesce non conjungens, quos tuus quoque Christus conjunxit. Erubesce etiam disjungens sine eo merito, quo disjungi voluit et tuus Christus. Debeo nunc et illud ostendere, unde hanc sententiam deduxerit Dominus, quove direxerit. Ita enim plenius constabit, eum non ad Moysen destruendum spectasse per repudii propositionem subito interpositam; quia nec subito interposita est, habens radicem ex eadem Joannis mentione. Joannes enim retundens Herodem, quod adversus legem uxorem fratris sui defuncti duxisset, habentis filiam ex illa (non alias hoc permittente, imo et praecipiente lege (Deut. XXV), quam si frater illiberis decesserit, ut a fratre ipsius et ex costa ipsius supparetur semen illi conjectus in carcerem fuerat, ab eodem Herode postmodum et occisus. Facta igitur mentione Joannis, et utique successus exitus ejus, illicitorum matrimoniorum et adulterii figuras jaculatus est in Herodem; adulterum pronuntians etiam qui dimissam a viro duxerit; quo magis impietatem Herodis oneraret, qui non minus morte quam repudio dimissam a viro duxerat; et hoc fratre habente ex illa filiam, et vel eo nomine illicite; ex libidinis, non ex legis instinctu; ac propterea propheten quoque assertorem legis occiderat. Hoc mihi disseruisse proficiet etiam subsequens argumentum divitis apud inferos dolentis, et pauperis in sinu Abrahae requiescentis. Nam et illud, quantum ad Scripturae superficiem, subito propositum est, quantum ad intentionem sensus, et ipsum cohaeret mentioni Joannis male tractati, et suggillatui Herodis male meritati, utriusque exitum deformans, Herodis tormenta, et Joannis refrigeria; ut jam audiret Herodes: Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, illos audiant.

treading everywhere in the footsteps of the Creator, as much in permitting divorce as in prohibiting it. You have, too, a guardian of marriages whichever way you wish: one who does not want them to be separated, in prohibiting divorce, nor to be kept with a stain, in then permitting divorce. Blush for not joining those whom your Christ also joined. Blush also for separating them without that merit on account of which your Christ too willed them to be separated. I ought now to show this as well: whence the Lord drew this sentence, or towards what He directed it. For thus it will be more fully established that He did not aim at the destruction of Moses by the proposition about divorce suddenly interposed; because it was not suddenly interposed either, having its root in that same mention of John. For John, rebuking Herod because, against the law, he had married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (the law not permitting this otherwise, indeed even commanding it (Deut. 25), than if the brother should have died childless, so that by his brother and from his own rib seed might be supplied to him, had been cast into prison, and was afterwards also killed by the same Herod. Having therefore made mention of John, and indeed of the outcome of his end, He hurled the figures of unlawful marriages and of adultery at Herod, pronouncing an adulterer even him who should marry a woman dismissed by her husband, so that He might the more weigh down the impiety of Herod, who had married a woman dismissed by her husband no less by death than by divorce, and that when the brother had a daughter by her, and on that ground too unlawfully, from the impulse of lust, not of the law; and for this reason he had also killed the prophet, the champion of the law. To have discussed this will benefit the following argument too, about the rich man suffering in the underworld and the poor man resting in the bosom of Abraham. For that too, as far as the surface of Scripture is concerned, is suddenly put forward; as far as the intention of the sense is concerned, it too coheres with the mention of John ill treated and the rebuke of Herod ill deserving, depicting the end of each, the torments of Herod and the refreshment of John, so that Herod might now hear: They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.

Editors' notes and page, col. 474

Footnotes

(46) ‹anchor: Moysen et prophetas› · call in col 474

Habent illic Moysen et prophetas. Addidit auctor, illic, ad majorem emphasin, nempe in synagoga Judaeorum; nam neque etiam Graece, Syriace aut Latine legitur, neque etiam apud Epiphanium qui (confut. 46) etiam istud adversus Marcionem retorquet, Moysen et prophetas impugnantem. PAM.

They have Moses and the prophets there. The author added illic, "there", for greater emphasis, namely in the synagogue of the Jews; for it is read neither in the Greek, nor the Syriac, nor the Latin, nor in Epiphanius either, who (refutation 46) also turns this back against Marcion, the assailant of Moses and the prophets. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 241)

Page

running head: IV ADV. MARCIONEM. 474
marginal letters: A ‹tro vestigia ubique Creatoris›; B ‹sui defuncti duxisset›; C ‹ac propterea propheten›; D ‹mox citat juxta LXX (in the Commentarius at page foot)›
old-edition numerals: 444 after ‹habente›

PL 2:475

Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, scilicet utramque mercedem Creatoris, sive tormenti, sive refrigerii apud inferos, determinat eis positam qui Legi et prophetis obedierint, Christi vero et Dei sui coelestem definit sinum et portum. Respondebimus, et hac ipsa scriptura revincente oculos ejus, quae ab inferis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperi. Aliud enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Nam et magnum ait intercedere regiones istas profundum, et transitum utrinque prohibere. Sed nec allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando Elysios audierit, esse aliquam localem determinationem, quae sinus dicta sit Abrahae, ad recipiendas animas filiorum ejus, etiam ex nationibus, patris scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahae censum deputandarum, et ex eadem fide, qua et Abraham Deo credidit, nullo sub jugo legis, nec in signo circumcisionis. Eam itaque regionem, sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non coelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram animabus justorum, donec consummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat; tunc apparitura coelesti promissione quam Marcion suo vindicat, quasi non a Creatore promulgatam. Ad quam ascensum suum Christus aedificat in coelum, secundum Amos (IX,6); utique suis, ubi est et locus aeternus, de quo Isaias (XXXIII, 14): Quis annuntiabit vobis locum aeternum, nisi scilicet Christus incedens in justitia, loquens viam rectam, odio habens injustitiam et iniquitatem? Quod si aeternus locus repromittitur, et ascensus in coelum aedificatur a Creatore, promittente etiam semen Abrahae velut stellas coeli futurum, utique ob coelestem promissionem, salva ea promissione, cur non cupiat sinum Abrahae dici temporale aliquod animarum fidelium receptaculum, in quo jam delineetur futuri imago, ac candida quaedam utriusque judicii prospiciatur? Admonens quoque vos haereticos, dum in vita estis, Moysen et prophetas unum Deum praedicantes Creatorem, et unum Christum praedicantes ejus, et utrumque judicium, poenae et salutis aeternae, apud unicum Deum positum, qui occidat et vivificet. Imo, inquit, nostri Dei monela de coelo non Moysen et propheta jussit audiri sed Christum: Hunc audite. Merito. Tunc enim apostoli satis jam audierant Moysen et prophetas, qui secuti erant Christum, credendo

But Marcion forces it in another direction, namely he determines that each reward of the Creator, whether of torment or of refreshment, is placed in the underworld for those who have obeyed the Law and the prophets, but defines the heavenly bosom and haven as belonging to Christ and to his own god. We shall reply, with this very scripture refuting his eyes, which distinguishes the bosom of Abraham for the poor man from the underworld. For the underworld, I think, is one thing, and the bosom of Abraham another. For it says too that a great gulf lies between those regions, and prevents crossing from either side. Nor would the rich man have lifted up his eyes, and that from afar, across that immense distance of height and depth. Hence it is apparent to any wise man who has ever heard of the Elysian fields that there is some local demarcation, which is called the bosom of Abraham, for receiving the souls of his sons, even from the nations, of him, that is, who is the father of many nations that were to be reckoned into the census of Abraham, and from the same faith by which Abraham too believed God, under no yoke of the law, nor in the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I mean the bosom of Abraham, though not heavenly, yet higher than the underworld, is to afford refreshment meanwhile to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of things completes the resurrection of all with the fullness of reward; then the heavenly promise will appear, which Marcion claims for his own [god], as though it had not been promulgated by the Creator. To this [promise] Christ builds His ascent into heaven, according to Amos (Amos 9:6); surely for His own, where there is also the eternal place, of which Isaiah [says] (Isa. 33:14): Who will announce to you the eternal place, if not, of course, Christ walking in righteousness, speaking the right way, holding injustice and iniquity in hatred? But if an eternal place is promised, and an ascent into heaven is built by the Creator, Who also promises that the seed of Abraham shall be as the stars of heaven, surely on account of the heavenly promise, why, with that promise kept safe, should it not be admissible that the bosom of Abraham be called some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, in which an image of the future is already sketched, and a certain bright foreview of both judgements is seen? Admonishing you heretics also, while you are in life, [to hear] Moses and the prophets, who preach one God the Creator, and preach one Christ as His, and both judgements, of eternal punishment and of eternal salvation, as placed with the one only God, Who kills and makes alive. Nay, he says, the voice of our God from heaven commanded that not Moses and the prophets be heard, but Christ: Hear Him. Rightly. For then the apostles had already heard Moses and the prophets sufficiently, who had followed Christ by believing

Editors' notes and page, col. 475

Variae lectiones

12 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Ut inser. Oberth.

Oberthür inserts "Ut".

13 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Determinet Seml.

Semler reads "Determinet".

14 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Definiat Seml.

Semler reads "Definiat".

15 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Ad inferos Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Ad inferos".

16 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Inter Seml.

Semler reads "Inter".

17 ‹anchor: Marcion suo› · call in col 475 Christo add. Ciaccon.

Ciacconius adds "Christo".

18 ‹anchor: imago, ac› · call in col 475 Et Lat.

Latinius reads "Et".

19 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Coepisset Petrus Ciaccon.

Ciacconius reads "Coepisset Petrus".

20 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Sterquiliniis Pam.

Pamelius reads "Sterquiliniis".

21 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Expedisset Par.

The Paris edition reads "Expedisset".

22 ‹anchor: comminetur illi› · call in col 476 Ille Lat.

Latinius reads "Ille".

23 ‹anchor: traductione traducens› · call in col 476 Non traduces Seml. non abest Pam.

Semler reads "Non traduces"; in Pamelius "non" is absent.

24 ‹anchor: reducas fratri tuo› · call in col 476 Tuo omitt. Oberth.

Oberthür omits "Tuo".

25 ‹anchor: Nec› · call in col 476 Ne Venet.

The Venice edition reads "Ne".

Commentarius

(printed under page 242)

(47) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Nam et magnum ait intercedere regiones istas profundum, χάσμα; quod alii dixere chaos. RIG.

For he says that a great deep lies between those regions, χάσμα, "a chasm"; which others have called chaos. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 242)

(48) ‹anchor: sinum Abrahae dici› · call in col 475

Cur non capiat sinum Abrahae dici. hoc verbum in superioribus saepe jam nobis occurrit. Sensus hic est: Cur non possit dici sinus Abrahae, templ. etc. sic in de Resurr. carnis: Terram sanctam, paradisum, quam et patrum dici capiat. RHEN.

Why it should not admit of being called Abraham's bosom. This word has often met us already in the earlier pages. The sense here is: Why it cannot be called Abraham's bosom, "temp[or]al" etc. So in On the Resurrection of the Flesh: The holy land, paradise, which also admits of being called the fathers'. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 242)

(49) ‹anchor: utriusque judicii› · call in col 475

Ac candida quaedam utriusque judicii. Candida pro spe et exspectatione. Vestis erat petitorum, ut supra annotavimus. RHEN.

And a certain white robe of either judgement. "White" stands for hope and expectation. It was the garment of candidates, as we noted above. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 242)

Page

running head: 475 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS, II. —
marginal letters: A Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit; B recipiendas animas filiorum ejus; C scilicet Christus incedens in justitia; D situm, qui occidat et vivificet
old-edition numerals: 445 after utique

PL 2:476

Moysi et prophetis. Nec enim accepisset Petrus dicere : Tu es Christus, antequam audivisset et credidisset Moysi et prophetis, a quibus solis adhuc Christus annuntiabatur. Haec igitur fides eorum meruerat, ut etiam voce coelesti confirmaretur, jubente illum audiri, quem ergo agnoverant, evangelizantem pacem, evangelizantem bona, annuntiantem locum aeternum, aedificantem illis ascensum suum in coelum (Isa. LII, 7 ; XXXIII, 14 ; Amos IX, 6). Apud inferos autem de eis dictum est : Habent illic et prophetas, audiant illos (Luc. XVI, 29) ; qui non credebant, vel qui nec omnino sic credebant esse post mortem superbiae divitiarum, et gloriae deliciarum supplicia annuntiata a Moyse et prophetis : decreta autem ab eo Deo, qui (Psal. CXII, 6) de thronis deponit dynastas, et de sterculinis elevat inopes. Ita cum utrinque pronuntiationis diversitas competat Creatori, non erit divinitatum statuenda distantia, sed ipsarum materiarum.

Moses and the prophets. For Peter would not have been granted to say, Thou art the Christ, before he had heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ was until then proclaimed. This faith of theirs, then, had deserved to be confirmed even by a heavenly voice, commanding that He be heard Whom they had therefore recognized as preaching peace, preaching good things, proclaiming an eternal place, building for them His ascent into heaven (Isa. 52:7; 33:14; Amos 9:6). But of them it was said in the underworld: They have there also the prophets, let them hear them (Luke 16:29); [said of those] who did not believe, or who did not at all believe in this way, that there are after death punishments for the pride of riches and the glory of delights, announced by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God Who (Ps. 112:6) puts down potentates from thrones and raises up the needy from dunghills. Thus, since the diversity of pronouncement on both sides befits the Creator, a distinction is to be drawn not of deities but of the subject-matters themselves.

CAPUT XXV.

Chapter XXV.

Conversus ibidem ad discipulos (Luc. XVII), vae dicit auctori scandalorum : expedisse ei si natus non fuisset, aut si molino saxo ad collum deligato praecipitatus esset in profundum, quam unum ex illis modicis, utique discipulis ejus, scandalizasset. Aestima quale supplicium comminetur illi. Nec enim alius ulciscetur scandalum discipulorum ejus. Agnosce igitur et judicem, et illo affectu pronuntiantem de cura suorum, quo et Creator retro (Zach. II, 8) : Qui tetigerit vos, ac si pupillam oculi mei tangat. Idem sensus ejusdem est : peccantem fratrem jubet corripi ; quod qui non fecerit, utique deliquit, aut ex odio volens fratrem in delicto perseverare, aut ex acceptione personae parcens ei ; habens Leviticum (XIX, 17) : Non odies fratrem tuum in animo tuo, traductione traducens proximum tuum ; utique et fratrem ; et non sumes propter illum delictum. Nec mirum, si ita docet qui pecora quoque fratris tui, errantia in via inveneris, prohibet despicias (Exod. XXIII, 4), quo minus ea reducas fratri tuo ; nedum ipsum sibi. Sed et veniam des fratri in te delinquenti jubet, etiam septies. Parum plane. Plus est enim apud Creatorem, qui nec modum statuit, in infinitum pronuntians (Levit, XIX, 18) : Fratris malitiae memor ne sis. Nec petenti eam praestes mandat, sed et non petenti. Non enim dones offensam vult, sed obliviscaris. Lex leprosorum (Levit. XIII ; XIV)

Turning in the same place to the disciples (Luke 17), He pronounces woe on the author of offences: that it would have been better for him if he had not been born, or if, with a millstone tied to his neck, he had been cast headlong into the deep, than that he should have offended one of those little ones, namely His disciples. Consider what punishment He threatens him with. For no other will avenge the offence done to His disciples. Recognize, then, both the Judge, and Him pronouncing on the care of His own with that same affection with which the Creator also of old [said] (Zech. 2:8): He who touches you, it is as though he touched the pupil of My eye. The same mind is His: He commands that a sinning brother be rebuked; and he who has not done this has certainly done wrong, either out of hatred wishing his brother to persist in his fault, or sparing him out of respect of persons; having Leviticus (19:17): You shall not hate your brother in your heart; with rebuke you shall rebuke your neighbour; that is, your brother also; and you shall not incur sin on his account. Nor is it a wonder if He teaches so Who forbids you to disregard even your brother's cattle, if you find them straying on the road (Exod. 23:4), so as not to bring them back to your brother; much less, then, [may you neglect to bring back] the man himself to himself. But He also commands that you grant pardon to a brother who sins against you, even seven times. Too little, plainly. For there is more with the Creator, Who sets no limit at all, pronouncing without end (Lev. 19:18): Be not mindful of your brother's malice. He commands that you grant it not only to one who asks but also to one who does not ask. For He wishes not that you forgive the offence but that you forget it. As for the law of lepers (Lev. 13; 14),

Editors' notes and page, col. 476

Page

running head: [left edge cut] M PARS, II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 476
marginal letters: A Moysi et prophetis. Nec enim accepisset; B 6) de thronis deponit dynastas; C 446 (Zach. II, 8) : Qui tetigerit vos; D Creatorem, qui nec modum statuit
old-edition numerals: 446 after retro
other: left-column fragments (col. 475, with old numeral 445) not set; Variae lectiones and Commentarius at page foot are editors' apparatus, not set; their full-width headings cut at left edge; "coelesti"/"coelum" read as œ; "peccantem" type faint; "(Levit, XIX, 18)" comma as printed; column ends mid-sentence

PL 2:477

quantae sit interpretationis erga species ipsius vitii, et inspectationis summi sacerdotis, nostrum erit scire; Marcionis, morositatem legis opponere, ut et hic Christum aemulum ejus affirmet praevenientem solemnia legis etiam in curatione decem leprosorum, quos tantummodo ire jussos ut se ostenderent sacerdotibus (Luc. XVII), in itinere purgavit, sine tactu jam et sine verbo, tacita potestate, et sola voluntate; quasi necesse sit, semel remediatore languorum et vitiorum annuntiato et de effectibus probato, de qualitatibus curationum retractari: aut Creatorem in Christo ad legem provocari: si quid aliter quam lege distinxit, ipse perfecit: cum aliter utique Dominus per semetipsum operetur, sive per Filium, aliter per prophetas famulos suos maximae documenta virtutis et potestatis; quae ut clariora et validiora, qua propria, distare a vicariis fas est. Sed ejusmodi et alibi jam dicta sunt, in documento superiori. Nunc etsi praefatus est, multos tunc fuisse leprosos apud Israelem in diebus Helisaei prophetae, et neminem eorum purgatum nisi Naaman Syrum (Luc. IV, 27): non utique numerus faciet ad differentiam deorum, in destructionem Creatoris, unum remediantis, et praelationem ejus qui decem emundarit. Quis enim dubitabit plures potuisse curari ab eo, qui unum curasset, quam ab illo decem, qui nunquam retro unum? Sed hac cum maxime pronuntiatione diffidentiam Israelis vel superbiam pulsat; quod cum multi essent illic leprosi, et prophetes non deesset, etiam edito documento, nemo decucurrisset ad Deum operantem in prophetis. Igitur, quoniam ipse erat authenticus pontifex Dei Patris, inspexit illos secundum legis arcanum, significantis Christum esse verum disceptatorem et eliminatorem humanaram macularum. Sed et quod in manifesto fuit legis, praecipit: Ite, ostendite vos sacerdotibus. Cur, si illos ante erat emundaturus? An quasi legis illusor, ut in itinere curatis ostenderet, nihil esse legem cum ipsis sacerdotibus? Et utique viderit, si cui tam opiniosus videbitur Christus. Imo digniora sunt interpretanda, et fidei justiora. Ideo illos remediatos, qua secundum legem jussi abire ad sacerdotes, obaudierant: neque enim credibile est, emeruisse medicinam a destructore legis observatores legis. Sed cur pristino leproso nihil tale praecepit? Quia nec Elisaeus Syro Naaman; et tamen non idcirco non erat

how much interpretation it involves regarding the kinds of that disease itself and the inspection by the high priest, it will be for us to know; it is for Marcion to oppose the strictness of the law, so that here too he may affirm that Christ was its rival, anticipating the solemn rites of the law even in the healing of the ten lepers, whom, having merely ordered them to go and show themselves to the priests (Luke 17), He cleansed on the way, now without touch and without word, by silent power and by will alone; as if it were necessary, once a healer of sicknesses and diseases has been announced and proved by His effects, to reconsider the manner of His cures: or as if the Creator in Christ were being challenged by the law, if He Himself accomplished anything otherwise than He had laid down by the law: since surely the Lord works the proofs of His supreme power and might in one way through Himself, or through the Son, and in another through the prophets His servants; and it is right that these, as clearer and stronger, being His own, should differ from those done by deputies. But things of this kind have already been said elsewhere too, in an earlier proof. Now although He said beforehand that there were many lepers then among Israel in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:27), surely number will not make for a difference of gods, to the destruction of the Creator, who healed one, and to the preference of him who cleansed ten. For who will doubt that more could have been cured by Him who had cured one than ten by that other, who never before [cured] one? But by this very pronouncement He strikes at the distrust or the pride of Israel, in that, though there were many lepers there, and a prophet was not lacking, even when a proof had been given, no one had hastened to God working in the prophets. Therefore, since He Himself was the authentic high priest of God the Father, He inspected them according to the secret meaning of the law, which signified that Christ is the true discerner and remover of human stains. But He also commands what was manifest in the law: Go, show yourselves to the priests. Why, if He was going to cleanse them beforehand? Or was it as a mocker of the law, so that, by curing them on the way, He might show that the law, together with its very priests, is nothing? Well, let him see to it, to whom Christ will seem so self-opinionated. Rather, worthier meanings are to be drawn, and ones more consistent with faith. They were healed, therefore, because, having been ordered according to the law to go away to the priests, they had obeyed: for it is not credible that observers of the law earned healing from a destroyer of the law. But why did He command nothing of the kind to the earlier leper? Because neither did Elisha to Naaman the Syrian; and yet it was not for that reason not

Editors' notes and page, col. 477

Variae lectiones

26 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Alter uti Dominus sive Lat.

Latinius reads "Alter uti Dominus sive".

27 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Maxime Rig.

Rigault reads "Maxime".

28 ‹anchor: non utique› · call in col 477 Et add. Seml.

Semler adds "Et".

29 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Novem Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Novem".

30 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Ne Seml.

Semler reads "Ne".

31 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Isaiam Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "Isaiam".

32 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Confident Venet.

The Venice edition reads "Confident".

33 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Samaritanae Venet.

The Venice edition reads "Samaritanae".

34 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Legem illos Seml.

Semler reads "Legem illos".

35 ‹anchor: illum solutum› · call in col 478 Solum Wouwer.

Wouwer reads "Solum".

Commentarius

(printed under page 243)

(50) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Qui confiderent in monte Samariae. Historiam illius schismatis supra attigit, in quo Hieroboam decem tribus ab aliis avulsas Samariam deduxit, ubi rex creatus est. Reliquae duae, nempe Judae et Benjamin, sub Roboamo permanserunt. Id refertur III Reg. LE PR.

Who trusted in the mountain of Samaria. He touched above on the history of that schism, in which Jeroboam led the ten tribes, torn away from the others, to Samaria, where he was made king. The remaining two, namely Judah and Benjamin, stayed under Rehoboam. It is related in III Kings. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 243)

Page

running head: 477 LIB. IV ADV. MARCI (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A quantae sit interpretationis; B per Filium, aliter per prophetas; C tiatione diffidentiam Israelis; D gem jussi abire ad sacerdotes
old-edition numerals: 117 after Igitur, (bold numeral partly unclear)

PL 2:478

Creatoris. Satis respondi; sed qui credidit, intelligit etiam altius aliquid. Disce igitur et causas. In Samariae regionibus res agebatur, unde erat et unus interim ex leprosis. Samaria autem desciverat ab Israele, habens schisma illud ex decem tribubus, quas avulsas per Achiam prophetam, collocaverat apud Samariam Jeroboam (III Reg. XI et XVI). Sed et alias semper sibi placentes erant Samaritani de montibus et puteis patrum; sicut in Evangelio Joannis (cap. IV) Samaritana illa in colloquio Domini apud puteum: Nae tu major sis, et caetera. Et rursus: Patres nostri in isto monte adoraverunt, et vos dicitis quia Hierosolymis oportet adorare. Itaque, qui et per Amos (VI, 1); vae dixerit eis, qui confiderent in monte Samariae, jam et ipsam restituere dignatus, de industria, jubet ostendere se sacerdotibus, utique qui non erant nisi ubi et templum; subjiciens Samaritam Judaeo, quoniam ex Judaeis salus Israelitae et Samaritae. Tota enim promissio tribui Judae Christus fuit; ut scirent Hierosolymis esse et sacerdotes et templum. et matricem religionis, et fontem, non puteum, salutis. Et ideo, ut vidit agnovisse illos legem, Hierosolymis expungendam, ex fide jam justificandos sine legis ordine remediavit. Unde et unum illum solutum ex decem, memorem divinae gratiae Samariten miratus, non mandat offerre munus ex lege; quia satis jam obtulerat, gloriam Deo reddens, hoc et Domino volente interpretari legem. Et tamen cui Deo gratiam reddidit Samarites, quando nec Israelites alium Deum usque adhuc didicisset? Cui alii, quam cui omnes remediati retro a Christo? Ideo Fides, tua te salvum fecit, audit; quia intellexerat veram se Deo omnipotenti oblationem, apud verum templum et verum pontificem ejus Christum facere debere. Sed nec Pharisaei possunt videri de alterius Dei regno consuluisse Dominum, quando venturum sit, quamdiu alius a Christo editus Deus non erat, nec ille de alterius regno respondisse, quam de cujus consulebatur. Non venit, inquit, regnum Dei cum observatione; nec dicunt, Ecce hic, ecce illic, Ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est (Luc. XVII, 20. 21). Quis non ita interpretabitur, intra vos est, id est in manu, in potestate vestra, si audiatis, si faciatis Dei praeceptum? Quod si in praecepto est Dei regnum, propone igitur contra, secundum nostras antitheses, Moysen, et una sententia est. Praeceptum, inquit (Deut. XXX. 11-14), excelsum non est, nec longe a te. Non est in caelo,

of the Creator. I have answered sufficiently; but he who has believed understands also something deeper. Learn therefore the reasons as well. The matter was taking place in the regions of Samaria, from where, as it happened, one of the lepers also came. Now Samaria had revolted from Israel, holding that schism from the ten tribes which, torn away through Achiam the prophet, Jeroboam had settled at Samaria (1 Kgs. 11 and 16). Moreover, the Samaritans were in other respects always pleased with themselves about the mountains and wells of their fathers; as in the Gospel of John (ch. 4) that Samaritan woman, in the conversation of the Lord at the well: Surely you are not greater, and the rest. And again: Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and you say that it is necessary to worship at Jerusalem. Accordingly He who also through Amos (Amos 6:1) had said: Woe to those who trusted in the mountain of Samaria, now deigning to restore even her, purposely orders them to show themselves to the priests, who assuredly were nowhere except where the temple also was; subjecting the Samaritan to the Jew, since salvation for both Israelite and Samaritan was from the Jews. For the whole promise to the tribe of Judah was Christ; that they might know that at Jerusalem were both the priests and the temple. and the womb of religion, and the fountain, not the well, of salvation. And therefore, when He saw that they had acknowledged the law, which was to be discharged at Jerusalem, He healed them, who were now to be justified by faith without the order of the law. Hence also, marvelling at that one released out of the ten, the Samaritan mindful of the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law; because he had already offered enough in giving glory to God, the Lord also wishing the law to be interpreted thus. And yet to which God did the Samaritan give thanks, when not even an Israelite had until then learned of another God? To which other than to Him to Whom all who had formerly been healed by Christ [gave thanks]? Therefore he hears: Your faith has saved you; because he had understood that he ought to make the true offering to God almighty at the true temple and through His true high priest, Christ. But neither can the Pharisees be seen to have consulted the Lord about the kingdom of another God, when it would come, so long as no other God had been put forth by Christ; nor can He be seen to have answered about the kingdom of another than Him about Whose kingdom He was consulted. The kingdom of God, He says, does not come with observation; nor do they say, Behold here, behold there; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20–21). Who will not interpret it thus: is within you, that is, in your hand, in your power, if you hear, if you do the precept of God? But if the kingdom of God lies in the precept, set Moses against it, then, according to our antitheses, and the sense is one. The precept, he says (Deut. 30:11–14), is not lofty, nor far from you. It is not in heaven,

Editors' notes and page, col. 478

Footnotes

(51) ‹anchor: nostras antitheses› · call in col 478

Secundum nostras antitheses. Antitheses compegerat Marcion in quibus legem Mosis Evangelio opponebat. Tertullianus alias antitheses iis opposuit, in quibus legem veterem cum nova conciliabat. LE PR.

According to our antitheses. Marcion had put together Antitheses in which he set the law of Moses against the Gospel. Tertullian set other antitheses against them, in which he reconciled the old law with the new. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 243)

Page

running head: IV ADV. MARCIONEM 478
marginal letters: A Creatoris. Satis respondi; B jam et ipsam restituere; C cui Deo gratiam reddidit; D audiatis, si faciatis
old-edition numerals: 448 after Fides,

PL 2:479

ut dicas : Quis ascendet in caelum, et deponet nobis illud et auditum illud faciemus? nec ultra mare est, ut dicas : Quis transfretabit et sumet illud nobis, et auditum illud faciemus? Prope te est verbum, in ore tuo, et in corde tuo, et in manibus tuis facere illud. Hoc erit. Non hic, nec illic; ecce enim intra vos est regnum Dei. Et ne argumentetur audacia haeretica, de regno Creatoris, de quo consulebatur, non de suo respondisse eis Dominum, sequentia obsistunt. Dicens enim Filium hominis ante multa pati, et reprobari oportere, ante adventum suum, in quo et regnum substantialiter revelabitur, suum ostendit et regnum de quo responderat, quod passiones et reprobationes ipsius expectabat. Reprobari autem habens et postea agnosci et assumi et extolli, etiam ipsum verbum reprobari inde decerpsit, ubi in lapidis aenigmate utraque revelatio ejus apud David (Psal. CXVII, 21) canebatur prima recusabilis, secunda honorabilis : Lapis, inquit quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, iste factus est in caput anguli. A Domino factum est hoc. Vanum enim, si credidimus Deum de contumelia aut gloria scilicet alicujus praedicasse, ut non eum portenderet, quem et in lapidis, et in petrae, et in montis figura (Isa. VIII, 4) portenderet. Sed si de suo loquitur adventu, cur cum diebus Noe et Loth comparat tetris et atrocibus Deus et lenis et mitis? Cur admonet meminisse uxoris Loth, quae praeceptum Creatoris non impune contempsit, si non cum judicio venit vindicandorum praeceptorum suorum? Etiam si vindicat ut et ille, si judicat me, non debuit per ejus documenta formare quem destruit, ne ille me formare videatur. Si vero et hic non de suo loquitur, adventu, sed de Judaei Christi, exspectemus etiam nunc ne quid de suo praedicet, illum interim esse credentes, quem omni loco praedicat.

that you should say: Who will ascend into heaven, and bring it down to us, and we shall hear it and do it? nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say: Who will cross over and take it for us, and we shall hear it and do it? The word is near you, in your mouth, and in your heart, and in your hands to do it. This it will be. Not here, nor there; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you. And lest heretical audacity argue that the Lord answered them concerning the kingdom of the Creator, about which He was being consulted, and not concerning His own, what follows stands in the way. For in saying that the Son of Man must first suffer many things and be rejected, before His coming, in which the kingdom also will be substantially revealed, He showed that the kingdom about which He had answered was also His own, since it was awaiting His sufferings and rejections. And since He was to be rejected and afterwards acknowledged and taken up and exalted, He plucked even the very word 'rejected' from the place where, in the riddle of the stone, both manifestations of Him were sung by David (Ps. 117:21), the first to be refused, the second to be honoured: The stone, he says, which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner. This was done by the Lord. For it is vain, if we have believed that God foretold the dishonour or glory of just anyone, so as not to be pointing to Him Whom He pointed to in the figure of the stone, and of the rock, and of the mountain (Isa. 8:4). But if He speaks of His own coming, why does He, a God both gentle and mild, compare it with the days of Noah and Lot, foul and atrocious as they were? Why does He warn us to remember Lot's wife, who did not despise the Creator's precept with impunity, if He does not come with judgement to avenge His own precepts? Even if He avenges as the other also does, if He judges me, He ought not to have formed me by the lessons of one whom He destroys, lest that one should seem to be forming me. But if here too He is speaking not of His own coming but of that of the Jews' Christ, let us wait even now for Him to preach something of His own, believing meanwhile that He is the one Whom He preaches in every place.

CAPUT XXXVI.

Chapter XXXVI.

Nam et orandi perseverantiam et instantiam (Luc. XVIII) mandans, parabolam judicis ponit, coacti audire viduam, instantia et perseverantia interpellationum ejus. Ergo judicem Deum ostendit orandum non se, si non ipse est judex. Sed subjunxit, facturum Deum vindictam electorum suorum. Si ergo ipse erit judex, qui et vindex. Creatorem ergo meliorem Deum probavit, quem electorum suorum clamantium ad eum die ac nocte vindicem ostendit. Et tamen, cum templum Creatoris inducit, et duos adorantes diversa mente describit Pharisaeum in superbia, Publicanum in humilitate, ideoque alterum reprobatum, alterum justificatum descendisse (Luc. XVIII

For also, in commanding perseverance and urgency in praying (Luke 18), He sets forth the parable of the judge compelled to hear the widow by the urgency and perseverance of her petitions. Therefore He shows that it is God the judge who is to be prayed to, not Himself, if He is not Himself the judge. But He added that God would avenge His elect. If therefore He Himself will be judge, He is also the avenger. He has therefore proved the Creator to be the better God, Whom He showed to be the avenger of His elect who cry to Him day and night. And yet, when He brings in the temple of the Creator, and describes two men worshipping with differing minds, the Pharisee in pride, the Publican in humility, and [says] that therefore the one went down rejected, the other justified (Luke 18)

Editors' notes and page, col. 479

Variae lectiones

36 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Ascendit Seml.

Semler reads "Ascendit".

37 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Deponit Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Deponit".

38 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Excerpsit al.

Others read "Excerpsit".

39 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Non ut Seml.

Semler reads "Non ut".

40 ‹anchor: figura portenderet› · call in col 479 Portenderat Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Portenderat".

41 ‹anchor: et matrem? An› · call in col 480 Anne Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "Anne".

42 ‹anchor: diligere (the call is printed 24 in the text)› · call in col 480 Dilige Seml.

Semler reads "Dilige".

Commentarius

(printed under page 244)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Illum jubet adorare in humilitate, etc. Alludere mihi videtur ad illud Christi: Omnis qui se humiliat allevabitur, et qui se exaltat humiliabitur (Matth. XVIII, 4); sive ad aliud cantici Mariae: Deposuit potentes de sede (hoc est enim destruere), et exaltavit (sive allevavit) humiles (Luc. I, 52. PAM.

He bids him worship in humility, etc. He seems to me to allude to that saying of Christ: Everyone who humbles himself shall be lifted up, and he who exalts himself shall be humbled (Matthew 18:4); or else to another, from Mary's canticle: He has put down the mighty from their seat (for this is what "destroy" means), and has exalted (or lifted up) the humble (Luke 1:52. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 244)

Page

running head: 479 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge of image)
marginal letters: A ut dicas : Quis ascendet; B et assumi et extolli; C judicio venit vindicandorum; D (none)
old-edition numerals: 449 after per

PL 2:480

utique docendo qua disciplina sit orandum constituit, a quo relaturi essent eam orandi disciplinam, sive reprobatricem superbiae, sive justificatricem humilitatis. Alterus Dei nec templum, nec oratores, nec judicium invenio penes Christum, nisi Creatoris. Illum jubet adorare in humilitate, ut allevatorem humilium; non in superbia, ut destructorem superborum. Quem alium adorandum mihi ostendit? qua disciplina? qua spe? Neminem opinor. Nam et quam docuit orationem, Creatori probavimus convenire. Aliud est si etiam adorari qua Deus optimus et ultro bonus non vult. Sed quis optimus, nisi unus, inquit, Deus? Non quasi ex duobus diis unum optimum ostenderit, sed unum esse optimum Deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus, qua solus Deus. Et utique optimus, qui pluit super justos et solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos, sustinens et alens et juvans etiam Marcionitas. Denique interrogatus ab illo quodam: Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo? de praeceptis Creatoris an ea sciret, id est faceret, expostulavit, ad contestandum praeceptis Creatoris vitam acquiri sempiternam. Cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adolescentia: Unum, inquit, tibi deest. Omnia quaecunque habes vende, et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in coelo, et veni, sequere me. Age Marcion omnesque jam commiserones et coodibiles ejus haeretici, quid audebitis dicere? Resciditne Christus priora praecepta, non occidendi, non adulterandi, non furandi, non falsum testandi, diligendi patrem et matrem? An et illa servavit, et quod deerat, adjecit? quanquam et hoc praeceptum largitionis in egenos ubique diffusum sit in Lege et prophetis, uti gloriosissimus ille observator praeceptorum pecuniam multo chariorem habiturus traduceretur. Salvum est igitur et hoc in Evangelio (Matth. V, 17): Non veni dissolvere Legem et prophetas, sed potius adimplere. Simul et caetera dubitatione liberavit, manifestando unius esse et Dei nomen et optimi, et vitam aeternam, et thesaurum in coelo, et semetipsum; cujus praecepta supplendo et conservavit et auxit: secundum Michaeam quoque hoc loco recognoscendus, dicentem (VI, 8): Si annuntiavit tibi homo quid bonum aut quid a te Dominus exquirit, quam facere judicium, diligere misericordiam, et paratum esse sequi Dominum Deum tuum? Et homo enim Christus annuntians quid sit bonum, scientiam legis: Praecepta, inquit, scis? facere judicium: Vende, inquit, quae habes; diligere misericordiam: Et da, inquit, egenis; paratum esse

by all means, in teaching with what discipline one must pray, He established to whom they were to refer that discipline of praying, whether as the reprover of pride or as the justifier of humility. Of another god I find with Christ neither temple, nor those who pray, nor judgement, save the Creator's. Him He commands to be worshipped in humility, as the raiser-up of the humble; not in pride, as the destroyer of the proud. What other [god] has He shown me to be worshipped? With what discipline? With what hope? None, I think. For the prayer too which He taught we have proved to befit the Creator. It is another matter if the god who is supremely good and good of his own accord does not wish even to be worshipped. But who is best, He says, except one, God? Not as though out of two gods He had shown one to be the best, but that the one best is God alone, who is thus alone best in that He alone is God. And indeed He is best who rains upon the just and makes His sun rise upon the good and the evil, sustaining and nourishing and helping even the Marcionites. Finally, when asked by a certain man, Best Master, by doing what shall I possess eternal life?, He asked concerning the commandments of the Creator whether he knew them, that is, did them, in order to attest that by the commandments of the Creator life everlasting is acquired. And when the man had affirmed that he had observed all the chief ones from his youth: One thing, He said, you lack. Sell whatsoever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me. Come now, Marcion, and all you heretics, by now his fellow-wretches and fellow-objects of hatred, what will you dare to say? Did Christ rescind the earlier commandments, of not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing, not bearing false witness, of loving father and mother? Or did He both keep them and add what was lacking? Although this commandment too, of giving to the needy, is spread everywhere in the Law and the prophets, so that that most glorious observer of the commandments, who was going to hold his money much dearer, might be exposed. This too, then, is kept safe in the Gospel (Matt. 5:17): I have not come to dissolve the Law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them. At the same time He also freed the rest from doubt, by making plain that both the name of God and of the best, and eternal life, and treasure in heaven, and He Himself belong to one, whose commandments He both preserved and increased by supplementing them: He is to be recognized in this place also according to Micah, who says (Mic. 6:8): If a man has announced to you what is good, or what the Lord requires of you, but to do judgement, to love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord your God? For Christ too, a man, announcing what is good, the knowledge of the law: The commandments, He says, do you know?; to do judgement: Sell, He says, what you have; to love mercy: And give, He says, to the needy; to be ready

Editors' notes and page, col. 480

Page

running head: …M PARS' II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A utique docendo qua disciplina; B solus Deus. Et utique optimus; C priora praecepta, non occidendi; D (none)
old-edition numerals: 450 after dicere?

PL 2:481

ire cum Deo : Et veni, inquit, sequere me. Tam distincta fuit a primordio Judaea gens per tribus et populos et familias et domos, ut nemo facile ignorari de genere potuisset, vel de recentibus Augustianis censibus adhuc tunc fortasse pendentibus. Jesus autem Marcionis et natus non dubitaretur, qui homo videbatur ; utique qua non natus nullam potuerat generis sui in publico habuisse notitiam, sed erat unus aliqui deputandus ex iis, qui quoquo modo ignoti habebantur. Cum igitur praetereuntem illum caecus audisset, cur exclamavit : Jesu fili David, miserere mei, nisi quia filius David, id est, ex familia David non temere deputabatur, per matrem et fratres, qui aliquando ex notitia utique annuntiati ei fuerant ? Sed antecedentes increpabant caecum, uti taceret. Merito, quoniam quidem vociferabatur, non quia de David filio mentiebatur. Aut doce increpantes illos scisse, quod Jesus non ess⟨et⟩ filius David, ut idcirco silentium caeco indixisse credantur. Sed etsi doceres, facilius illos ignorasse praesumeretur, quam Dominum falsam in se praedicationem sustinere potuisse. Sed patiens Dominus; non tamen confirmator erroris, imo etiam detector Creatoris ; ut non prius hanc caecitatem hominis illius enubilasset, ne ultra Jesum filium David existimaret. Atquin, ne patientiam ejus infamaretis, nec ullam rationem dissimulationis illi affingeretis, nec filium David negaretis, manifestissime confirmavit caeci praedicationem, et ipsa remuneratione medicinae, et testimonio fidei. Fides, inquit, tua te salvum fecit. Quid vis caecum credidisse ? Ab alio Deo descendisse Jesum ad adjectionem Creatoris ? ad destructionem Legis et prophetarum ? non illum esse, qui ex radice Jesse et ex fructu lumborum David destinabatur (Psal. CXXXII, 11), caecorum quoque remunerator ? Sed nondum, puto, ejusmodi tunc caeci erant, qualis Marcion, ut haec fuerit caeci illius fides, qua crediderit in voce, Jesu, fili David. Qui hoc se et cognovit, et ab omnibus cognosci voluit, fidem hominis, etsi melius oculatam, etsi veri luminis compotem, exteriore quoque visione donavit, ut et nos regulam simulque mercedem fidei disceremus. Qui vult videre Jesum, David

to go with God: And come, He says, follow Me. So distinctly was the Jewish nation divided from the beginning by tribes and peoples and families and houses, that no one could easily have been unknown as to his lineage, or else from the recent Augustan censuses, perhaps still pending at that time. But as for Marcion's Jesus, even His being born would not have been doubted, since He appeared to be a man; certainly, inasmuch as He was not born, He could have had no public knowledge of His lineage, but was to be reckoned as just someone from among those who were in whatever way held to be unknown. When therefore the blind man had heard Him passing by, why did he cry out: Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me, unless because He was not without reason reckoned the son of David, that is, of the family of David, through His mother and brothers, who had at some time surely been made known to him from common knowledge? But those going ahead rebuked the blind man, that he should be silent. Rightly, since indeed he was shouting, not because he was lying about the son of David. Or else show that those rebuking him knew that Jesus was not the son of David, so that they may be believed to have imposed silence on the blind man for that reason. But even if you were to show it, it would more easily be presumed that they were ignorant than that the Lord could have tolerated a false proclamation about Himself. But the Lord is patient; yet not a confirmer of error, nay rather even a revealer of the Creator; so that He would not have cleared away this blindness of that man before [ensuring] that he should no longer think Jesus the son of David. And yet, lest you should defame His patience, or attribute to Him any design of dissembling, or deny that He is the son of David, He most manifestly confirmed the blind man's proclamation, both by the very reward of healing and by the testimony to his faith. Your faith, He says, has saved you. What do you want the blind man to have believed? That Jesus had descended from another God for the casting down of the Creator? for the destruction of the Law and the prophets? that He was not the one who was destined from the root of Jesse and from the fruit of David's loins (Ps. 132:11), the rewarder of the blind also? But, I suppose, there were not yet at that time blind men of the sort that Marcion is, so that this should have been the faith of that blind man, by which he believed in the words, Jesus, son of David. He who both knew Himself to be this, and wished to be recognized as such by all, endowed the man's faith, though better sighted, though possessed of the true light, with outward sight also, so that we too might learn the rule and at the same time the reward of faith. Whoever wishes to see Jesus, let him believe Him to be the son of David

Editors' notes and page, col. 481

Variae lectiones

43 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Paratum, si, inquit, ire Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Paratum, si, inquit, ire".

44 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Domino Seml.

Semler reads "Domino".

45 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Praesumeret Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "Praesumeret".

46 ‹anchor: nec› · call in col 481 Ne Ciaccon.

Ciacconius reads "Ne".

47 ‹anchor: Ab alio› · call in col 481 Illo Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Illo".

48 ‹anchor: ad adjectionem› · call in col 481 Dilectionem Seml.

Semler reads "Dilectionem".

49 ‹anchor: ab omnibus cognosci› · call in col 481 Cognosci ab omnibus Oberth. ab hominibus cognosci al.; ab omnibus abest Par.

Oberthür reads "Cognosci ab omnibus"; others "ab hominibus cognosci"; in the Paris edition "ab omnibus" is absent.

50 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Indecoris Par. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "Indecoris".

51 ‹anchor: plus est autem› · call in col 482 Si inserit Rhen.

Rhenanus inserts "Si".

52 ‹anchor: contractuum obnexus (the call is printed 57 in the text)› · call in col 482 Obnoxiis Seml.

Semler reads "Obnoxiis".

Commentarius

(printed under page 245)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Vel de recentibus Augustianis censibus adhuc tunc fortasse pendentibus. Tunc, id est, cum diceret caecus, Jesu, fili David. Pendentibus, scilicet tabulis census: nimirum, sicut supra notavimus, haud semel acti census fuisse videntur sub Augusto. Et Septimius ipse, libro adversus Judaeos, addubitare videtur an Christus adscriptus fuerit censui statim ut natus est. RIG.

Or from the recent Augustan censuses, perhaps still pending at that time. "At that time", that is, when the blind man said, Jesus, son of David. "Pending", that is, the census rolls: for, as we noted above, censuses seem to have been taken more than once under Augustus. And Septimius himself, in the book Against the Jews, seems to doubt whether Christ was entered in the census immediately upon his birth. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 245)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Sed erat unus aliqui deputandus ex iis, etc, Unus aliqui pro aliquis, ut in principio lib. seq. unus aliqui discipulus. Sensus hic est, erit terrae filius, vel unus quilibet e turba, sive unus de multis, quod Graeci dicunt ἐκ τοῦ πολλοῦ δήμου, καὶ τῶν πολλῶν εἷς τῶν τυχόντων. RHEN.

But he was to be reckoned some one of them, etc. Unus aliqui for aliquis, "someone", as at the beginning of the next book, unus aliqui discipulus. The sense here is: he will be a son of the earth, or any one of the crowd, or one of the many, which the Greeks express as "from the common people, and one of the many, of the chance-met". RHENANUS.

(printed under page 245)

(55) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop (the lemma is at the call 57 in col 482)› · call not visible

Dissolvens violentiorum contractuum obnexus. Illa vox composita est a voce nexus, jureconsultis usitatissima. Hinc illud apud Papinianum l. si pater fam. D. familiae erciscundae nexus pignoris, apud Ulpianum, l. si non saltem, adeo tit. de condict. indeb. nexus venditi. Unde et Cicero pro Muraena nexu obligare, et apud Tacitum, lib. III; exsoluti legis nexus. Eodem pertinent lex nexus, et l. pecunia quae per nexum obligatur, nempe per genus quoddam obligationis civilis, qua, uti Budaeus ait, corpus aeque atque pignus nexu afficiebatur. PAM.

Loosing the bonds of more violent contracts. That word is compounded from the word nexus, very commonly used by the jurists. Hence in Papinian, the law si pater fam., Digest, familiae erciscundae, "the bond of a pledge"; in Ulpian, the law si non saltem, under the title de condictione indebiti, "the bond of a thing sold". Hence too Cicero, in the speech for Murena, "to bind by nexum", and in Tacitus, book III, "released from the bonds of the law". To the same belong lex nexus and the law on money bound by nexum, that is, by a certain kind of civil obligation by which, as Budé says, the body was held under the bond just as a pledge was. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 245)

Page

running head: 481 LIB. IV ADV. MARC (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ire cum Deo : Et veni, inquit; B ferabatur, non quia de David; C tione medicinae, et testimonio fidei; D beside commentary note (53), not in the text
old-edition numerals: 451 after infamaretis
other: column begins mid-sentence with "ire" and ends mid-sentence with "David"; "esset" partly obscured by an ink blot, set ess⟨et⟩; stray mark between "se" and "et" ignored; "unusaliqui" printed without space, set as two words; scripture reference printed CXXXII, 11 (the cited verse is Vulgate Ps. 131:11), left as printed; "adjectionem" printed and set as printed, English "casting down" follows the sense (other editions read dejectionem); UNSURE whether this is a misprint; full-width "Variae lectiones" heading and variant lines across the page foot not set; "Commentarius" heading and editors' notes (53), (54) not set

PL 2:482

filium credat per Virginis censum. Qui non ita credet, non audiet ab illo; Fides tua te salvum fecit. Atque ita caecus remanebit, ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim. Sic enim caecus caecum deducere solet. « Nam si aliquando (II Reg. V) Davidem in recuperatione Sionis offenderant caeci resistentes, quominus admitteretur. » (in figuram p⟨o⟩puli proinde caeci, non admissuri quandoque Christum filium David) « ideo Christus ex diverso caeco subvenit, ut hinc se ostenderet non esse filium David, et ex animi diversitate bonus caecis, quos ille jusserat caedi. Et cur fidei, et quidem pravae, praestitisse se dixit? » Atquin et hoc filius David, antithesim de suo retundendam. Nam et qui David offenderant, caeci: nunc vero ejusdem carnis homo supplicem se obtulerat filio David, idcirco ei satisfacienti quodammodo placatus filius David, restituit lumina cum testimonio fidei, qua hoc ipsum crediderat, exorandum sibi esse filium David. Et tamen David audacia hominum, puto, offenderat, non valetudo.

through the Virgin's lineage. Whoever does not so believe will not hear from Him: Your faith has saved you. And so he will remain blind, falling into the antithesis, as the antithesis itself falls too. For thus the blind is wont to lead the blind. «For if once (2 Sam. 5) the blind had offended David at the recovery of Zion, resisting so that he should not be admitted» (as a figure of a people likewise blind, who would one day not admit Christ, the son of David), «therefore Christ, on the contrary, came to the aid of a blind man, so as to show from this that He was not the son of David, and by the contrariness of His disposition good to the blind, whom that one had ordered to be struck down. And why did He say that He had granted this to faith, and a perverse one at that?» But this too [shows Him] the son of David, an antithesis to be blunted from its own material. For those who had offended David were indeed blind; but now a man of the same flesh had offered himself as a suppliant to the son of David; therefore the son of David, in some measure appeased by him as he made amends, restored his sight with a testimony to his faith, by which he had believed this very thing, that the son of David was to be entreated by him. And yet it was, I think, the boldness of the men that had offended David, not their infirmity.

CAPUT XXXVII.

Chapter XXXVII.

Consequitur (Luc. XIX) et Zachaei domum salutem. Quo merito? Numquid vel ille crediderat Christum a Marcione venisse? Atquin adhuc in auribus erat omnium vox ille caeci, Miserere mei, Jesu, fili David; et omnis populus laudes referebat Deo, non Marcionis, sed David. Enimvero Zachaeus etsi allophylus fortasse, tamen aliqua notitia Scripturarum ex commercio judaico afflatus; plus est autem, et ignorans (Isaiam LVIII, 7), praecepta ejus impleverat. Confringito, inquit, panem tuum esurienti; et non habentes tectum in domum tuam inducito; hoc cum maxime agebat, exceptum domo sua pascens Dominum. Et nudum si videris, contegito; hoc cum maxime promittebat, in omnia misericordiae opera dimidium substantiae offerens; dissolvens violentiorum contra⟨c⟩tuum obnexus, et dimittens conflictatos in laxamentum, et omnem conscriptionem iniquam dissipans, dicendo: Et si cui quid per calumniam eripui, quadruplum reddo. Itaque Dominus, Hodie inquit, salus huic domui. Testimonium

There follows (Luke 19) also salvation for the house of Zacchaeus. By what merit? Had he too perhaps believed that Christ had come from Marcion? But still in the ears of all was that voice of the blind man, Have mercy on me, Jesus, son of David; and all the people were giving praises to God, not Marcion's, but David's. Indeed Zacchaeus, though perhaps a foreigner, was yet breathed upon by some knowledge of the Scriptures from his dealings with the Jews; but what is more, even unknowing (Isa. 58:7), he had fulfilled its precepts. Break, it says, your bread to the hungry; and bring those who have no roof into your house; this he was doing at that very moment, receiving the Lord into his house and feeding Him. And if you see the naked, cover him; this he was at that very moment promising, offering half his substance for all works of mercy; dissolving the bonds of more oppressive contracts, and releasing the distressed into relief, and tearing up every unjust bond, by saying: And if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore it fourfold. And so the Lord, Today, He said, salvation [is come] to this house. By way of testimony

Editors' notes and page, col. 482

Page

running head: IV ADV. MARCIONEM. 482 (start of head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹filium credat per Virginis›; B ‹homo supplicem se obtulerat›; C ‹fortasse, tamen aliqua notitia›; D ‹λῶν εἰς τῶν τυχόντων (in Commentarius)›
old-edition numerals: 452 after ‹impleverat.›

PL 2:483

dixit, salutaria esse quae praeceperat prophetes Creatoris. Cum vero dicit : Venit enim Filius hominis salvum facere quod periit, jam non contendo eum venisse ut salvum faceret quod perierat, cujus fuerat, et cui perierat quod salvum venerat facere ; sed in alterius quaestionis gradum dirigo. De homine agi nulla dubitatio est. Hic cum ex duabus substantiis constet, ex corpore et anima, quaerendum est ex qua substantiae specie periisse videatur. Si ex corpore, ergo corpus perierat, salvum facit Filius hominis : habet igitur et caro salutem. Si et anima perierat, animae perditio saluti destinatur : caro quae non periit, salva est. Si totus homo perierat ex utraque substantia, totus homo salvus fiat necesse est ; et elisa est sententia haereticorum negantium carnis salutem. Jam et Christus Creatoris confirmatur, qui secundum Creatorem totius hominis salutem pollicebatur. Servorum quoque parabola, qui secundum rationem foeneratae pecuniae dominicae dijudicantur, judicem ostendit Deum, etiam ex parte severitatis, non tantum honorantem, verum et auferentem quod quis videatur habuisse. Aut si et hic Creatorem finxerit austerum tollentem quod non posuerit, et metentem quod non severit : hic quoque me ille instruit, cujus pecuniam ut foenerem edocet.

He said that the things which the prophet of the Creator had commanded were saving. But when He says: For the Son of Man has come to save that which has perished (Luke 19:10), I do not now contend that He came to save that which had perished, to Whom it had belonged and from Whom that had perished which He had come to save; but I direct [myself] to the step of another question. That it is man who is concerned there is no doubt. Since he consists of two substances, of body and soul, it must be asked in which kind of substance he seems to have perished. If in the body, then the body had perished, [and] the Son of Man saves it: the flesh therefore also has salvation. If the soul too had perished, the perdition of the soul is destined for salvation: the flesh, which did not perish, is safe. If the whole man had perished in both substances, the whole man must necessarily be saved; and the opinion of the heretics who deny the salvation of the flesh is crushed. Now the Christ of the Creator is also confirmed, Who in accordance with the Creator promised the salvation of the whole man. The parable of the servants too, who are judged according to the reckoning of their master's money put out at interest (Luke 19:12–27), shows God as judge, even on the side of severity, not only honouring but also taking away what someone seems to have had. Or if [Marcion] here too has represented the Creator as austere, taking up what He did not lay down and reaping what He did not sow: here too that One instructs me, Whose money He teaches me to put out at interest.

CAPUT XXXVIII.

Chapter XXXVIII.

Sciebat Christus baptisma Joannis (Luc. XX) unde esset, et cur quasi nesciens interrogabat ? Sciebat non responsuros sibi Pharisaeos, et cur frustra interrogabat ? An ut ex ore ipsorum judicaret illos, vel ex corde ? Refer ergo et haec ad excusationem Creatoris, et ad comparationem Christi ; et considera jam quid secuturum esset, si quid Pharisaei ad interrogationem renuntiassent. Puta illos renuntiasse humanum Joannis baptisma, statim lapidibus elisi fuissent. Exsisteret aliqui Marcion adversus Marcionem, qui diceret : O Deum optimnm ! o Deum diversum a Creatoris exemplis ! Sciens praeceps ituros homines, ipse illos in praeruptum imposuit. Sic enim et de Creatore, in arboris lege, tractatur. Sed de coelis fuit baptisma Joannis. Et quare, inquit Christus non credidistis ei ? Ergo qui credi voluerat

Christ knew whence the baptism of John was (Luke 20:4), and why then did He ask as though not knowing? He knew that the Pharisees would not answer Him, and why then did He ask in vain? Was it in order to judge them out of their own mouth, or out of their heart? Refer therefore these things too to the vindication of the Creator and to the comparison of Christ; and consider now what would have followed if the Pharisees had given some answer to the question. Suppose they had answered that John's baptism was human: they would at once have been crushed with stones. Some Marcion would have arisen against Marcion, who would say: O most good God! O God differing from the examples of the Creator! Knowing that men would go headlong, He Himself set them on the precipice. For so too is it argued about the Creator in the matter of the law of the tree. But the baptism of John was from heaven. And why, says Christ, did you not believe him? (Luke 20:5) Therefore He Who had wished it to be believed

Editors' notes and page, col. 483

Variae lectiones

53 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Perierat al.

Others read "Perierat".

54 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Salutem abest Rig.

In Rigault "Salutem" is absent.

55 ‹anchor: aliqui Marcion› · call in col 483 Aliquis Marcion Seml. aliqui Marcionis Venet.

Semler reads "Aliquis Marcion"; the Venice edition "aliqui Marcionis".

56 ‹anchor: in praeruptum› · call in col 483 Praerupium ms.

The manuscript reads "Praerupium".

58 [so printed; in sequence 57] ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Malum malum reddidit Pam.

Pamelius reads "Malum malum reddidit".

58 ‹anchor: nubere definiturus› · call in col 484 Diffiniturus al.

Others read "Diffiniturus".

59 ‹anchor: angelorum sint› · call in col 484 Fiant Seml.

Semler reads "Fiant".

60 ‹anchor: non› · call in col 484 At add. alii.

Others add "At".

Commentarius

(printed under page 246)

(56) ‹anchor: aliqui Marcion› · call in col 483

Existeret aliqui Marcion, id est, si emergeret exoriretur, exsurgeret. Sic enim hoc verbum apud Ciceronem interpretatur Asconius Pedianus. RHEN.

Some Marcion would appear, that is, if he should emerge, arise, rise up. For so Asconius Pedianus interprets this word in Cicero. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 246)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Nisi quod necesse est, qui suum denarium non habet. Necesse est, inquit Septimius, quaerat sibi monetam deus Marcionis, qui suum denarium non habet. Quaerat sibi hominem alienum, qui nullum habet suum, qui nullum scilicet creavit. RIG.

Except that it is necessary, for one who has no denarius of his own. It is necessary, says Septimius, that Marcion's god seek coinage for himself, since he has no denarius of his own. Let him seek for himself a man belonging to another, he who has none of his own, since, that is, he created none. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 246)

Footnotes

(58) ‹anchor: Sadducaei› · call in col 484

Sadducaei resurrectionis negatores. Epiphanius (haer. 14): Ἠθέτησαν μὲν γὰρ οὗτοι νεκρῶν τὴν ἀνάστασιν, ὅμοια Σαμαρείταις φρονοῦντες: mortuorum enim resurrectionem negarunt, eadem cum Samaritis sentientes. Neque tantum resurrectionem, sed etiam animae immortalitatem sustulerunt, ut testatur Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. XVIII. A Dositheo propagatam fuisse tum Sadducaeorum, tum Samaritanorum haeresin docet B. Hier., Dial. contra Lucif.: « Taceo, inquit, de Judaismi haereticis, qui ante adventum Christi legem traditam dissiparunt; quod Dositheus, Samaritanorum princeps, prophetas repudiavit, quod Sadducaei ex illius radice nascentes etiam resurrectionem carnis nega- (continues)

The Sadducees, deniers of the resurrection. Epiphanius (Heresies 14): "For these set aside the resurrection of the dead, thinking like the Samaritans": for they denied the resurrection of the dead, holding the same as the Samaritans. And they did away not only with the resurrection but also with the immortality of the soul, as Josephus attests, Jewish Antiquities, book XVIII. That the heresy both of the Sadducees and of the Samaritans was spread by Dositheus is taught by blessed Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians: "I say nothing," he says, "of the heretics of Judaism, who before Christ's coming tore apart the law that had been handed down: that Dositheus, chief of the Samaritans, rejected the prophets; that the Sadducees, springing from his root, de- (continues)

(printed under page 246)

Variae lectiones

61 ‹anchor: Dominum Christum› · call in col 485 Christum abest Par. Fran.

In the Paris and Franeker editions "Christum" is absent.

62 ‹anchor: pulsata vero traditione› · call in col 485 Traductione al.

Others read "Traductione".

63 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Christi omitt. Jun.

Junius omits "Christi".

64 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Si Venet.

The Venice edition reads "Si".

65 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Olim. c. d. n. p. ei i. e. inser. Rig. et al. post. eum e cod. Wouw.

Rigault and others insert "Olim. c. d. n. p. ei i. e." after "eum", from Wouwer's codex.

66 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Christus et omitt. Oberth.

Oberthür omits "Christus et".

67 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Alienum Paris.

The Paris edition reads "Alienum".

68 ‹anchor: Deo congruunt› · call in col 486 Congruum Venet.

The Venice edition reads "Congruum".

69 ‹anchor: cum adjicit› · call in col 486 Dicit al.

Others read "Dicit".

70 ‹anchor: tristes quam› · call in col 486 Tam Jun.

Junius reads "Tam".

[71, numeral not printed] ‹anchor: quasi altaris› · call in col 486 Quasi pateras altari Fran.

The Franeker edition reads "Quasi pateras altari".

72 ‹anchor: suum, quia› · call in col 486 Qui Seml.

Semler reads "Qui".

73 ‹anchor: altaris cruentationi› · call in col 486 Cruentatione Pam.

Pamelius reads "Cruentatione".

74 ‹anchor: et ipsi et› · call in col 486 Et Jun.

Junius reads "Et".

Commentarius

(printed under page 247)

(59) ‹anchor: errorem Scribarum› · call in col 485

Non David errorem Scribarum. Ne res confuse tractentur, advertendum est Scribarum duo fuisse genera, alii enim γραμματεῖς τοῦ νόμου exstitere, et alii γραμματεῖς λαοῦ. Scribae populi actuarii sive auctores publici fuerunt, neque tamen haeretici; cum certum sit alios fuisse haereticos. Videsis Scaligerum in Elencho. LE PR.

Not David the error of the scribes. So that matters are not handled confusedly, it should be noted that there were two kinds of scribes: some were "scribes of the law", and others "scribes of the people". The scribes of the people were clerks or public notaries, and yet not heretics, whereas it is certain that the others were heretics. See Scaliger in the Elenchus. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 247)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L03 L05 L07 L08 L10 blocked (the fresh columns the volunteer page had already set aside) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:487

te certantes cadunt; sed qui in sua proprietate atque patientia, dedentes potius semetipsos, quam vindicantes trucidantur. Denique, quia lapides, inquit, sancti volutant, non quia milites pugnant. Lapides enim sunt et fundamenta, super quae nos aedificamur: exstructi, secundum Paulum (Ephes. II, 21), super fundamentum apostolorum, qui lapides sancti oppositi omnium offensui volutabant. Et hic igitur ipse vetat cogitari, quid responderi oporteat apud tribunalia, qui et Balaam quod non cogitaverat, imo contra quam cogitaverat suggessit (Num. XXII), et Moysi causato linguae tarditatem, os repromisit; et sapientiam ipsam, cui nemo resisteret, per Isaiam (XLIV, 5) demonstravit: Hic dicet: Ego Dei sum, et clamabit in nomine Jacob, et alius inscribetur in nomine Israelis. Quid enim sapientius et incontradicibilius confessione simplici et exserta in martyris nomine cum Deo invalescentis? quod est interpretatio Israelis. Nec mirum si is cohibuit praecogitationem, qui et ipse a Patre excepit pronuntiandi tempestive subministrationem: Dominus mihi dat linguam disciplinae, quando debeam proferre sermonem (Isa. L, 4). Nisi Marcion Christum non subjectum Patri infert. A proximis quoque persecutiones et nomine ex odio utique blasphemiam praedicatam, non debeo rursus ostendere. Sed per tolerantiam, inquit, salvos facietis nosmetipsos; de qua scilicet Psalmus (IX, 19): Tolerantia, inquit, justorum non peribit in finem. Quia et alibi (Psal. CXV, 5): Honorabilis mors justorum; ex tolerantia sine dubio, quia et Zacharias (VI, 14 seqq.): Corona autem erit eis qui toleraverint. Sed ne audeas argumentari apostolos, ut alterius Dei praecones, a Judaeis vexatos, memento prophetas eadem a Judaeis passos, tamen non alterius Dei apostolos fuisse, quam Creatoris. Sed monstrato dehinc tempore excidii, cum coepisset vallari exercitibus Hierusalem, signa jam ultimi finis enarrat, solis et lunae siderumque prodigia, et in terra angustias nationum obstupescentium velut a sonitu maris fluctuantis pro exspectatione imminentium orbi malorum. Quod et ipsae vires caelorum concuti habeant, accipe Joelem

fall while fighting back; but those who, in keeping with their own character and patience, are slaughtered giving themselves up rather than avenging themselves. Accordingly, because holy stones, He says, roll, not because soldiers fight. For the stones are also the foundations upon which we are built: built up, according to Paul (Eph. 2:21), upon the foundation of the apostles, who, as holy stones set in the way, rolled for the stumbling of all. Here too, therefore, He Himself forbids thinking beforehand what one ought to answer before the tribunals, He who also suggested to Balaam what he had not thought, nay rather the opposite of what he had thought (Num. 22), and promised a mouth to Moses when he pleaded slowness of tongue; and through Isaiah (Isa. 44:5) showed that very wisdom which no one could resist: This one will say: I am God's, and will cry out in the name of Jacob, and another will be inscribed in the name of Israel. For what is wiser and more incontrovertible than the simple and open confession in the name of a martyr prevailing with God? which is the interpretation of Israel. Nor is it surprising if He restrained premeditation who Himself also received from the Father the supply of speaking in due season: The Lord gives me a tongue of instruction, when I ought to bring forth a word (Isa. 50:4). Unless Marcion maintains that Christ is not subject to the Father. That persecutions too from those nearest, and blasphemy on account of the name, out of hatred certainly, were foretold, I need not show again. But by endurance, He says, you will save yourselves; concerning which, namely, the Psalm (Ps. 9:19): The endurance, it says, of the just will not perish to the end. Because elsewhere too (Ps. 115:5): Honourable is the death of the just; by endurance without doubt, because Zechariah too (Zech. 6:14 ff.): But the crown will be for those who have endured. But lest you dare to argue that the apostles, as heralds of another God, were harassed by the Jews, remember that the prophets suffered the same things from the Jews, and yet were apostles of no other God than the Creator. But having then shown the time of the destruction, when Jerusalem should have begun to be encompassed by armies, He recounts the signs of the very last end, portents of sun and moon and stars, and on earth the distress of nations stunned as by the sound of the surging sea, in expectation of the evils impending over the world. That the very powers of the heavens are also to be shaken, hear Joel

Editors' notes and page, col. 487

Variae lectiones

75 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Qui Seml.

Semler reads "Qui".

76 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Quin Paris. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "Quin".

77 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Balae Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Balae".

78 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Inscribet al.

Others read "Inscribet".

79 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Prohibuit al.

Others read "Prohibuit".

80 ‹anchor: non peribit› · call in col 487 Periet Seml.

Semler reads "Periet".

81 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Adveniet Rig. Venet.

Rigault and the Venice edition read "Adveniet".

82 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Dispergens Rhen. Seml.

Rhenanus and Semler read "Dispergens".

83 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Gressus Venet.

The Venice edition reads "Gressus".

84 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Coruscationes Franeq. circumstationes al.

The Franeker edition reads "Coruscationes"; others "circumstationes".

85 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Appopinquabit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Appopinquabit".

86 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Subjecta erit Rhen. Seml. Pam.

Rhenanus, Semler and Pamelius read "Subjecta erit".

87 ‹anchor: quae faeneraretur› · call in col 488 Faenerarentur Latin.

Latinius reads "Faenerarentur".

88 ‹anchor: et fructu› · call in col 488 Fructus Paris. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "Fructus".

89 ‹anchor: regni redemptos› · call in col 488 Redemptus Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Redemptus".

Commentarius

(printed under page 248)

(60) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Quia lapides sancti volutant. Haec etiam Zachariae citantur juxta editionem septuaginta Volutant, κυλίονται ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. RIG.

Because holy stones roll. These words of Zechariah too are cited according to the Septuagint edition: "roll", "they roll upon the earth". RIGAULT.

(printed under page 248)

(61) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Quod est interpretatio Israelis. De hujus vocis significatu sanctus Hieronymus (in Quaest. ad Genesim) multis probat Israel proprie idem esse ac principem seu directum Dei: « Illud vero, inquit, quod in libro Nominum interpretatur Israel vir videns Deum, sive mens videns Deum, omnium pene sermone detritum, non tam vere quam violenter mihi interpretatum videtur. » Quaerendum igitur manet utra interpretatio, princepsne Dei, an directus Dei, admittenda potius sit. Hanc vero quaestionem indirecte solvit Hieronymus ipse, cum ait: « Nos magis Scripturae et angeli, vel Dei, qui ipsum Israel vocavit, auctoritate ducimur, quam cujuslibet eloquentiae saecularis. » Atqui Deus ipse, seu angelus, nomen Israel neutro quem dixit Hieronymus, modo, sed, ut optime Tertullianus noster, invalescentem cum Deo interpretatus est: Nequaquam, inquit, Jacob appellabitur nomen tuum, sed Israel: quoniam si contra Deum fortis fuisti, quanto magis contra homines praevalebis? EDD.

Which is the meaning of Israel. On the meaning of this word Saint Jerome (in the Questions on Genesis) proves at length that Israel properly means prince, or upright one, of God: "But that," he says, "which in the book of Names interprets Israel as a man seeing God, or a mind seeing God, worn smooth in almost everyone's speech, seems to me interpreted not so much truly as forcibly." It remains to ask, then, which interpretation is rather to be accepted, prince of God or upright one of God. This question Jerome himself settles indirectly when he says: "We are led rather by the authority of Scripture and of the angel, or of God, who called him Israel, than by any worldly eloquence." Yet God himself, or the angel, interpreted the name Israel in neither of the ways Jerome named, but, as our Tertullian puts it best, as one prevailing with God: Your name shall by no means be called Jacob, he says, but Israel: for if you have been strong against God, how much more shall you prevail against men? THE EDITORS.

(printed under page 248)

(62) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Videbunt Filium hominis venientem. Secundum hic adventum Christi ex infinitis locis probat contra Marcionem. LE PR.

They shall see the Son of Man coming. Here he proves Christ's second coming from countless passages against Marcion. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 248)

Page

running head: 487 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A te certantes cadunt; B et clamabit in nomine Jacob; C 5): Honorabilis mors justorum; D (60) Quia lapides sancti volutant (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 457 after dubio,

PL 2:488

(II, 30) : Et dabo prodigia in caelo et in terra, sanguinem et ignem et fumi vaporem. Sol convertetur in tenebras, et in sanguinem luna, priusquam adveniat dies magnus et illustris Domini. Habes et Habacuc (III, 9, 10) : Fluminibus disrumpetur terra; videbunt te, et parturient populi; disperges aquas gressu. Dedit abyssus sonum suum; sublimitas timoris ejus elata est; sol et luna constitit in suo ordine, in lucem coruscationis tuae ibunt in fulgorem; fulgur scutum tuum, in communicatione tua diminues terram, et in indignatione tua depones nationes. Conveniunt, opinor, et Domini pronnutiationes et prophetarum, de concussionibus mundi et orbis, elementorum et nationum. Post haec quid Dominus? Et tunc videbunt Filium hominis venientem de coelis cum plurima virtute, Cum autem haec fient, erigetis vos, et levabitis capita, quoniam appropinquabit redemptio vestra. In tempore scilicet regni, de quo subjectarit ipsa parabola. Sic et vos cum videritis omnia haec fieri, scitote appropinquasse reguum Dei. Hic erit dies magnus Domini et illustris, venientis de coelis Filii hominis secundum Danielem (VII, 3) : Ecce cum caeli nubibus tanquam filius hominis adveniens, etc. Et data est illi regia potestas, quam in parabola postulaturus exierat, relicta pecunia servis, quae foeneraretur. Et universae nationes, quas promiserat et in Psalmo (II, 8) Pater : Postula de me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam. Et gloria omnis serviens illi et potestas ejus aeterna, quae non auferetur, et regnum ejus quod non corrumpetur : quia nec morientur in illo, nec nubent, sed erunt sicut angeli. De eodem adventu Filii hominis et fructu ejus apud Habacuc (III, 13) : Existi in salutem populi ad salvos faciendos christos tuos; erecturos scilicet se, et capita levaturos in tempore regni redemptos. Igitur cum et haec, quae sunt promissionum, proinde conveniant sicut et illa quae sunt concussionum, ex consonantia propheticarum et dominicarum pronuntiationum, nullam hic poteris interstruere distinctionem, ut concussiones quidem referas ad Creatorem, saevitiae scilicet Deum, quas haec sinere, nedum exspectare deberet Deus optimus; promissiones

(2:30): And I will give portents in heaven and on earth, blood and fire and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and illustrious day of the Lord comes. You have also Habakkuk (3:9–10): With rivers the earth shall be burst apart; the peoples shall see Thee and shall be in travail; Thou shalt scatter the waters with Thy step. The abyss gave forth its sound; the height of its fear was lifted up; the sun and the moon stood still in their order; at the light of Thy flashing they shall go into brightness; the lightning is Thy shield; in Thy communication Thou shalt diminish the earth, and in Thine indignation Thou shalt bring down the nations. Both the pronouncements of the Lord and those of the prophets agree, I think, concerning the shakings of the world and of the globe, of the elements and of the nations. After these things, what does the Lord [say]? And then they shall see the Son of Man coming from the heavens with very great power. But when these things come to pass, you shall raise yourselves up and lift up your heads, because your redemption will draw near. That is, at the time of the kingdom, concerning which the parable itself will be subjoined: So you also, when you see all these things come to pass, know that the kingdom of God has drawn near. This will be the great and illustrious day of the Lord, of the Son of Man coming from the heavens, according to Daniel (7:3): Behold, as it were a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, etc. And royal power was given to Him, which He had gone out to seek in the parable, having left money with His servants, to be put out at interest. And all the nations, which the Father had promised also in the Psalm (2:8): Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the nations as Thine inheritance. And all glory serving Him, and His power eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His kingdom, which shall not be corrupted: because in it they shall neither die nor marry, but shall be as angels. Concerning the same coming of the Son of Man and its fruit, in Habakkuk (3:13): Thou wentest forth for the salvation of the people, to save Thine anointed ones; that is, those who will raise themselves up and lift up their heads at the time of the kingdom, redeemed. Therefore, since these things too, which belong to the promises, agree just as those which belong to the shakings, from the consonance of the prophetic and the Lord's pronouncements, you will be able to insert no distinction here, so as to refer the shakings indeed to the Creator, that is, a God of savagery, which the most good God ought not to permit, much less to expect; and the promises

Editors' notes and page, col. 488

Page

running head: …UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A (II, 30) : Et dabo prodigia; B tem (62 de coelis cum plurima virtute; C ejus quod non corrumpetur; D stionem indirecte solvit (in the commentary at page foot)
old-edition numerals: 458 after capita

PL 2:489

vero Deo optimo deputes, quas Creator ignorans illum non prophetasset. Aut si suas prophetavit; non distantes a promissionibus Christi, par erit in libertate optimo Deo; nec plus videbitur a Christo tuo repromitti, quam a meo filio hominis. Ipsum decursum Scripturae evangelicae, ab interrogatione discipulorum usque ad parabolam fici, ita invenies contextu sensus filio hominis hinc atque illinc adhaerere, ut in illum compingat et tristia et laeta, et concussiones et promissiones, nec possis separare ab illo alteram partem. Unius enim filii hominis adventu constituto inter duos exitus. concussionum et promissionum, necesse est ad unum pertineant filium hominis, et incommoda nationum, et vota sanctorum : quia ita positus est in medio, ut communis exitibus ambobus, alterum conclusurus adventu suo, id est, incommoda nationum ; alterum incipiens, id est, vota sanctorum ut sive mei Christi concesseris adventum filii hominis, quo mala imminentia ei deputes quae adventum ejus antecedunt, cogaris etiam bona ei adscribere, quae ab adventu ejus oriuntur ; sive tui malueris, quo bona ei adscribas quae ab adventu ejus oriuntur, cogaris mala quoque ei deputare, quae adventum ejus antecedunt. Tam enim mala cohaerent adventui filii hominis antecedendo, quam et bona subsequendo. Quaere igitur quem ex duobus christis constituas in persona unius filii hominis, in quem utràque dispositio referatur. Aut et Creatorem optimum, aut Deum tuum asperum dedisti natura. In summa ipsius parabolae considera exemplum : Adspice ficum, et arbores omnes, cum fructum protulerint, intelligunt homines aestatem appropinquasse. Sic et vos, cum videbitis haec fieri scitote in proximo esse regnum Dei. Si enim fructificationes arbuscularum signum aestivo tempori praestant, antecedendo illud; proinde et conflictationes orbis signum praenotant regni, praecedendo illud. Omne autem signum ejus est cujus est res, cujus est signum. Et omni rei ab eo imponitur signum, cujus est res. Ita si conflictationes signa sunt regni, sicut fructificationes aestatis ; ergo et regnum Creatoris est, cujus conflictationes deputantur, quae signa sunt regni. Praemiserat oportere haec fieri tam atrocia, tam dira, Deus optimus, certe a Prophetis et a Lege praedicata;

you would assign to the most good God, which the Creator, not knowing Him, would not have prophesied. Or if He prophesied His own, not differing from the promises of Christ, He will be on a par in liberty with the most good God; nor will more seem to be promised by your Christ than by my Son of Man. The very course of the Gospel Scripture, from the question of the disciples as far as the parable of the fig tree, you will find so to cleave, in the connection of its sense, to the Son of Man on this side and on that, that it fastens upon Him both sad things and glad, both shakings and promises, and you cannot separate either part from Him. For since the coming of the one Son of Man is set between two outcomes, of shakings and of promises, it is necessary that both the troubles of the nations and the prayers of the saints pertain to the one Son of Man: because He is so placed in the middle as to be common to both outcomes, about to close the one by His coming, that is, the troubles of the nations; beginning the other, that is, the prayers of the saints; so that, whether you grant the coming of the Son of Man to be that of my Christ, whereby you attribute to Him the impending evils which precede His coming, you are compelled also to ascribe to Him the good things which arise from His coming; or whether you prefer it to be that of yours, whereby you ascribe to Him the good things which arise from His coming, you are compelled also to attribute to Him the evils which precede His coming. For the evils cohere with the coming of the Son of Man by preceding it just as much as the good things do by following it. Ask, then, which of the two christs you set in the person of the one Son of Man, to Whom both dispositions are referred. Either you have made the Creator also most good, or your God harsh by nature. In sum, consider the example of the parable itself: Look at the fig tree and all the trees: when they have put forth fruit, men understand that summer has drawn near. So you also, when you see these things happen, know that the kingdom of God is near. For if the fruitings of the young trees furnish a sign to the summer season, by preceding it, so likewise the conflicts of the world mark beforehand a sign of the kingdom, by preceding it. But every sign belongs to him whose is the thing of which it is the sign; and upon every thing a sign is imposed by him whose the thing is. So, if the conflicts are signs of the kingdom, as the fruitings are of summer, then the kingdom too is the Creator's, to Whom the conflicts are attributed which are signs of the kingdom. The most good God had stated beforehand that these things, so atrocious, so dire, must happen, things certainly foretold by the Prophets and by the Law;

Editors' notes and page, col. 489

Variae lectiones

90 ‹anchor: quia ita› · call in col 489 Qui Pam. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Qui".

91 ‹anchor: ejus oriuntur› · call in col 489 Sive tui malueris, quo bona ei adscribas quae ab adventu ejus oriuntur omitt. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür omit "Sive tui malueris, quo bona ei adscribas quae ab adventu ejus oriuntur".

92 ‹anchor: in quem› · call in col 489 Quam Pam. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Quam".

93 ‹anchor: optimum, aut› · call in col 489 Et add. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür add "Et".

94 ‹anchor: proinde et› · call in col 489 Et omitt. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür omit "Et".

95 ‹anchor: cujus est› · call in col 489 Et cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's codex reads "Et".

96 ‹anchor: est, cujus› · call in col 489 Cui Latin.

Latinius reads "Cui".

97 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Fiunt Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Fiunt".

98 ‹anchor: adjecit› · call in col 490 Adjecit abest Par.

In the Paris edition "Adjecit" is absent.

99 ‹anchor: Nam e› · call in col 490 Et Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Et".

1 ‹anchor: diem elegit› · call in col 490 Elegerit Venet. egit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

The Venice edition reads "Elegerit"; Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür "egit".

2 ‹anchor: ne dicerem› · call in col 490 Dicerent non cod. Wouw. ni dicerem et in hoc Jun.

Wouwer's codex reads "Dicerent non"; Junius "ni dicerem et in hoc".

Commentarius

(printed under page 249)

(63) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Ebrietate et saecularibus curis. Quae duo hic in discipulis prohibentur, eadem in clericis, tum presbyteris, tum etiam episcopis prohibentur, posterius can. apost. 6, et 80, can. 6 conc. Carth. et L. Generaliter 52, C. de Clericis et Ep. Prius vero can. apost. 41, et can. 24, quo cujuslibet ordinis clericis interdicitur εἰς καπηλεῖον εἰσιέναι. Quae omnia apud veteres contra clericorum intemperantiam et luxum passim habentur; lege epist. B. Bernardi ad Fulconem, qui Lingonensis postea factus est archidiaconus. LE PR.

With drunkenness and worldly cares. The two things forbidden here to the disciples are likewise forbidden to clerics, to presbyters and to bishops too: the latter by Apostolic Canons 6 and 80, canon 6 of the Council of Carthage, and the law Generaliter 52 in the Code, On Clerics and Bishops; the former by Apostolic Canon 41 and canon 24, by which clerics of every order are forbidden "to enter a tavern". All of this is found everywhere among the ancients against the intemperance and luxury of clerics; read the letter of blessed Bernard to Fulco, who afterwards became archdeacon of Langres. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 249)

Page

running head: 489 LIB. IV ADV. MARCIO[NEM] (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹siones vero Deo optimo›; B ‹in medio, ut communis exitibus›; C ‹et Creatorem optimum, aut Deum tuum›; D ‹flictationes deputantur, quae signa›
old-edition numerals: 459 after ‹rei›

PL 2:490

adeo Legem et Prophetas non destruebat, cum quae praedicaverant, confirmat perfici oportere. Adhuc ingerit, Non transiturum coelum ac terram, nisi omnia peragantur. Quaenam ista? Si quae a Creatore sunt, merito sustinebunt elementa Domini sui ordinem expungi. Si quae a Deo optimo, nescio an sustineat coelum et terra perfici quae aemulus statuit. Hoc si patietur Creator, zelotes Deus non est. Transeat age nunc tunc terra et coelum sic enim Dominus eorum destinavit, dum Verbum ejus manet in aevum: sic enim et Isaias (XL, 8) praenuntiavit. Admoneantur et discipuli, ne quando graventur corda eorum crapula et ebrietate, et saecularibus curis; et insistat eis repentinus dies ille, velut laqueus; utique oblitis Deum ex plenitudine et cogitatione mundi; Moysi erit admonitio (Deut. XXXII, 15). Adeo is liberabit a laqueo diei illius, qui hanc admonitionem retro intulit. Erant et loca alia apud Hierusalem ad docendum, erant extra Hierusalem ad secedendum; sed enim per diem in templo docebat, ut qui per Osee (XII, 4) praedixerat: In templo meo me invenerunt, et illic disputatum est ad eos. Ad noctem vero in Elaeonem secedebat: sic enim Zacharias (XIV, 4) demonstrat: Et stabunt pedes ejus in monte Elaeone. Erant horae quoque auditorio competentes: diluculo conveniendum erat, quia per Isaiam (L, 4) cum dixisset. Dominus dat mihi linguam disciplinae; adjecit: Apposuit mihi mane aurem ad audiendum. Si hoc est prophetias dissolvere, quid erit adimplere?

so far was He from destroying the Law and the Prophets that He confirms that what they had preached must be fulfilled. Further He presses on: Heaven and earth will not pass away, unless all things are accomplished. What things are these? If they are the Creator's, the elements will rightly endure that the ordinance of their Lord be carried out. If they are the most good God's, I do not know whether heaven and earth will endure the fulfilment of what their rival established. If the Creator will suffer this, He is not a jealous God. Come now, let earth and heaven then pass away, for so their Lord appointed, while His Word abides for ever: for so Isaiah too (Isa. 40:8) foretold. Let the disciples too be warned lest at any time their hearts be weighed down with surfeiting and drunkenness and worldly cares, and that day come upon them suddenly, like a snare; upon those, that is, who have forgotten God out of the fullness and preoccupation of the world; it will be the warning of Moses (Deut. 32:15). So then He will deliver from the snare of that day Who long ago brought in this warning. There were also other places in Jerusalem for teaching, there were places outside Jerusalem for withdrawing; but by day He taught in the temple, as He Who had foretold through Hosea (Hos. 12:4): In My temple they found Me, and there it was disputed with them. By night, however, He withdrew to Elaeon: for so Zechariah (Zech. 14:4) shows: And His feet shall stand on Mount Elaeon. There were hours too suited to His hearers: they were to assemble at dawn, because through Isaiah (Isa. 50:4), when He had said, The Lord gives Me a tongue of instruction, He added: He has applied an ear to Me in the morning for hearing. If this is to dissolve the prophecies, what will it be to fulfil them?

CAPUT XL.

Chapter XL.

Proinde (Luc. XXII) scit et quando pati oporteret eum, cujus passionem lex figurat. Nam e tot festis Judaeorum Paschae diem elegit. In hoc enim sacramentum pronuntiarat Moyses (Levit. XXIII): Pascha est Domini. Ideo et affectum suum ostendit: Concupiscentia concupivi Pascha edere vobiscum antequam patiar. O legis destructorem, qui concupierat etiam Pascha servare! Nimirum vervecina illum Judaica delectaret? An ipse erat, qui (Isa. LIII) tanquam ovis ad victimam adduci habens, et tanquam ovis coram tondente, sic os non aperturus, figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat? Poterat et ab extraueo quolibet tradi; ne dicerem et in hoc Psalmum (XL, 10) expunctum:

Accordingly (Luke 22) He knows also when He was to suffer, He Whose passion the Law prefigures. For out of so many feasts of the Jews He chose the day of the Passover. For it was with a view to this mystery that Moses had proclaimed (Lev. 23): It is the Lord's Passover. Therefore He also showed His own longing: With desire I have desired to eat the Passover with you before I suffer. O destroyer of the Law, Who had longed even to keep the Passover! No doubt Jewish mutton delighted Him? Or was it He Who (Isa. 53), being destined to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer so not to open His mouth, longed to fulfil the figure of His saving blood? He could also have been betrayed by any stranger whatever; lest I should say that in this too a Psalm (Ps. 40:10) was fulfilled:

Editors' notes and page, col. 490

Footnotes

(64) ‹anchor: in Elaeonem› · call in col 490

Elaeonem, Id est, olivetum, a voce Graeca Ἐλαιον. EDD.

Elaeon, that is, the olive grove, from the Greek word Ἐλαιον. THE EDITORS.

(printed under page 249)

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. 490 (cut off at the left edge of the image)
marginal letters: A ta ; adeo Legem; B dine et cogitatione mundi; C Apposuit mihi mane aurem / hoc est prophetias (letter stands between these two lines); D figuram sanguinis sui
old-edition numerals: 460 after audiendum.

PL 2:491

Qui mecum panem edit, levabit in me plantam. Poterat et sine praemio tradi : quanta enim opera traditoris circa eum, qui populum coram offendens, nec tradi magis potuisset quam invadi? Sed hoc alii competisset Christo, non qui prophetias adimplebat. Scriptum est enim (Amos, II, 6) : Pro eo quod venundebere justum. Nam et quantitatem et exitum pretii postea Juda poenitente revocati, et in emptionem dati agri figuli, sicut in Evangelio Matthaei (cap. XXVII) continetur, Jeremias (cap. XXXII) praecanit : Et acceperunt triginta argentea pretium appretiati vel honorati, et dederunt ea in agrum figuli. Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere Pascha ut suum [indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus], acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum, vacua

He who eats bread with me will lift up his heel against me. He could have been betrayed even without a reward: for what need was there of a betrayer's work in the case of Him Who, offending the people openly, could not have been betrayed any more than seized? But this would have befitted another Christ, not One Who was fulfilling prophecies. For it is written (Amos 2:6): Because they sold the just one. For both the amount and the outcome of the price, which was afterwards called back when Judas repented and given for the purchase of the potter's field, as is contained in the Gospel of Matthew (ch. 27), Jeremiah (ch. 32) foretold: And they received the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him who was valued or honoured, and they gave them for the potter's field. Having professed therefore that with desire He desired to eat the Passover as His own [for it would be unworthy that God should desire anything belonging to another], the bread He had taken and distributed to the disciples He made His body, by saying, This is My body, that is, the figure of My body. But it would not have been a figure unless the body were a true one. Moreover, an empty

Editors' notes and page, col. 491

Footnotes

[The foot crops show only commentary on this page; no Variae lectiones heading is visible. Note (65) begins above the crop, so its opening, and the top line of each column, are cut off or clipped. What can be read is set below; clipped words are marked.]

Commentarius

(printed under page 250)

(65) (continued) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

[…] intelligenda sunt ut volunt Calvinistae, quibus hoc loco, et alias praeterea, nimium favit Rigaltius, sed quemadmodum ea intelligi postulat ipsorum contextus, et explicuerunt theologi polemici, inter quos doctissimi cardinales Perronius et Bellarminus primas obtinent. Posteriorem citasse sufficiat: « Sequitur (tertius) locus ex lib. IV contra Marcionem, ubi sic legimus. « Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit: Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. » — Respondeo: Priora verba hujus testimonii, quod omnes Sacramentarii tanquam Achillem quemdam in prima acie constituunt, pro nobis maxime faciunt: posteriora autem nihil obsunt causae nostrae. Illud enim: « Acceptum panem corpus suum fecit dicendo, Hoc est corpus meum, » aperte indicat panis realem mutationem in corpus Christi; illud autem: Id est, figura corporis mei, non significat (ut Sacramentarii credunt) panem Eucharistiae esse figuram corporis Domini, sed quod fuit olim figura in Testamento Veteri, nunc in corporis veritatem esse mutatum. Conjungitur enim illud, figura corporis mei, non cum voce proxime praecedente, corpus meum, sed cum pronomine Hoc, ut sit hic sensus: Acceptum panem corpus suum fecit, dicendo: Hoc, id est, panis, est qui olim fuit figura corporis mei, nunc est corpus meum: ubi pronomen Hoc, demonstrat panem, non qui manet, sed qui mutatur, ut supra diximus. — Id autem ita esse probatur primo ex illis verbis sequentibus: « Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. » Si enim per figuram intelligeret Eucharistiam, non diceret, non fuisset, sed non esset, loquitur igitur de figura Testamenti veteris, quae sine dubio vera figura non fuisset, nisi corpus verum ei responderet. — Secundo idem patet ex verbis paulo infra sequentibus: « Cur, inquit, panem corpus suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit, non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis per Jeremiam: Venite conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus, scilicet crucem in corpus ejus? Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. » Ubi Tertullianus dicit, Christum vocasse [… clipped top line: …anum cibum, ut impleret figuram Jeremiae,] qui nomine panis significaverat Christi corpus: non ergo Christus instituit in Eucharistia figuram corporis sui, ut adversarii volunt, sed implevit figuram veterem ex pane conficiendo corpus suum. — Tertio ex verbis aliis sequentibus, ubi explicans prophetiam Jacob (Gen. XLIX). Lavabit in vino stolam suam, et in sanguine uvae pallium suum: « Stolam, inquit, carnem demonstrans, et vinum sanguinem. Ita et nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit. » Ubi NOTANDUM, quod sicut apud Jeremiam panis significabat corpus, quia corpus Domini est cibus fidelium, ut supra diximus; ita vinum apud Jacobum patriarcham significat sanguinem Domini, quia sanguis Domini est potus fidelium. Christus autem ut explicaret istas figuras seu vaticinia, corpus sub specie panis, et sanguinem sub specie vini nobis tradidit: et sane si non verum corpus et sanguinem reipsa dedisset, non recte explicuisset, vel implesset vaticinia. Nam tam Jeremias per panem verum corpus, quam Jacob per vinum verum sanguinem praenuntiavit, ut Tertullianus dicit. Illa autem verba Tertulliani: « Qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit, » referuntur ad illa verba Jacobi: In sanguine uvae pallium suum. Vult enim dicere: per sanguinem uvae intelligi vinum, sed per vinum intelligi sanguinem Domini, ut ipse explicat, cum ait per stolam carnem, per vinum sanguinem demonstrari. — Quarto denique, idem patet ex progressu totius libri. Nam propositum ejus erat ostendere Christum in Evangelio non destruxisse Testamentum vetus, sed illud implesse. Itaque percurrit Tertullianus plurima Christi opera, ac demonstrat Christum in omnibus illis dedisse operam ut impleret figuras legis: igitur hoc etiam loco non inducit figuram institutam in Testamento Novo, sed impletionem tantum veterum figurarum. » Hactenus Bellarminus (de sacramento Eucharistiae lib. II, cap. 7). EDD.

(continued) […] are to be understood as the Calvinists would have it (whom Rigault favoured too much in this passage and elsewhere besides), but as their own context requires them to be understood, and as the polemical theologians have explained them, among whom the most learned cardinals Du Perron and Bellarmine hold first place. It will be enough to have cited the latter: "There follows (the third) passage, from book IV against Marcion, where we read thus: 'Having taken bread and distributed it to the disciples, he made it his body by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. But it would not have been a figure unless there were a body of truth.' — I answer: the first words of this testimony, which all the Sacramentarians set in their front line like some Achilles, make strongly for us; and the later ones do our cause no harm. For the words 'Having taken bread, he made it his body by saying, This is my body' plainly indicate a real change of the bread into the body of Christ; while the words 'that is, the figure of my body' do not mean (as the Sacramentarians believe) that the bread of the Eucharist is a figure of the Lord's body, but that what was once a figure in the Old Testament has now been changed into the truth of the body. For the phrase figure of my body is joined not with the words immediately before it, my body, but with the pronoun This, so that the sense is: Having taken bread he made it his body, saying: This, that is, the bread, which was once the figure of my body, now is my body; where the pronoun This points to the bread, not as remaining but as being changed, as we said above. — That this is so is proved, first, from the words that follow: 'But it would not have been a figure unless there were a body of truth.' For if by 'figure' he meant the Eucharist, he would not say would not have been but would not be; he is speaking, then, of the figure of the Old Testament, which beyond doubt would not have been a true figure unless a true body answered to it. — Secondly, the same is clear from the words a little further on: 'Why,' he says, 'does he call bread his body, and not rather a melon, which Marcion had in place of a heart, not understanding that this was the ancient figure of Christ's body, who said through Jeremiah: Come, let us cast wood into his bread, that is, the cross upon his body? And so the illuminator of the ancient things made clear enough what he then meant the bread to signify, by calling his body bread.' Where Tertullian says that Christ called [… clipped line: … food, to fulfil the figure of Jeremiah,] who by the name of bread had signified Christ's body: Christ therefore did not institute in the Eucharist a figure of his body, as our adversaries would have it, but fulfilled the old figure by making his body from bread. — Thirdly, from other words that follow, where he explains Jacob's prophecy (Genesis 49), He shall wash his robe in wine, and his mantle in the blood of the grape: 'By the robe,' he says, 'showing the flesh, and by the wine the blood. So now too he has consecrated his blood in wine, who then figured wine in blood.' Where it is TO BE NOTED that, just as in Jeremiah bread signified the body, because the Lord's body is the food of the faithful, as we said above, so in the patriarch Jacob wine signifies the Lord's blood, because the Lord's blood is the drink of the faithful. And Christ, to explain these figures or prophecies, handed down to us his body under the appearance of bread and his blood under the appearance of wine: and indeed, if he had not given a true body and blood in very fact, he would not rightly have explained or fulfilled the prophecies. For Jeremiah by the bread foretold a true body, as much as Jacob by the wine foretold true blood, as Tertullian says. And those words of Tertullian, 'who then figured wine in blood,' refer to Jacob's words: his mantle in the blood of the grape. For he means that by the blood of the grape wine is understood, but by the wine the Lord's blood, as he himself explains when he says that by the robe the flesh, and by the wine the blood, is shown. — Fourthly and lastly, the same is clear from the course of the whole book. For his purpose was to show that Christ in the Gospel did not destroy the Old Testament but fulfilled it. And so Tertullian runs through very many of Christ's works and shows that in all of them Christ took pains to fulfil the figures of the law: in this passage too, then, he brings in not a figure instituted in the New Testament but only the fulfilment of the old figures." So far Bellarmine (On the Sacrament of the Eucharist, book II, chapter 7). THE EDITORS.

(printed under page 250)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Panem corpus suum appellat. Locus pro veritate corporis Christi insignis, cui adde ex cap. 10 lib. adv. Judeos: » Christus panem corpus suum appellat; » cap. 2 de orat., etc, Justinus Martyr testimonium hac de re habet luculentum (Apol. I). Alios hic non allego. LE PR.

He calls bread his body. A notable passage for the truth of Christ's body; to which add, from chapter 10 of the book Against the Jews: "Christ calls bread his body"; chapter 2 of On Prayer, etc. Justin Martyr has a clear testimony on this matter (Apology I). I do not cite others here. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 250)

Page

running head: 491 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹Qui mecum panem edit›; B ‹panem, et distributum discipulis›; C (not seen); D ‹corpus suum fecit, dicendo : Hoc› (beside the commentary, not the author's text)
old-edition numerals: 461 after ‹vacua›

PL 2:492

res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia, corporis carebat veritate, ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis crucifigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit? Non intelligens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Jeremiam (XI, 19): Adversus me cogitaveruut cogitatum dicentes, Venite, conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus; scilicet crucem in corpus ejus. Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem, Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit. Nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse, nisi carnis. Nam et si qua corporis qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, certe sanguinem nisi carnea non habebit. Itaque

thing, which is a phantasm, could not take on a figure. Or if He feigned bread to be His body for this reason, that He lacked the reality of a body, then He ought to have handed over bread for us. It would have suited Marcion's emptiness for bread to be crucified. But why does He call bread His body, and not rather a melon, which Marcion had in place of a heart? [Marcion], not understanding that this was an old figure of the body of Christ, Who said through Jeremiah (Jer. 11:19): Against me they devised a device, saying, Come, let us cast wood into His bread; that is, the cross into His body. And so the Illuminator of the ancient things declared plainly enough what He had then meant bread to signify, calling His body bread. So too in the mention of the cup, establishing the testament sealed with His blood, He confirmed the substance of the body. For there can be blood of no body except of flesh. For even if some quality of body that is not of flesh should be put forward against us, certainly, unless it is of flesh, it will not have blood. And so

Editors' notes and page, col. 492

Footnotes

(none) [No Variae lectiones are called in this column. Commentarius (66), called after "appellat" in this column, and the end of (65), both printed in this column's half of the page foot, are set with the page foot in n491.]

Page

running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 492 (left part cut off in the image)
marginal letters: A res, quod est phantasma; B stantiam corporis confirmavit; C (none seen); D per sanguinem uvae intelligi vinum (beside the commentary, not the author's text)
old-edition numerals: (none in this column; the 461 in the gutter belongs to col. 491, after ‹vacua›)
misprints kept as printed: "cogitaveruut" (for cogitaverunt); "panem, Sic" (capital after a comma)
QA Q2a, 2026-10-18, for n491 (not edited here): this column's images show the full top line of the right half of the Commentarius, which n491 gives as a clipped line; it reads in full "corpus suum panem, non peponem, aut aliquem alium cibum, ut impleret figuram Jeremiae, qui". They also show a "Variae lectiones" heading on this page with the end of a note "…aris. Fran." and "6 Suum illum Rhen. Seml. Oberth.": variants 4–6 (calls in col 491) are on this page, while n491 says none are visible.

PL 2:493

consistit probatio corporis de testimonio carnis; probatio carnis, de testimonio sanguinis. Ut autem et sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas, aderit Isaias (LXIII, 1): Quis, inquit, qui advenit ex Edom? Ruber vestimentorum ejus ex Bosor. Sic decorus in stola vinolenta cum fortitudine? Quare rubra vestimenta tua? et indumenta sicut de foro torcularis pleno conculcato? Spiritus enim propheticus velut jam contemplabundus Dominum ad passionem venientem, carne scilicet vestitum, ut in ea passum, cruentum habitum carnis in vestimentorum rubore designat, conculcatae et expressae vi passionis, tanquam de foro torcularis; quia exinde quasi cruentati homines de vini rubore descendant. Multo manifestius Genesis in benedictione Judae, ex cujus tribu carnis census Christi processurus, jam tunc Christum in Juda delineabat. Lavabit, inquit (Gen. XLIX, 11), in vino stolam suam, et in sanguine uvae amictum suum; stolam et amictum carnem demonstrans, et vinum sanguinem. Ita et nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit.

the proof of the body rests on the testimony of the flesh; the proof of the flesh, on the testimony of the blood. And so that you may recognize the ancient figure of the blood too in wine, Isaiah will be at hand (Isa. 63:1): Who, he says, is this who comes from Edom? The redness of His garments is from Bosor. So comely in a wine-stained robe, with strength? Why are Thy garments red, and Thy clothing as from the floor of a full winepress that has been trodden? For the prophetic Spirit, as though already contemplating the Lord coming to His passion, clothed, that is, in flesh, so as to suffer in it, designates the bloody condition of the flesh by the redness of the garments, the flesh trodden down and pressed out by the force of the passion, as from the floor of a winepress; since men come down from there as though bloodied by the redness of the wine. Much more plainly did Genesis, in the blessing of Judah, from whose tribe the origin of Christ's flesh was to proceed, already then delineate Christ in Judah. He shall wash, it says (Gen. 49:11), His robe in wine, and His mantle in the blood of the grape; showing the flesh by the robe and the mantle, and the blood by the wine. So now too He consecrated His blood in wine, Who then figured wine in blood.

CAPUT XLI.

Chapter XLI.

Vae, ait, per quem traditur Filius hominis. Ergo jam Vae constat imprecationis et comminationis inclanationem in⟨te⟩lligendam, et irato et offenso deputandam: nisi si Judas impune erat tantum sceleris relaturus. Aut si impune, vacat Vae. Si non impune, utique ab eo puniendus, in quem scelus traditionis admisit. Porro, si sciens passus est hominem, quem ipse comitatui suo adsciverat, in tantum scelus ruere, noli jam de Creatore circa Adam retractare, quae in tuum quoque Deum retorquentur, aut ignorasse illum qui non ex providentia obstitit peccaturo, aut obsistere non potuisse, si ignorabat; aut noluisse, si et sciebat et poterat; atque ita malitiosum judicandum, qui passus sit hominem suum ex delicto perire. Suadeo igitur agnoscas potius et in isto Creatorem, quam parem illi Deum optimum adversus sententiam tuam facias. Nam et Petrum praesumptorie aliquid elocutum, negationi potius destinando, zelotem Deum tibi ostendit. Debuit etiam osculo tradi propheticus scilicet Christus, ut ejus scilicet Filius,

Woe, He says, [to him] through whom the Son of Man is betrayed. Therefore it is established that this Woe is to be understood as an outcry of imprecation and threatening, and to be ascribed to one angered and offended: unless Judas was to carry off so great a crime unpunished. Or, if unpunished, the Woe is empty. If not unpunished, he was surely to be punished by Him against Whom he committed the crime of betrayal. Further, if He knowingly allowed the man whom He Himself had admitted into His company to rush into so great a crime, do not now raise again against the Creator, in the matter of Adam, the charges which are turned back upon your God too: that either He was ignorant, Who did not by foresight oppose the one about to sin, or He could not oppose him, if He was ignorant; or He was unwilling, if He both knew and was able; and so He is to be judged malicious, Who allowed His own man to perish through sin. I advise you, therefore, rather to recognize the Creator in this too, than to make your supremely good God like Him against your own opinion. For also by destining Peter, who had said something presumptuously, rather to denial, He shows you a jealous God. Also the Christ had to be betrayed with a kiss, the Christ of prophecy, that is, so that, being His Son, that is,

Editors' notes and page, col. 493

Footnotes

(67) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Rubor vestimentorum ejus ex Bosor. Aut purpura Tyria intelligitur, sive Carthaginensis, aut per Bosor rubedinem explicare debemus: בצר [Hebrew as best read at this resolution] enim Hebr. est omphax sive uva immatura, legendumque esset Boser pro bosor. LE PR.

The redness of his garments from Bosor. Either Tyrian or Carthaginian purple is meant, or we must explain Bosor as redness: for in Hebrew בצר is omphax, the unripe grape, and Boser should be read for bosor. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 251)

(68) ‹anchor: aliquid elocutum› · call in col 493

Nam et Petrum praesumptorie aliquid elocutum. Sic paucissimis expressit Auctor colloquium Christi de negatione S. Petri praedicta, quod latius prosequitur lib. de Fuga in persec., omissis iis quae intermedia sunt apud Lucam. PAM.

For Peter too, having said something presumptuously. In these very few words the author has expressed Christ's conversation about the foretold denial of Saint Peter, which he pursues more fully in the book On Flight in Persecution, leaving out what comes between in Luke. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 251)

(69) ‹anchor: osculo tradi› · call in col 493

Debuit etiam osculo tradi. Epiph., confut. 66, hanc etiam veritatem corporis Christi probat ex his verbis Lucae, ad quae hic Auctor alludit: Et appropinquavit ut oscularetur eum Judas. Qui confut. 67, addit rescidisse etiam Marcionem in sequentibus quod fecit Petrus quando percussit et abscidit auriculam servi Pontificis, et, quantum apparet, totam historiam negationis Petri; quippe quam hic etiam Auctor omisit. ID.

He had also to be betrayed with a kiss. Epiphanius, refutation 66, proves this truth of Christ's body too from these words of Luke, to which the author here alludes: And Judas drew near to kiss him. And in refutation 67 he adds that Marcion also cut out, in what follows, what Peter did when he struck and cut off the ear of the high priest's servant, and, so far as appears, the whole story of Peter's denial; which indeed the author has also left out here. THE SAME [PAMELIUS].

(printed under page 251)

Page

running head: 493 LIB. IV ADV. MARCIO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A consistit probatio corporis; B benedictione Judae; C ditionis admisit. Porro; D Deum tibi ostendit
old-edition numerals: 462 after vestimentorum; 463 after elocutum (68),

PL 2:494

qui labiis a populo diligebatur (Isa. XXIX, 13). Perductus in concessum, an ipse esset Christus interrogatur. De quo Christo Judaei quaesissent, nisi de suo? Cur ergo non vel tunc alium eis prodidit? Ut pati posset, inquis. Id est, ut ille optimus ignorantes adhuc in scelus mergeret. Atquin et si dixisset, passurus esset. Si dixero enim, inquit, vobis non credetis. Porro non credituri, perseverassent in necem ejus. Et cur non magis passurus esset, si alterius Dei, ac per hoc, adversarium Creatoris manifestasset? Ergo non ut pateretur, alium se tunc quoque supersedit ostendere: sed quoniam ex ore ejus confessionem extorquere cupiebant, nec confesso tamen credituri, qui eum ex operibus Scripturas adimplentibus agnovisse debuerant; ita ejus fuit occultasse se, cui ultro debebatur agnitio. Et tamen adhuc eis manum porrigens: Abhinc, inquit, erit Filius hominis sedens ad dexteram virtutis Dei. Suggerebat enim se ex Danielis (cap. VII) prophetia Filium hominis, et e Psalmo (CIX) David, sedentem ad dexteram Dei. Itaque ex isto dicto et Scripturae comparatione illuminati quem se vellet intelligi: Ergo, inquiunt, tu Dei Filius es? Cujus Dei, nisi quem solum noverant? Cujus Dei, nisi quem in Psalmo meminerant dixisse Filio suo: Sede ad dextram meam? Sed respondit: Vos dicitis, qui ego sum. Atquin confirmavit id se esse quod illi dixerant, dum rursus interrogant. Unde autem probabis interrogative, et non ipsos confirmative pronuntiasse: Ergo tu Filius Dei es? Ut quia oblique ostenderat se per Scripturas Filium Dei intelligendum, sic senserint. Ergo tu Dei es Filius, quod te non vis aperte dicere; aeque ita et ille, Vos dicitis confirmative respondit; et adeo sic fuit pronuntiatio ejus, ut perseveraverint in eo, quod pronuntiatio sapiebat.

who was loved by the people with the lips (Isa. 29:13). Brought before the council, He is asked whether He Himself was the Christ. About what Christ would the Jews have asked, if not about their own? Why then did He not, at least then, disclose another to them? So that He could suffer, you say. That is, so that that most good one might plunge into crime people still ignorant. But even if He had said it, He would have suffered. For if I tell you, He says, you will not believe. Moreover, not going to believe, they would have persisted in [seeking] His death. And why would He not rather have suffered had He shown Himself to be of another God, and through this an adversary of the Creator? So it was not in order to suffer that even then He refrained from showing Himself to be another; but since they desired to wring a confession from His mouth, and yet would not believe Him even when He had confessed, though they ought to have recognized Him from the works that fulfilled the Scriptures, so it was His part to keep Himself hidden, to Whom recognition was owed unasked. And yet, still stretching out His hand to them, He says: From now on the Son of Man will be sitting at the right hand of the power of God. For He was suggesting that He was, from the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7), the Son of Man, and, from David's Psalm (Ps. 109), the one sitting at the right hand of God. And so, enlightened by that saying and by comparison with the Scripture as to Whom He wished Himself to be understood [to be], they say: Are You then the Son of God? Of what God, if not the one whom alone they knew? Of what God, if not the one whom they remembered to have said in the Psalm to His Son: Sit at My right hand? But He answered: You say that I am. But He confirmed that He was what they had said, while they question Him again. But how will you prove that they spoke interrogatively, and not affirmatively: You are then the Son of God? That is, because He had shown obliquely that He was to be understood through the Scriptures as the Son of God, they took it thus: So You are the Son of God, which You will not say openly; and in the same way He too answered affirmatively, You say; and His statement was so far of this kind that they persisted in what the statement implied.

CAPUT XLII.

CHAPTER XLII.

Perductum (Luc. XXIII) enim illum ad Pilatum onerare coeperunt, quod se regem diceret; Christum sine dubio Dei Filium, sessurum ad Dei dexteram. Caeterum, alio eum titulo gravassent, incerti an Filium Dei se dixisset, nisi Vos dicitis sic pronuutiasset, hoc se esse quod dicerent. Pilato

For when He had been brought to Pilate (Luke 23) they began to accuse Him of saying that He was a king; that is, beyond doubt, the Christ, the Son of God, who would sit at God's right hand. Otherwise they would have burdened Him with another charge, being unsure whether He had called Himself the Son of God, had He not so pronounced You say, [meaning] that He was what they were saying. To Pilate

Editors' notes and page, col. 494

Variae lectiones

7 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Sed Paris.

The Paris edition reads "Sed".

8 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible In Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "In".

9 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Decliuabat Rhen. Seml. Oberth. delineabat Franeq.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Decliuabat" [so printed, for Declinabat]; the Franeker edition "delineabat".

10 ‹anchor: non credetis› · call in col 494 Creditis Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Creditis".

11 ‹anchor: adversarium Creatoris› · call in col 494 Se add. Jun.

Junius adds "Se".

12 ‹anchor: sed quoniam› · call in col 494 Quomodo Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Quomodo".

13 ‹anchor: qui ego sum› · call in col 494 Quasi non ego Jun.

Junius reads "Quasi non ego".

14 ‹anchor: sic senserint› · call in col 494 Senserunt cod. Wouw. Rig. Venet.

Wouwer's codex, Rigault and the Venice edition read "Senserunt".

15 ‹anchor: dicere; aeque› · call in col 494 Atque Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Atque".

16 ‹anchor: Perductum› · call in col 494 Productum al.

Others read "Productum".

17 ‹anchor: dixisset, nisi› · call in col 494 Si Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Si".

Commentarius

(printed under page 251) [(67), (68) and (69) are called in col. 493 and set in n493.]

Page

running head: [...]V ADV. MARCIONEM. 494 (left part cut off in the image)
marginal letters: A qui labiis a populo diligebatur; B buerant; ita ejus fuit occultasse se; C tive, et non ipsos confirmative; D sic pronuutiasset, hoc se esse
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints kept as printed: "pronuutiasset" (for pronuntiasset, in the line beside D)

PL 2:495

quoque interroganti. Tu es Christus? proinde Tu dicis; ne metu potestatis viderentur amplius respondisse. Constitutus est igitur Dominus in judicio. Et statuit in judicio populum suum. Ipse Dominus in judicium venit cum presbyteris et archontibus populi, secundum Isaiam (III, 13). Atque exinde omne scriptum passionis suae implevit. Tumultuatae sunt ibidem nationes, et populi meditati sunt inania. Astiterunt reges terrae, et archontes congregati sunt in unum adversus Dominum et adversus Christum ejus Psal. II, 1, 2): nationes, Romani qui cum Pilato fuerant; populi, tribus Israelis; reges, in Herode; archontes, in summis sacerdotibus. Nam et Herodi velut munus a Pilato missus, Osee vocibus fidem reddidit; de Christo enim prophetaverat (X, 6): Et vinctum eum ducent xenium regi. Delectatus est denique Herodes viso Jesu, nec vocem ullam ab eo audivit: Tanquam agnus enim coram tondente, sic non aperuit os suum (Isa. XIII, 7); quia Dominus dederat illi linguam disciplinae, ut sciret quomodo eum oporteret proferre sermonem (Isa. L, 4). Illam scilicet linguam, quam in Psalmo (XLVI) agglutinatam gutturi suo tunc probabat, non loquendo. Et Barrabas quidem nocentissimus, vita ut bonus donatur; Christus vero justissimus, ut homicida morti expostulatur. Sed et duo scelesti circumfiguntur illi, ut inter iniquos scilicet deputaretur. Vestitum plane ejus militibus divisum, partim sorte concessum, Marcion abstulit, respiciens Psalmi (XXI, 19) prophetiam, Dispertiti sibi sunt vsstimenta mea, et in vestitum meum sortem miserunt. Aufer igitur et crucem ipsam. Idem tamen Psalmus (vers. 17) de eo non tacct: Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos. Totus in illo exitus legitur (vers. 8, 13 et passim): Circumdederunt me canes, synagoga maleficorum circumvallavit me. Omnes qui spectabant me, naso irridebant me. Locuti sunt labiis, et capita moverunt. Speravit in Deum, liberet eum. Quo jam testimonium vestimentorum habe falsi tui praedam, totus psalmus vestimenta sunt Christi. Ecce autem et elementa concutiuntur. Dominus enim patiebatur ipsorum. Caeterum, adversario laeso, coelum luminibus floruisset, magis sol radiis insultasset, magis dies stetisset, libenter spectans pendentem in patibulo Christum Marcionis. Haec argumenta quoque mihi competissent etsi non fuissent praedicata. Coelum, inquit, Isaias. (L, 3) vestiam tenebris. Hic erit dies, de quo et Amos (VIII, 9): Et erit illa die dicit Dominus, occidet sol meridie (habes et

also, when he asked, Are you the Christ? likewise, You say so; lest [His answers] should seem to have said more out of fear of [Pilate's] power. The Lord, therefore, was set in judgement. And He set His people in judgement. The Lord Himself comes into judgement with the elders and the rulers of the people, according to Isaiah (Isa. 3:13). And from then on He fulfilled the whole of what was written of His passion. There the nations raged, and the peoples meditated vain things. The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together in one against the Lord and against His Christ (Ps. 2:1–2): the nations, the Romans who had been with Pilate; the peoples, the tribes of Israel; the kings, in Herod; the rulers, in the chief priests. For when He was also sent to Herod as a gift by Pilate, He made good the words of Hosea; for he had prophesied of Christ (Hos. 10:6): And they shall lead Him bound as a present to the king. Herod, moreover, was delighted at seeing Jesus, yet heard no word at all from Him: for as a lamb before the shearer, so He did not open His mouth (Isa. 53:7); because the Lord had given Him a tongue of instruction, that He might know how He ought to bring forth speech (Isa. 50:4). That tongue, namely, which in the Psalm (Ps. 46) He then showed to be cleaving to His throat, by not speaking. And Barabbas, most guilty, is granted life as though good; but Christ, most just, is demanded for death as a murderer. And two criminals, too, are crucified on either side of Him, that He might, namely, be reckoned among the wicked. His clothing, to be sure, divided among the soldiers, partly awarded by lot, Marcion has taken away, looking to the prophecy of the Psalm (Ps. 21:19), They have parted my garments among themselves, and upon my vesture they have cast lots. Take away, then, the cross itself as well. Yet the same Psalm (v. 17) is not silent about it: They have dug my hands and my feet. The whole manner of His end is read in it (vv. 8, 13 and passim): Dogs have surrounded me, the synagogue of evildoers has hemmed me in. All who watched me jeered at me with the nose. They spoke with their lips, and wagged their heads. He hoped in God, let Him deliver him. Of what use now is the testimony of the garments? keep it as the plunder of your falsification; the whole psalm is the garments of Christ. But behold, the elements too are shaken. For their Lord was suffering. Otherwise, had their adversary been harmed, the heaven would have blossomed with lights, the sun would have exulted the more with its rays, the day would have stood still the longer, gladly beholding Marcion's Christ hanging on the gibbet. These proofs would have suited my case even had they not been foretold. I will clothe the heaven, says Isaiah (Isa. 50:3), with darkness. This will be the day of which Amos too [speaks] (Amos 8:9): And it shall be in that day, says the Lord, the sun shall set at noon (you have also

Editors' notes and page, col. 495

Variae lectiones

18 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Veniet Fran.

The Franeker edition reads "Veniet".

19 ‹anchor: Vestitum plane ejus› · call in col 495 A inser. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür insert "A".

20 ‹anchor: militibus divisum› · call in col 495 Partim add. Lat.

Latinius adds "Partim".

21 ‹anchor: et pedes meos› · call in col 495 Meos omitt. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür omit "Meos".

22 ‹anchor: vestimentorum habe› · call in col 495 Habes Rhen. Latin.

Rhenanus and Latinius read "Habes".

23 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Fuisset al; alterutrum omitt: Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Others read "Fuisset"; Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür omit one of the two.

24 ‹anchor: Sed sic› · call in col 496 Si al.

Others read "Si".

25 ‹anchor: cathedra pestium› · call in col 496 Psal. I. Pestilentiae al.

Psalm 1. Others read "Pestilentiae".

26 ‹anchor: Sic› · call in col 496 Si al.; alterutrum del. Jun.

Others read "Si"; Junius deletes one of the two.

Commentarius

(printed under page 252)

(70) ‹anchor: circumfiguntur illi› · call in col 495

Sed et duo scelesti circumfiguntur illi. Graece est κακοῦργοι apud Lucam, pro quo recte vertit, scelesti. Et magis ea versio respondet prophetiae Isaiae LIII, quam hic affert, quasi repetens quod apud Lucam habetur cap. XXII: Et inter iniquos deputatus est, Graece apud evangelistam, μετὰ τῶν ἀνόμων. PAM.

But two criminals too are fastened up on either side of him. In Luke the Greek is κακοῦργοι, "evildoers", for which he rightly renders scelesti, "criminals". And that rendering answers better to the prophecy of Isaiah 53, which he brings in here, as if repeating what is found in Luke, chapter 22: And he was reckoned among the lawless, in the evangelist's Greek "with the lawless". PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 252)

Page

running head: 495 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A quoque interroganti; B enim prophetaverat (x, 6); C Dispertiti sibi sunt vsstimenta mea; D Christum Marcionis
old-edition numerals: 464 at head of column before quoque; 465 after fuissent

PL 2:496

horae sextae significationem), et contenebrabit super terram. Scissum est et templi velum, angeli eruptione, derelinquentis filiam Sionis (Isa. I, 8) tanquam in vinea speculam, et in cucumerario casulam. O quantum perseveravit etiam tricesimo psalmo Christum ipsum reddere? Vociferatur ad Patrem ut et moriens ultima voce prophetas adimpleret. Hoc dicto exspiravit Quis? spiritus semetipsum, an caro spiritum? Sed spiritus semetipsum exspirare non potuit. Alius est qui exspirat, alius qui exspiratur. Si spiritus exspiratur, ab alio exspiretur necesse est. Quod si solus spiritus fuisset, discessisse potius diceretur, quam exspirasse. Quis igitur exspirat spiritum, nisi caro? quae et spirat, quando illum habet; et ita eum, eum amittit, exspirat. Denique, si caro non fuit, sed phantasma carnis, phantasma autem spiritus fuit, spiritus autem semetipsum exspiravit, et exspirando discessit, sine dubio phantasma discessit, cum spiritus, qui erat phantasma, discessit, et nusquam comparuit phantasma cum spiritu. Nihil ergo remansit in ligno? nihil pependit etiam post exspirationem? nihil de Pilato postulatum? nihil de patibulo detractum? nihil sindone involutum? nihil sepulcro novo conditum? Atquin non nihil. Quid igitur illud fuit? Si phanstasma, adhuc ergo inerat et Christus. Si discesserat Christus, ergo abstulerat phantasma. Superest impudentiae haereticae dicere, phantasma illic phantasmatis remansisse. Sed sic et Joseph corpus fuisse noverat, quod tota pietate tractavit, ille Joseph, qui non consenserat in scelere Judaeis: Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, et in via peccatorum non stetit, et in cathedra pestium non sedit; oportuerat etiam sepultorem Domini prophetari, ac jam tunc merito benedici.

the indication of the sixth hour), and it will darken over the earth. The veil of the temple too was rent, by the bursting forth of the angel, as he abandoned the daughter of Sion as a watchtower in a vineyard, and as a hut in a cucumber field (Isa. 1:8). O how it persevered, even in the thirtieth psalm, in presenting Christ Himself! He cries out to the Father, so that even in dying He might fulfil the prophets with His last utterance. Having said this, He breathed out. Who? The spirit itself, or the flesh the spirit? But the spirit could not breathe itself out. One is he who breathes out, another that which is breathed out. If the spirit is breathed out, it must be breathed out by another. But if He had been spirit alone, He would rather have been said to have departed than to have breathed out. Who then breathes out the spirit, except the flesh, which both breathes while it has it, and so, when it loses it, expires? Finally, if it was not flesh but a phantasm of flesh, and the phantasm was spirit, and the spirit breathed itself out and in breathing out departed, then without doubt the phantasm departed when the spirit, which was the phantasm, departed, and nowhere did the phantasm appear with the spirit. Did nothing then remain on the wood? Did nothing hang there even after the expiring? Was nothing requested from Pilate? Nothing taken down from the gibbet? Nothing wrapped in the linen cloth? Nothing laid in the new tomb? And yet it was not nothing. What then was it? If a phantasm, then Christ too was still within it. If Christ had departed, then He had taken the phantasm away. It remains for heretical impudence to say that the phantasm of a phantasm remained there. But thus Joseph too knew that it was a body, which he handled with all devotion, that Joseph who had not consented with the Jews in their crime: Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and has not stood in the way of sinners, and has not sat in the chair of pestilences; it was fitting that even the burier of the Lord should be foretold, and already then deservedly blessed.

CAPUT XLI.

Chapter XLI.

Sic nec munerum illarum officium (Luc. XXIV) praeterit prophetia, quae ante lucem convenerunt ad sepulcrum cum odorum paratura. De hoc enim per Osee (VI, 1 seqq.): Ut quaerant, inquit, faciem meam, ante lucem vigilabunt ad me, dicentes, Eamus, et convertamur ad Dominum, quia ipse eripuit, et curabit nos; percussit, et miserebitur nostri; sanabit nos post biduum, in die tertia resurgemus. Quis enim haec non credat in recogitatu mulierum illarum volutata, inter dolorem praesentis destitutionis qua percussae sibi videbantur a Domino, et spem resurrectionis ipsius qua restitui rite

Thus neither does prophecy pass over the service of those women (Luke 24) who came together to the tomb before dawn with their preparation of spices. For of this it says through Hosea (6:1 ff.): That they may seek My face, before dawn they will keep watch for Me, saying, Let us go, and let us return to the Lord, for He Himself has snatched away, and He will heal us; He has struck, and He will have mercy on us; He will make us whole after two days, on the third day we shall rise again. For who would not believe that these things were turned over in the reflection of those women, between the grief of their present desertion, by which they seemed to themselves to have been struck by the Lord, and the hope of His resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed they would be restored?

Editors' notes and page, col. 496

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 496 (start of head cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A horae sextae significationem); B eum amittit, exspirat.; C noverat, quod tota pietate; D tri; sanabit nos post biduum
old-edition numerals: 466 after enim

PL 2:497

arbitrabantur? Corpore autem non invento, sublata erat sepultura ejus de medio, secundum Isaiam (LVII, 2). Sed et duo ibidem angeli apparuerunt. Tot fere laterensibus uti solebat, in duobus testibus consistens Dei Sermo. Revertentes quoque a sepulcro mulieres, et ab illa angelorum visione prospiciebat Isaias (XXVII, 11): Mulieres, inquit, venientes a visione, venite ad renuntiandam scilicet Domini resurrectionem. Bene autem, quod incredulitas discipulorum perseverabat, ut in finem usque defensio nostra consisteret, Christum Jesum non alium se discipulis edidisse, quam prophetatum. Nam cum duo ex illis iter agerent, et Dominus eis adhaesisset, non comparens quod ipse esset, etiam dissimulans de conscientia rei gestae; Nos autem putabamus, inquiunt, ipsum esse redemptorem Israelis; utique suum Christum, id est Creatoris. Adeo nec alium se ediderat illis. Caeterum, non existimarent eum Creatoris; et cum Creatoris existimaretur, non sustinuisset hanc de se existimationem, si non is esset qui existimabatur: aut ipse erit auctor erroris, et praevaricator veritatis adversus Dei optimi titulum. Sed nec post resurrectionem alium se eis ostendit, quam quem existimatum sibi dixerant. Plane invectus est in illos: O insensati et tardi corde, in non credendo omnibus quae locutus est ad vos! Quae locutus non alterius se Dei esse probat, sed ejusdem Dei. Nam eadem et angeli ad mulieres: Rememoramini quae locutus sit vobis in Galilaea, dicens, quod oportet tradi filium hominis, et crucifigi, et tertia die resurgere. Et quare oportebat, nisi quia ita a Deo Creatore scriptum? Igitur increpavit illos, ut de sola passione scandalizatos, et ut dubios de fide resurrectionis annuntiatae sibi a feminis, per quae non crediderant ipsum fuisse quem existimarant. Itaque quod existimaverant, id volens credi se, eum se confirmabat

But when the body was not found, His burial had been taken away from the midst, according to Isaiah (Isa. 57:2). But two angels also appeared there. With about so many attendants at His side was the Word of God accustomed to go, standing firm on two witnesses. Isaiah also foresaw the women returning from the sepulchre and from that vision of the angels (Isa. 27:11): Women, he says, coming from the vision, come, namely to announce the resurrection of the Lord. And it is well that the unbelief of the disciples persisted, so that our defence might hold firm right to the end, that Christ Jesus showed Himself to the disciples as none other than the one prophesied. For when two of them were making a journey, and the Lord had joined them, not making it apparent that it was He, and even dissembling His knowledge of what had been done: But we were supposing, they say, that He was the redeemer of Israel; certainly their own Christ, that is, the Creator's. To such a degree had He not shown Himself to them as another. Otherwise they would not have supposed Him to be the Creator's; and when He was supposed to be the Creator's, He would not have endured this opinion of Himself, if He were not the one He was supposed to be: or else He will be the author of error, and a betrayer of the truth against the title of the most good God. But neither after the resurrection did He show Himself to them as other than the one whom they had said they supposed Him to be. Plainly He inveighed against them: O senseless and slow of heart, in not believing all the things that He has spoken to you! By the things He spoke He proves that He is not of another God, but of the same God. For the angels too said the same things to the women: Remember what He spoke to you in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered up, and crucified, and on the third day rise again. And why "must", unless because it was so written by God the Creator? Therefore He rebuked them, as men offended by the passion alone, and as doubtful in faith concerning the resurrection announced to them by women, because of which they had not believed that He was the one whom they had supposed. And so, wishing Himself to be believed to be that which they had supposed, He confirmed Himself to be the one

Editors' notes and page, col. 497

Variae lectiones

27 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Existimatur Rig. Venet. Seml.

Rigault, the Venice edition and Semler read "Existimatur".

28 ‹anchor: quam quem› · call in col 497 Quae Paris. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "Quae".

29 ‹anchor: ejusdem Dei› · call in col 497 Et minus de Deo Seml. et manus de Deo Rhen.

Semler reads "Et minus de Deo"; Rhenanus "et manus de Deo".

30 ‹anchor: quod oportet› · call in col 497 Oporteret cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's codex reads "Oporteret".

31 ‹anchor: increpavit› · call in col 497 Increpuit al. juxta Seml.

According to Semler, others read "Increpuit".

32 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Videtis habere Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Videtis habere".

33 ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible Nec Seml.

Semler reads "Nec".

Commentarius

(printed under page 253)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Tot fere laterensibus. Laterenses, stipatores, quod latus claudant. RHEN.

With almost as many flank-guards. Laterenses are attendants, so called because they close in one's side (latus). RHENANUS.

(printed under page 253)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible in the foot crop› · call not visible

Revertentes quoque a sepulcro mulieres. Etiam hic evangelistam convenire ostendit cum eo quod est Isa. XVII: Mulieres venientes a visione venisse, ubi omittimus quod priori loco legebatur: Venite, quod neque apud LXX hodie aut olim neque apud B. Hieronymum, Cyrillum, Procopium in Comm., neque apud Origenem in Matth. aut Ruffinum in Symbolum inter opera B. Cypriani, amplius quam semel legatur. PAM.

The women too, returning from the tomb. Here too he shows that the evangelist agrees with what is in Isaiah 17: that women coming from the sight had come, where we leave out what was read in the earlier place, Come, since it is not read more than once either in the Seventy, today or formerly, or in blessed Jerome, Cyril or Procopius in their commentaries, or in Origen on Matthew, or in Rufinus on the Creed among the works of blessed Cyprian. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 253)

Page

running head: 497 LIB. IV ADV. MARCION (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A arbitrabantur? Corpore autem non invento; B putabamus, inquiunt, ipsum esse redemptorem; C mini quae locutus sit vobis in Galilaea; D (71) Tot fere laterensibus (commentary)
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 2:498

quem existimaverant, Creatoris scilicet Christum redemptorem Israelis. De corporis autem veritate quid potest clarius? cum haesitantibus eis ne phantasma esset, imo phantasma credentibus: Quid turbati estis, inquit, et quid cogitationes subeunt in corda vestra? Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse sum; quoniam spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me habentem videtis. Et Marcion quaedam contraria sibi, illa credo industria eradere de Evangelio suo noluit, ut ex his quae eradere potuit, nec erasit, illa quae erasit, aut negetur erasisse, aut merito erasisse dicatur. Nec parcit nisi eis quae non aliter interpretando, quam delendo, subvertit. Vult itaque sic dictum, quasi, Spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habentem, ad spiritum referatur, sicut me videtis habentem; id est non habentem ossa sicut et spiritus. Et quae ratio tortuositatis istius? cum simpliciter pronuntiare potuisset: Quia spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis non habentem. Cur autem inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert, quae membra ex ossibus constant, si ossa non habebat? Cur adjicit: Et scitote quia ego sum, quem scilicet corporeum retro noverant? Aut si phantasma erat usquequaque, cur illos phantasma credentes increpabat? Atquin adhuc eis non credentibus, propterea cibum desideravit, ut se ostenderet etiam dentes habere. Implevimus, ut opinor, sponsionem. Exhibuimus Jesum Christum Prophetarum doctrinis, sententiis, affectibus, sensibus, virtutibus, passionibus, etiam resurrectione, non alium quam Creatoris. Siquidem et apostolos mittens ad praedicandum universis nationibus, in omnem terram exire sonum eorum, et in terminos terrae voces eorum, Psalmum adimplendo, praecepit. Misereor tui, Marcion, frustra laborasti. Christus enim Jesus in Evangelio tuo, meus est.

whom they had supposed, namely the Christ of the Creator, the redeemer of Israel. But concerning the reality of His body, what can be clearer? When they were in doubt whether He might be a phantom, indeed when they believed Him to be a phantom, He says: Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See My hands and feet, that it is I Myself; for a spirit does not have bones, as you see Me having. And Marcion, I believe, deliberately chose not to erase from his Gospel certain things contrary to himself, so that, on the strength of those which he could have erased and did not erase, it might either be denied that he erased the things he did erase, or be said that he erased them with good reason. And he spares only those things which he subverts by interpreting them no differently than by deleting them. So he wants the saying, A spirit does not have bones, as you see Me having, to be taken as if the words as you see Me having referred to the spirit; that is, not having bones, just as a spirit also does not. And what is the reason for this twistedness, when He could simply have declared: For a spirit does not have bones, as you see Me not having? But why does He offer His hands and feet to their inspection, members which consist of bones, if He had no bones? Why does He add: And know that it is I, Whom of course they had previously known as bodily? Or if He was a phantom through and through, why did He rebuke them for believing Him a phantom? Moreover, since they still did not believe, He therefore asked for food, so as to show that He also had teeth. We have fulfilled our undertaking, I think. We have shown Jesus Christ, by the teachings of the Prophets, by His sayings, dispositions, feelings, powers, sufferings, and even resurrection, to be none other than the Creator's. For indeed, in sending the apostles also to preach to all nations, He commanded, in fulfilment of the Psalm, that their sound should go out into all the earth, and their voices to the ends of the earth. I pity you, Marcion: you have laboured in vain. For the Christ Jesus in your Gospel is mine.

Editors' notes and page, col. 498

Footnotes

(73) ‹anchor: meus est› · call in col 498

Christus enim Jesus in Evangelio tuo, meus est. Corruptum et depravatum fuisse Evangelium a Marcione tum hic locus probat, tum cap. ult. libri praecedentis: Et Evangelium vestrum, etc., tum etiam lib. hoc cap. 29. Habuisse autem Tertullianum codicem illum Marcionis corruptum testatur S. Epiphanius. An Lucae fuerit corruptum Evangelium, non est dubitandi locus legenti huncce librum; ubique enim id fit manifestum. Citatur etiam corrupte versus 25 cap. XXIV B. Lucae: O insensati Galatae, etc. Illud enim non ex recepto Evangelio, sed ex Evangelio Marcionis citatur. LE PR.

For Christ Jesus in your Gospel is mine. That the Gospel was corrupted and perverted by Marcion is proved both by this passage and by the last chapter of the preceding book, And your Gospel, etc., and also by chapter 29 of this book. That Tertullian had that corrupted codex of Marcion is attested by Saint Epiphanius. Whether it was Luke's Gospel that was corrupted leaves no room for doubt to one who reads this book; for it is made plain everywhere. Verse 25 of chapter 24 of blessed Luke is also cited in corrupt form: O foolish Galatians, etc. For this is cited not from the received Gospel but from Marcion's Gospel. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 253)