PL 2 · cols. 499–556

Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, Liber quintus

Editors' preface

LIBER QUINTUS.

BOOK V.

ARGUMENTUM.

ARGUMENT.

Sicuti libro praecedenti ex Evangelio B. Lucae, quod sibi usurpaverat Marcion, sic nunc ex Epistolis Pauli (quas ille mutilatas in librum Apostolicum suo titulo editum diverso ordine redegerat, exceptis iis quae sunt ad Timotheum et Titum, et ad Hebraeos) probat Tertullianus non alium Deum praedicari ab Apostolo quam Creatoris.

As in the preceding book from the Gospel of blessed Luke, which Marcion had appropriated to himself, so now from the Epistles of Paul (which he, having mutilated them, had gathered in a different order into a book, the Apostolicon, issued under its own title, except those which are to Timothy and Titus, and to the Hebrews) Tertullian proves that no other God is preached by the Apostle than the Creator's.

I. Imprimis autem id vel ex eo manifestum facit, quod nulla auctoritas apostolo Paulo probetur, nisi de Instrumento Veteri Creatoris, et Actis apostolorum, quae Marcion rejiciebat.

I. First of all he makes this plain even from the fact that no authority can be proved for the apostle Paul except from the Old Instrument of the Creator and the Acts of the apostles, which Marcion rejected.

II. Deinde tum per argumentum et verba Apostoli, de Epistola ad Galatas, ex cap. I.

II. Then through the argument and words of the Apostle, from the Epistle to the Galatians, from chapter I.

III. Item ex ejusdem Epistolae cap. II et III.

III. Likewise from chapters II and III of the same Epistle.

IV. Ex ejusdem etiam cap. IV, V, VI.

IV. From chapters IV, V, VI of the same also.

V. Deinde per verba Apostoli, de Epistola ad Corinthios prima, ex cap. I.

V. Then through the words of the Apostle, from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from chapter I.

VI. Etiam ex Epistolae ejusdem cap. II et III.

VI. Also from chapters II and III of the same Epistle.

VII. Ejusdem quoque ex cap. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX et X.

VII. Of the same also, from chapters IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X.

VIII. Item cap. XI, XII, XIII et XIV.

VIII. Likewise chapters XI, XII, XIII and XIV.

IX. Ex cap. etiam XV priori parte.

IX. From the first part of chapter XV also.

X. Et ex ejusdem cap. XV secunda parte.

X. And from the second part of chapter XV of the same.

XI. Rursum per verba Apostoli, de II Epist. ad Corinth. ex cap. I, II et III.

XI. Again through the words of the Apostle, from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, from chapters I, II and III.

XII. Item ex cap. V, VII, XI, XII et XIII.

XII. Likewise from chapters V, VII, XI, XII and XIII.

XIII. Porro etiam per verba Apostoli, de Epist. ad Rom. ex cap. I, II, III, V, VI et VII.

XIII. Further, through the words of the Apostle, from the Epistle to the Romans, from chapters I, II, III, V, VI and VII.

XIV. Ex ejusdem etiam Epistolae cap. VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII et XVI.

XIV. From chapters VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII and XVI of the same Epistle also.

XV. Nec minus per verba Apostoli, de Epist. ad Thessalonicenses prima.

XV. No less through the words of the Apostle, from the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

XVI. Et de Epist. ad Thessalonicenses secunda.

XVI. And from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

XVII. Dein per verba Apostoli, de Epist. ad Laodicenos (sive ad Ephesios) ex cap, I et II.

XVII. Then through the words of the Apostle, from the Epistle to the Laodiceans (or to the Ephesians), from chapters I and II.

XVIII. Ex ejusdem etiam Epistolae cap. III, IV, V et VI.

XVIII. From chapters III, IV, V and VI of the same Epistle also.

XIX. Denique per verba Apostoli de Epist. ad Colossenses.

XIX. Finally, through the words of the Apostle, from the Epistle to the Colossians.

Editors' notes and page, col. 499

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 254)

(1) ‹anchor: cum (before cognoveris)› · call in col 500

Cum omitt. Jun.

Junius omits "cum".

Commentarius

(printed under page 254) (1) In albo apostolorum. Album hic est catalogus apostol.; nam apud jureconsultos album est matricula, seu particula decurionum, unde alibi proscriptio l. Herennius 10, D. de decur. et fil. Ea ferme ratione album senatorum dixit λεύκωμα τῶν βουλευόντων Dion., lib. LV, et album citharœdorum Suetonius in Nerone cap. 20. LE PR.

In the album of the apostles. "Album" here is the catalogue of the apostles; for among the jurists the album is the register, or list, of the decurions, whence elsewhere it is called a "proscriptio": law Herennius 10, Digest, on decurions and their sons. In much the same way Dio, book 55, called the senators' roll λεύκωμα τῶν βουλευόντων ("the white board of the councillors"), and Suetonius, Nero chapter 20, speaks of the album of the lyre-singers. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 254) (2) In acatos tuas. Acatus sive ἄκατος et ἀκάτιον navigii genus est, quod velis, non autem remis agebatur. ID.

Into your skiffs. The acatus, or ἄκατος and ἀκάτιον, is a kind of vessel that was driven by sails, not by oars. The same (Le Prieur).

(printed under page 254) (3) Plane profiteri potest seipsum quivis. Loquitur de professione quæ fit apud acta. Nam profitemur, dum publice et apud acta aliquid ultro denuntiamus, veluti cum profitemur merces ne in vectigali pendundo Reipublicæ fraus fiat. Unde merces improfessas Marcianus, in Pandectis vocat, quarum nomine nullum vectigal solutum est. Item profitebantur filios natos sibi apud acta veteres : quæ res tum certam, tum facilem ætatis faciebat probationem, si quando hujusmodi dubium incidisset. In hunc sensum eleganter dicit Seneca, profiteri æs alienum. Id quod candidati facere cogebantur et rei, de Benef. lib. VI. Livius profiteri frumentum, lib. IV, dec. 1, ubi in pervulgatis exemplaribus mendose legitur confiteri cogendo frumentum. RHEN.

Anyone at all can certainly declare himself. He is speaking of the declaration made before the public records. For we "declare" (profitemur) when we report something of our own accord publicly and before the records, as when we declare goods so that the State is not defrauded in the payment of duty. Hence Marcian, in the Pandects, calls goods on which no duty has been paid improfessas, "undeclared". Likewise the ancients declared before the records the sons born to them, which made the proof of age both certain and easy whenever any doubt of that kind arose. In this sense Seneca elegantly speaks of "declaring a debt", which candidates and defendants were obliged to do, On Benefits book 6. Livy speaks of declaring grain, book 4, decade 1, where the common copies wrongly read "confiteri cogendo frumentum". Rhenanus.

(printed under page 254)

Editors' prose

- ARGUMENTUM (synopsis, heads I–XIX in col. 499; heads XX–XXI and the signature PAMEL. at the head of col. 500): set in layer 1 (parts/c499_a.md and parts/c500_a.md) per Ray's ruling of 2026-10-17. The col. 500 part was set there by Q3, 2026-10-18.

Page

running head: 499 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — [cut off]
marginal letters: A ARGUMENTUM.; B IV. Ex ejusdem etiam cap.; C ad Rom. ex cap. I, II, III; D (1) In albo apostolorum (in the commentary notes)
old-edition numerals: (none)
running head: 499 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 500
marginal letters: A ‹(left column) Argumentum heading›; B ‹IV. Ex ejusdem etiam cap.›; C ‹ad Rom. ex cap. I, II, III›; D ‹(in the commentary) aposto l./mus, veluti cum profitemur›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: The title LIBER QUINTUS. is printed across the full page width; set once here. The whole of col. 499 below the title, and the head of col. 500 down to "XXI. Postremo de Epist. ad Philemonem. PAMEL.", is the ARGUMENTUM (synopsis in 21 numbered heads, signed PAMEL.): editors' matter, not Tertullian's; its col. 499 part is set in layer 1 (Ray 2026-10-17: editors' prose is set). Page foot (Variae lectiones; Commentarius signed LE PR., ID., RHEN.) is pass 2's apparatus, given above.

PL 2:500

XX. De Epist. ad Philippenses.

XX. On the Epistle to the Philippians.

XXI. Postremo de Epist. ad Philemonem. PAMEL.

XXI. Lastly, on the Epistle to Philemon. PAMELIUS.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

CHAPTER I.

Nihil sine origine, nisi Deus solus: quae quantum praecedit in statu omnium rerum, tantum praecedat necesse est etiam in retractatu earum, ut constare de statu possit. Quia nec habeas dispicere quid quale sit, nisi certus an sit, cum cognoveris unde sit. Et ideo ex opusculi ordine ad hanc materiam devolutus, apostoli quoque Pauli originem a Marcione desidero, novus alioqui discipulus, nec ullius alterius auditor, qui nihil interim credam, nisi nihil temere credendum. Temere porro credi quodcunque sine originis agnitione creditur, quique dignissime ad sollicitudinem redigam istam inquisitionem, cum is mihi affirmatur apostolus, quem in albo apostolorum apud Evangelium non deprehendo. Denique audiens postea eum a Domino allectum jam in coelis quiescente, quasi improvidentiam existimo, si non ante scivit illum sibi necessarium Christus; sed jam ordinato officio apostolatus, et in sua opera dimisso, ex incursu, non ex prospectu adjiciendum existimavit; necessitate, ut ita dixerim, non voluntate. Quamobrem, Pontice nauclere, si nunquam furtivas merces vel illicitas, in acatos tuas recepisti; si nullum omnino onus avertisti vel adulterasti, cautior utique et fidelior in Dei rebus, edas velim nobis quo symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum? quis illum tituli charactere percusserit? quis transmiserit tibi? quis imposuerit, ut possis eum constanter exponere? ne illius probetur, qui omnia apostolatus ejus instrumenta protulerit. Ipse se, inquit, Apostolum est professus (Galat. I, 1), et quidem non ab hominibus, nec per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum. Plane profiteri potest semetipsum quivis. Verum professio ejus alterius auctoritate conficitur: alius scribit, alius subscribit, alius obsignat, alius

Nothing is without origin save God alone; and as far as this precedes in the condition of all things, so far it must needs precede also in the treatment of them, so that one may be certain about their condition. For you cannot examine what a thing is and of what kind, unless you are certain whether it is, once you have learned whence it is. And therefore, brought down by the order of my little work to this matter, I require of Marcion the origin of the apostle Paul also, being otherwise a new disciple and the hearer of no one else, I who for the meantime believe nothing except that nothing is to be believed rashly. Now whatever is believed without knowledge of its origin is believed rashly; and I may most rightly bring this inquiry to anxious care, when that man is affirmed to me as an apostle whom I do not find in the roll of the apostles in the Gospel. Then, hearing that he was afterwards chosen by the Lord when He was already at rest in the heavens, I reckon it a kind of want of foresight, if Christ did not know beforehand that he was necessary to Him, but, when the office of the apostleship had already been ordered and sent out to its works, judged that he must be added by chance encounter, not by forethought; by necessity, so to speak, not by will. Wherefore, Pontic shipmaster, if you have never taken stolen or unlawful wares into your boats, if you have diverted or adulterated no cargo at all, being surely more careful and more faithful in the things of God, I would have you tell us under what token you took on board the apostle Paul. Who stamped him with the mark of a label? Who consigned him to you? Who loaded him, that you can unload him with confidence? lest he be proved to belong to Him who has brought forward all the instruments of his apostleship. He himself, he says, professed himself an Apostle (Gal. 1:1), and that not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ. Plainly anyone can profess himself; but his profession is made good by the authority of another: one writes, another signs, another seals, another

Editors' notes and page, col. 500

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: in albo apostolorum› · call in col 500

(printed under page 254)

(2) ‹anchor: in acatos tuas› · call in col 500

(printed under page 254)

(3) ‹anchor: semetipsum quivis› · call in col 500

(printed under page 254)

Variae lectiones

(1) ‹anchor: cum (before cognoveris)› · call in col 500 (text and English in n499)

(printed under page 254)

Editors' prose

- ARGUMENTUM, closing heads XX–XXI and the signature PAMEL. (printed in small capitals) at the head of col. 500 above CAPUT PRIMUM: editors' matter (Pamelius's argumentum, begun in col. 499), not Tertullian's. Set in layer 1 (parts/c500_a.md) per Ray's ruling of 2026-10-17 (moved there from this file by Q3, 2026-10-18).

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 255)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 501

Sic... sic al.

Others read "sic ... sic".

(printed under page 255)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 501

Non Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "non".

(printed under page 255)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 501

Dixisset Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "dixisset".

Commentarius

(printed under page 255)

(4) ‹anchor: hic dimicabimus lineis› · call in col 501

(printed under page 255) (4) Iisdem et hic dimicabimus lineis. Linearum proverbialiter lubens meminit, ut, « rursum ad lineas, prædúcere lineas. » RHEN.

Here too we shall fight on the same lines. He likes to mention "lines" proverbially, as in "back to the lines again", "to draw lines". Rhenanus.

(printed under page 255)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 501

(printed under page 255) (5) Principalem adversus Judaismum, etc. Quod ex margine in contextum irrepserat, iterum in marginem, tum hoc loco, tum ubique infra, rejecimus. Titulum nempe hujus capitis : Epistola ad Galatas, cui adjecimus ex cap. Atqui facit adversus hæreticos hodiernos illud principalem adversus Judaismum Epistolam, qui sensum verborum Apostoli pervertentes, non adversus Judaismum, sed adversus ecclesiasticas festorum dierum observationes, hujus Epistolæ verba cap. IV non verentur allegare. PAMEL.

The principal [Epistle] against Judaism, etc. What had crept from the margin into the text we have thrown back into the margin, both here and everywhere below: namely the title of this chapter, The Epistle to the Galatians, to which we added from chapter. Yet the phrase the principal Epistle against Judaism tells against the heretics of today, who, perverting the sense of the Apostle's words, do not scruple to cite the words of chapter 4 of this Epistle not against Judaism but against the Church's observance of feast days. Pamelius.

(printed under page 255)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:502

ut avertens a judaismo, non pariter ostenderet in cujus Dei fidem averteret: quia nemo transire posset a Creatore, nesciens ad quem transeundum sibi esset. Sive enim Christus jam alium Deum revelaverat, sequebatur etiam apostoli testatio; vel ne non ejus Dei apostolus haberetur, quem Christus revelaverat; et quia non licebat abscondi ab apostolo, qui jam revelatus fuisset a Christo. Sive nihil tale de Deo Christus revelaverat, tanto magis ab apostolo debuerat revelari, qui jam non posset ab alio; non credendus sine dubio, si nec ab apostolo revelatus. Quod idcirco praestruximus, ut jam hinc profiteamur nos proinde probaturos, nullum alium Deum ab apostolo circumlatum, sicut probavimus, nec a Christo; ex ipsis utique Epistolis Pauli, quas proinde mutilatas etiam de numero, forma jam haeretici Evangelii praejudicasse debebit.

so that, while turning [them] away from Judaism, he would not likewise show into faith in which God he was turning them: for no one could pass over from the Creator without knowing to whom he was to pass over. For if Christ had already revealed another God, the testimony of the apostle also followed; whether lest he should be held not to be the apostle of that God Whom Christ had revealed, or because He could not be hidden by the apostle, since He had already been revealed by Christ. If Christ had revealed nothing of the kind concerning God, so much the more ought He to have been revealed by the apostle, since He could no longer be revealed by another; without doubt not to be believed in, if He was not revealed even by the apostle. This we have set down beforehand so that we may from here on declare that we shall likewise prove that no other God was carried about by the apostle, just as we have proved [that none was] by Christ; and that from the very Epistles of Paul, which, mutilated as they likewise are even in number, the form of the heretical Gospel will already have had to prejudge.

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

Principalem (Galat. I) adversus Judaismum epistolam nos quoque confitemur, quae Galatas docet. Amplectimur etenim omnem illam legis veteris abolitionem, ut et ipsam de Creatoris venientem dispositione, sicut saepe jam in isto ordine tractavimus, de praedicata novatione a prophetis Dei nostri. Quod si Creator quidem vetera cessura promisit, novis scilicet orituris; Christus vero tempus distinctionis istius (Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem) terminum in Joanne statuens inter utrumque ordinem, desinentium exinde veterum et incipientium novorum; necessarie et Apostolus in Christo post Joannem revelato vetera infirmat, nova vero confirmat, atque ita non alterius Dei fidem curat quam Creatoris, apud quem et vetera decessura praedicabantur. Igitur et Legis destructio, et Evangelii aedificatio, pro me faciunt in ista quoque Epistola, ad eam Galatarum praesumptionem pertinentes, qua praesumebant Christum utputa Creatoris, salva Creatoris lege credendum: quod adhuc incredibile videretur, legem a suo auctore deponi. Porro, si omnino alium Deum ab Apostolo audissent, ultro utique scissent abscedendum sibi esse a lege ejus Dei quem reliquissent, alium secuti. Quis enim exspectaret diutius discere, quod novam deberet sectari disciplinam, qui novum Deum recepisset? Imo, quia eadem quidem divinitas praedicabatur in Evangelio, quae semper nota fuerat in Lege, disciplina vero non eadem,

We too acknowledge as the principal epistle against Judaism (Gal. 1) the one that teaches the Galatians. For we embrace that whole abolition of the old law, as itself also coming from the Creator's dispensation, as we have often already treated in this course [of argument], on the basis of the renewal proclaimed by the prophets of our God. But if the Creator indeed promised that the old things would cease, the new, namely, being about to arise; and Christ, setting in John the boundary of this period of distinction (The Law and the Prophets until John) between the two orders, of the old things ceasing from then on and of the new beginning; then of necessity the Apostle too, Christ having been revealed after John, weakens the old things and confirms the new, and thus cares for faith in no other God than the Creator, with Whom the old things too were proclaimed as about to pass away. Therefore both the destruction of the Law and the building up of the Gospel make for me in this Epistle also, pertaining to that presumption of the Galatians by which they presumed that Christ, as being the Creator's, was to be believed in with the Creator's law kept intact: since it still seemed incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author. Moreover, if they had heard from the Apostle of an altogether other God, they would surely have known of their own accord that they had to depart from the law of that God Whom they had abandoned, having followed another. For who would wait any longer to learn that he ought to follow a new discipline, when he had received a new God? Rather, because the same Godhead was indeed proclaimed in the Gospel as had always been known in the Law, but not the same discipline,

Editors' notes and page, col. 502

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. 502 (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A ut avertens a judaismo; B Pauli, quas proinde; C ad Joannem) terminum; D alium secuti. Quis enim
old-edition numerals: 471 after epistolam

PL 2:503

hic erat totus quaestionis status, an lex Creatoris ab Evangelio deberet excludi in Christo Creatoris. Denique, aufer hunc statum, et vacat quaestio. Vacante autem quaestione, ultro omnibus agnoscentibus discedendum sibi esse ab ordine Creatoris per fidem Dei alterius, nulla Apostolo materia competisset, id tam presse docendi, quod ultro fides ipsa dictasset. Igitur tota intentio Epistolae istius nihil aliud docet, quam Legis discessionem venientem de Creatoris dispositione, ut adhuc suggeremus. Si item nullius novi Dei exserit mentionem, quod nusquam magis fecisset, quam in ista materia, ut rationem scilicet ablegandae Legis unica hac et sufficientissima definitione proponeret novae divinitatis, apparet quomodo scribat : Miror vos tam cito transferri, ab eo qui vos vocavit in gratiam, ad aliud Evangelium : ex conversatione aliud, non ex religione; ex disciplina, non ex divinitate. Quoniam quidem Evangelium Christi a Lege evocare deberet ad gratiam, non a Creatore ad alium deum. Nemo enim illos moverat a Creatore, ut viderentur sic ad aliud Evangelium transferri, quasi dum ad Creatorem transferuntur. Nam et adjiciens, quod aliud Evangelium omnino non esset, Creatoris confirmat id, quod esse defendit. Si enim et Creator Evangelium repromittit, dicens per Isaiam (XL, 9) : Ascende in montem excelsum, qui evangelizas Sioni; extolle vocem in valentia tua, qui evangelizas Jerusalem. It⟨e⟩m (LII, 7) ad apostolorum personam : Quam tempestivi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona; utique et nationibus evangelizantium; quoniam et : In nomine ejus, inquit (XLII, 4), nationes sperabunt, Christi scilicet; cui ait : Posui te in lumen nationum. Est autem Evang⟨e⟩lium etiam Dei novi, quod vis, tunc ab Apostolo defensum. Jam ergo duo sunt Evangelia apud duos deos, et mentitus erit Apostolus, dicens quod aliud omnino non est, cùm sit et aliud; cum sic suum Evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret. Sed fortasse ut fugias hinc; et ideo, dices, subtexit : Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit; quia et Creatorem sciebat evangelizaturum. Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo astringeris. Duo enim Evangelia confirmare, non est ejus qui aliud jam negarit. Tamen lucet sensus ejus qui suam praemisit personam. Sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit; verbi enim gratia dictum est. Caeterum, si nec ipse aliter evang⟨e⟩lizaturus, utique nec angelus. Ita angelum ad hoc nominavit,

this was the whole state of the question, whether the law of the Creator ought to be excluded by the Gospel in the Christ of the Creator. In short, take away this issue, and the question is empty. And with the question empty, since all would readily acknowledge that they must depart from the order of the Creator through faith in another God, there would have been no matter for the Apostle to teach so pressingly what faith itself would readily have dictated. Therefore the whole aim of this Epistle teaches nothing other than that the departure from the Law comes from the Creator's dispensation, as we shall further suggest. Likewise, if he makes mention of no new God, which he would nowhere more have done than in this matter, so as to set forth the reason for setting aside the Law by this single and most sufficient definition of a new divinity, it is evident how he writes: I marvel that you are so quickly being transferred from Him Who called you into grace to another gospel (Gal. 1:6): another in conduct, not in religion; in discipline, not in divinity. For indeed the Gospel of Christ was to call [them] away from the Law to grace, not from the Creator to another god. For no one had moved them away from the Creator, so that they should seem thus to be transferred to another gospel, as though while they were being transferred to the Creator. For also, by adding that there was no other gospel at all, he confirms that what he defends is the Creator's. For if the Creator too promises a Gospel, saying through Isaiah (Isa. 40:9): Go up onto a lofty mountain, you who bring good tidings to Zion; lift up your voice in your strength, you who bring good tidings to Jerusalem. Likewise (Isa. 52:7), with reference to the person of the apostles: How timely are the feet of those who bring good tidings of peace, who bring good tidings of good things; surely also of those bringing good tidings to the nations; since also: In His name, he says (Isa. 42:4), the nations will hope, that is, in Christ's; to Whom he says: I have set Thee as a light of the nations. But suppose there is also a Gospel of the new god, as you would have it, then defended by the Apostle. Then there are now two Gospels with two gods, and the Apostle will have lied in saying that there is no other at all, when there is another as well; whereas he could have defended his own Gospel in such a way as rather to point it out, not to fix it as the only one. But perhaps, to escape from here, you will say that it is for this reason he added: Even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8); because he knew that the Creator too would preach the gospel. Again, then, you entangle yourself. For this is what binds you. To confirm two Gospels is not the part of one who has already denied that there is another. Yet his meaning is clear, since he put forward his own person first: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach otherwise; for it was said by way of example. Moreover, if not even he himself would preach otherwise, surely not an angel either. Thus he named an angel for this purpose,

Editors' notes and page, col. 503

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 256)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 503

Decessionem Rhen. Seml. Oberth. dicessionem Pam.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "decessionem"; Pamelius "dicessionem".

(printed under page 256)

(6) ‹anchor: nationum. Est› · call in col 503

Esto forte an legendum esset.

Perhaps "esto" should be read.

(printed under page 256)

(7) ‹anchor: et ideo› · call in col 503

Hinc video Lat.

Latinius reads "hinc video".

(printed under page 256)

(8) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 503

Actorum omitt. Jun.

Junius omits "Actorum".

(printed under page 256)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 503

Apostolorum non sit Pam.

Pamelius reads "apostolorum non sit".

(printed under page 256)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 503

(printed under page 256) (6) Intercessisse quosdam, etc. Hoc est intervenisse, opposuisse se quosdam. RHEN.

That certain men had intervened, etc. That is, that certain men had come between and set themselves against it. Rhenanus.

(printed under page 256) (7) Interpolatione Scripturæ. Interpolator seu corruptor est hæreticus qui detorquet, detruncat, imminuit, addive sacræ Scripturæ. LE PR.

By tampering with Scripture. The tamperer, or corrupter, is the heretic who twists, mutilates, diminishes or adds to sacred Scripture. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 256)

Page

running head: 505 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
marginal letters: A hic erat totus quaestionis; B transferri, ab eo qui vos vocavit; C sonam : Quam tempestivi pedes; D Duo enim Evangelia confirmare
old-edition numerals: 472 after Si
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): de caelo aliter (Licet angelus) | de coelo
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): de caelo aliter (Sed et si nos) | de coelo

PL 2:504

quo multo magis hominibus non esset credendum, quando nec angelo, nec apostolo; non angelum ad Evangelium referret Creatoris. Exinde, decurrens ordinem conversionis suae de persecutore in apostolum; scripturam Actorum apostolicorum confirmat, apud quam ipsa etiam Epistolae istius materia recognoscitur, intercessisse quosdam, qui dicerent circumcidi oportere, et observandam esse Moysi legem: tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos, ex auctoritate Spiritus renuntiasse, non esse imponenda onera hominibus, quae patres ipsi non potuissent sustinere. Quod si et ex hoc congruunt Paulo apostolorum Acta, cur ea respuatis jam apparet, ut Deum scilicet non alium praedicantia quam Creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam Creatoris, quando nec promissio Spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita, quam de instrumento Actorum. Quae utique verisimile non est, ex parte quidem Apostolo convenire, cum ordinem ejus secundum ipsius testimonium ostendunt; ex parte vero dissidere, cum divinitatem in Christo Creatoris annuntiant; ut praedicationem quidem apostolorum omnino sit secutus Paulus, qui formam ab eis dedocendae legis accepit.

that thereby much more would men not be to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle [is to be]; he would not refer the angel to the Gospel of the Creator. Then, running through the order of his conversion from persecutor to apostle, he confirms the scripture of the Acts of the Apostles, in which the very matter of this Epistle is also recognized: that certain people had intervened who said that it was necessary to be circumcised and that the law of Moses was to be observed; that then the apostles, consulted on this question, had announced on the authority of the Spirit that burdens were not to be imposed on men which the fathers themselves had not been able to bear. But if from this too the Acts of the Apostles agree with Paul, it is now clear why you reject them: namely because they preach no other God than the Creator, and no Christ of any other than the Creator, since neither is the promise of the Holy Spirit proved to have been fulfilled from anywhere else than from the document of the Acts. It is certainly not likely that these agree with the Apostle in part, when they show his course according to his own testimony, but disagree in part, when they proclaim the divinity of the Creator in Christ; so that Paul would have entirely followed the preaching of the apostles, he who received from them the pattern of unteaching the law.

CAPUT III.

Chapter III.

Denique (Galat. II et III), ad patrocinium Petri caeterorumque apostolorum ascendisse Hierosolymam post annos quatuordecim, scribit, ut conferret cum illis de Evangelii sui regula, ne in vacuum tot annis cucurriset, aut curreret; si quid scilicet citra formam illorum evangelizaret. Adeo ab illis probari, et constabiliri desiderarat. Quod si quando vultis judaismi magis affines subintelligi. cum nec Titum dicit circumcisum; jam incipit ostendere solam circumcisionis quaestionem ex defensione adhuc Legis concussam ab eis, quos propterea falsos et superinductitios fratres appellat, non aliud statuere pergentes quam perseverantiam Legis, ex fide sine dubio integra Creatoris; atque ita pervertentes Evangelium, non interpolatione Scripturae, qua Christum Creatoris effingerent, sed retentione veteris disciplinae, ne legem Creatoris excluderent. Ergo, Propter superinductitios, inquit, falsos fratres, qui subintraverant ad speculandam libertatem nostram, quam habemus in Christo, ut nos subigerent servituti, nec ad horam cessimus subjectioni. Intendamus enim et sensui ipsi, et causae ejus, et apparebit vitiatio scripturae, cum praemittit: Sed nec Titus, qui mecum

Finally (Gal. 2 and 3), he writes that he went up to Jerusalem after fourteen years to the patronage of Peter and the other apostles, in order to confer with them about the rule of his Gospel, lest he should have run, or be running, in vain for so many years, that is, if he were evangelizing anything outside their pattern. So much had he desired to be approved and established by them. But if at some point you want those more akin to Judaism to be understood. when he says that not even Titus was circumcised, he now begins to show that only the question of circumcision had been stirred up, out of a still-continuing defence of the Law, by those whom for that reason he calls false and brought-in brethren, who were proceeding to establish nothing other than the continuance of the Law, out of a faith in the Creator doubtless intact; and thus perverting the Gospel, not by an interpolation of Scripture, whereby they might fashion a Christ of the Creator, but by retaining the old discipline, so as not to exclude the law of the Creator. Therefore, Because of the brought-in false brethren, he says, who had crept in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might subject us to servitude, we did not yield in subjection even for an hour. Let us attend, then, both to the sense itself and to its cause, and the corruption of scripture will appear, when he says beforehand: But not even Titus, who with me

Editors' notes and page, col. 504

Footnotes

(10) ‹anchor: constabiliri desiderarat› · call in col 504

Desiderabat Lat.

Latinius reads "desiderabat".

(printed under page 256)

(11) ‹anchor: quando vultis› · call in col 504

Quos si quando vult Lat.

Latinius reads "quos si quando vult".

(printed under page 256)

(12) ‹anchor: magis affines subintelligi› · call in col 504

Intelligi Lat.

Latinius reads "intelligi".

(printed under page 256)

(13) ‹anchor: subintelligi. cum› · call in col 504

Vero add. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür add "vero".

(printed under page 256)

(14) ‹anchor: cum nec› · call in col 504

Nec omitt. Lat.

Latinius omits "nec".

(printed under page 256)

(15) ‹anchor: ostendere solam› · call in col 504

Et add. Fran.

Franeker adds "et".

(printed under page 256)

(16) ‹anchor: falsos et superinductitios› · call in col 504

Superductitios. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "superductitios".

Commentarius

(printed under page 256)

(7) ‹anchor: interpolatione Scripturæ› · call in col 504

(printed under page 256)

Page

running head: ...M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹minavit, quo multo magis›; B ‹Creatoris, quando nec promissio›; C ‹conferret cum illis de Evangelii›; D ‹ne legem Creatoris excluderent›
old-edition numerals: 473 after ‹caeterorumque›

PL 2:505

erat, cum esset Graecus, coactus est circumcidi; dehinc subjungit : propter superinductitios falsos fratres, et reliqua : contrarii utique facti incipit reddere rationem, ostendens propter quid fecerit; quod nec fecisset, nec ostendisset, si illud propter quod fecit, non accidisset. Denique, dicas velim, si subintroissent falsi illi fratres ad speculandam libertatem eorum, cessissent subjectioni? non opinor. Ergo cesserunt, quia fuerunt propter quos cederetur, hoc enim rudi fidei et adhuc de legis observatione suspensae competebat, ipso quoque Apostolo, ne in vacuum cucurrisset aut curreret, suspecto. Itaque frustrandi erant falsi fratres, speculantes libertatem christianam, ne ante eam in servitutem abducerent judaismi, quam Paulus sciret se non in vacuum cucurrisse, quam dexteras ei darent antecessores, quam ex censu eorum in nationes praedicandi munus subiret. Necessario igitur cessit ad tempus. Sic ei ratio constat, Timotheum circumcidendi, et rasos introducendi in templum, quae in Actis (XVI, 21) edicuntur, adeo vera, ut Apostolo consonent profitenti (I Cor. IX, 20) : Factum se Judaeis judaeum, ut Judaeos lucrifaceret, et sub Lege agentem, propter eos qui sub Lege agerent : sic et propter superinductitios illos, et omnibus novissime omnia factum, ut omnes lucraretur. Si haec quoque intelligi ex hoc postulant, id quoque nemo dubitavit, ejus Dei et Christi praedicatorum Paulum, cujus legem, quamvis excludens, interim tamen pro temporibus admiserat, statim amoliendam si novum deum protulisset. Bene igitur quod et dexteras Paulo dederunt Petrus et Jacobus et Joannes; et de officii distributione pepigerunt, ut Paulus in nationes, illi in circumcisionem; tantum ut meminissent egenorum, et hoc secundum legem Creatoris, pauperes et egenos foventis, sicut in Evangelii vestri retractatu probatum est. Adeo constat de Lege sola fuisse quaestionem, dum ostenditur quid ex Lege custodiri convenerit. Sed reprehendit Petrum, non recto pede incedentem ad Evangelii veritatem. Plane reprehendit; non ob aliud tamen, quam ob inconstantiam victus, quem pro personarum qualitate variabat, timens eos qui erant ex circumcisione; non ob aliquam divinitatis perversitatem, de qua et aliis in faciem restitisset, qui de minore causa conversationis ambiguae Petro ipsi non pepercit. Sed quomodo Marcionitae volunt credi? De caetero pergat Apostolus, negans ex operibus Legis justificari hominem, sed ex fide, ejusdem tamen Dei, cujus et Lex.

was, although he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised; then he adds: on account of the false brothers brought in by stealth, and the rest: he certainly begins to give the reason for a contrary deed, showing why he did it; which he would neither have done nor shown, had that on account of which he did it not occurred. In short, I would have you tell me: if those false brothers had crept in to spy out their liberty, would they have yielded in subjection? I think not. Therefore they yielded, because there were those for whose sake one should yield; for this befitted a faith still raw and still in suspense about the observance of the law, the Apostle himself also being apprehensive lest he had run, or were running, in vain. Therefore the false brothers, spying out Christian liberty, had to be thwarted, lest they should lead it away into the servitude of Judaism before Paul knew that he had not run in vain, before his predecessors gave him their right hands, before he took up, by their assessment, the office of preaching to the nations. Of necessity, therefore, he yielded for a time. Thus the reason holds good for his circumcising Timothy and bringing shaven men into the temple, things which are related in the Acts (Acts 16:21), so truly that they accord with the Apostle when he professes (1 Cor. 9:20) that he became a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain the Jews, and one living under the Law, on account of those who lived under the Law: so also on account of those men brought in by stealth, and lastly that he became all things to all, that he might gain all. If they demand that this too be understood from this, this too no one has doubted, that Paul [was one] of the preachers of that God and Christ whose law, though excluding it, he had nevertheless admitted for the time according to the times, [a law] to be removed at once if he had brought forward a new god. It is well, therefore, that Peter and James and John also gave their right hands to Paul; and agreed on the distribution of the office, that Paul [should go] to the nations, they to the circumcision; only that they should remember the needy, and this too according to the law of the Creator, Who cherishes the poor and needy, as was proved in the examination of your Gospel. So evident is it that the question was about the Law alone, while it is shown what it was fitting to keep from the Law. But he reproves Peter, as not walking with a straight foot towards the truth of the Gospel. Plainly he reproves him; yet for nothing else than for inconstancy in his manner of eating, which he varied according to the quality of persons, fearing those who were of the circumcision; not for any perversity concerning the divinity, about which he would have withstood others too to their face, he who did not spare Peter himself over a lesser matter of ambiguous conduct. But how do the Marcionites wish it to be believed? For the rest, let the Apostle go on, denying that a man is justified by the works of the Law, but by faith, yet [faith] of the same God Whose also the Law is.

Editors' notes and page, col. 505

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 257)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 505

Cessissentne subjectioni? Opinor. Ego cesserant, quia fuerant cod. Wouw.

"Would they have yielded to subjection?" I think so. "I [read] cesserant, quia fuerant" ("they had yielded, because they had been"): Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 257)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 505

Obiret Lat.

Latinius reads "obiret".

(printed under page 257)

(19) ‹anchor: propter superinductitios› · call in col 505

Superinductos Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "superinductos".

(printed under page 257)

(20) ‹anchor: quoque nemo dubitavit› · call in col 505

Dubitabit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "dubitabit".

Commentarius

(printed under page 257)

(8) ‹anchor: non recto pede incedentem› · call in col 505

(printed under page 257)

(8) Sed reprehendit Petrum non recto pede incedentem. In Græco est ὀρθοποδοῦντα. Notandum tamen in illa reprehensione, id quod habet Eusebius, Hist. lib. cap. 12, ubi alium fuisse Cepham a B. Petro, ait ex S. Clemente : Ἕνα φησὶ γεγονέναι τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν, ὁμώνυμον Πέτρῳ τυχόντα τῷ ἀποστόλῳ· « Unum fuisse ait ex septuaginta discipulis B. Petro apostolo cognominem. » LE PR.

But he rebukes Peter for not walking with a straight foot. The Greek has ὀρθοποδοῦντα ("walking straight"). In connection with that rebuke, however, note what Eusebius has, History, book [number not printed], chapter 12, where he says, on the authority of St Clement, that Cephas was someone other than blessed Peter: "He says that he was one of the seventy disciples, who happened to bear the same name as Peter the apostle." Le Prieur.

(printed under page 257) (9) Quid supra hæretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahæ. Subindicat erasisse Mar- (continues)

What heretical diligence erased above, namely the mention of Abraham. He hints that Mar[cion] erased (continues)

(printed under page 257)

Footnotes

(9) ‹anchor: mentionem scilicet Abrahæ› · call in col 506

(printed under page 257)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:507

qua nos Apostolus filios Abrahae per fidem affirmat, secundum quam mentionem hic quoque filios fidei notavit. Caeterum, quomodo filii fidei? et cujus fidei, si non Abrahae? Si enim Abraham Deo credidit, et deputatum est justitiae, atque exinde pater multarum nationum meruit nuncupari; nos autem credendo Deo magis, proinde justificamur, sicut Abraham; et vitam proinde consequimur, sicut justus ex fide vivit; sic fit ut et supra, filios nos Abrahae pronuntiarit, qua patris fidei, et hic filios fidei, per quam Abraham pater nationum fuerat repromissus. Ipsum quod fidem a circumcisio⟨n⟩e revocabat, nonne Abrahae filios constituere quaerebat, qui in carnis integritate crediderat? Denique, alterius Dei fides, ad formam Dei alterius non potest admitti, ut credentes justitiae deputet, ut justos vivere faciat, ut nationes filios fidei dicat: totum hoc ejus est, apud quem ante jam notum est sub eadem Abrahae mentione, dum ipso sensu revincatur.

by which the Apostle affirms that we are sons of Abraham through faith, in accordance with which mention he has here also designated [us] sons of faith. Otherwise, how sons of faith? And of whose faith, if not Abraham's? For if Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and from then on he deserved to be called father of many nations; we, moreover, by believing God the more, are justified accordingly, as Abraham was; and we obtain life accordingly, as the just man lives by faith; so it comes about that, as above he declared us sons of Abraham, as of the father of faith, so here too [he declared us] sons of faith, through which Abraham had been promised as father of nations. The very fact that he was calling faith back from circumcision, was he not seeking to establish sons of Abraham, who had believed while still in the integrity of the flesh? In short, faith in another god cannot be admitted to the pattern of the other God, so that it should reckon believers as righteous, make the just live, and call the nations sons of faith: all this belongs to Him with Whom it was already known before under the same mention of Abraham, so that [the heretic] is refuted by that very sense.

CAPUT VI.

Chapter VI.

Adhuc, inquit (Galat. III, IV, V et VI), secundum hominem dico, dum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus positi, ad deserviendum eis. Atquin non est hoc humanitus dictum: non enim exemplum est, sed veritas. Quis enim parvulus, utique sensu, quod sunt nationes, non elementis subjectus est mundi, quae pro Deo suspicit? Illud autem facit, quod cum secundum hominem dixisset, tamen testamentum hominis nemo spernit aut superordinat. Exemplo enim humani testamenti permanentis, divinum tuebatur. Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini ejus. Non dixit, seminibus, quasi pluribus; sed semini, tanquam uni, quod Christus est. Erubescat spongia Marcionis, nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit, cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit. Cum autem evenit impleri tempus; misit Deus Filium suum; utique is, qui etiam ipsorum temporum Deus est, quibus saeculum constat; qui signa quoque temporum ordinavit, soles, et lunas, et sidera, et stellas; qui Filii denique sui revelationem in extremitatem temporum et disposuit et praedicavit (Isa. II, 2): In novissimis diebus erit manifestus mons Domini, et (Joel, II, 28): In novissimis diebus effundam de spiritu

Further, he says (Gal. 4:3–6), I speak after the manner of men: when we were little ones, we were placed under the elements of the world, to serve them. And yet this is not said in a merely human way: for it is not an illustration, but the truth. For what little one, in understanding at any rate, which is what the nations are, is not subject to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in place of God? But this is to the point, that, although he had spoken after the manner of men, yet no one despises or adds to a man's testament. For by the example of a human testament remaining in force, he was defending the divine one. To Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He did not say, to seeds, as of many; but to seed, as of one, which is Christ. Let Marcion's sponge blush; except that I take up again, out of superabundance, what he has removed, since it is more forceful that he be refuted from those things which he has kept. But when it came about that the time was fulfilled, God sent His Son; that is, He Who is God also of the very times of which the world consists; Who also ordained the signs of the times, suns and moons and constellations and stars; Who finally both arranged and foretold the revelation of His Son at the end of the times (Isa. 2:2): In the last days the mountain of the Lord will be manifest, and (Joel 2:28): In the last days I will pour out of

Editors' notes and page, col. 507

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 258)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 507

Deputatur Lat.

Latinius reads "deputatur".

(printed under page 258)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 507

Ejus abest Par.

"Ejus" is missing in the Paris edition.

(printed under page 258)

(23) ‹anchor: pro Deo suspicit› · call in col 507

Suscipit al.

Others read "suscipit".

(printed under page 258)

(24) ‹anchor: Illud autem facit› · call in col 507

Fuit Jun.

Junius reads "fuit".

(printed under page 258)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 507

Aut jam Lat.

Latinius reads "aut jam".

(printed under page 258)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 507

Tortuosam viam Fran.

Franeker reads "tortuosam viam".

(printed under page 258)

(27) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 507

Læves Jun.

Junius reads "læves".

(printed under page 258)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 507

(printed under page 258) (10) Itaque ut certum esset nos filios Dei esse. Sic explicat illud Apostoli : Quoniam autem estis filii Dei. Confirmatur omnium Latinorum lectio qui Dei addunt, quod juxta constantem Græcorum Patrum lectionem, apud eos desideratur, at vicissim legit Auctor corda nostra, juxta quod Græce est ἡμῶν, consentientibus etiam BB. Ambr. et Hieron. in Comm. pro eo quod alii vestra. Porro recte ibi subintelligit Rhenanus, est, cum dicit Auctor, cujus gratia. ID.

So that it might be certain that we are sons of God. Thus he explains the Apostle's words And because you are sons of God. This confirms the reading of all the Latins, who add of God, which, according to the constant reading of the Greek Fathers, is missing in them; but in turn the Author reads our hearts, in line with the Greek ἡμῶν ("our"), with the agreement also of Saints Ambrose and Jerome in their commentaries, where others read your. Further, Rhenanus rightly understands est there when the Author says cujus gratia. The same (Pamelius).

(printed under page 258) (11) Cœnas puras. Parascevas ἐν τῇ ἕκτῃ τῶν ἡμερῶν. Sic interpretatur Irenæus, lib. I, cap. 10. Glossæ, Cœna pura, προσάββατον. RIG.

Pure suppers. The Preparations, "on the sixth of the days". So Irenaeus interprets it, book 1, chapter 10. The Glossaries: "Cœna pura", προσάββατον (the eve of the Sabbath). Rigault.

(printed under page 258)

Page

running head: 507 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (rest cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A qua nos Apostolus filios; B test admitti, ut credentes; C autem facit, quod cum secundum hominem; D novissimis diebus erit manifestus
old-edition numerals: 476 after non
other: the word spiritu was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 508

PL 2:508

meo in omnem carnem, secundum Joelem. Ipsius erat sustinuisse tempus impleri, cujus erat etiam finis temporis sicut initium. Caeterum Deus ille otiosus, nec operationis, nec praedicationis ullius, atque ita nec temporis alicujus, quid omnino egit qaod efficeret tempus impleri, etiam implendum sustineri? Si nihil, satis vanum est ut Creatoris tempora sustinuerit serviens Creatori. Cui autem rei misit Filium suum? Ut eos qui sub lege erant, redimeret: hoc est, ut efficeret (Isa. XL, 4) tortuosa in viam rectam, et aspera in vias lenes, secundum Isaiam; ut vetera transirent, et nova orirentur, Lex nova ex Sion, et sermo Domini ex Jerusalem (Isa. II, 3): et ut adoptionem filiorum acciperemus, utique nationes, quae filii non eramus. Et ipse enim lux erit nationum, et in nomine ejus nationes sperabunt. Itaque, ut certum esset nos filios Dei esse, misit Spiritum suum in corda nostra, clamantem, Abba, Pater. In novissimis enim, inquit (Joel, II, 28), diebus effundam de meo Spiritu in omnem carnem. Cujus gratiae, nisi cujus et promissio gratiae? quis Pater, nisi qui et factor? Post has itaque divitias, non erat revertendum ad infirma et mendica elementa. Elementa autem apud Romanos quoque etiam primae litterae solent dici. Non ergo per mundialium elementorum derogationem a Deo eorum avertere cupiebat; etsi dicendo supra: Si ergo his qui non natura sunt Dei servitis, physicae, id est, naturalis superstitionis elementa pro Deo habentis sugillabat errorem, nec sic tamen elementorum Deum taxans. Sed quae velit intelligi elementa, primas scilicet litteras legis, ipse declarat: Dies observatis, et menses, et tempora, et annos, et Sabbata, ut opinor, et coenas puras, et jejunia et dies magnos. Cessare enim ab his quoque sicut et circumcisione oportebat ex decretis Creatoris, qui et per Isaiam (I. 14): Neomenias vestras et Sabbata et diem magnum non sustinebo: jejunium et ferias et caeremonias vestras odit anima mea; et per Amos (V, 21): Odi, rejeci caeremonias vestras, et non odorabor in frequentiis vestris. Item per Osee (II, 11): Avertam universas jucunditates ejus, et caeremonias ejus, et Sabbata, et neomenias ejus, et omnes frequentias ejus. Quae ipse constituerat, inquis, erasit? Magis quam alius: aut si alius, ergo ille adjuvit sententiam Creatoris,

My Spirit upon all flesh, according to Joel. It belonged to Him to have awaited the fulfilling of the time, to Whom belonged also the end of time as well as the beginning. But that idle god, of no operation and of no preaching whatever, and so of no time either, what did he do at all that would cause the time to be fulfilled, or even to be awaited as something to be fulfilled? If nothing, it is quite vain that he should have awaited the Creator's times, serving the Creator. For what purpose, moreover, did He send His Son? That He might redeem those who were under the law: that is, that He might make (Isa. 40:4) the crooked into a straight way, and the rough into smooth ways, according to Isaiah; that old things might pass away and new things arise, a new Law out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3); and that we might receive the adoption of sons, namely the nations, we who were not sons. For He Himself also will be the light of the nations, and in His name the nations will hope. Therefore, that it might be certain that we are sons of God, He sent His Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For in the last days, He says (Joel 2:28), I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh. Whose grace is this, if not His Whose also is the promise of the grace? Which Father, if not He Who is also the Maker? After these riches, therefore, there was to be no returning to the weak and beggarly elements. Now among the Romans too the first letters are also customarily called elements. So it was not by disparaging the elements of the world that he wished to turn them away from their God; although, in saying above: If therefore you serve those who by nature are not gods, he was censuring the error of physical, that is, natural superstition, which holds the elements for God, yet not even so finding fault with the God of the elements. But what elements he wishes to be understood, namely the first letters of the law, he himself declares: You observe days, and months, and times, and years, and Sabbaths, I suppose, and pure suppers, and fasts and great days. For it behoved [them] to cease from these too, just as from circumcision, by the decrees of the Creator, Who also through Isaiah (Isa. 1:14) [says]: Your new moons and Sabbaths and great day I will not endure: your fasting and holidays and ceremonies My soul hates; and through Amos (Amos 5:21): I hate, I have rejected your ceremonies, and I will not smell [the savour] in your assemblies. Likewise through Hosea (Hos. 2:11): I will turn away all her pleasures, and her ceremonies, and Sabbaths, and her new moons, and all her assemblies. Did He Himself, you say, erase what He had established? Rather He than another: or if another, then that one assisted the sentence of the Creator,

Editors' notes and page, col. 508

Footnotes

(28) ‹anchor: habentis sugillabat› · call in col 508

Suggillat Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "suggillat".

(printed under page 258)

(29) ‹anchor: et non odorabor› · call in col 508

Adorabor Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "adorabor".

(printed under page 258)

(30) ‹anchor: Magis quam alius : aut› · call in col 508

At Par.

The Paris edition reads "at".

Commentarius

(printed under page 258)

(11) ‹anchor: et cœnas puras› · call in col 508

(printed under page 258)

Page

running head: …M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 508 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ritu meo in omnem carnem; B Et ipse enim lux erit nationum; C menta pro Deo habentis; D ipse constituerat, inquis
old-edition numerals: 477 after physicae,
other: the word Creatoris, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 509

PL 2:509

auferens quae et ille damnaverat. Sed non hujus loci quaestio, cur leges suas Creator infregerit. Sufficit quod infracturum probavimus, ut confirmetur nihil Apostolum adversus Creatorem determinasse, cum et ipsa amolitio Legis a Creatore sit. Sed ut furibus solet aliquid excidere de praeda in indicium, ita credo et Marcionem novissimam Abrahae mentionem dereliquisse, nullam magis auferendam, etsi ex parte convertit. Si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla, et alium ex libera: sed qui ex ancilla, carnaliter natus est; qui vero ex libera, per repromissionem, quae sunt allegorica, id est, aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum: unum a monte Sina, in synagogam Judaeorum, secundum legem, generans in servitutem; aliud super omnem principatum, generans vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo, sed in futuro: quae est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam Ecclesiam: ideoque adjicit: Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae. Utique manifestavit et christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Judaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae; atque ita ejus Dei esse utramque dispositionem, apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis delineationem. Ipsum quod ait. Qua libertate Christus nos manumisit, nonne

removing what he too had condemned. But this is not the place for the question why the Creator broke His own laws. It suffices that we have proved that He would break them, so that it may be confirmed that the Apostle determined nothing against the Creator, since even the very removal of the Law is from the Creator. But just as thieves are apt to let something fall from their plunder as evidence against them, so I believe Marcion too left behind the last mention of Abraham, though none more needed removing, even if he altered it in part. For if Abraham had two sons, one by the bondmaid and the other by the free woman; but he who was of the bondmaid was born after the flesh, while he who was of the free woman was born through the promise; which things are allegorical, that is, foreshadowing something else: for these are the two testaments, or two showings, as we find it interpreted: the one from Mount Sinai, into the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, bearing unto bondage; the other above every principality, bearing power, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but in that to come: which is our mother, unto which we have made our promise, the holy Church; and therefore he adds: Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of the bondmaid, but of the free woman. Surely he has made plain both that the nobility of Christianity has the mystery of the allegory in the son of Abraham born of the free woman, just as the legal bondage of Judaism has it in the son of the bondmaid, and thus that both dispensations belong to that God with Whom we find the outline of both dispensations. That very thing which he says: With which liberty Christ has set us free, does it not

Editors' notes and page, col. 509

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 259)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 509

Abolitio al.

Others read "abolitio".

(printed under page 259)

(32) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 509

Et Par.

The Paris edition reads "et".

(printed under page 259)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 509

Converrit Lat.

Latinius reads "converrit".

(printed under page 259)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 509

Alium Rhen. Seml. Oberth. alterum Lat.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "alium"; Latinius "alterum".

(printed under page 259)

(35) ‹anchor: nos manumisit› · call in col 509

Delineationem Pam. declinationem Jun.

Pamelius reads "delineationem"; Junius "declinationem".

(printed under page 259)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 509

(printed under page 259) (12) Alienos enim servos ne Galba quidem manumisit. Sic omnino legunt exemplaria, neque mutandum quicquam. In ea fuit hæresi Marcion, ut diceret Christum non esse Filium Dei Creatoris; aliumque esse Deum veteris Testamenti, sive Legis, alium novi sive Evangelii. Deum Legis esse Creatorem, trucem et sævum; Evangelii vero Deum, nihil creasse; tantummodo esse bonum et indulgentissimum, qui nos per Christum suum truculenti illius ac tyrannici Dei jugo liberarit. Hanc sententiam Tertullianus multis argumentis refellit, atque hoc inter cætera, quod Christum Paulus, Epistola ad Galatas, manumissorem nostrum esse dicat. Quam Epistolam nec Marcion quidem rejecit. Inde autem necessario sequi, nos aliquando fuisse in servitute apud illum Deum Creatorem, Christumque esse Dei illius Creatoris Filium : cum nec dici nec esse possit manumissor, nisi qui fuit Dominus; nec libertus, nisi qui justam servitutem servivit apud manumissorem. Nos igitur, quod eadem Epistola docet, servos aliquandiu fuisse sub Lege veteris Testamenti; postea vero Christi beneficio liberatos ea servitute Legis, nec jam sub Lege esse, verum sub Evangelio. Itaque, sic colligit Tertullianus : Si manumissorem agnoscimus Christum, necessario agnoscere debemus eumdem esse Christum Creatoris illius, cujus fuit ea Lex qua soluti sumus, adepta libertate. Etenim nisi Christus esset, Creatoris, non jure nos ea servitute liberasset, quam serviebamus apud Creatorem, sub illius legis duritia. Serviebamus apud Creatorem, oportuit ergo manumissorem a Creatore venisse. Alienos enim servos qui manumittit, nihil agit. Hic vero more suo Tertullianus aliquid salis adspergit : « Alienos enim servos, inquit, ne Galba quidem manumisit, facilius liberos soluturus. » Legerat apud Suetonium Tranquillum, auctorem sibi familiarem, nec semel abs se citatum, cædem Neronis tantum gaudium publice præbuisse, ut plebs pileata tota urbe discurreret, quasi liberata tristi servitutis jugo : Galbam vero Neronis successorem hæc sui principatus auspicia sumpsisse, cum quasi manumissioni vacaturus tribunal conscendisset, ac propositis ante se damnatorum occisorumque a Nerone quam plurimis imaginibus temporum statum deplorare cœpisset; in eoque habitu sive actu, ab circumstantibus consalutatum fuisse imperatorem. Ait igitur Tertullianus, ne Galbam quidem, ea rerum facie, servos alienos manumisisse. Addit : « Facilius liberos soluturum, » reddita videlicet libertate civibus Romanis, qui fœdam sub Nerone servitutem serviebant, RIG.

For not even Galba freed other men's slaves. So all the copies read, and nothing is to be changed. Marcion held the heresy that Christ is not the Son of God the Creator; that the God of the Old Testament, or of the Law, is one, and the God of the New, or of the Gospel, another; that the God of the Law is the Creator, fierce and cruel, while the God of the Gospel created nothing and is only good and most indulgent, and has freed us through his Christ from the yoke of that savage and tyrannical God. Tertullian refutes this opinion with many arguments, and among others with this: that Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians, calls Christ our emancipator; and not even Marcion rejected that Epistle. From this it necessarily follows that we were once in slavery under that God the Creator, and that Christ is the Son of that God the Creator, since no one can be called or be an emancipator except one who was the master, nor a freedman except one who served a lawful slavery under his emancipator. We, then, as the same Epistle teaches, were for a time slaves under the Law of the Old Testament, but afterwards, by Christ's gift, were freed from that slavery of the Law, and are no longer under the Law but under the Gospel. So Tertullian argues thus: if we acknowledge Christ as our emancipator, we must necessarily acknowledge that the same Christ belongs to that Creator whose Law it was from which we have been loosed, having gained our freedom. For unless Christ were the Creator's, he would not have had the right to free us from the slavery we served under the Creator, under the harshness of his law. We served under the Creator; so the emancipator must have come from the Creator. For he who frees other men's slaves achieves nothing. Here, though, Tertullian, as is his way, sprinkles in a little wit: "For not even Galba," he says, "freed other men's slaves, though he was the readier to set free men free." He had read in Suetonius Tranquillus, an author familiar to him and more than once cited by him, that the killing of Nero gave such public joy that the common people ran through the whole city wearing the cap of liberty, as if freed from a grim yoke of slavery; and that Galba, Nero's successor, took these auspices for his reign: when he had mounted the tribunal as if to perform a manumission, and, with as many portraits as possible set before him of those condemned and killed by Nero, had begun to lament the state of the times, in that posture, or act, he was hailed emperor by the bystanders. So Tertullian says that not even Galba, in that scene, freed other men's slaves. He adds, "readier to set free men free", that is, by restoring liberty to the Roman citizens who had served a foul slavery under Nero. Rigault.

(printed under page 259) (13) Non decebat manumissos rursus jugo servitutis. Verba hæc ex c. VI ad Galatas, juxta editiones omnes desumpta sunt, Atqui recte astringi vertit quod Græce est ἐνέχεσθαι. Ibi autem « ipsam servitutis notam eradere perseverabat circumcisionem, » alludit ad id quod sequitur ibidem : Ecce ego Paulus dico vobis, quoniam si circumcidamini, Christus vobis nihil proderit, etc., usque ad vers. 6. Epiphanius, quod est intermedium : » Testor autem rursus, quod homo circumcisus debitor est ut totam legem impleat, adducit in Marcionem confut. 3, ex Ep. ad Gal. PAM.

It was not fitting that those set free [should be bound] again by the yoke of slavery. These words are taken, according to all the editions, from chapter 6 [as printed] to the Galatians. And he rightly renders the Greek ἐνέχεσθαι by astringi ("to be bound"). There, "he persisted in erasing circumcision, the very brand of slavery" alludes to what follows in the same place: Behold, I Paul tell you that if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing, etc., up to verse 6. Epiphanius cites against Marcion, refutation 3, from the Epistle to the Galatians, the intervening words: "And I testify again that a circumcised man is a debtor to fulfil the whole law." Pamelius.

(printed under page 259)

Page

running head: 509 LIB. V ADV. MARCIO (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A toris, auferens quae; B Sina, in synagogam Judaeorum; C (12) Alienos enim servos (commentary); D minus; nec libertus (commentary)
old-edition numerals: 478 after per

PL 2:510

eum constituit manumissorem, qui fuit Dominus? Alienos enim servos ne Galba quidem manumisit, facilius liberos soluturus. Ab eo igitur praestabitur libertas, apud quem fuit servitus legis. Et merito. Non decebat manumissos rursus jugo servitutis, id est legis, adstringi, jam Psalmo (II) adimpleto: Dirumpamus vincula eorum, et abjiciamus a nobis jugum ipsorum, postquam archontes congregati sunt in unum adversus Dominum; et adversus Christum ipsius. De servitute igitur exemptos, ipsam servitutis notam eradere perseverabat, circumcisionem; ex praedicationis scilicet propheticae auctoritate; memor dictum per Jeremiam (IV, 4): Et circumcidimini praeputia cordis vestri, Quia et Moyses (Deut. X, 16): Circumcidetis duricordiam vestram, id est, non carnem. Denique, si circumcisione ab alio Deo veniens excludebat, cur etiam praeputiationem negat quidquam valere in Christo, sicut et circumcisionem? praeferre enim debebat aemulam ejus, quam expugnabat, si ab aemulo circumcisionis Deo esset. Porro, quia et circumcisio et praeputiatio uni Deo deputabantur, ideo ntraque in Christo vacabat, propter fidei praelationem; illius fidei, de qua erat scriptum (Isa. XLII, 4): Et in nomine ejus nationes credent; illius fidei, quam dicendo per dilectionem perfici, sic quoque Creatoris ostendit. Sive enim dilectionem dicit quae in Deum, et hoc Creatoris est (Deut. VI): Diliges Deum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua,

appoint Him as manumitter, Who was the Lord? For not even Galba manumitted other people's slaves, he who would more readily set free men loose. By Him, therefore, will liberty be granted, with Whom the servitude of the law lay. And rightly. It was not fitting that those who had been manumitted should again be bound to the yoke of servitude, that is, of the law, now that the Psalm (2) had been fulfilled: Let us burst their bonds, and cast away from us their yoke, after the archons were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. From those, therefore, who had been exempted from servitude, he persisted in erasing the very mark of servitude, circumcision; namely on the authority of the prophetic preaching; mindful of what was said through Jeremiah (Jer. 4:4): And be circumcised in the foreskins of your heart, Since Moses too (Deut. 10:16): You shall circumcise your hardness of heart, that is, not the flesh. Finally, if, coming from another God, he was excluding circumcision, why does he also deny that uncircumcision has any value in Christ, just as he does circumcision? For he ought to have preferred its rival, the one he was fighting against, if he were from the God who was the rival of circumcision. Further, because both circumcision and uncircumcision were assigned to one God, for that reason both were void in Christ, on account of the preference given to faith; to that faith of which it had been written (Isa. 42:4): And in His name the nations shall believe; to that faith which, by saying that it is perfected through love, he thus also shows to be the Creator's. For whether he means the love which is directed towards God, this too is the Creator's (Deut. 6): You shall love God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul,

Editors' notes and page, col. 510

Footnotes

(36) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 510

Nec Galba Jun. sine quidem

Junius reads "nec Galba" without "quidem".

(printed under page 259)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 510

Præputio al.

Others read "præputio".

Commentarius

(printed under page 259)

(13) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 510

(printed under page 259)

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. 510 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A eum constituit manumissorem; B cordiam vestram, id est; C nos enim servos qui manumittit (in the Commentarius); D delicet libertate civibus Romanis (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 479 after praedicationis

PL 2:511

et ex totis viribus tuis; sive quae in proximum : et proximum tuum tanquam te, Creatoris est. Qui autem turbat vos, judicium feret. A quo Deo? Ab optimo? Sed ille non judicat. A Creatore? Sed nec ille damnabit assertorem circumcisionis. Quod si non erit alius qui judicet nisi Creator, jam ergo non damnabit Legis defensores, nisi qui ipse eam cessare constituit. Quid nunc, si et confirmat illam ex parte qua debet? Tota enim, inquit, Lex in vobis adimpleta est : Diliges proximum tuum tanquam te. Aut si sic vel intelligi, Adimpleta est, quasi jam non adimplenda, ergo non vult ut diligam proximum tanquam me, ut et hoc cum lege cessaverit; sed perseverandum erit semper in isto praecepto. Ergo lex Creatoris etiam ab adversario probata est; nec dispendium, sed compendium ab eo consecuta est, redacta summa in unum jam praeceptum. Sed nec hoc alii magis competit, quam auctori. Atque adeo cum dicit : Onera vestra invicem sustinete, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi; si hoc non potest fieri, nisi quis diligat Proximum suum tanquam se, apparet, Diliges proximum tuum tanquam te, per quod auditur : Invicem onera vestra portate, Christi esse legem, quae sit Creatoris : atque ita Christum Creatoris esse, dum Christi est lex Creatoris. Erratis, Deus non deridetur. Atquin derideri potest deus Marcionis, qui nec irasci novit, nec ulcisci. Quod enim seminaverit homo, hoc et metet. Ergo retributionis et judicii Deus intentat. Bonum autem facientes non fatigemur, et : Dum habemus tempus, operemur bonum. Nega Creatorem bonum facere praecepisse, et diversa doctrina sit diversae divinitatis. Porro, si retributionem praedicat, ab eodem erit et corruptionis messis et vitae. Tempore autem suo metemus, quia et Ecclesiastes, (III, 17), Tempus, inquit, erit omni rei. Sed et mihi famulo Creatoris mundus crucifixus est, non tamen Deus mundi; et ego mundo, non tamen Deo mundi. Mundum enim, quantum ad conversationem ejus posuit cui renuptiando mutuo transfigimur, et invicem morimur, persecutores vocat Christi; cum vero adjicit, Stigmata Christi in corpore suo gestare se (utique corporalia competunt), jam non putativam, sed veram et solidam carnem professus est Christi, cujus stigmata corporalia ostendit.

and with all your strength; or the one towards the neighbour: and your neighbour as yourself, is the Creator's. But he who troubles you shall bear judgement. From which God? From the most good? But he does not judge. From the Creator? But neither will He condemn an asserter of circumcision. Now if there will be no other who judges except the Creator, then He will not condemn the defenders of the Law, unless He who Himself decreed that it should cease. What now, if he even confirms it in the part in which he ought? For the whole Law, he says, has been fulfilled in you: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Or if it is even to be understood thus, It has been fulfilled, as if it were no longer to be fulfilled, then he does not wish that I love my neighbour as myself, so that this too would have ceased along with the law; but one will always have to persevere in this precept. Therefore the law of the Creator has been approved even by the adversary; and it has obtained from him not loss but abridgement, its sum now reduced into one precept. But even this befits no other more than its author. And so, when he says: Bear your burdens for one another, and so you will fulfil the law of Christ, if this cannot be done unless someone loves his neighbour as himself, it is evident that You shall love your neighbour as yourself, through which is heard: Carry your burdens for one another, is the law of Christ, which is the Creator's: and thus that Christ is the Creator's, since the law of Christ is the Creator's. You err; God is not mocked. And yet the god of Marcion can be mocked, who knows neither how to be angry nor how to take vengeance. For whatever a man has sown, this he will also reap. Therefore it is a God of retribution and of judgement who threatens. But in doing good let us not grow weary, and: While we have time, let us work good. Deny that the Creator commanded to do good, and then let a different doctrine belong to a different divinity. Moreover, if he preaches retribution, the harvest both of corruption and of life will be from the same [God]. But in its own time we shall reap, because Ecclesiastes too (Eccl. 3:17) says, There will be a time for every thing. But to me also, a servant of the Creator, the world is crucified, yet not the God of the world; and I to the world, yet not to the God of the world. For the world, as regards its manner of life, he has set down as that by renouncing which we are mutually transfixed and die to one another, [and] he calls [them] persecutors of Christ; but when he adds that he bears the marks of Christ in his body (bodily marks certainly befit [a body]), he has professed the flesh of Christ to be not putative but real and solid, whose bodily marks he displays.

Editors' notes and page, col. 511

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 260)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 511

In abest Fran.

"In" is missing in the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 260)

(39) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 511

Sibi Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "sibi".

(printed under page 260)

(40) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 511

Tibi Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "tibi".

(printed under page 260)

(41) ‹anchor: Quod enim seminaverit› · call in col 511

Severit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "severit".

(printed under page 260)

(42) ‹anchor: quia et Ecclesiastes› · call in col 511

Ecclesiasticus Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Ecclesiasticus".

(printed under page 260)

(14) ‹anchor: Stigmata Christi … gestare se› · call in col 511

(printed under page 260) (14) Stigmata Christi in corpore suo portare se, etc. Ex eo quod, ut probet veram et solidam carnem Christi, subjungit, cujus stigmata corporalia ostendit; videtur accipere Auctor stigmata, non pro nudis notis, qualibus servi a dominis notabantur ut ab illis dignoscerentur; sed pro talibus, quas etiam in se Christus corporaliter portavit, tanquam diceret, se iisdem passionibus affectum fuisse quibus Christus. In hoc autem differt, quod legebat Christi pro quo alii, Domini Jesu. PAM.

That he bears the marks of Christ in his body, etc. From the fact that, to prove Christ's flesh true and solid, he adds "whose bodily marks he showed", the Author seems to take "stigmata" not as bare brands, such as slaves were marked with by their masters to be known as theirs, but as marks like those which Christ himself bore bodily, as if he were saying that he had suffered the same sufferings as Christ. He differs, however, in that he read of Christ where others read of the Lord Jesus. Pamelius.

(printed under page 260) (15) Ait, Crucem Christi stultitiam esse perituris, virtutem autem, etc. Etiam hic ab Apostolo variat Auctor fortassis Marcionem secutus. Apud illum enim habetur imprimis : Verbum crucis Christi, deinde : pereuntibus, et iis qui salvi fiunt nobis; neque habet, et sapientiam. Ubi autem adjicit Auctor ex Apostolo, prudentiam irritam faciam, Græce est ἀθετήσω, pro quo interpres vulgatus, et Epiphanius quoque, reprobabo. Nam etiam hoc vibrat ille in Marcionem confut. 1, ex Ep. I ad Cor. ID.

He says that the cross of Christ is foolishness to those who will perish, but power, etc. Here too the Author departs from the Apostle, perhaps following Marcion. For the Apostle has first the word of the cross of Christ, then to those who are perishing, and to us who are being saved; and he does not have and wisdom. Where the Author adds from the Apostle I will bring the prudence to nothing, the Greek is ἀθετήσω, for which the Vulgate translator, and Epiphanius too, have I will reject. For Epiphanius also hurls this at Marcion, refutation 1, from 1 Corinthians. The same (Pamelius).

(printed under page 260)

Page

running head: 511 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A et ex totis viribus tuis; B nec dispendium, sed compendium; C num autem facientes non fatigemur; D est Christi, cujus stigmata corporalia
old-edition numerals: 480 after operemur

PL 2:512

CAPUT V.

Chapter V.

Praestructio superioris Epistolae ita duxit, ut de titulo ejus non retractaverim, certus et alibi retractari eum posse; communem scilicet, et eumdem in Epistolis omnibus: quod non utique salutem praescribit eis quibus scribit, sed gratiam et pacem. Non dico quid illi cum Judaico adhuc more, destructori Judaismi; nam et hodie Judaei in pacis nomine appellant, et retro in Scripturis sic salutabant. Sed intelligo illum defendisse officio suo praedicationem Creatoris (Isa. LII, 7): Quam maturi pedes evangelizantium bona, evangelizantium pacem! Evangelizator enim bonorum, id est, gratiae Dei, paci eam praeferendam sciebat. Haec cum a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Jesu annuntians, commuuibus nominibus utatur, competentibus nostro quoque sacramento, non puto dispici posse quis Deus Pater, et Dominus Jesus praedicetur, nisi ex accidentibus, cui magis competant. Primo quidem Patrem Dominum praescribo non alium agnoscendum, quam et hominis et universitatis Creatorem et institutorem. Porro, Patri etiam Domini nomen accedere ob potestatem, quod et Filius per Patrem capiat. Dehinc, gratiam et pacem non solum ejus esse, a quo praedicabantur, sed ejus qui fuerit offensus. Nec gratia enim fit nisi offensae; nec pax, nisi belli: et populus autem per disciplinae transgressionem, et omne hominum genus per naturae dissimulationem et deliquerat, et rebellaverat adversus Creatorem. Deus autem Marcionis et quia ignotus, non potuit offendi, et quia nescit irasci. Quae ergo gratia a non offenso? quae pax a non rebellato? Ait crucem Christi stultitiam esse perituris virtutem autem et sapientiam Dei, salutem consecuturis. Et ut ostenderet unde hoc eveniret, adjicit Scriptum est enim: Perdam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium irritam faciam. Si haec Creatoris sunt, et quae ad causam crucis pertinent stultitiae deputatae; ergo et crux, et per crucem Christus ad Creatorem pertinebit, a quo praedicatum est quod ad crucem pertinet. Aut si Creator, qua aemulus, idcirco sapientiam abstulit, ut crux Christi, scilicet adversarii, stultitia deputetur; et quomodo potest aliquid ad crucem Christi non sui Creator pronuntiasse,

The groundwork laid in the former Epistle led me not to treat its title, being certain that it could be treated elsewhere too; it is, namely, common and the same in all the Epistles: that he does not, to be sure, set "greeting" at the head for those to whom he writes, but grace and peace. I do not ask what he, the destroyer of Judaism, had to do with a still Jewish custom; for even today the Jews address one another in the name of peace, and of old in the Scriptures they greeted thus. But I understand that by his office he upheld the preaching of the Creator (Isa. 52:7): How timely are the feet of those who bring good tidings, who bring tidings of peace! For the herald of good things, that is, of the grace of God, knew that it was to be set before peace. When, announcing these from God our Father and the Lord Jesus, he uses common names, befitting our sacrament also, I do not think it can be discerned which God the Father and which Lord Jesus is preached, except from the attendant circumstances, as to whom they more fittingly suit. In the first place, I lay it down that the Father [as] Lord is to be acknowledged as none other than the Creator and establisher both of man and of the universe. Further, that the name of Lord also accrues to the Father on account of His power, which the Son also receives through the Father. Next, that grace and peace belong not only to Him by whom they were preached, but to Him who had been offended. For neither does grace come about except for an offence, nor peace except after war: and both the people through transgression of discipline, and the whole race of men through neglect of nature, had both offended and rebelled against the Creator. But Marcion's god could not be offended, both because he is unknown and because he does not know how to be angry. What grace, then, from one not offended? What peace from one not rebelled against? He says that the cross of Christ is foolishness to those who will perish, but the power and wisdom of God to those who will attain salvation. And to show whence this came about, he adds: For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will make void. If these things are the Creator's, and the things which pertain to the cause of the cross were reckoned foolishness, then both the cross, and through the cross Christ, will belong to the Creator, by whom what pertains to the cross was foretold. Or if the Creator, as a rival, took away wisdom for this reason, that the cross of Christ, namely of His adversary, should be reckoned foolishness, how too can the Creator have pronounced anything concerning the cross of a Christ not His own,

Editors' notes and page, col. 512

Footnotes

(43) ‹anchor: quis (before Deus Pater)› · call in col 512

Cur Fran.

The Franeker edition reads "cur".

(printed under page 260)

(44) ‹anchor: et quia› · call in col 512

Qua Latin.

Latinius reads "qua".

(printed under page 260)

(45) ‹anchor: et quia› · call in col 512

Qua Latin.

Latinius reads "qua".

(printed under page 260)

(46) ‹anchor: hoc eveniret, adjicit› · call in col 512

Aliquid Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "aliquid".

(printed under page 260)

(47) ‹anchor: et quæ› · call in col 512

Quæ omitt. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür omit "quæ".

(printed under page 260)

(48) ‹anchor: stultitiæ deputatæ› · call in col 512

Stultitiam deputat Pam.

Pamelius reads "stultitiam deputat".

(printed under page 260)

Commentarius

(printed under page 260)

(15) ‹anchor: virtutem autem› · call in col 512

Ait, Crucem Christi stultitiam esse perituris, virtutem autem, etc. Etiam hic ab Apostolo variat Auctor fortassis Marcionem secutus. Apud illum enim habetur imprimis : Verbum crucis Christi, deinde : pereuntibus, et iis qui salvi fiunt nobis; neque habet, et sapientiam. Ubi autem adjicit Auctor ex Apostolo, prudentiam irritam faciam, Græce est ἀθετήσω, pro quo interpres vulgatus, et Epiphanius quoque, reprobabo. Nam etiam hoc vibrat ille in Marcionem confut. 1, ex Ep. I ad Cor. ID.

He says, The cross of Christ is foolishness to those who will perish, but the power, etc. Here too the Author departs from the Apostle, perhaps following Marcion. For in Marcion's text there stands first: The word of the cross of Christ, then: to those who perish, and to us who are being saved; nor does it have and wisdom. But where the Author adds from the Apostle I will make void the prudence, the Greek is ἀθετήσω, for which the common translator, and Epiphanius too, give reprobabo, "I will reject". For Epiphanius too hurls this against Marcion, refutation 1, from the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The same (Pamelius).

(printed under page 260)

Page

running head: UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 512 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A Praestructio superioris Epistolae; B uibus nominibus utatur; C rat adversus Creatorem; D aliquid ad crucem Christi
old-edition numerals: 481 after perituris
other: fragments of the left column (col. 511) visible at image edge, not set; "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" (editors' notes) at page foot are pass 2's apparatus, given above; "Patrem Dominum" set as printed (other texts read Deum), unsure; line B begins "uibus" (turned n), set as printed and recorded as misprint; last word "pronun-" hyphenated across column break

PL 2:513

quem ignorabat cum praedicabat? Sed et cur apud Dominum optimum, et profusae misericordiae, alii salutem referunt, credentes crucem virtutem et sapientiam Dei esse; alii perditionem, quibus Christi crux stultitia reputatur, si non Creatoris est aliquam et populi et humani generis offensam detrimento sapientiae atque prudentiae multasse? Hoc sequentia confirmabunt, cum, dicit: Nonne infatuavit Deus sapientiam mundi? Cumque et hic adjicit, quare: Quoniam in Dei sapientia non intellexit mundus per sapientiam Deum, boni duxit Deus per stultitiam praedicationis salvos facere credentes. Sed prius de mundo disceptabo, quatenus subtilissimi haeretici hic vel maxime mundum per Dominum mundi interpretantur; nos autem hominem qui sit in mundo intelligimus ex forma simplici loquelae humanae, qua plerumque id quod continet, ponimus pro eo quod continetur. Circus clamavit et Forum locutum est, et Basilica fremuit; id est, qui in his locis rem egerunt. Igitur, quia homo, non Deus mundi, in sapientia non cognovit Deum, quem cognoscere debuerat, et Judaeus in sapientia Scripturarum, et omnis gens in sapientia operum: ideo Deus idem, qui in sapientia sua non erat agnitus, statuit sapientiam hominum ⟨st⟩ultitia repercutere, salvos faciendo credentes quosque in stultam crucis praedicationem. Quoniam Judaei signa desiderant, qui jam de Deo certi esse debuerant; et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt; qui suam scilicet, non Dei sapientiam sistunt. Caeterum, si novus deus praedicaretur, quid deliquerant Judaei signa desiderantes quibus crederent? aut Graeci sapientiam sectantes, cui magis crederent? ita et remuneratio ipsa in Judaeos et Graecos, et zelotem Deum confirmat et judicem, qui ex retributione aemula et judice infatuaverit sapientiam mundi. Quod si ejus sunt et causae, cujus adhibentur Scripturae, ergo de Deo tractans Apostolus non intellecto, de Creatore utique docet intelligendum, etiam quod scandalum Judaeis praedicat Christum, prophetiam super illo consignat Creatoris dicentis per Isaiam (XXVIII, 16): Ecce posui in Sion lapidem offensionis, et petram scandali: petra autem fuit Christus, ⟨e⟩tiam Marcion servat. Quid est autem stultum Dei sapientius hominibus, nisi crux et mors Christi? Quid infirmum Dei fortius homine, nisi nativitas et caro Dei? Caeterum si nec natus ex virgine Christus, nec carne constructus, ac per hoc neque crucem, neque mortem vere perpessus est, nihil in illo sit stultum et infirmum; nec jam stulta mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientiam; nec infirma

whom He did not know when He was foretelling it? But why, too, before a Lord most good and of lavish mercy, do some carry away salvation, believing the cross to be the power and wisdom of God, and others perdition, by whom the cross of Christ is reckoned foolishness, unless it belongs to the Creator to have punished some offence both of the people and of the human race with the loss of wisdom and prudence? What follows will confirm this, when he says: Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Cor. 1:20) And when here too he adds the reason: Because in the wisdom of God the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21). But first I shall argue about "the world", since the most subtle heretics here above all interpret "the world" as the Lord of the world; we, however, understand the man who is in the world, from the simple form of human speech, by which we very often put that which contains for that which is contained. "The Circus shouted", and "the Forum spoke", and "the Basilica roared": that is, those who were doing business in those places. Therefore, because man, not the God of the world, did not in wisdom know God, whom he ought to have known (both the Jew in the wisdom of the Scriptures and every nation in the wisdom of the works), for that reason the same God, who had not been acknowledged in His own wisdom, resolved to strike back at the wisdom of men with foolishness, by saving all who believed in the foolish preaching of the cross. Because the Jews desire signs, who ought already to have been certain about God; and the Greeks seek wisdom (1 Cor. 1:22), who, that is, set up their own wisdom, not God's. Besides, if a new god were being preached, what wrong had the Jews done in desiring signs by which to believe? or the Greeks in pursuing wisdom, to which they would rather give credence? So the very requital upon Jews and Greeks also confirms God as both jealous and judge, who by a jealous and judging retribution has made foolish the wisdom of the world. But if the causes too are His whose Scriptures are brought forward, then the Apostle, in treating of God not understood, certainly teaches that it is the Creator who is to be understood, since in preaching Christ as a stumbling-block to the Jews he also seals upon Him the prophecy of the Creator, who says through Isaiah (Isa. 28:16): Behold, I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; and that the rock was Christ, even Marcion keeps. And what is the foolishness of God that is wiser than men (1 Cor. 1:25), but the cross and death of Christ? What the weakness of God that is stronger than man, but the birth and flesh of God? Moreover, if Christ was neither born of a virgin nor built of flesh, and for that reason truly suffered neither cross nor death, let there be nothing in Him foolish and weak; nor then has God chosen the foolish things of the world to confound wisdom (1 Cor. 1:27); nor the weak

Editors' notes and page, col. 513

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 261)

(49) ‹anchor: per sapientiam Deum› · call in col 513

Dominum Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Dominum".

(printed under page 261)

(50) ‹anchor: non erat agnitus› · call in col 513

Adagnitus al.

Others read "adagnitus".

(printed under page 261)

(51) ‹anchor: in illo sit› · call in col 513

Fuit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "fuit".

(printed under page 261)

(52) ‹anchor: ut confundat sapientiam› · call in col 513

Sapientia Par.

The Paris edition reads "sapientia".

(printed under page 261)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 514

Est abest in quibusd.

"Est" is missing in some copies.

(printed under page 261)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 514

Vera Lat.

Latinius reads "vera".

(printed under page 261)

(55) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 514

Gabatarum Ciaccon. Jun.

Ciacconius and Junius read "gabatarum".

(printed under page 261)

(56) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 514

Sapientia Par.

The Paris edition reads "sapientia".

(printed under page 261)

(57) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 514

Deum Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "Deum".

(printed under page 261)

Commentarius

(printed under page 261)

(16) ‹anchor: boni duxit Deus› · call in col 513

Boni duxit Deus. Sic vertit quod Græce est εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός. Quemadmodum enim auctores dicunt boni consulere, et, æqui bonique facere, sic ipse dixit, Boni ducere. RHEN.

God thought it good. So he renders the Greek εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός ("God was pleased"). For just as authors say "boni consulere" and "æqui bonique facere" ("to take in good part"), so he has said "boni ducere". Rhenanus.

(printed under page 261) (17) Et erunt enim, inquit, in signa mensium et annorum. Hoc est, lunæ et solis motus, dies, an- (continues)

For they shall be, he says, for signs of months and years. That is, the motions of the moon and the sun, days, ye[ars] (continues)

(printed under page 261)

Page

running head: 513 LIB. V ADV. MARC[...] (running head cut off at the image's right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹tiasse, quem ignorabat cum praedicabat›; B ‹hominem qui sit in mundo intelligimus›; C ‹licet, non Dei sapientiam sistunt›; D ‹Christus, etiam Marcion servat›
old-edition numerals: 482 after ‹intelligendum,›
other: the line head "tiasse," is the tail of "pronuntiasse", set whole at the end of col. 512; ink blot over the first letters of "stultitia" (supplied ⟨st⟩) and a broken letter in "etiam" (supplied ⟨e⟩)

PL 2:514

mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat fortia, nec inhonesta et minima et contemptibilia, quae non sunt, id est, quae non vere sunt, ut confundat quae sunt, id est, quae vere sunt. Nihil enim a Deo dispositum est, et vere modicum, et ignobile, et contemptibile, sed quod ab homine: apud Creatorem autem etiam et vetera, stultitiae et infirmitati, et inhonestati, et pusillitati, et contemptui deputari possunt. Quid stultius, quid infirmius, quum sacrificiorum cruentorum, et holocautomatum nidorosorum a Deo exactio? Quid infirmius, quam vasculorum et grabatorum purgatio? Quid inhonestius, quam carnis jam erubescentis alia dedecoratio? Quid tam humile, quam talionis indictio? Quid tam contemptibile, quam ciborum exceptio? Totum, quod sciam. Vetus Testamentum omnis haereticus irridet: Stulta enim mundi elegit Deus ut confundat sapientiam. Marcionis deus nihil tale. Quia nec aemulatur contraria contrariis redarguere, ne glorietur omnis caro; ut, quemadmodum scriptum est, qui gloriatur in Domino glorietur. In quo? utique in eo qui hoc praecipit; nisi Creator praecepit, ut in deo Marcionis glorietur.

things of the world God has chosen, to confound the strong things, nor the dishonourable and least and contemptible things, which are not, that is, which are not truly, to confound the things which are, that is, which truly are. For nothing that has been disposed by God is also truly small, and ignoble, and contemptible, but [only] what [is so] by man: with the Creator, however, even the old things too can be reckoned as foolishness and weakness, and dishonour, and littleness, and contempt. What is more foolish, what is weaker, than the exacting by God of bloody sacrifices and of reeking holocausts? What is weaker than the purifying of little vessels and of beds? What is more dishonourable than the further disgracing of flesh already blushing? What is so lowly as the imposing of retaliation? What is so contemptible as the exception of foods? All of it, so far as I know. Every heretic mocks the Old Testament: for God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound wisdom. Marcion's god [does] nothing of the sort. For neither does he strive to refute contraries by contraries, so that no flesh may glory; so that, as it is written, he who glories, let him glory in the Lord. In whom? Surely in Him Who commands this; unless the Creator commanded that one should glory in Marcion's god.

CAPUT VI.

Chapter VI.

Igitur (I Cor. II et III) per haec omnia ostendit, cujus Dei sapientiam loquatur inter perfectos: ejus scilicet qui sapientiam sapientium abstulerit et prudentiam prudentium irritam fecerit; qui infatuaverit sapientiam mundi, stulta eligens ejus, et disponens in salutem. Hanc dicit sapientiam in occulto fuisse, quae fuerit in stultis et in pusillis et inhonestis; quae latuerit etiam sub figuris, allegoriis et aenigmatibus, revelanda postmodum in Christo, posito in lumen nationum a Creatore promittente per Isaiae vocem, patefacturum se thesauros invisibiles et occultos. Nam ut absconderit aliquid is Deus, qui nihil egit omnino in quod aliquid abscondisse existimaretur, satis incredibile. Ipse si esset, latere posset, nedum aliqua ejus sacramenta. Creator autem tam ipse notus, quam et sacramenta ejus; palam scilicet decurrentia apud Israel, sed de significantiis ⟨o⟩brumbrata, in quibus sapientia Dei delitescebat inter perfectos, narranda suo in tempore, proposita vero in proposito Dei ante saecula. Cujus et saecula, nisi Creatoris? Si enim et saecula temporibus structa sunt; tempora autem diebus et mensibus et annis compinguntur; dies porro et menses et anni solibus et lunis et sideribus Creatoris signantur, in hoc ab eo positis, Et erunt enim, inquit (Gen. I), in signa mensium et annorum:

Therefore (1 Cor. 2 and 3) through all these things he shows of which God he speaks the wisdom among the perfect: namely of Him Who took away the wisdom of the wise and made void the prudence of the prudent; Who made foolish the wisdom of the world, choosing its foolish things and disposing them unto salvation. This wisdom, he says, was in secret, which was in things foolish and little and dishonourable; which lay hidden also under figures, allegories and enigmas, to be revealed afterwards in Christ, Who was set as a light of the nations by the Creator, Who promised through the voice of Isaiah that He would lay open invisible and hidden treasures. For that that god should have hidden anything, who did nothing at all in which he might be thought to have hidden anything, is quite incredible. Were he himself to exist, he could lie hidden, much more any mysteries of his. But the Creator is as well known Himself as His mysteries also are; running their course openly, that is, among Israel, but overshadowed as to their significations, in which the wisdom of God lay concealed among the perfect, to be told in its own time, but set forth in the purpose of God before the ages. Whose also are the ages, if not the Creator's? For if the ages too are built of times; and times are joined together of days and months and years; and days, moreover, and months and years are marked by the suns and moons and stars of the Creator, set by Him for this, For they shall be, He says (Gen. 1), for signs of months and years:

Editors' notes and page, col. 514

Footnotes

(17) ‹anchor: in signa mensium et annorum› · call in col 514

(printed under page 261)

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM.
marginal letters: A ma mundi elegit Deus; B sciam. Vetus Testamentum; C rit sapientiam mundi; D delitescebat inter perfectos
old-edition numerals: 483 after existimaretur,

PL 2:515

apparet et saecula Creatoris esse; et omne quod ante saecula propositum dicatur, non alterius esse, quam cujus et saecula. Aut probet Dei sui saecula Marcion, ostendat et mundum ipsum, in quo saecula deputentur, vas quodammodo temporum, et signa aliqua, vel ortum eorum. Si nihil demonstrat, revertor ut et illud dicam. Cur autem ante saecula Creatoris proposuit gloriam nostram? posset videri eam ante saecula proposuisse, quam introductione saeculi revelasset. At cum id facit pene jam totis saeculis Creatoris productis, vane ante saecula proposuit, et non magis intra saecula, quod revelaturus erat pene post saecula. Non enim ejus est festinasse in proponendo, cujus et retardasse in revelando. Creatori autem competit utrumque, et ante saecula proposuisse, et in fine saeculorum revelasse; quia et quod proposuit et revelavit, medio spatio saeculorum in figuris et aenigmatibus et allegoriis praeministravit. Sed quia subjicit de gloria nostra, quod eam nemo ex principibus hujus aevi scierit: caeterum, si scissent, nunquam Dominum gloriae crucifixissent; argumentatur haereticus, quod principes hujus aevi demum, alterius scilicet Dei Christum, cruci confixerint, ut et hoc in ipsum recidat Creatorem. Porro, cui supra ostendimus, quibusmodis gloria nostra, a Creatore sit deputanda, praejudicatum esse debebit, eam quae in occulto fuerit apud Creatorem, merito ignotam etiam ab omnibus virtutibus et potestatibus Creatoris; quia nec famulis liceat consilia nosse dominorum, nedum illis apostatis angelis, ipsique principi transgressionis diabolo, quo magis extraneos fuisse contenderim ob culpam ab omni conscientia dispositionum Creatoris. Sed jam nec mihi competit principes hujus aevi virtutes et potestates interpretari Creatoris, quia ignorantiam illi adscribit Apostolus: Jesum autem et secundum nostrum Evangelium (Matth. IV) diabolus quoque in tentatione cognovit; et secundum commune instrumentum (Luc. IV, 34), spiritus nequam sciebat eum sanctum Dei esse; et Jesum vocari, et in perditionem eorum venisse. Etiam parabola fortis illius armati, quem alius validior oppressit, et vasa ejus occupavit (Luc. XI), si in Creatorem accipitur apud Marcionem, jam nec ignorasse ultra potuit Creator Deum gloriae, dum ab eo opprimitur; nec in crucem eum figere,

it appears that the ages too are the Creator's; and that whatever is said to have been purposed before the ages belongs to no other than to Him whose the ages also are. Or else let Marcion prove the ages of his god, let him show also the world itself, in which ages may be reckoned, a vessel, as it were, of times, and some signs, or their rising. If he demonstrates nothing, I return so as to say this also. But why did He purpose our glory before the ages of the Creator? He might seem to have purposed before the ages that which He would have revealed at the introduction of the age. But since He does this when almost all the ages of the Creator have already been run out, He purposed vainly before the ages, and not rather within the ages, what He was going to reveal almost after the ages. For it is not for him to have hastened in purposing who also delayed in revealing. But both befit the Creator: both to have purposed before the ages and to have revealed at the end of the ages; because what He both purposed and revealed He administered beforehand, in the middle space of the ages, in figures and enigmas and allegories. But since he adds concerning our glory that none of the princes of this age knew it: for had they known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; the heretic argues that it was the princes of this age who crucified the Christ of, namely, another God, so that this too may fall back upon the Creator Himself. Further, for one to whom we have shown above in what ways our glory is to be ascribed to the Creator, it will have to be taken as prejudged that it, being hidden with the Creator, was rightly unknown even to all the virtues and powers of the Creator; because servants are not permitted to know the counsels of their masters, much less those apostate angels and the devil himself, the prince of transgression, whom I would contend to have been all the more estranged, on account of their guilt, from all knowledge of the Creator's dispositions. But now it does not even befit me to interpret the princes of this age as virtues and powers of the Creator, since the Apostle ascribes ignorance to them: but Jesus, even according to our Gospel (Matt. 4), the devil too recognized in the temptation; and according to the common instrument (Luke 4:34), the evil spirit knew Him to be the Holy One of God, and to be called Jesus, and to have come for their destruction. Also the parable of that strong armed man, whom another stronger one overpowered and whose vessels he seized (Luke 11), if it is taken of the Creator in Marcion's reading, then the Creator could no longer have been ignorant of the God of glory, while He is overpowered by Him; nor [could He] fix Him to the cross,

Editors' notes and page, col. 515

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 262)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 515

Ortaneorum Rhen. Seml. Obert. notas eorum. Wouw. ortam eorum. Jun.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "ortaneorum"; Wouwer "notas eorum"; Junius "ortam eorum".

(printed under page 262)

(59) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 515

Productis al.

Others read "productis".

(printed under page 262)

(60) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 515

Præmonstravit Jun.

Junius reads "præmonstravit".

(printed under page 262)

(61) ‹anchor: in ipsum recidat› · call in col 515

Redigat Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "redigat".

(printed under page 262)

(62) ‹anchor: supra ostendimus› · call in col 515

Ostenderimus Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "ostenderimus".

(printed under page 262)

(63) ‹anchor: etiam ab omnibus› · call in col 515

Hominibus Rig. Venet.

Rigault and the Venice edition read "hominibus".

(printed under page 262)

(18) ‹anchor: secundum nostrum Evangelium› · call in col 515

(printed under page 262) (18) Secundum nostrum Evangelium. Ut distinguat a depravato Marcionis codice. Matth. IV hæc referuntur, et paulo post : Scriptum est enim apud me, Satanam in Judam introisse. Qui locus est Lucæ XXII, ex quo Marcion apud me recensuerat. ID.

According to our Gospel. To distinguish it from Marcion's corrupted copy. These things are related in Matthew 4; and a little later: For it is written in mine that Satan entered into Judas. That passage is Luke 22, which Marcion had included in his recension ("in mine"). The same (Le Prieur).

(printed under page 262) (19) Si merces illi per ignem rependetur. De igne Purgatorii hunc locum Apostoli explicant fere omnes, inter quos Franciscus Turrianus et S. J. latissime id expendit in defens. canonum Apost. ID.

If the reward is paid back to him through fire. Almost all explain this passage of the Apostle of the fire of Purgatory; among them Francis Turrianus, S.J., weighs it at great length in his defence of the Apostolic Canons. The same (Le Prieur).

(printed under page 262)

Page

running head: 515 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge)
marginal letters: A apparet et saecula Creatoris esse; B ante saecula proposuisse, et in fine saeculorum; C el potestatibus Creatoris; D si in Creatorem accipitur apud Marcionem
old-edition numerals: 484 after Apostolus:

PL 2:516

adversus quem valere non potuit; et superest ut secundum me quidem credibile sit scientes virtutes et potestates Creatoris Deum gloriae Christum suum crucifixisse, qua desperatione et malitiae redundantia servi quoque scelestissimi dominos suos interficere non dubitant. Scriptum est enim apud me (Luc. XXII, 3), Satanam in Judam introisse. Secundum autem Marcionem, nec Apostolus hoc loco patitur ignorantiam adscribi virtutibus Creatoris in gloriae dominum, quia scilicet non illas vult intelligi principes hujus aevi. Quod si non videtur de spiritualibus dixisse principibus, ergo de saecularibus dixit; de populo principali utique non inter nationes, de ipsis archontibus ejus, de rege Herode, etiam de Pilato, et quo major principatus hujus aevi romana dignitas praesidebat. Ita et cum destruuntur argumentationes diversae partis, nostrae expositiones aedificantur. Sed vis adhuc gloriam nostram Dei tui esse, et apud eum in occulto fuisse et quare adhuc eodem et Deus instrumento et Apostolus nititur? Quid illi cum sententiis Prophetarum ubique? Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini et quis illi consiliarius fuit? Isaias est (Isa. XL. 13). Quid illi etiam cum exemplis Dei nostri? Nam quod architectum se prudentem affirmat, hoc invenimus significari depalatorem disciplinae divinae a Creatore, per Isaiam (III, 2): Auferam enim, inquit, a Judaea inter caetera et sapientem architectum. Et numquid ipse tunc Paulus destinabatur, de Judaea, i⟨d⟩ est, de Judaismo, auferri habens in adificationem Christianismi, positurus unicum fundamentum, quod est Christus? quia et de hoc per eumdem prophetam Creator: Ecce ego, inquit (XXVIII. 15), injicio in fundamenta Sionis lapidem pretiosum, honorabilem; et qui in eum crediderit non confundetur. Nisi si structorem se terreni operis Deus profitebatur, ut non de Christo suo significaret, qui futurus esset fundamentum credentium in eum, super quod prout quisque superstruxerit, dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam si opus ejus per ignem probabitur, si merces illi per ignem rependetur, Creatoris est; quia per ignem judicatur vestra superaedificatio, utique sui fundamenti, id est sui Christi: nescitis quod templum Dei sitis, et in nobis inhabitet Spiritus Dei? Si homo, et res, et opus, et imago, et similitudo, et caro per terram, et anima per afflatum Creatoris est;

against whom He could not prevail; and it remains that, according to me at least, it is credible that the virtues and powers of the Creator crucified, knowingly, the God of glory, His Christ, out of that despair and overflow of malice through which even the most wicked slaves do not hesitate to kill their masters. For it is written in my [Gospel] (Luke 22:3) that Satan entered into Judas. But according to Marcion, the Apostle does not allow ignorance regarding the Lord of glory to be ascribed in this passage to the virtues of the Creator, because, namely, he does not wish them to be understood as the princes of this age. But if he does not seem to have spoken of spiritual princes, then he spoke of worldly ones: of the principal people, assuredly not among the nations, of its very rulers, of King Herod, and also of Pilate, and of that in which the Roman dignity presided as the greater principality of this age. Thus too, while the arguments of the opposing side are torn down, our expositions are built up. But you still wish that our glory belongs to your God, and that it was hidden with Him; why then does the Apostle still rely on the same instrument as God? What has he to do with the sayings of the Prophets everywhere? For who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been His counsellor? It is Isaiah (Isa. 40:13). What has he to do also with the examples of our God? For as to his affirming himself a wise architect, we find this signified by the Creator, through Isaiah (Isa. 3:2), as the one who stakes out the divine discipline: For I will take away, He says, from Judaea, among other things, also the wise architect. And was not Paul himself then destined to be taken away from Judaea, that is, from Judaism, for the building up of Christianity, to lay the one foundation, which is Christ? For concerning this too the Creator [speaks] through the same prophet: Behold, I, He says (Isa. 28:16), lay in the foundations of Zion a precious stone, an honourable one; and whoever believes in it will not be confounded. Unless God was professing Himself the builder of an earthly work, so as not to signify His Christ, Who was to be the foundation of those believing in Him, upon which, according as each one has built, worthy, that is, or unworthy doctrine, if his work will be tested by fire, if the reward will be paid to him through fire, it is the Creator's; because it is through fire that your superstructure is judged, namely the superstructure of His own foundation, that is, of His own Christ: Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in us? If man, both as thing and as work and as image and as likeness, both flesh through the earth and soul through the breath, is the Creator's;

Editors' notes and page, col. 516

Footnotes

(64) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 516

Utitur Lat.

Latinius reads "utitur".

(printed under page 262)

(65) ‹anchor: Auferam enim› · call in col 516

Etiam Par.

The Paris edition reads "etiam".

(printed under page 262)

(66) ‹anchor: Et numquid› · call in col 516

Non al.

Others read "non".

(printed under page 262)

(67) ‹anchor: Nisi si› · call in col 516

Si abest. Par.

"Si" is missing in the Paris edition.

(printed under page 262)

(68) ‹anchor: per ignem judicatur› · call in col 516

Indicatur Par. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "indicatur".

(printed under page 262)

(69) ‹anchor: utique sui› · call in col 516

Super inser. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür insert "super".

Commentarius

(printed under page 262)

(19) ‹anchor: illi per ignem rependetur› · call in col 516

(printed under page 262)

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A adversus quem valere non potuit; B aevi romana dignitas praesidebat; C de Judaea, id est; D Dei sitis, et in nobis
old-edition numerals: 485 after scilicet

PL 2:517

totus ergo in alieno habitat Deus Marcionis, si non Creatoris sumus templum. Quod si templum Dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur, utique a Deo templi. Ultorem intentans, Creatorem intentabit. Stulti estote ut sitis sapientes. Quare? Sapientia enim hujus mundi stultitia est penes Deum. Penes quem Deum? Si nihil nobis et adhuc sensuum pristina praejudicaverunt, bene quod et hic adstruit: Scriptum est enim: Deprehendens sapientes in nequitia illorum. Et rursus: Dominus scit cogitationes sapientium, quod sint supervacuae. In totum enim praescriptum a nobis erit, nulla illum sententia uti potuisse ejus Dei, quem destruere deberet, si non illi doceret. Ergo, inquit, nemo glorietur in homine. Et hoc secundum Creatoris disciplinam (Jerem. XVII, 5), Miserum hominem, qui spem habet in hominem; et (Psal. CXVII), Bonum est fidere in Deo, quam fidere in homine ita et gloriari (I Cor. IV, X).

wholly, then, does the God of Marcion dwell in another's [house], if we are not the temple of the Creator. But if anyone defiles the temple of God, he will be defiled, that is, by the God of the temple. In threatening an avenger, he will be threatening the Creator. Become fools, that you may be wise. Why? For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. With which God? If the earlier meanings have so far prejudged nothing for us, it is well that here too he adds: For it is written: He who catches the wise in their wickedness. And again: The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. For it will be wholly established by us that he could not have used any saying of that God whom he was bound to destroy, unless he were teaching on His behalf. Therefore, he says, let no one glory in man. This too is according to the Creator's teaching (Jer. 17:5), Wretched is the man who puts his hope in man; and (Ps. 117), It is good to trust in God rather than to trust in man so also to glory (1 Cor. 4:10).

CAPUT VII.

Chapter VII.

Et occulta tenebrarum ipse illuminabit, utique per Christum, qui Christum illuminationem repromisit (Isa. XLII, 6); se quoque lucernam pronuntiavit, scrutantem corda et renes (Psal. VII, 10). Ab illo erit et laus unicuique, a quo et contrarium laudis ut a judice. Certe, inquis, vel hic mundum Deum mundi interpretatur, dicendo: Speetaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis, et hominibus. Quia si mundum homines mundi significasset, non etiam homines postmodum nominasset. Imo ne ita argumentareris, providentia Spiritus sancti demonstravit quidnam dixisset, Spectaculum facti sumus mundo; dum angelis qui mundum ministrant, et hominibus quibus ministrant. Verebatur nimirum tantae constantiae vir, ne dicam Spiritus sanctus, praesertim ad filios scribens, quos in Evangelio generaverat, libere Deum mundi nominare, adversus quem, nisi exserte, uon posset videri praedicare. Non defendo secundum legem Creatoris displicuisse illum, qui mulierem patris sui habuit, communis et publicae religionis secutus sit disciplinam. Sed cum eum damnat dedendum Satanae, damnatoris Dei praeco est. Viderit et quomodo dixerit in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus sit in die Domini, dum et de carnis interitu, et de salute spiritus judicarit; et auferri jubens malum de medio, Crcatoris frequentissimam sententiam commemoraverit. Expurgate vetus fermentum, ut sitis nova conspersio sicut estis azymi. Ergo azymi figurae erant nostrae apud Creatorem. Sic et pascha

And He Himself will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, that is, through Christ, He who promised Christ as a light (Isa. 42:6); He also declared Himself a lamp, searching the hearts and reins (Ps. 7:10). From Him too will each one have praise, from Whom also, as from a judge, [comes] the contrary of praise. Surely, you say, here at least he means by "the world" the God of the world, in saying: We have been made a spectacle to the world and to angels, and to men. For if by "the world" he had meant the men of the world, he would not afterwards have named men as well. Nay, lest you should argue thus, the providence of the Holy Spirit has shown what he meant in saying, We have been made a spectacle to the world; namely, to the angels who minister to the world, and to the men to whom they minister. No doubt a man of such steadfastness, not to say the Holy Spirit, writing above all to sons whom he had begotten in the Gospel, was afraid to name freely the God of the world, against Whom, unless openly, he could not seem to preach. I do not maintain that it was according to the law of the Creator that he who had his father's wife displeased [him]; [he may have] followed the discipline of the common and public religion. But when he condemns him to be delivered to Satan, he is the herald of a condemning God. Let him see to it, too, how he said for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, since he has passed judgement both on the destruction of the flesh and on the salvation of the spirit; and in ordering the evil to be taken away from the midst, he has recalled a most frequent saying of the Creator. Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. Therefore the unleavened things were figures of us with the Creator. So also the passover

Editors' notes and page, col. 517

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 263)

(70) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 517

Tuus Par. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "tuus".

(printed under page 263)

(71) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 517

Marcion Par. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "Marcion".

(printed under page 263)

(72) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 517

Nos Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "nos".

(printed under page 263)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 517

Intentabis Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "intentabis".

(printed under page 263)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 517

Ad hunc sensum Par. Fran.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "ad hunc sensum".

(printed under page 263)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 517

Hominibus Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "hominibus".

(printed under page 263)

(76) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 517

Christus Venet. Christi cod. Wouw.

The Venice edition reads "Christus"; Wouwer's manuscript "Christi".

(printed under page 263)

(77) ‹anchor: Certe, inquis› · call in col 517

Inquit al.

Others read "inquit".

(printed under page 263)

(78) ‹anchor: et hominibus. Quia› · call in col 517

Qui Pam.

Pamelius reads "qui".

(printed under page 263)

(79) ‹anchor: demonstravit quidnam› · call in col 517

Quomodo Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "quomodo".

(printed under page 263) (20) Empti enim sumus pretio magno. Ut probet Marcioni veram carnem induisse Christum, ait nos pretio magno aut nullo redemptos; nullo, si phantasma tantum fuit; magno, si ipse in corpore suo delicta nostra portavit. LE PR.

For we were bought at a great price. To prove to Marcion that Christ put on real flesh, he says that we were redeemed at a great price or at none: at none, if he was only a phantom; at a great one, if he himself bore our sins in his body. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 263)

Page

running head: 517 LIB. V ADV. MARCIONEM (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A totus ergo in alieno habitat; B 5), Miserum hominem; C argumentareris, providentia Spiritus; D sit in die Domini, dum et
old-edition numerals: 486 after displicuisse

PL 2:518

nostrum immolatus est Christus. Quare pascha Christus, si non pascha figura Christi, per similitudinem sanguinis salutaris, et pecoris Christi? Quid nobis et Christo imagines induit solemnium Creatoris, si non erant nostrae? Avertens autem nos a fornicatione, manifestat carnis resurrectionem. Corpus, inquit, non fornicationi, sed Domino, et Dominus corpori; ut templum Deo, et Deus templo. Templum ergo Deo peribit, et Deus templo. Atquin vides, Qui Dominum suscitavit et nos suscitabit, in corpore quoque suscitabit; quia corpus Domino, et Dominus corpori. Et bene quod aggerat: Nescitis corpora vestra membra esse Christi? Quid dicet haereticus? Membra Christi non resurgent, quae nostra jam non sunt? Empti enim sumus pretio magno. Plane nullo, si phantasma fuit Christus, nec habuit ullam substantiam corporis, quam pro nostris corporibus dependeret. Ergo Christus habuit quo nos redimeret: et si aliquo magno redemit haec corpora, in quae eadem committenda fornicatio non erit, ut in membra jam Christi, non nostra: utique sibi salva praestabit, quae magno comparavit. Jam nunc quomodo honorabimus? quomodo tollemus Deum in corpore perituro? Sequitur de nuptiis congredi, quas Marcion constantior Apostolo prohibet. Etenim apostolus, et si bonum continentiae praefert, tamen conjugium et contrahi permittit, et usui esse, et magis retineri quam disjungi suadet. Plane Christus vetat (Matth. V et XIX) divortium, Moyses vero permittit. Marcio totum concubitum auferens fidelibus (viderint enim catechumeni ejus) repudium ante nuptae jubens, cujus sententiam sequitur, Moysi an Christi? Atquin et Christi Apostolus, cum praecipit mulierem a viro non discedere, aut si discesserit, manere innuptam, aut reconciliari viro; et repudium permisit, quod non in totum prohibuit, et matrimonium confirmavit, quod primo vetuit disjungi, et si forte disjunctum, voluit reformari. Sed et continentiae quas ait causas? Quia tempus in collecto est. Putaveram, quia Deus alius in Christo; et tamen a quo est collectio temporis, ab eo erit et quod collectioni temporis congruit. Nemo alieno tempori consulit. Pusillum Deum adfirmas tuum, Marcion, quem in aliquo coangustat tempus Creatoris. Certe praescribens, Tantum in Domino esse nubendum; ne qui fidelis ethnicum matrimonium contrahat, legem tuetur Creatoris, allophylorum nuptias ubique prohibentis. Sed, etsi sunt, qui dicuntur Dei, sive in coelis, sive in terris; apparet quo-

of ours, Christ, has been sacrificed. Why is Christ the Passover, if the Passover was not a figure of Christ, through the likeness of the saving blood and of the flock of Christ? Why has he clothed us and Christ with the images of the Creator's solemn feasts, if they were not ours? In turning us away from fornication, he makes manifest the resurrection of the flesh. "The body," he says, "is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body"; as the temple for God, and God for the temple. The temple, then, will perish to God, and God to the temple. But you see: "He Who raised up the Lord will also raise us up"; He will raise [us] up in the body too, since the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And it is well that he heaps on: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" What will the heretic say? Will the members of Christ not rise again, which are now no longer ours? "For we have been bought at a great price." Plainly at none, if Christ was a phantasm and had no substance of body which He might pay out for our bodies. Therefore Christ had something with which to redeem us; and if with something great He redeemed these bodies, against which fornication is not to be committed, as being now members of Christ, not our own, He will certainly keep safe for Himself what He purchased at a great price. Now then, how shall we honour, how shall we lift up God in a body that is to perish? Next it follows to engage on marriage, which Marcion, more resolute than the apostle, forbids. For the apostle, even though he prefers the good of continence, nevertheless permits marriage both to be contracted and to be used, and urges that it be retained rather than dissolved. Plainly Christ forbids (Matt. 5 and 19) divorce, whereas Moses permits it. Marcion, taking away all intercourse from the faithful (let his catechumens see to it), ordering divorce before the bride is married, whose opinion does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? And yet Christ's Apostle too, when he commands that a woman not depart from her husband, or if she has departed, remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, both permitted divorce, which he did not entirely prohibit, and confirmed marriage, which he first forbade to be dissolved and, if it had perhaps been dissolved, wished to be restored. But what reasons does he give for continence? "Because the time is shortened." I had supposed: because there is another God in Christ; and yet from Whom comes the shortening of time, from Him will also come that which befits the shortening of time. No one takes thought for another's time. A puny God you affirm as yours, Marcion, whom the Creator's time in some measure constricts. Certainly in prescribing "that one must marry only in the Lord," so that no believer should contract a marriage with a heathen, he upholds the law of the Creator, which everywhere forbids marriages with foreigners. "But even if there are those who are called gods, whether in the heavens or on earth"; it is evident

Editors' notes and page, col. 518

Footnotes

(80) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 518

Imbuit Rhen. Venet.

Rhenanus and the Venice edition read "imbuit".

(printed under page 263)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 518

Pretio omitt. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür omit "pretio".

(printed under page 263)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 518

Et add. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür add "et".

(printed under page 263)

(83) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 518

Admittenda Ciaccon.

Ciacconius reads "admittenda".

(printed under page 263)

(84) ‹anchor: repudium ante nuptæ› · call in col 518

Nuptias Rhen. Seml. Oberth. nuptis Jun.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür read "nuptias"; Junius "nuptis".

(printed under page 263)

(85) ‹anchor: et Christi Apostolus› · call in col 518

Christi Rhen. Jun. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Junius, Semler and Oberthür read "Christi".

Commentarius

(printed under page 263)

(20) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 518

(printed under page 263)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 264)

(86) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 519

Quia al.

Others read "quia".

(printed under page 264)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 519

Sed quia sint add. Seml. Sed quia sit Fran.

Semler adds "sed quia sint"; Franeker "sed quia sit".

(printed under page 264)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 519

Ex quo omnia Seml. legitur Venet.

Semler reads "ex quo omnia"; so it is read in the Venice edition.

(printed under page 264)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 519

Ingratiis Jun.

Junius reads "ingratiis".

(printed under page 264)

(90) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 519

De Pam.

Pamelius reads "de".

(printed under page 264)

(91) ‹anchor: Propter nos enim› · call in col 519

Enim omitt. Fran.

Franeker omits "enim".

Commentarius

(printed under page 264)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 519

(printed under page 264) (21) Ex labore suo unumquemque docens vivere. Hic variis exemplis probat, unumquemque victum debere sibi comparare ex labore suo. Sic B. Apostolus dicebat olim manus sibi ministrasse quæ opus ei erant. Qui Evangelio serviunt, ex eodem vivere debent. LE PR.

Teaching that each should live by his own labour. Here he proves by various examples that each person ought to earn his living by his own labour. So the blessed Apostle once said that his own hands had supplied what he needed. Those who serve the Gospel ought to live by it. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 264)

(22) ‹anchor: extranei sacramenti interpretatur› · call in col 519

(printed under page 264) (22) Figuram extranei sacramenti. Poterit exponi, figuram ejus qui sit extraneus a sacramento. Nam solet extraneus construere cum genitivo, ut supra adv. Marc. lib. II : Quis mali extraneus, nisi qui et inimicus? RHEN.

A figure of a foreign sacrament. It could be explained as "a figure of one who is a stranger to the sacrament". For he is accustomed to construe extraneus ("stranger to") with the genitive, as above, Against Marcion book 2: "Who is a stranger to evil, except one who is also its enemy?" Rhenanus.

(printed under page 264) (23) Probavimus corporis et sanguinis Dominici veritatem. Lib. scilicet superiore; id autem factum contra perversam Marcionis opinionem, qui carnem Christi phantasticam dicebat. LE PR.

We have proved the reality of the Lord's body and blood. That is, in the preceding book; and this was done against the perverse opinion of Marcion, who said that Christ's flesh was a phantom. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 264)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:520

ipsius est? et quale erit, ut peccatorem aemuli sui puniat magis, quam e contrario foveat Deus zelotes? Si ab illo Deo, atquin punire non novit. Ita, tota ista propositio Apostoli nulla ratione consistit, si non ad disciplinam Creatoris est. Denique et in clausula praefationi respondet. Haec autem quemadmodum evenerunt illis, scripta sunt ad nos commonendos, in quos fines aevorum decucurrerunt. O Creatorem et praescium jam ct admonitorem alienorum Christianorum! Praetereo, si quando paria eorum quae retractata sunt, quaedam et breviter expungo. Magnum argumentum Dei alterius, permissio omnium obsoniorum, adversus Legem; quasi non et ipsi confiteamur Legis onera dimissa, sed ab eo qui imposuit, qui novationem repromisit; ita et cibos qui abstulit reddidit, quod et a primordio praestitit. Caeterum, si quis alius deus fuisset destructor Dei nostri, nihil magis suos prohibuisset, quam de copiis adversarii vivere (I Cor. XI. XIV).

is His? And what sort of thing will it be, that the jealous God should punish the sinner of His rival rather than, on the contrary, cherish him? If [it comes] from that god, yet he does not know how to punish. So this whole proposition of the apostle stands on no reasoning, if it does not belong to the discipline of the Creator. Finally, in the conclusion too it answers to the preface: "Now these things, as they happened to them, were written for admonishing us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come down." O Creator, already foreknowing and admonisher of Christians who belong to another! I pass over [them], whenever there are parallels to things that have already been treated; certain things I also briefly dispatch. A great argument for the other god: the permission of all foods, against the Law; as if we ourselves too did not confess that the burdens of the Law have been dismissed, but by Him who imposed them, who promised a renewal; so too He who took away foods restored them, which He had also furnished from the beginning. Besides, if some other god had been the destroyer of our God, he would have forbidden his own people nothing more than to live off the supplies of the adversary (1 Cor. 11; 14).

CAPUT VIII.

Chapter VIII.

Caput viri Christus est. Quis Christus, qui non est viri auctor? Caput enim ad auctoritatem posuit, auctoritas autem non alterius erit, quam auctoris. Cujus denique viri caput est? Certe de quo subjicit: Vir enin non debet caput velare, cum sit Dei imago. Igitur si Creatoris est imago (ille enin Christum Sermonem suum intuens hominem futurum: Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram) quomodo possum alterum habere caput, non eum cujus imago sum? Cum enim imago sum Creatoris, non est in me locus capitis alterius. Sed et quare mulier potestatem super caput habere debebit? Si quia ex viro, et propter virum facta est secundum institutionem Creatoris, sic quoque ejus disciplinam Apostolus curavit, de cujus institutione causas disciplinae interpretatur. Adjicit etiam, Propter angelos. Quos? id est cujus? Si Creatoris apostatas, merito, ut illa facies quae eos scandalizavit, notam quamdam referat de habitu humilitatis, et obscuratione decoris, Si vero propter angelos Dei alterius, quid veretur, si nec ipsi Marcionitae feminas appetunt? Saepe jam ostendimus haereses apud Apostolum inter mala ut malum poni, et eos probabiles intelligendos, qui haereses ut malum fugiant. Proinde panis et calicis sacramento jam (Luc. XXI) in Evangelio probavimus corporis et sanguinis Dominici veritatem, adversus phantasma Marcionis. Sed et omnem judicii mentionem Creatori

"The head of the man is Christ." Which Christ, one who is not the author of the man? For he has put "head" for authority, and authority will belong to none other than the author. Of what man, then, is He the head? Surely of him about whom he adds: "For a man ought not to veil his head, since he is the image of God." Therefore, if he is the image of the Creator (for He, beholding Christ His Word, Who was to become man, said: "Let us make man in Our image and likeness"), how can I have another head, and not Him whose image I am? For since I am the image of the Creator, there is no place in me for the head of another. But also, why will a woman be obliged to have power over her head? If it is because she was made from the man and for the sake of the man according to the institution of the Creator, then so too the apostle has cared for His discipline, from Whose institution he interprets the reasons for the discipline. He adds also: "Because of the angels." Which ones? That is, whose? If the Creator's apostates, rightly so, in order that that face which scandalized them should bear some mark of a habit of humility and of the obscuring of its beauty. But if it is because of the angels of the other god, what does he fear, if not even the Marcionites themselves desire women? We have often shown that heresies are placed by the apostle among evils as an evil, and that those are to be understood as approved who flee heresies as an evil. Accordingly, in the sacrament of the bread and the cup we have already (Luke 21) proved in the Gospel the reality of the Lord's body and blood, against the phantasm of Marcion. But also that every mention of judgement to the Creator

Editors' notes and page, col. 520

Footnotes

(23) ‹anchor: Dominici veritatem (call printed as 25)› · call in col 520

(printed under page 264)

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 520
marginal letters: A ipsius est? et quale erit; B cibos qui abstulit reddidit; C eum cujus imago sum?; D panis et calicis sacramento
old-edition numerals: 489 after Si

PL 2:521

competere, ut Deo judici, toto pene opere tractatum est. Nunc de spiritalibus dico, haec quoque in Christum a Creatore promissa, sub illa praescriptione justissima, opinor, qua non alterius credenda sit exhibitio, quam cujus probata fuerit repromissio. Pronuntiavit Isaias (XI, I): Prodibit virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice ascendet, requiescet super eum spiritus Domini. Dehinc species ejus enumerat: Spiritus sapientiae et intelligentiae, spiritus consilii et valentiae, et spiritus agnitionis et religionis; spiritus eum replebit timoris Dei. Christum enim in floris figura ostendit oriturum ex virga profecta de radice Jesse, id est Virgine generis David filii Jesse, in quo Christo consistere haberet tota substantia Spiritus; non quasi postea obventura illi, qui semper spiritus Dei fuerit, ante carnem quoque; ne ex hoc argumenteris prophctiam ad eum Christum pertinere, qui ut homo tantum ex solo censu David, postea consecuturus sit Dei sui spiritum. Sed quoniam exinde quo floruisset in carne sumpta ex stirpe David, requiescere in illo omnis haberet operatio gratiae spiritalis, et concessare et finem facere quantum ad Judaeos; sicut et res ipsa testatur, nihil exinde spirante penes illos spiritu Creatoris, ablato a Judaea sapiente et prudente architecto, et consiliario, et propheta (Isa. III, 2); ut hoc sit, Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem (Luc. XVI, 16). Accipe nunc quomodo et a Christo in coelum recepto charismata obventura pronuntiarit. Ascendit in sublimitatem, id est, in coelum; captivam duxit captivitatem, id est, mortem, vel humanam servitutem: Data dedit filiis hominum, id est donativa, quae charismata dicimus. Eleganter filiis hominum ait, non passim hominibus; nos ostendens filios hominum id est, vere hominum, apostolorum. In Evangelio enim, inquit, ego vos generavi. Et (Galat. IV, 19), Filii mei, quos parturio rursus. Jam nunc et illa promissio Spiritus absolute facte per Joalem (II): In novissimis diebus effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem, et prophetabunt filii filiaeque eorum; et super servos et ancillas meas de meo spiritu effundam. Et utique si in novissimos dies gratiam Spiritus Creator repromisit, Christus autem spiritalium dispensator, in novissimis diebus apparuit, dicente Apostolo (Galat. IV, 4): At ubi tempus expletum est, misit Deus Filium suum; et rursus (I Cor. VII, 29): Quia tempus jam in collecto est; apparet et de temporum ultimorum praedicatione, hanc gratiam Spiritus ad Christum praedicatoris

belongs, as to God the Judge, has been treated in almost the whole work. Now I speak of spiritual gifts, that these too were promised to Christ by the Creator, under that most just rule, I think, by which the exhibition of none other is to be believed than of him whose promise has been proved. Isaiah proclaimed (Isa. 11:1): "There shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from the root; the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him." Then he enumerates its kinds: "The spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of strength, and the spirit of knowledge and of piety; the spirit of the fear of God shall fill Him." For in the figure of the flower he shows Christ, who was to arise from the rod proceeding from the root of Jesse, that is, from the Virgin of the race of David the son of Jesse, in which Christ the whole substance of the Spirit was to reside; not as though it were to come upon Him afterwards, Who was always the Spirit of God, even before the flesh; lest from this you argue that the prophecy pertains to that Christ who, as a mere man of the sole lineage of David, was afterwards to obtain the spirit of his God. But since, from the time when He had flowered in the flesh taken from the stock of David, every operation of spiritual grace was to rest in Him, and to cease and come to an end as far as the Jews were concerned, as the fact itself testifies, the spirit of the Creator breathing nothing among them from then on, "the wise and prudent architect, and the counsellor, and the prophet having been taken away from Judaea" (Isa. 3:2), so that this may hold: "The Law and the Prophets until John" (Luke 16:16). Hear now how He proclaimed that gifts of grace would come also from Christ when He had been received into heaven. "He ascended on high," that is, into heaven; "He led captivity captive," that is, death, or human servitude; "He gave gifts to the sons of men," that is, donatives, which we call charismata. Elegantly he says "to the sons of men", not to men indiscriminately; showing us to be sons of men, that is, truly of men, of the apostles. "For in the Gospel," he says, "I have begotten you." And (Gal. 4:19): "My sons, with whom I am in labour again." Now also that promise of the Spirit made absolutely through Joel (Joel 2): "In the last days I will pour out of My spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and daughters shall prophesy; and upon My servants and My handmaids I will pour out of My spirit." And surely, if the Creator promised the grace of the Spirit for the last days, and Christ, the dispenser of spiritual things, appeared in the last days, as the Apostle says (Gal. 4:4): "But when the time was fulfilled, God sent His Son"; and again (1 Cor. 7:29): "For the time is now drawn together"; it is evident also from the proclamation of the last times that this grace of the Spirit to the Christ of the proclaimer

Editors' notes and page, col. 521

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 265)

(92) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 521

De virga add. Pam.

Pamelius adds "de virga".

(printed under page 265)

(93) ‹anchor: Data dedit› · call in col 521

Dedit data Pam.

Pamelius reads "dedit data".

(printed under page 265)

(94) ‹anchor: In novissimis diebus› · call in col 521

Temporibus Seml.

Semler reads "temporibus".

(printed under page 265)

(95) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 521

Specialitate Venet.

The Venice edition reads "specialitate".

(printed under page 265)

(96) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 521

Merita Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "merita".

(printed under page 265)

(97) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 521

Tuum Fran.

The Franeker edition reads "tuum".

(printed under page 265)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 521

Ipsum omitt. Ober.

Oberthür omits "ipsum".

(printed under page 265) (24) Exhibeat itaque Marcion Dei sui dona. Vaticinia sua de Deo suo proferat, modo Dei spiritu agitati fuerint illi prophetæ, iis sane obtemperabo. LE PR.

So let Marcion produce the gifts of his god. Let him bring forward his prophecies about his god; provided those prophets were moved by the Spirit of God, I will certainly obey them. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 265) (25) Ex illis suis sanctioribus feminis Maximillam forsan Montani asseclam notat; quanquam non temere dixerim hic perstringere multas, ut Simonis Magi Helenam, Apellis Philumenem, Car- (continues)

From among those holier women of his: perhaps he means Maximilla, Montanus's follower; though I would not rashly say he is here touching on many, such as Simon Magus's Helena, Apelles's Philumene, Car[pocrates's] (continues)

(printed under page 265)

Page

running head: 521 LIB. V ADV. MARCIO (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A competere, ut Deo judici; B ventura illi, qui semper; C ta obventura pronuntiarit; D apparuit, dicente Apostolo
old-edition numerals: 490 after in

PL 2:522

pertinere. Compara denique species Apostoli et Isaiae (XI): Alii, inquit, datur per Spiritum sermo sapientiae; statim et Isaias spiritum sapientiae posuit. Alii sermo scientiae; hie erit sermo intelligentiae et consilii. Alii fides in eodem spiritu; hic erit spiritus religionis et timoris Dei. Alii donum curationum, alii virtutum; hic erit valentiae spiritus. Alii prophetia, alii distinctio spirituum, alii genera linguarum, alii interpretatio linguarum; hic erit agnitionis spiritus. Vides Apostolum et in distributione facienda unius spiritus, et in spiritualitate interpretanda, Prophetae conspirantem. Possum dicere, ipsum qui corporis nostri per multa et diversa membra unitatem charismatum variorum compagini adaequavit, eumdem et corporis humani, et Spiritus sancti dominum ostendi, qui meritum charismatum noluerit esse in corpore spiritus, quae nec in corpore humano collocavit, qui de dilectione quoque omnibus charismatibus praeponenda, Apostolum instruxerit principali praecepto, quod probavit et Christus: Diliges Dominum de totis praecordiis, et totis viribus, et tota anima tua, et proximum tibi tanquam teipsum. Quod, etsi in lege scriptum esset, commemorat in aliis linguis, et in aliis labiis locuturum Creatorem, cum hac commemoratione oharisma linguarum confirmat, nec hic potest videri alienum charisma Creatoris praedicatione confirmasse. Aeque praescribens silentium mulieribus in Ecclesia, ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia loquantur, caeterum prophetandi jus et illas habere jam ostendit, cum mulieri etiam prophetanti velamen imponit, ex lege accipit subjiciendae f⟨e⟩minae auctoritatem, quam ut semel dixerim, nosse non debuit, nisi in destructionem. Sed ut jam a spiritalibus recedamus, res ipsae probare debebunt, quis nostrum temere deo suo vindicet; et an nostrae parti possit opponi, haec, etsi Creator repromisit in suum Christum nondum revelatum, ut Judaeis tantum destinatum, suas habitura in suo tempore, in suo Christo, et in suo populo operationes, Exhibeat itaque Marcion Dei sui dona, aliquos prophetas, qui tamen non de humano sensu, sed de Dei spiritu sint locuti, qui et futura praenuntiarint, et cordis occulta traduxerint. Edat aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, duntaxat spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est amentia, si qua linguae interpretatio accessit. Probet mihi, etiam mulierem apud se prophetasse, ex illis suis sanctioribus feminis magnidicam. Si haec omnia facilius a me proferuntur, et utique

belongs. Compare, finally, the kinds [of gifts] of the Apostle and of Isaiah (Isa. 11): 'To one,' he says, 'is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom'; at once Isaiah too set down the spirit of wisdom. 'To another the word of knowledge'; this will be the word of understanding and counsel. 'To another faith in the same spirit'; this will be the spirit of piety and of the fear of God. 'To another the gift of healings, to another of powers'; this will be the spirit of strength. 'To another prophecy, to another the discerning of spirits, to another kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues'; this will be the spirit of knowledge. You see the Apostle in agreement with the Prophet both in making the distribution of the one spirit and in interpreting its spirituality. I can say that He Who, through the many and diverse members of our body, matched the unity of various gifts to its framework is shown to be the same Lord both of the human body and of the Holy Spirit, He Who would not have the merit of the gifts to be in the body of the spirit, [a merit] which He did not place in the human body either; He Who also instructed the Apostle concerning love, which is to be preferred to all the gifts, by the chief precept, which Christ too approved: 'You shall love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your strength, and with all your soul, and your neighbour as yourself.' Since, although it had been written in the law, he recalls that the Creator would speak 'in other tongues and with other lips', when by this recollection he confirms the gift of tongues, here too he cannot be seen to have confirmed a gift alien [to the Creator] by the Creator's prediction. Likewise, in prescribing silence for women in the Church, that they should not speak merely for the sake of learning anything, he nevertheless shows that they too already have the right of prophesying, since he imposes a veil even on a woman who prophesies; he takes from the law the authority for subjecting woman, a law which, to say it once for all, he ought not to have known except for its destruction. But now, to withdraw from spiritual things, the facts themselves will have to prove which of us rashly claims [them] for his god; and whether it can be set against our side that these things, even though the Creator promised them for His Christ not yet revealed, as destined for the Jews alone, were to have their operations in their own time, in His own Christ, and in His own people. Let Marcion, then, display the gifts of his god: some prophets who have spoken not from human sense but from the Spirit of God, who have both foretold things to come and laid bare the secrets of the heart. Let him produce some psalm, some vision, some prayer, provided it be spiritual, in ecstasy, that is, in rapture of mind, if any interpretation of a tongue has accompanied it. Let him prove to me also that some woman has prophesied among them, a great-speaking one from among those holier women of his. If all these things are more readily brought forward by me, and certainly

Editors' notes and page, col. 522

Footnotes

(99) ‹anchor: ne quid discendi› · call in col 522

Docendi Rhen. dicendi Pam.

Rhenanus reads "docendi"; Pamelius "dicendi".

(printed under page 265)

(1) ‹anchor: duntaxat gratia (call printed before "loquantur")› · call in col 522

G loria Seml.

Semler reads "gloria".

(printed under page 265)

(2) ‹anchor: et an› · call in col 522

Quia Par. Fran. a Rhen.

The Paris and Franeker editions read "quia"; Rhenanus "a".

(printed under page 265)

(3) ‹anchor: mihi, etiam› · call in col 522

Etiam mihi Pam.

Pamelius reads "etiam mihi".

(printed under page 265)

(4) ‹anchor: sanctioribus feminis› · call in col 522

Magni ducam Venet.

The Venice edition reads "magni ducam".

Commentarius

(printed under page 265)

(24) ‹anchor: Dei sui dona› · call in col 522

(printed under page 265)

(25) ‹anchor: feminis magnidicam› · call in col 522

(printed under page 265)

Page

running head: [LIBER] V ADV. MARCIONEM. 522 (left part of head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹pertinere. Compara denique›; B ‹humani, et Spiritus sancti›; C ‹loquantur, caeterum prophetandi›; D ‹orationem, duntaxat spiritalem›
old-edition numerals: 491 after ‹futura›

PL 2:523

conspirantia regulis et dispositionibus et disciplinis Creatoris, sine dubio Dei mei erit et Christus, et Spiritus, et Apostolus. Habet professionem meam, qui voluerit eam exigere

being in agreement with the rules and dispositions and disciplines of the Creator, then without doubt the Christ also, and the Spirit, and the Apostle will be of my God. Whoever wishes to demand it has my profession [of faith].

CAPUT IX.

Chapter IX.

Interim Marcionites nihil hujusmodi (I Cor. XV) exhibebit, qui timet jam, pronuntiare, cujus magis Christus nondum sit revelatus. Sicut meus exspectandus est, qui a primordio praedicatus est, illius idirco non est, quia non a primordio sit. Melius non credimus in Christum futurum, quam haereticus in nullum. Mortuorum resurrectionem quomodo quidam tunc negarint, prius dispiciendum est. Utique eodem modo quo et nunc. Siquidem semper resurrectio carnis negatur. Caeterum, animam et sapientium plures divinam vindicantes, salvam repromittunt; et vulgus ipsum ea praesumptione defunctos colit, qua animas eorum manere confidit. Caeterum, corpora aut ignibus statim, aut feris, aut etiam diligentissime condita, temporibus tamen aboleri manifestum est. Si ergo carnis resurrectionem negantes Apostolus retundit, utique adversus illos tuetur, quod illi negabant, carnis scilicet resurrectionem. Habes compendio responsum. Caetera jam ex abundanti. Nam et ipsum quod mortuorum resurrectio dicitur, exigit defendi proprietates vocabulorum. Mortuum itaque vocabulo non est, nisi quod amisit animam, de cujus facultate vivebat. Corpus est quod amittit animam, et amittendo fit mortuum: ita mortui vocabulum corpori competit. Porro, si resurectio mortui est, mortuum autem non aliud est quam corpus, corporis erit resurrectio. Sic et resurrectionis vocabulum non aliam rem vindicat, quam quae cecidit. Surgere enim potest dici et quod omnino non cecidit, quod semper retro jacuit; resurgere autem non est nisi ejus quod cecidit. Iterum enim surgendo, quia cecidit, resurgere dicitur. Re enim syllaba iterationi semper adhibetur. Cadere ergo dicimus corpus in terram per mortem, sicut et res ipsa testatur, ex Dei lege; corpori enim dictum est (Gen. III, 19): Terra es, et in terram ibis. Ita quod

Meanwhile the Marcionite will exhibit nothing of this kind (1 Cor. 15), since he now fears to declare whose Christ it rather is that has not yet been revealed. Just as mine is to be awaited, Who was preached from the beginning, so for that reason he is not that one's, because he is not from the beginning. It is better that we do not believe in a Christ who is to come than that the heretic [believes] in none. How certain people at that time denied the resurrection of the dead must first be examined. Surely in the same way as now too. For the resurrection of the flesh is always denied. On the other hand, many even of the wise, claiming the soul to be divine, promise it safety; and the common people themselves worship the departed with that presumption by which they trust that their souls remain. But it is manifest that bodies, whether by fire at once, or by beasts, or even when most carefully buried, are nevertheless destroyed by time. If then the Apostle beats back those who deny the resurrection of the flesh, he certainly defends against them what they denied, namely the resurrection of the flesh. You have the answer in brief. The rest is now superfluous. For the very fact that it is called the resurrection of the dead requires that the proper meanings of words be defended. Now nothing is 'dead' by the term except what has lost the soul by whose power it lived. The body is that which loses the soul, and by losing it becomes dead: thus the term 'dead' belongs to the body. Further, if the resurrection is of the dead, and the dead is nothing other than the body, the resurrection will be of the body. So too the term 'resurrection' claims no other thing than that which has fallen. For 'to rise' can be said also of what has not fallen at all, what has always lain down before; but 'to rise again' belongs only to what has fallen. For by rising once more, because it fell, it is said to rise again. For the syllable re is always applied to repetition. We say therefore that the body falls to the earth through death, as the fact itself also attests, by the law of God; for it was said to the body (Gen. 3:19): You are earth, and into earth you will go. Thus what

Editors' notes and page, col. 523

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 266)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 523

Ejusmodi Venet.

The Venice edition reads "ejusmodi".

(printed under page 266)

(6) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 523

Etiam Lat.

Latinius reads "etiam".

(printed under page 266)

(7) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 523

Cujusnam Lat.

Latinius reads "cujusnam".

(printed under page 266)

(8) ‹anchor: vocabulorum. Mortuum› · call in col 523

Mortuorum Par.; itaque vocabulo omitt. Seml.

The Paris edition reads "mortuorum"; Semler omits "itaque vocabulo".

(printed under page 266)

(9) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 524

Cadit q. i. t. abit Ciaccon.

Ciacconius reads "cadit q[uod] i[n] t[erram] abit" ("falls, what goes into the earth").

(printed under page 266)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 524

Quomodo Lat.

Latinius reads "quomodo".

(printed under page 266)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 524

Dominaberis Fran. et dominare al.

Franeker reads "dominaberis"; others "et dominare".

(printed under page 266)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 523

(printed under page 266) (26) Mortuorum resurrectionem quomodo quidam tunc negarint. Sadducæos intelligit, de quibus superius egimus satis fuse. ID.

How certain people then denied the resurrection of the dead. He means the Sadducees, of whom we treated at some length above. The same (Le Prieur).

(printed under page 266) (27) Judæi nobis avocare conantur. Rabbini scilicet, ut suam pervicaciam tueantur, e manibus nostris locum illum extrahere conantur, dominabitur in medio inimicorum tuorum, explicantes de Ezechia. ID.

The Jews try to take them away from us. The rabbis, that is, to defend their obstinacy, try to wrest from our hands the passage he shall rule in the midst of your enemies, explaining it of Hezekiah. The same (Le Prieur).

(printed under page 266) (28) Et in Ezechiæ nativitatem. Recte istud refutat adversus Ebioneos, hær. 30, B. Epiphanius, probans ex Scripturis Ezechiam, cum prædiceret Isaias cap. VII : Ecce virgo concipiet, natum fuisse an. 11. B. Justino suffecit dicere quod Ezechias ex virgine non fuerit natus. PAM.

And to the birth of Hezekiah. Blessed Epiphanius rightly refutes this against the Ebionites, heresy 30, proving from the Scriptures that when Isaiah foretold in chapter 7, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, Hezekiah had been born eleven years. For blessed Justin it was enough to say that Hezekiah was not born of a virgin. Pamelius.

(printed under page 266) (29) Nos edimus Evangelia, etc. Hic protestatur quod Marcion tum Evangelii Lucæ tria priora capita, tum totum Matthæi Evangelium rejiciebat, afferre volens ex c. II Lucæ et c. IV Mathæi testimonia, quæ ipsa etiam paulo prius allegat B. Justinus, ID.

We put forward the Gospels, etc. Here he declares that Marcion rejected both the first three chapters of Luke's Gospel and the whole of Matthew's Gospel, since he means to bring testimonies from Luke chapter 2 and Matthew chapter 4, which blessed Justin too cites a little earlier. The same (Pamelius).

(printed under page 266) (30) In tanto opere istos confirmasse debemus. Istos, nimirum Judæos. RIG.

In so great a work we ought to have confirmed these men. "These men", that is, the Jews. Rigault.

(printed under page 266)

Misprints kept as printed

- idirco (for idcirco), in ‹illius idirco non est› - resurectio (for resurrectio), in ‹si resurectio mortui est›

Page

running head: 523 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A conspirantia regulis et dispositionibus; B Siquidem semper resurrectio carnis negatur; C amisit animam, de cujus facultate vivebat; D pocratis Marcellinam (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 492 after quod (before omnino)

PL 2:524

de terra est, ibit in terram. Hoc abit, quod in terram ibit; hoc resurgit, quod cadit. Quia per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio. Hic mihi et Christi corpus ostenditur in nomine hominis, qui constat ex corpore, ut saepe jam docuimus. Quod si sic in Christo vivificamur omnes, sicut motificamur in Adam: Quando in Adam corpore mortificamur, sic necesse est et in Christo corpore vivificemur. Caeterum, similitudo non constat, si non in eadem substantia mortificationis in Adam, vivificatio concurrat in Christo. Sed interposuit adhuc aliquid de Christo, et propter praesentem disceptationem non omittendum. Tanto magis enim probabitur carnis resurrectio, quanto Christum ejus Dei ostendero, apud quem creditur carnis resurrectio. Cum dicit: Oportet enim regnare eum, donec ponat inimicos ejus sub pedes ejus; jam quidem et ex hoc ultorem Deum edicit, atque exinde ipsum qui hoc Christo repromiserit (Psal. CIX): Sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum; Virgam virtutis tuae emittet Dominus ex Sion, et dominabitur in medio inimicorum tuorum; tecum, et caetera. Sed necesse est, ad meam sententiam pertinere defendam eas Scripturas, quas et Judaei nobis avocare conantur. Dicunt denique hunc Psalmum (Psal. CIX) in Ezechiam cecinisse, quia is sederit ad dexteram templi, et hostes ejus averterit Deus et absumpserit (IV Reg. XIX); propterea igitur, et ante luciferum ex utero generavi te, in Ezechiam convenire, et in Ezechiae nativitatem. Nos edimus Evangelia, de quorum fide aliquid utique jam in tanto opere istos confirmasse debemus, nocturna nativitate declarantia Dominum, ut hoc sit ante luciferum, et ex stella Magis intellecta, et ex testimonio angeli, qui nocte pastoribus annuntiavit natum esse cum maxime Christum; et ex loco partus: in diversorium enim ad noctem convenitur. Fortasse an et mystice factum sit ut nocte Christus nasceretur, lux veritatis futurus ignorantiae tenebris. Sed nec generavi te edixisset Deus, nisi filio puero. Nam etsi de toto populo ait (Isa. I): Filios generavi; sed non adjecit: Ex utero. Cur autem adjecit Ex utero, tam vane, quasi aliquis

is from the earth will go into the earth. That passes away which will go into the earth; that rises again which falls. For by a man [came] death, and by a man the resurrection. Here the body of Christ too is shown to me under the name of "man", which consists of body, as we have often taught already. Now if thus in Christ we are all made alive, just as we are put to death in Adam: since in Adam we are put to death in the body, so it is necessary that in Christ too we be made alive in the body. Otherwise the likeness does not hold, if the making alive in Christ does not come about in the same substance as the putting to death in Adam. But he has inserted something further about Christ, which for the sake of the present discussion is not to be passed over. For the resurrection of the flesh will be proved all the more, the more I show Christ to belong to that God with whom the resurrection of the flesh is believed. When he says: For He must reign until He puts His enemies under His feet, already by this too he declares God to be an avenger, and moreover the very One who promised this to Christ (Ps. 109:1–3): Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies the footstool of Your feet; the Lord will send forth the rod of Your power out of Sion, and He will rule in the midst of Your enemies; with You, and the rest. But it is necessary that I defend as pertaining to my position those Scriptures which the Jews too try to draw away from us. They say, then, that this Psalm (Ps. 109) was sung of Hezekiah, because he sat at the right hand of the temple, and God turned back his enemies and destroyed them (2 Kgs. 19); and that therefore also Before the morning star I begot You from the womb applies to Hezekiah, and to Hezekiah's birth. We put forward the Gospels, of whose trustworthiness we must surely have already convinced these men somewhat in so great a work, which declare the Lord by His birth at night, so that this is before the morning star, both from the star perceived by the Magi, and from the testimony of the angel who by night announced to the shepherds that Christ had just been born; and from the place of the birth: for one comes to an inn for the night. Perhaps it was also done with a mystical meaning that Christ should be born at night, since He was to be the light of truth to the darkness of ignorance. But neither would God have declared I begot You, except to a son, a child. For although He says of the whole people (Isa. 1:2): I have begotten sons; yet He did not add: From the womb. But why did He add From the womb, so idly, as if anyone

Editors' notes and page, col. 524

Footnotes

(12) ‹anchor: cætera› · call in col 524

Et cætera omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "et cætera".

(printed under page 266)

(13) ‹anchor: et in› · call in col 524

Ante cod. Pithæ.

Pithou's manuscript reads "ante".

(printed under page 266)

(14) ‹anchor: nisi filio puero› · call in col 524

Vero Ciacc. prob. Jun.

Ciacconius reads "vero", and Junius approves it.

Commentarius

(printed under page 266)

(27) ‹anchor: nobis avocare conantur› · call in col 524

(printed under page 266)

(28) ‹anchor: Ezechiæ nativitatem› · call in col 524

(printed under page 266)

(29) ‹anchor: Nos edimus Evangelia› · call in col 524

(printed under page 266)

(30) ‹anchor: confirmasse debemus› · call in col 524

(printed under page 266)

Page

running head: UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 524 (start of head cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A de terra est, ibit in terram; B carnis resurrectio. Cum dicit; C et ante luciferum ex utero; D tat adversus Ebioneos (in the Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 493 after testimonio

PL 2:525

hominum ex utero natus dubitaretur, nisi quia curiosius voluit intelligi in Christum : Ex utero generavi te, id est, ex solo utero, sine viri semine, carni deputans ex utero spiritus ? Quod et in ipso hic accedit : Tu es sacerdos in aevum. Nec sacerdos autem Ezechias, nec in aevum, etsi fuisset. Secundum ordinem, inquit, Melchisedech. Quid Ezechias, ad Melchisedech Altissimi sacerdotem, et quidem non circumcisum, qui Abraham circumcisum jam accepta decimarum oblatione benedixit ? At in Christum conveniet ordo Melchisedech, quoniam quidem Christus proprius et legitimus Dei antistes, praeputiati sacerdotii pontifex, tum in nationibus constitutus, a quibus magis suspici habebat, cognituram se quandoque circumcisionem, et Abrahae gentem, cum ultimo venerit, acceptatione et benedictione dignabitur. Est et alius Psalmus (LXXI) ita incipiens : Deus, judicium tuum regi da, id est, Christo regnaturo : et justitiam tuam filio regis, id est, populo Christi. Filii enim ejus sunt, qui in ipso renascuntur. Sed et hic Psalmus Salomoni canere dicetur ; quae tamen soli competunt Christo, docere non potuerunt etiam caetera non ad Salomonem, sed ad Christum pertinere ? Descendit, inquit, tanquam imber super vellus et velut stillae destillantes in terram. Placidum decensum ejus et insensibilem describens de coelo in carnem. Salomon autem etsi desscendit alicunde, non tamen sicut imber, quia non de coelo. Sed simpliciora quaeque proponam. Dominabitur, inquit, a mari ad mare, et a flumine usque ad terminos terrae. Hoc soli datum est Christo. Caeterum, Salomon uni et modicae Judaeae imperavit. Adorabunt illum

of men were doubted to have been born from the womb, were it not that He wished it to be understood with more care as referring to Christ: From the womb I begot You, that is, from the womb alone, without the seed of a man, the Spirit assigning "from the womb" to the flesh? What is also added here in the same [psalm]: You are a priest for ever. But Hezekiah was neither a priest, nor for ever, even if he had been one. According to the order, it says, of Melchizedek. What has Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, priest of the Most High, and one indeed not circumcised, who blessed the circumcised Abraham when he had already received the offering of tithes? But the order of Melchizedek will fit Christ, since indeed Christ, the proper and lawful high priest of God, pontiff of an uncircumcised priesthood, established at that time among the nations, by whom He was rather to be received, will, when He comes at the last, deign to grant acceptance and blessing to the circumcision, which will at some time recognize Him, and to the race of Abraham. There is also another Psalm (71) beginning thus: O God, give Thy judgement to the king, that is, to Christ who is to reign: and Thy righteousness to the king's son, that is, to the people of Christ. For His sons are those who are reborn in Him. But this Psalm too will be said to sing of Solomon; yet could not those things which befit Christ alone teach that the rest also pertain not to Solomon but to Christ? He descends, it says, like rain upon a fleece, and like drops dripping upon the earth, describing His gentle and imperceptible descent from heaven into flesh. Solomon, however, even if he descended from somewhere, yet not like rain, because not from heaven. But I shall set forth the simpler points one by one. He shall have dominion, it says, from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. This was given to Christ alone. For the rest, Solomon ruled over Judaea alone, and a small one. They shall adore Him

Editors' notes and page, col. 525

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 267)

(15) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 525

Quod ex ipso. Huc Oberth.

Oberthür reads "quod ex ipso. Huc".

(printed under page 267)

(16) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 525

Et add. Seml.

Semler adds "et".

(printed under page 267)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 525

Sic inser. Lat. Seml. Oberth.

Latinius, Semler and Oberthür insert "sic".

(printed under page 267)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 525

Meum Rhen. cum Venet.

Rhenanus reads "meum", with the Venice edition.

(printed under page 267)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 525

Consecuturum Pam.

Pamelius reads "consecuturum".

(printed under page 267)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 525

(printed under page 267) (31) Carnis deputans ex utero spiritus. Spiritus sanctus in eo psalmo verba hæc : Ex utero, carni significandæ deputavit. RIG.

The Spirit assigning "from the womb" to the flesh. In that psalm the Holy Spirit assigned these words, From the womb, to signifying the flesh. Rigault.

(printed under page 267) (32) Proprio volumine. Est liber de Resurrectione carnis. SEML.

In a volume of its own. This is the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh. Semler.

(printed under page 267) (33) Qui pro mortuis baptizantur. Scio quosdam non de baptismo viventis pro mortuo explicare, sed de absolutione corporis propter sordes quas contraxerit ex contactu mortui. LE PR.

Who are baptized for the dead. I know that some explain this not of the baptism of a living person on behalf of a dead one, but of the cleansing of the body from the defilement it had contracted by touching a corpse. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 267) (34) Viderit institutio ista. Kalendæ si forte Februariæ respondebunt illi, pro mortuis peterent. Hæc scriptura est exemplaris Ursini. Nunc vero talem Tertulliani fuisse non existimo. Nam interroganti Apostolo : Quid facient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si mortui non resurgunt? absurde responsum fuisset, Kalendæ februariæ pro mortuis peterent. Etenim nihil propterea juvaretur institutio illa, quam ævo Apostolorum fuisse apud quosdam Septimius credidit, baptizari pro mortuis. Nempe hoc interrogatione Apostoli ponitur, mortuos non resurgere. Itaque dicenti, mortuos non resurgere, quis adeo stolide repondisset, Kalendas februarias pro mortuis petituras? Pro mortuis videlicet non resurgentibus tam absurda et inutilia fuissent februa, quam Baptismus: Videamus ergo quænam fuerit mens Septimii. Profert Apostoli verba : Quid facient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si mortui non resurgunt? Quibus verbis significari putat fuisse tunc a quibusdam institutum, ut pro mortuis baptizarentur. Deinde ait : Viderit institutio ista an ratione aliqua nitatur. Et statim comparat illi morem ethnicum : Kalendæ, inquit, februariæ respondent et comparari possunt illi, pro mortuis petere, τῷ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, illi scilicet ritui sive institutioni, nempe baptizari, seu petere pro mortuis. Nam et februa celebrantur pro charis cognatorum mortuis, atque hinc nomen inditum mensi februario, et Kalendis februariis. Ovidius, Vota deo Diti Februa mensis habet. Item. Post superum cultus vicino Februa mense Dat Numa cognatis Manibus inferias. Hancce autem scripturam, respondebunt illi pro mortuis petere, servavit codex Divionensis, servavere et codices, quibus usus est Rhenanus. RIG. — Pro mortuis petere. Idem mihi videtur pro mortuis petere, ac februa poscere, de quibus lib. I Fast. Ovid. : Ipse ego flaminiam pascentem februa vidi, Februa poscenti pinea virga data est. Hoc est sacra februa sive expiationem postulare pro mortuis, sive propter cædem, sive propter defectum exsequiarum. LE PR.

Let that institution look to itself. Perhaps the Kalends of February will answer to it, "they would pray for the dead". This is the reading of Ursinus's copy. But I do not think it was Tertullian's. For when the Apostle asks, What will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise?, it would have been an absurd answer: "The Kalends of February would pray for the dead." That institution, which Septimius believed existed among some in the age of the Apostles, of being baptized for the dead, would be helped not at all by it. For the Apostle's question supposes that the dead do not rise. So who would have answered so stupidly to one saying the dead do not rise, that the Kalends of February would pray for the dead? For dead who do not rise, the februa would have been as absurd and useless as Baptism. Let us see, then, what Septimius meant. He quotes the Apostle's words, What will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise?, by which he thinks it is meant that some had then made it a practice to be baptized for the dead. Then he says, Let that institution look to whether it rests on any reason. And at once he compares a heathen custom with it: the Kalends of February, he says, answer to it and can be compared with it, "to pray for the dead", τῷ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν ("with praying on behalf of the dead"), that is, with that rite or institution, namely being baptized, or praying, for the dead. For the februa are also celebrated for the dear dead of one's kin, and hence the month of February and the Kalends of February got their name. Ovid:

(printed under page 267)

Page

running head: 525 LIB. V ADV. MARCION[EM] (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A quis hominum ex utero natus; B et Abrahae gentem, cum ultimo venerit; C simpliciora quaeque proponam; D (34) Viderit institutio ista (in the commentary)
old-edition numerals: 491 after describens

PL 2:526

omnes reges; quem omnes, nisi Christum? Et servient ei omnes, nationes; cui omnes nisi Christo? Sit nomen ejus in aevum; cujus nomen in aeternum, nisi Christi? Ante solem manebit nomen ejus, ante solem enim Sermo Dei, id est Christus. Et benedicentur in illo universae gentes; in Salomone nulla natio benedicitur, in Christo vero omnis. Quid nunc si et Deum cum Psalmus iste demonstrat? Et beatum eum dicent, quoniam benedictus Dominus Deus Israelis, qui facit mirabilia solus. Benictum nomen gloriae ejus, et replebitur universa terra gloria ejus. Contra, Salomon, audeo dicere, etiam quam habuit in Deo gloriam amisit, per mulierem in idololatriam usque pertractus. Itaque cum in medio psalmo illud quoque positum sit: Inimici ejus pulverem lingent, subjecti utique pedibus ipsius, ad illud pertinebit, propter quod hunc psalmum et intuli, et ad meam sententiam defendi, ut confirmaverim et regni gloriam, et inimicorum subjectionem, secundum dispositionem Creatoris, consecuturus, non alium credendum, quam Creatoris.

all kings; whom do all [worship], if not Christ? And all nations shall serve Him; whom do all [serve] if not Christ? Let His name be for ever; whose name is for eternity, if not Christ's? Before the sun His name shall remain; for before the sun was the Word of God, that is, Christ. And all nations shall be blessed in Him; in Solomon no nation is blessed, but in Christ every one. What now if this Psalm also shows Him to be God? And they shall call Him blessed, since blessed is the Lord God of Israel, Who alone does wonders. Blessed is the name of His glory, and the whole earth shall be filled with His glory. Solomon, on the contrary, I dare say, lost even the glory which he had in God, being drawn by a woman all the way into idolatry. Therefore, since in the middle of the psalm this too is set down: His enemies shall lick the dust, made subject, of course, under His feet, it will pertain to that purpose for which I both brought in this psalm and defended it in support of my view, namely that I might confirm both the glory of the kingdom and the subjection of the enemies, according to the dispensation of the Creator, so as to arrive at the conclusion that no other is to be believed in than the Creator's [Christ].

CAPUT X.

Chapter X.

Revertamur nunc ad resurrectionem, cui et alias quidem proprio volumine satisfecimus omnibus haereticis resistentes; sed nec hic desumus propter eos qui illud opusculum ignorant; Quid, ait, facient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si mortui non resurgunt (I Cor. XV)? Viderit institutio ista. Kalendae si forte Februariae respondebunt illi, pro mortuis petere. Noli ergo Apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem ejus denotare,

Let us return now to the resurrection, to which we have indeed elsewhere given satisfaction in a volume of its own, in resisting all heretics; but neither do we fail here, for the sake of those who do not know that little work. What, he says, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise (1 Cor. 15:29)? Let that institution look to itself. The Kalends of February will perhaps answer to it, [namely] to make petition for the dead. Do not, then, straightaway brand the Apostle as its new author or confirmer,

Editors' notes and page, col. 526

Footnotes

(20) ‹anchor: pro mortuis petere› · call in col 526

Peterent Wouw.

Wouwer reads "peterent".

Commentarius

(printed under page 267)

(32) ‹anchor: proprio volumine› · call in col 526

(printed under page 267)

(33) ‹anchor: pro mortuis baptizantur› · call in col 526

(printed under page 267)

(34) ‹anchor: pro mortuis petere› · call in col 526

(printed under page 267)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 268)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 527

Diffinitorem al.

Others read "diffinitorem".

(printed under page 268)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 527

Id inser. Pam. ideo Ciaccon.

Pamelius inserts "id"; Ciacconius reads "ideo".

(printed under page 268)

(23) ‹anchor: esse corpus ; et› · call in col 527

Ut Seml.

Semler reads "ut".

(printed under page 268)

(24) ‹anchor: spiritum futurum› · call in col 527

Futuram Oberth.

Oberthür reads "futuram".

Commentarius

(printed under page 268)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 527

(printed under page 268) (35) Licet stultissimus hæreticus. Is est Marcion, qui hoc encomio celebratur hic, ut apud S. Hieronymum Vigilantius, Jovinianus, aliique, veris coloribus depinguntur, dum talibus titulis decorantur LE PR.

Though a most foolish heretic. That is Marcion, who is honoured here with this tribute, just as in St Jerome Vigilantius, Jovinian and others are painted in their true colours when they are adorned with such titles. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 268)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 269)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 529

Carnis hic omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "carnis" here.

(printed under page 269)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 529

Est add. Oberth.

Oberthür adds "est".

(printed under page 269)

(27) ‹anchor: demutatio carnis› · call in col 529

Sed add. Seml.

Semler adds "sed".

(printed under page 269)

(28) ‹anchor: victoria tua, vel› · call in col 529

Ubi al.

Others read "ubi".

(printed under page 269)

(36) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 529

(printed under page 269) (36) Tum non erimus in carne. Si quandiu vitam hanc egimus, carnis opera seu peccata evitemus, non ideo in carne fuisse dicemur. Neque enim substantiæ carnis, Dei regnum denegatur, sed peccato. ID.

Then we shall not be in the flesh. If, as long as we have lived this life, we avoid the works of the flesh, that is, sins, we shall not for that be said to have been "in the flesh". For the kingdom of God is denied not to the substance of the flesh but to sin. The same (Le Prieur).

(printed under page 269)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 529

(printed under page 269) (37) Per expiationem eorum quæ in corpore admisit. Non abs re de purgatione post mortem subeunda, accurata quidem et diligenti, hæc intelligi poterunt. LE PR.

Through the expiation of what he committed in the body. Not unreasonably may these words be understood of a purgation to be undergone after death, an exact and thorough one. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 269) (38) Littera occidentis per Legem. Pauli verba sunt II ad Cor. III, 6 : Littera occidit, Spiritus vivificat. Litteram vocat Leges mosaicas, Spiritum Evangelium. Lex Mosaïca per Evangelium abrogata, jam nihil est quam littera, corporeum aliquid quod oculis nostris legendum exhibetur. Et quandiu stetit, corporeum aliquid præstabat. Etenim violata mortem inferebat; observata, præmium felicitatis alicujus corporeæ sive terrenæ. Verba autem Christi Evangelio comprehensa spiritus sunt et vita. Etenim pœnitentibus reis offerunt misericordiam et gratiam delictorum, et vitam æternam; quæ cœlestia sunt, non terrena. RIG. — Littera occidentis. Menander : Νόμος φυλαχθεὶς, οὐδέν ἐστιν ἢ νόμος. Ὁ μὴ φυλαχθεὶς, καὶ νόμος, καὶ δήμιος. De littera Mosis. Chrysostomus : Ὁ νόμος ἐὰν λάβῃ φονέα, ἀναιρεῖ· καὶ τί λέγω φονέα; ξύλα ἔλαβεν ἐν Σαββάτῳ συλλέξαντα ὁ νόμος, καὶ ἐλίθασε. RIG.

Of [the Creator] killing by the letter through the Law. These are Paul's words, 2 Corinthians 3:6: The letter kills, the Spirit gives life. He calls the Mosaic Laws the letter, and the Gospel the Spirit. The Mosaic Law, abrogated by the Gospel, is now nothing but letter, something bodily set before our eyes to be read. And as long as it stood, it offered something bodily: broken, it brought death; kept, the reward of some bodily or earthly happiness. But the words of Christ contained in the Gospel are spirit and life. For they offer to penitent offenders mercy and the pardon of their sins, and eternal life, which are heavenly, not earthly. Rigault. — Killing by the letter. Menander:

(printed under page 269)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:530

CAPUT XI.

Chapter XI.

Si Deus commune vocabulum factum est vitio erroris humani, quatenus plures dei dicuntur atque creduntur in saeculo, benedictus tamen Deus Domini nostri Jesu Christi Pater non alius quam Creator intelligetur, qui et universa benedixit, habes Genesim (cap. I); et ab universis benedicitur, habes Danielem (cap. III). Proinde si pater potest dici sterilis Dei nullius magis nomine quam Creatoris; misericordiarum tamen pater idem erit, qui misericors, et miserator, et misericordiae plurimus est dictus: habes apud Jonam (cap. III, IV) cum ipso misericordiae exemplo, quam Ninivitis exorantibus praestitit, facilis et Ezechiae (IV Reg. XX) fletibus flecti, et Achab marito Jezabelis deprecanti sanguinem ignoscere Nabuthae (III Reg. XVI), et David agnoscenti delictum statim indulgere (II Reg. XII); malens scilicet poenitentiam peccatoris, quam mortem, utique ex misericordiae affectu (Osee, VI). Si quid tale Marcionis Deus edidit vel edixit, agnoscam patrem misericordiarum. Si vero ex eo tempero hunc titulum ei adscribit, quo revelatus, quasi exinde sit pater misericordiarum, quo liberare instituit genus humanum; atquin et nos ex eo tempero negamus illum, ex quo dicitur revelatus: non potest igitur aliquid ei adscribere, quem tunc ostendit, cum aliud ei ascribit. Si enim prius constaret eum esse, tunc et adscribi ei potest. Accidens enim est quod adscribitur: accidentia autem antecedit ipsius rei ostensio cui accidunt; maxime cum jam alterius est, quod adscribitur ei, qui prius non sit ostensus, tanto magis negabitur esse, quanto per quod affirmatur esse, ejus est, qui jam ostensus est. Sic et Testamentum novum non alterius erit, quam qui illud repromisit; etsi non littera, at ejus spiritus, hoc erit novitas. Denique, qui litteram tabulis lapideis inciderat, idem et de spiritu edixerat (Joel. III, 28): Effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem. Et si littera occidit, spiritus vero vivificat, ejus utrumque est qui ait (Dent. XXXII, 39): Ego occidam, et vivificabo; percutiam, et sanabo. Olim duplicem vim Creatoris vindicavimus, et judicis et boni; littera occidentis per Legem, et spiritu vivificantis per Evange-

If "God" has become a common word through the fault of human error, inasmuch as many gods are spoken of and believed in the world, nevertheless the "blessed God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" will be understood to be none other than the Creator, Who both blessed all things (you have Genesis, ch. 1) and is blessed by all things (you have Daniel, ch. 3). Likewise, if "father" can be said, barrenly, in the name of no God more than of the Creator, yet the same will be "the Father of mercies", Who has been called merciful, and compassionate, and abounding in mercy: you have it in Jonah (Jon. 3-4), together with the very example of mercy which He showed to the Ninevites as they entreated Him; easy also to be moved by the weeping of Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 20), and to pardon Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, as he begged forgiveness, for the blood of Naboth (1 Kgs. 16), and at once to forgive David when he acknowledged his offence (2 Sam. 12); preferring, that is, the repentance of the sinner rather than his death, assuredly out of the disposition of mercy (Hos. 6). If Marcion's God has put forth or proclaimed any such thing, I will acknowledge the Father of mercies. But if he ascribes this title to him from the time at which he was revealed, as though he were the Father of mercies from that point on, from which he resolved to set the human race free, well then, we too deny him from the time from which he is said to have been revealed: he cannot therefore ascribe anything to one whom he only then showed, when he ascribes something else to him. For if it were first established that he exists, then something can also be ascribed to him. For what is ascribed is an accident; but the showing of the thing itself to which the accidents belong precedes the accidents; above all since, when what is ascribed to one who has not first been shown already belongs to another, he will be denied to exist all the more, in so far as that through which he is affirmed to exist belongs to one who has already been shown. So too the New Testament will belong to no other than Him Who promised it; even if not its letter, yet its spirit: this will be its newness. Indeed, He Who had cut the letter into tablets of stone had likewise proclaimed concerning the spirit (Joel 2:28): I will pour out of My spirit upon all flesh. And if the letter kills, but the spirit gives life, both belong to Him Who says (Deut. 32:39): I will kill, and I will make alive; I will strike, and I will heal. We have already vindicated the twofold power of the Creator, both as judge and as good: of One killing by the letter through the Law, and giving life by the spirit through the Gos-

Editors' notes and page, col. 530

Footnotes

(29) ‹anchor: cum aliud› · call in col 530

Aliquid Pam.

Pamelius reads "aliquid".

(printed under page 269)

(30) ‹anchor: Creatoris vindicavimus› · call in col 530

Vindicamus Seml.

Semler reads "vindicamus".

Commentarius

(printed under page 269)

(38) ‹anchor: littera occidentis per Legem› · call in col 530

(printed under page 269)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 270)

(31) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 531

Israel Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Israel".

(printed under page 270)

(32) ‹anchor: inquit spirituum› · call in col 531

Spiritu al.

Others read "spiritu".

(printed under page 270)

(33) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 531

Etsi Venet.

The Venice edition reads "etsi".

(printed under page 270)

(34) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 531

Nec ultra Lat.

Latinius reads "nec ultra".

(printed under page 270)

(35) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 531

Scilicet omitt. Venet.

The Venice edition omits "scilicet".

(printed under page 270)

(39) ‹anchor: Deus ævi hujus› · call in col 531

(printed under page 270) (39) Deus ævi hujus. Cacodæmonem notat, quia dii gentium dæmonia, ut habetur in Psal. et apud Apostolum : Quorum Deus venter est. LE PR.

The god of this age. He means the evil demon, since the gods of the nations are demons, as the Psalm has it; and the Apostle says: Whose god is their belly. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 270) (50) Hæretici vero ad Laodicenos. De hac epistola adversus Marcionitas etiam producit testimonia cap. XVII infra, ubi explicatur etiam illud, meminisse nationes, etc., sed longe aliis verbis magis Apostolo congruentibus. PAM.

But the heretics [title it] To the Laodiceans. He also brings testimonies from this epistle against the Marcionites in chapter 17 below, where the words that the nations should remember, etc., are also explained, but in quite other words, closer to the Apostle's. Pamelius.

(printed under page 270)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:532

daeis infidelibus, in quibus opertum est aliquibus Evangelium adhuc sub velamine Moysi. Illis enim Deus (Isa. XXIX, 13), labiis diligentibus eum, corde autem longe absistentibus ab eo, minatus fuerat (Isa. VI, 10): Aure audietis, et non audietis; oculis videbitis, et non videbitis; et (Isa. VII, 9): Nisi credideritis, nec intelligetis; et (Isa. XXIX, 14): Auferam sapientiam sapientium, et prudentiam prudentium irritam faciam. Haec autem non utique de Evangelio Dei ignoti abscondendo minabatur. Ita, non hujus aevi Deus, sed infidelium hujus aevi excaecat cor, quod Christum ejus non ultro recognoverint de Scripturis, intelligendum. Et positum in ambiguitate distinctionis hactenus tractasse, ne adversario prodesset, contentus victoriae, nae ultro possum et in totum contentionem hanc praeterisse simpliciori reponso. Prae manu erit scilicet hujus aevi dominum diabolum interpretari, qui dixerit, propheta referente (Isa. XIV, 14): Ero similis Altissimi, ponam in nubibus thronum meum; sicut et tota hujus aevi superstitio illi mancipata est, qui excaecet infidelium corda, et in primis apostatae Marcionis. Denique, non vidit occurrentem sibi clausulam sensus: Quoniam Deum, qui dixit ex tenebris lucem lucescere, reluxit in cordibusnostris ad illuminationem agnitionis suae, in persona Christi. Quis dixit: Fiat lux? Et de illuminatione mundi, quis Christo ait (Isa. XLII, 6): Posui te in lumen nationum, sedentium scilicet in tenebris, et in umbra mo⟨r⟩tis? Cui respondet Spitus in Psalmo (IV, 7), ex providentia futuri: Significatum est, inquit, super nos lumen personae tuae, Domine. Persona autem Dei, Christus Dominus. Unde et Apostoli supra: Qui est imago, inquit, Dei. Igitur si Christus persona Creatoris dicentis, Fiat lux; et Christus, et Apostoli, et Evangelium, et velamen et Moyses, et tota series secundum testimonium clausulae Creatoris est Dei hujus aevi, certe non ejus qui nunquam dixit: Fiat lux. Praetereo hic et de alia Epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. Ait enim (Ephes. II, 12) meminisse nationes, quod illo in tempore cum essent sine Christo, alieni ab Israele, sine conversatione, et testamentis, et spe promissionis, etiam sine Deo essent, in mundo utique, etsi de Creatore. Ergo si nationes sine Deo dixit esse, Deus autem illis diabolus est, non Creator, apparet dominum aevi hujus eum intelligendum, quem nationes pro Deo receperunt, non Creatorem quem ignorant. Quale est autem ut non ejusdem habeatur thesaurus in fictilibus

Jews, unbelievers, among whom the Gospel is still covered for some under the veil of Moses. For God had threatened them (Isa. 29:13), who loved Him with their lips but in heart stood far off from Him (Isa. 6:10): With the ear you shall hear, and shall not hear; with the eyes you shall see, and shall not see; and (Isa. 7:9): Unless you believe, neither shall you understand; and (Isa. 29:14): I will take away the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will make void. These things, however, He certainly did not threaten by hiding the Gospel of an unknown God. Thus what is to be understood is not 'the God of this age', but '[God] blinds the heart of the unbelievers of this age', because they did not of their own accord recognize His Christ from the Scriptures. And having so far dealt with the point placed in the ambiguity of the distinction, so that it should not profit the adversary, content with victory, I could truly even have passed over this whole contention entirely with a simpler reply. It will of course be ready to hand to interpret the lord of this age as the devil, who said, as the prophet reports (Isa. 14:14): I will be like the Most High, I will set my throne in the clouds; just as the whole superstition of this age also has been made over to him, who blinds the hearts of unbelievers, and above all of the apostate Marcion. Finally, he did not see the clause of the sense that meets him: For God, who said that light should shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of Himself, in the person of Christ. Who said: Let there be light? And concerning the illumination of the world, who says to Christ (Isa. 42:6): I have set you as a light of the nations, namely of those sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death? To Whom the Spirit responds in the Psalm (4:7), out of foresight of what was to come: The light of Thy person, He says, has been signified upon us, O Lord. Now the person of God is Christ the Lord. Hence also the Apostle's [words] above: Who is the image, he says, of God. Therefore if Christ is the person of the Creator Who said, Let there be light, then Christ, and the apostles, and the Gospel, and the veil and Moses, and the whole sequence according to the testimony of the clause, belong to the Creator, the God of this age, certainly not to him who never said: Let there be light. I pass over here also [the question] concerning another Epistle, which we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans. For he says (Eph. 2:12) that the nations should remember that at that time, when they were without Christ, aliens from Israel, without way of life, and covenants, and hope of the promise, they were also without God, in the world certainly, even if from the Creator. Therefore if he said that the nations are without God, while their god is the devil, not the Creator, it is evident that the lord of this age is to be understood as him whom the nations received as God, not the Creator, Whom they do not know. But how is it that there should not be held to belong to the same [God] the treasure in earthen

Editors' notes and page, col. 532

Footnotes

(36) ‹anchor: Christi. Quis› · call in col 532

Sic add. Seml

Semler adds "sic".

(printed under page 270)

(37) ‹anchor: etiam sine Deo› · call in col 532

Domino Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Domino".

Commentarius

(printed under page 270)

(40) ‹anchor: ad Laodicenos (note printed as 50)› · call in col 532

(printed under page 270)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 532
marginal letters: A daeis infidelibus, in quibus; B tro possum et in totum; C tenebris, et in umbra mortis; D tis, et spe promissionis
old-edition numerals: 500 after infidelium

PL 2:533

vasis nostris, cujus et vasa sunt? Nam si gloria Dei est in fictilibus vasis tantum thesauri haberi; vasa autem fictilia Creatoris sunt; ergo et gloria Creatoris est, cujus vasa eminentiam virtutis Dei sapiunt, et virtus ipsa. Quia propterea in vasa fictilia commissa sunt, ut eminentia ejus probaretur. Caeterum, jam non erit alterius Dei gloria, ideoque nec virtus, sed magis dedecus et infirmitas, cujus eminentiam fictilia et quidem aliena ceperunt. Quod si haec sunt fictilia vasa in quibus tanta nos pati dicit, in quibus etiam mortificationem circumferimus Domini; satis ingratus Deus et injustus, si non et hanc substantiam resuscitaturus est, in qua pro fide ejus tanta tolerantur, in qua et mors Christi circumfertur, in qua et eminentia virtutis consecratur. Sed enim proponit: Ut et vita Christi manifestetur in corpore nostro, scilicet sicut et mors ejus circumfertur in corpore. De qua ergo Christi vita dicit? Qua nunc vivimus in illo? Et quomodo in sequentibus non ad visibilia, nec ad temporalia, sed ad invisibilia et ad aeterna, id est, non ad praesentia, sed ad futura exhortatur? Quod si de futura vita dicit Christi, in corpore eam dicens apparituram, manifeste carnis resurrectionem praedicavit, exteriorem quidem hominem nostrum corrumpi dicens, et non quasi aeterno interitu post mortem, verum laboribus et incommodis, de quibus praemisit, adjiciens: Et non deficiemus. Nam et interiorem hominem nostrum renovari de die in diem dicens, hic utrumque demonstrat, et corporis corruptionem ex vexatione tentationum, et animi renovationem ex contemplatione promissionum.

vessels of ours, whose are the vessels as well? For if the glory of God is that so great a treasure is held in earthen vessels, and the earthen vessels are the Creator's, then the glory too is the Creator's, Whose vessels savour of the excellence of the power of God, and so is the power itself. For this is why [these things] were entrusted to earthen vessels, that its excellence might be proved. For the rest, it will no longer be the glory of the other god, and therefore not his power either, but rather the disgrace and weakness of him whose excellence earthen vessels, and those belonging to another, have received. But if these are the earthen vessels in which he says that we suffer so much, in which we also carry about the mortification of the Lord, then God is quite ungrateful and unjust if He is not going to raise again this substance too, in which so much is endured for faith in Him, in which the death of Christ is carried about, in which the excellence of His power is consecrated. But indeed he sets forth: That the life of Christ also may be manifested in our body, that is to say, just as His death too is carried about in the body. Of what life of Christ, then, does he speak? That by which we now live in Him? And how is it that in what follows he exhorts us not to things visible, nor to things temporal, but to things invisible and eternal, that is, not to things present but to things to come? But if he speaks of the future life of Christ, saying that it will appear in the body, he has manifestly preached the resurrection of the flesh, saying indeed that our outer man is being corrupted, and not as by an eternal perishing after death, but by the labours and hardships of which he spoke before, adding: And we shall not fail. For in saying also that our inner man is renewed from day to day, he here shows both things: the corruption of the body through the harassment of trials, and the renewal of the soul through the contemplation of the promises.

CAPUT XII.

Chapter XII.

Terreni domicilii nostri (II Cor. V, VI, VII, XI, XII et XIII): Non sic ait habere nos domum aeternam, non manu factam in coelis, quia quae manu facta sit Creatoris, intereat, in totum dissoluta post mortem. Haec enim ad mortis metum, et ad ipsius dissolutionis contristationem consolandam retractans etiam per sequentia manifestius, cum subjicit: Ingemere nos de isto tabernaculo corporis terreni, quod de coelo est super indui cupientes; siquidem et despoliati non inveniemur nudi; id est, recipiemus quo despoliati sumus, id est corpus. Et rursus: Etenim qui sumus in isto tabernaculo corporis, ingemimus quod gravemur, nolentes exui, sed superindui. Hic enim expressit, quod in prima

Of our earthly dwelling (2 Cor. 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13): He does not say that we have an eternal house, not made with hands, in the heavens, in the sense that what was made by the Creator's hand is to perish, wholly dissolved after death. For he is handling these things in order to console the fear of death and the sorrow over that very dissolution, treating them again still more plainly in what follows, when he adds: That we groan in this tabernacle of the earthly body, longing to be clothed over with that which is from heaven; if indeed, even when stripped, we shall not be found naked; that is, we shall receive back that of which we have been stripped, that is, the body. And again: For we who are in this tabernacle of the body groan because we are burdened, not wishing to be unclothed, but to be clothed over. For here he has expressed what in the first

Editors' notes and page, col. 533

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 271)

(38) ‹anchor: circumferimus Domini› · call in col 533

Dei Seml.

Semler reads "Dei".

(printed under page 271)

(39) ‹anchor: resuscitaturus est› · call in col 533

Est omitt. Oberth.

Oberthür omits "est".

(printed under page 271)

(40) ‹anchor: Terreni domicilii nostri› · call in col 533

Forte terrenum domicilium nostrum ex Pam.

Perhaps "terrenum domicilium nostrum", from Pamelius.

(printed under page 271)

(41) ‹anchor: non manu factam in cœlis› · call in col 533

Cœlo Seml.

Semler reads "cœlo".

(printed under page 271)

(42) ‹anchor: super indui› · call in col 533

Superinduere Oberth.

Oberthür reads "superinduere".

(printed under page 271)

(43) ‹anchor: non inveniemur› · call in col 533

Inveniamur Fran.

Franeker reads "inveniamur".

(printed under page 271)

Commentarius

(printed under page 271)

(41) ‹anchor: in prima Epistola strinxit› · call in col 534

Quod in prima Epistola strinxit. Loquitur de I Epist. ad Corinth. Annotat autem Rhenanus, accipi strinxit pro perstrinxit, hoc est obiter indicavit, vel leviter attigit. PAM.

What he touched on in the first Epistle. He is speaking of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Rhenanus notes that strinxit is taken for perstrinxit, that is, "he indicated in passing" or "touched on lightly". Pamelius.

(printed under page 271)

(42) ‹anchor: Si qua ergo conditio nova in Christo› · call in col 534

Si qua ergo conditio nova in Christo. Conditio, more Tertullianico, accipitur pro creatura, græce κτίσις. Consentit vero etiam cum interprete vulgato Latino vertens, Si qua, pro eo quod Isidorus clarius cum Erasmo nimis libere, Si quis. ID.

If then there is any new creation in Christ. "Conditio", in Tertullian's manner, is taken for "creature", in Greek κτίσις. He also agrees with the common Latin translator in rendering Si qua ("if any [creation]"), where Isidorus Clarius, with Erasmus, too freely has Si quis ("if anyone"). The same (Pamelius).

(printed under page 271)

Page

running head: 533 LIB. V ADV. MARCIO[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A bus vasis nostris, cujus et vasa sunt; B virtutis consecratur. Sed enim proponit; C die in diem dicens, hic utrumque; D piemus quo despoliati sumus
old-edition numerals: 501 after Quod
other: ligature doubt raised by the check, resolved by Q2a on the page (2026-10-18): the page prints cœlis and cœlo (œ); set coelis, coelo
other: the line head "bus" is the tail of "fictilibus", set whole at the end of col. 532

PL 2:534

Epistola strinxit, Et mortui resurgent incorrupti, qui jam obierunt; et nos mutabimur, qui in carne fuerimus deprehensi a Deo. Et illi enim resurgent incorrupti, recepto scilicet corpore, et quidem integro, ut et hoc sint incorrupti: et hi propter temporis ultimum jam momentum, et propter merita vexationum Antichristi, compendium mortis; sed mutati consequentur, superinduti magis quod de coelo est, quam exuti corpus. Ita si hi super corpus induent coeleste illud, utique et mortui recipient corpus, super quod et ipsi induant incorruptelam de coelo: quia et de illis ait: Necesse est corruptivum istud induere incorruptelam, et mortale istud immortalitatem. Illi induunt, cum receperint corpus; isti superinduunt, quia non amiserint corpus. Et ideo non temere dixit: Nolentes exui corpore, sed superindui; id est, nolentes mortem experiri, sed vita praeveniri; uti devoretur mortale hoc a vita, dum eripietur morti per superindumentum demutationis. Ideo quia ostendit hoc melius esse, ne contristemur mortis si forte praeventu, et arrhabonem nos spiritus dicit a Deo habere, quasi pignoratos in eamdem spem superindumenti, et abesse a Domino, quandiu in carne sumus, ac propterea debere boni ducere abesse potius a corpore, et esse cum Domino, ut et mortem libenter excipiamus. Atque adeo, omnes ait nos oportere manifestari ante tribunal Christi, ut recipiat unusquisque quae per corpus admisit, sive bonum, sive malum. Si enim tunc retributio meritorum, quomodo jam aliqui cum Deo potuerunt deputari? Et tribunal autem nominando, et dispunctionem boni ac mali operis, utriusque sententiae judicem ostendit, et corporum omnium repraesentationem confirmavit. Non enim poterit, quod corpore admisssum est, non corpore vindicari. Iniquus enim Deus, si non per id punitur quis aut juvatur, per quod operatus est. Si qua ergo conditio nova in Christo, caetera transierunt, ecce nova facta sunt omnia, impleta est Isaiae prophetia (XLIII, 19). Si etiam jubet ut mundemus nos ab inquinamento carnis et sanguinis, non substantiam capere regnum Dei, si et virginem sanctam destinat Ecclesiam assignare Christo, utique ut sponsam sponso; non potest imago conjungi inimico veritatis rei ipsius. Si et pseudoapostolos dicit operarios dolosos, transfiguratores sui, per hypocrisin scilicet, conversationis, non p⟨r⟩aedicationis adulteratae reos taxat; adeo de disciplina, non de divinitate dissidebatur. Si transfiguratur

Epistle touched upon: And the dead shall rise incorrupt, those who have already died; and we shall be changed, we who shall have been overtaken by God in the flesh. For those shall rise incorrupt, having of course received back the body, and that entire, so that in this respect too they may be incorrupt; and these, on account of the now final moment of time, and on account of the merits of the harassments of Antichrist, shall obtain a shortcut past death, but being changed, clothed over with what is from heaven rather than stripped of the body. So if these will put on that heavenly [garment] over the body, certainly the dead too will receive back the body, over which they also may put on incorruption from heaven; for of them too he says: This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal immortality. Those put on, when they have received back the body; these put on over, because they will not have lost the body. And therefore not without reason did he say: Not wishing to be stripped of the body, but to be clothed over; that is, not wishing to experience death, but to be forestalled by life; that this mortal may be swallowed up by life, when it is snatched from death through the over-clothing of change. Therefore, because he shows that this is better, lest we be saddened if perhaps we are forestalled by death, he also says that we have from God the pledge of the Spirit, as being pledged to the same hope of the over-clothing, and that we are absent from the Lord as long as we are in the flesh, and that therefore we ought to count it good rather to be absent from the body and to be with the Lord, so that we may even welcome death gladly. And indeed he says that we must all be made manifest before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive what he has committed through the body, whether good or evil. For if the recompense of merits is then, how could some already have been reckoned as being with God? And moreover by naming a judgement seat, and the examination of good and evil work, he has shown a judge of both sentences, and has confirmed the presentation of all bodies. For what has been committed in the body cannot fail to be punished in the body. For God would be unjust, if one were not punished or rewarded through that by which he acted. If therefore [there is] any new creation in Christ, the former things have passed away, behold all things have been made new, the prophecy of Isaiah has been fulfilled (Isa. 43:19). If he also bids that we cleanse ourselves from the defilement of flesh and blood, [it is] not the substance [that is denied] to obtain the kingdom of God; if he also purposes to assign the Church as a holy virgin to Christ, namely as a bride to a bridegroom, an image cannot be joined to the enemy of the truth of the thing itself. If he also calls the false apostles deceitful workers, transformers of themselves, namely through hypocrisy, he censures them as guilty of corrupted conduct, not of corrupted preaching; so far was the dissension about discipline, not about the Godhead. If there is transformed

Editors' notes and page, col. 534

Footnotes

(44) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 534

Mortis mutati consequantur Lat.

Latinius reads "mortis mutati consequantur".

(printed under page 271)

(45) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 534

Ideo qui al. ideoque Ciaccon.

Others read "ideo qui"; Ciacconius "ideoque".

(printed under page 271)

(46) ‹anchor: non corpore vindicari› · call in col 534

Judicari Venet. sed vindicari Lat.

The Venice edition reads "judicari", but Latinius "vindicari".

(printed under page 271)

(47) ‹anchor: non substantium› · call in col 534

Substantiam cæteri omnes nullo sensu.

All the others read "substantiam", which makes no sense.

Commentarius

(printed under page 271)

(42) ‹anchor: nova in Christo› · call in col 534

(printed under page 271)

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. (cut off at the left edge of the image; column number 534)
marginal letters: A ‹Epistola strinxit›; B ‹amiserint corpus. Et ideo›; C ‹malum. Si enim tunc›; D ‹postolos dicit operarios›
old-edition numerals: 502 after ‹mortale›

PL 2:535

Satanas in angelum lucis, non potest hoc dirigi in Creatorem. Deus enim, non angelus, Creator; iu Deum lucis, non in angelum transfigurare se dictus esset, si non eum Satanam significaret, quem et nos et Marcion angelum novimus. De paradiso suus stylus est ad omuem quam patitur quaestionem. Hic illud forte mirabor, si proprium potuit habere paradisum Deus, nullius terrenae dispositionis, nisi si etiam paradiso Creatoris precario usus est, sicut et mundo. Et tamen hominem tollere ad coelum Creatoris, exemplum est in Helia (IV Reg. II.) Magis vero mirabor Dominum optimum, percutiendi et saeviendi alienum, nec proprium saltem, sed Creatoris angelum Satanae colaphizando Apostolo suo applicuisse, et ter ab eo obsecratum non concessisse. Emendat igitur et deus Marcionis secundum Creatorem, elatos aemulantem, ut deponentem scilicet de solio dynastas. Aut numquid ipse est qui et io corpus Job dedit Satanae potestatem, ut virtus in infirmitate comprobaretur? Quid et formam Legis adhuc tenet Galatarum castigator, in tribus testibus praefiniens staturum omne verbum? Quid et non parsurum se peccatoribus comminatur, lenissimi Dei praedicator? Imo et ipsam durius agendi in praesentia potestatem a Domino datam sibi adfirmat. Nega nunc, haeretice, timeri Deum tuum, cujus Apostolus timebatur.

Satan into an angel of light, this cannot be directed at the Creator. For God, not an angel, is the Creator; he would have been said to transform himself into a God of light, not into an angel, if it did not signify that Satan whom both we and Marcion know as an angel. Concerning paradise there is a pen of its own [i.e. a separate treatise] for every question it admits. Here perhaps I shall wonder at this, whether God could have had a paradise of His own, being of no earthly dispensation, unless He also made use of the Creator's paradise on sufferance, just as He did of the world. And yet, for taking up a man into the Creator's heaven, there is an example in Elijah (2 Kgs. 2). But I shall wonder more that the most good Lord, a stranger to striking and raging, applied not even His own but the Creator's angel of Satan to buffet His apostle, and, thrice besought by him, did not grant it. So the god of Marcion too makes corrections after the manner of the Creator, being jealous of the proud, as one, namely, who puts down the mighty from their seat. Or is He perhaps the very one who also gave Satan power over the body of Job, that strength might be proved in weakness? Why too does the chastiser of the Galatians still keep to the form of the Law, prescribing that every word shall stand on three witnesses? Why too does the preacher of the most gentle God threaten that he will not spare sinners? Nay, he even affirms that the very power of acting more severely when present was given to him by the Lord. Deny now, heretic, that your God is feared, whose apostle was feared.

CAPUT XIII.

Chapter XIII.

Quando opusculum profligatur, breviter jam retractanda sunt quae rursus occurrunt; quaedam vero tramittenda quae saepius occurrerunt. Piget de Lege adhuc congredi, qui toties probaverim concessionem ejus nullum argumentum praestare diversi Dei, in Christo praedicatam scilicet, et repromissam in Christum apud Creatorem, quatenus et ipse Apostolus legem plurimum videtur excludere (Rom. I, II, III, V, VI, VII). Sed et judicem Deum ab Apostolo circumferri saepe jam ostendimus, et in judice ultorem, et creatorem in ultore. Itaque et hic cum dicit: Non enim me pudet Evangelii; virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti, Judaeo Graeco, quia justitia Dei in eo revelatur, ex fide in fidem; sine dubio et Evangelium et salutem justo Deo deputat, non bono, ut ita dixerim, secundum haeretici distinctionem, transferenti ex fide Legis in fidem Evangelii; suae utique Legis, et sui Evangelii. Quoniam et iram dicit revelari de coelo super impietatem et injustiam hominum, qui veritatem in injustitia detinent. Cujus

Now that the little work is being brought to its close, the things that recur must be briefly treated again; some, however, must be passed over, since they have recurred often. It irks me to contend still about the Law, I who have so often proved that its giving way furnishes no argument for a different God, since it was, namely, foretold in Christ and promised in Christ by the Creator, insofar as the Apostle himself too seems very largely to exclude the law (Rom. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7). But we have also often shown already that God is presented by the Apostle as judge, and in the judge an avenger, and in the avenger the Creator. And so here too, when he says: For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to Jew [and] Greek, because the righteousness of God is revealed in it, from faith to faith; without doubt he assigns both the Gospel and salvation to the just God, not to the good one, so to speak, according to the heretic's distinction, to Him who transfers from faith in the Law to faith in the Gospel; His own Law, of course, and His own Gospel. Since he also says that wrath is revealed from heaven against the impiety and injustice of men who hold down the truth in injustice. Of which

Editors' notes and page, col. 535

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 272)

(48) ‹anchor: qui toties› · call in col 535

Congredi, quoties Seml.

Semler reads "congredi, quoties".

(printed under page 272)

(49) ‹anchor: diversi Dei, in› · call in col 535

Cessionem Fran.

Franeker reads "cessionem".

(printed under page 272)

(50) ‹anchor: ipse Apostolus› · call in col 535

Quamvis et ipsa Epistola Lat.

Latinius reads "quamvis et ipsa Epistola".

(printed under page 272)

(51) ‹anchor: Quoniam et iram› · call in col 535

Dei add. Fran.

Franeker adds "Dei".

(printed under page 272)

(52) ‹anchor: in injustitia detinent› · call in col 535

Detineant Oberth.

Oberthür reads "detineant".

(printed under page 272)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 535

Ignorantes natura Ciaccon.

Ciacconius reads "ignorantes natura".

(printed under page 272)

(43) ‹anchor: not visible on the page foot› · call in col 535

(printed under page 272) (43) Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime Epist. Indicat se duntaxat tractare, quæ Marcion eradenda non videt, cum tamen abstulerit quæ voluit; hinc factum, ut paucissimos locos Epistolæ prolixissimæ in medium producat, sicut etiam B. Epiph. Eodem pertinent quæ habet cap. seq. : Salio et hic amplissimum, etc. PAM.

But what great pits [Marcion dug] in this Epistle above all. He indicates that he treats only what Marcion did not see fit to erase, though he removed what he wished; that is why he brings forward very few passages of a very long Epistle, as blessed Epiphanius also does. To the same point belongs what he has in the next chapter: Here too I leap over a very large [gap], etc. Pamelius.

(printed under page 272)

Page

running head: 535 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
marginal letters: A ratur Satanas in angelum lucis; B cratum 503 non concessisse; C Quando opusculum profligatur; D ex fide in fidem
old-edition numerals: 503 after obsecratum

PL 2:536

Dei ira? utique Creatoris. Ergo et veritas ejus erit cujus et ira, quae revelari habet in ultionem veritatis. Etiam adjiciens: Scimus autem judicium Dei secundum veritatem esse; et iram ipsam probavit, ex qua venit judicium pro veritate, et veritatem rursus ejusdem Dei confirmavit, cujus iram probavit probando judicium. Aliud est, si veritatem Dei alterius in justitia detentam Creator iratus ulciscitur. Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime Epistola Marcion fecerit, auferendo quae voluit, de nostri Instrumenti integritate patebit. Mihi sufficit quae proinde eradenda non vidit, quasi negligentias et caecitates ejus accipere. Si enim judicabit Deus occulta hominum, tam eorum qui in lege deliquerunt, quam eorum qui sine lege, quia et hi legem ignorant, et natura faciunt quae sunt legis; utique is Deus judicabit, cujus sunt et lex, et ipsa natura quae legis est instar ignorantibus legem. Judicabit autem quomodo? Secundum Evangelium, inquit, per Christum. Ergo et Evangelium et Christus illius sunt, cujus et lex et natura, quae per Evangelium et Christum vindicabuntur, adeo illo judicio Dei quod et supra, secundum veritatem. Ergo qua defendenda reveletur de coelo ira, nonnisi a Deo irae; ita et hic sensus pristino cohaerens, in quo judicium Creatoris edicitur, non potest in alium Deum referri, qui nec judicat, nec irascitur; sed in illum, cujus dum haec sunt, judicium dico et iram, etiam illa ipsius sint necesse est, per quem haec habent transigi, Evangelium et Christus, et ideo vehitur in transgressores Legis, docentes non furari, et furantes, ut homo Dei legis, non ut Creatorem ipsum his modis tangeus, qui et furari vetans, frandem mandaverit in Aegyptios auri et argenti, quemadmodum et caetera in illum retorquent. Scilicet Apostolus verebatur convicium Deo palam facere, a qno non verebatur divertisse? Adeo autem Judaeos incesserat, ut ingesserit propheticam increpationem. Propter vos nomen Dei blasphematur. Quam ergo perversum, ut ipse blasphemaret eum, cujus blasphemandi causa malos exprobrat! Praefert et cireumcisionem cordis praeputiationi: apud Deum Legis, est facta circumcisio cordis, non carnis; spiritu, non littera. Quod si haec est circumcisio Jeremiae (Jerem. IV, 4): Et circumcidemini praeputia cordis, sicut et Moysis (Deut. X, 16): Circumcidemini duricordiam vestram; ejus erit spiritus circumcidens cor, cujus et littera metens carnem ejus; et Judaeus qui in occulto, cujus et Judaeus in aperto; quia nec Judaeum nominare vellet Apostolus, non Judaeorum Dei servum. Tunc lex, nunc

God is the wrath? Assuredly [the wrath] of the Creator. Therefore the truth also will be His Whose is also the wrath which is to be revealed in vengeance for the truth. Further, by adding: But we know that the judgement of God is according to truth, he both proved the wrath itself, from which judgement comes on behalf of truth, and again confirmed that the truth belongs to the same God Whose wrath he proved by proving the judgement. It is another matter if the Creator, being angered, avenges the truth of another god held down in injustice. But how many pits Marcion has dug in this Epistle above all, by taking away what he wished, will be plain from the integrity of our Instrument. It is enough for me to take as his oversights and blindnesses the things which he likewise did not see were to be erased. For if God will judge the hidden things of men, both of those who have sinned in the law and of those who [have sinned] without law, because these too are ignorant of the law and by nature do the things which are of the law, assuredly that God will judge to Whom belong both the law and nature itself, which serves as a law to those ignorant of the law. And how will He judge? According to the Gospel, he says, through Christ. Therefore both the Gospel and Christ are His, Whose are both law and nature, which will be vindicated through the Gospel and Christ, and so by that judgement of God which [he mentioned] also above, according to truth. Therefore [the truth] for the defence of which wrath is revealed from heaven is from none but the God of wrath; so too this sense, cohering with the former one, in which the judgement of the Creator is proclaimed, cannot be referred to another god, who neither judges nor is angry, but to Him to Whom, since these things belong, I mean judgement and wrath, those things also must necessarily belong through which these are to be carried out, the Gospel and Christ. And therefore he inveighs against transgressors of the Law, who teach not to steal and yet steal, as a man of the law of God, not as one attacking the Creator Himself in these ways, Who, though He forbade stealing, ordered the fraud of the gold and silver against the Egyptians, just as they twist the other things too against Him. Was the apostle, forsooth, afraid to cast reproach openly on God, from Whom he was not afraid to have departed? But he had so assailed the Jews as to heap upon them the prophetic rebuke: Because of you the name of God is blasphemed. How perverse, then, that he himself should blaspheme Him for blaspheming Whom he reproaches the wicked! He also prefers circumcision of the heart to uncircumcision: with the God of the Law circumcision of the heart has been made, not of the flesh; in spirit, not in letter. But if this is the circumcision of Jeremiah (Jer. 4:4): And circumcise the foreskins of your heart, as also of Moses (Deut. 10:16): Circumcise your hardness of heart, the spirit circumcising the heart will be His Whose also is the letter cutting the flesh; and the Jew who [is one] in secret is His Whose also is the Jew in the open; since the apostle would not even wish to call anyone a Jew who was not a servant of the God of the Jews. Then the law, now

Editors' notes and page, col. 536

Footnotes

(54) ‹anchor: cujus dum› · call in col 536

Dum abest. Par.

"Dum" is missing in the Paris edition.

(printed under page 272)

(55) ‹anchor: judicium dico et iram› · call in col 536

Ira Seml.

Semler reads "ira".

(printed under page 272)

(56) ‹anchor: apud Deum› · call in col 536

Enim add. Fran.

Franeker adds "enim".

(printed under page 272)

(57) ‹anchor: sicut et Moysis› · call in col 536

Moyses Pam.

Pamelius reads "Moyses".

Commentarius

(printed under page 272)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 586
marginal letters: A Dei ira? utique Creatoris.; B rant, et natura faciunt; C habent transigi, Evangelium; D cumcisio Jeremiae
old-edition numerals: 504 after legis;

PL 2:537

justitia Dei per fidem Christi. Quae est ista distinctio? Servivit Deus tuus dispositioni Creatoris, dans ei tempus et Legi ejus: an ejus tunc, cujus et nunc? ejus lex, cujus et fides. Christi distinctio dispositionum est, non deorum. Monet justificatos ex fide Christi, non ex lege, pacem ad Deum habere. Ad quem? Cujus nusquam fuimus hostes, an cujus legi et naturae rebellavimus? Nam si in eum competit pax cum quo fuit bellum, ei et justificabimur, et ejus erit Christus, ex cujus fide justificabimur, ad cujus pacem competit redigi hostes ejus aliquando. Lex autem, inquit, subintroivit, ut abundaret delictum, Quare? Ut superabundaret, inquit, gratia. Cujus Dei gratia, si non cujus et lex? nisi si Creator ideo legem intercalavit, ut negotium procuraret gratiae Dei alterius, et quidem aemuli, ne dixerim ignoti; ut quemadmodum apud ipsum regnaverat peccatum in mortem, ita et gratia regnaret in justitia in vitam per Jesum Christum, adversarium ipsius. Propter hoc, omnia concluserat lex Creatoris sub delictum, et totum mundum deduxerat in reatum, et omne os obstruxerat, ne qui gloriaretur per illam; ut gratia servaretur in gloriam Christi, non Creatoris, sed Marcionis. Possum et hic de substantia Christi praestruere, ex prospectu quaestionis subsecuturae. Mortuos enim nos inquit Legi. Ergo corpus Christi; et potest corpus contendi, non statim caro. Sed et quaecumque substantia sit, cum ejus nominat corpus, quem subjicit ex mortuis resurrexisse, non potest aliud corpus intelligi, quam carnis, in quam lex mortis est dicta. Ecce autem et testimonium perhibet legi, et causa delicti eam excusat. Quid ergo dicemus? Quia lex peccatum? Absit. Erubesce, Marcion. Absit. Abominatur Apostolus criminationem legis. Sed ego delictum non scio, nisi per legem. O summum ex hoc praeconium legis, per quam liquet delictum latere! Non ergo lex seduxit, sed peccatum per praecepti occasionem. Quid Deo imputas Legis, quod Legi ejus Apostolus imputare non audet? Atquin et accumulat: Lex sancta, et praeceptum ejus justum et bonum. Si taliter veneratur legem Creatoris, quomodo ipsum destruat nescio. Quis disceruit duos deos, justum alium, bonum

the righteousness of God through faith in Christ. What is this distinction? Your god served the dispensation of the Creator, granting time to it and to His Law: or was it His then, Whose it is also now? The law is His Whose the faith also is. The distinction made by Christ is one of dispensations, not of gods. He admonishes those justified by faith in Christ, not by the law, to have peace towards God. Towards which [god]? Him whose enemies we never were, or Him against Whose law and nature we rebelled? For if peace properly applies to the one with whom there was war, by Him too shall we be justified, and His will be the Christ by faith in Whom we shall be justified, into Whose peace it is fitting that His enemies should at some time be brought back. But the law, he says, entered in besides, that the offence might abound. Why? That grace, he says, might superabound. The grace of which God, if not of Him Whose the law also is? Unless the Creator interposed the law for this purpose, to manage the business of the grace of another god, and indeed a rival, not to say an unknown one; so that, just as under Him sin had reigned unto death, so grace too might reign in righteousness unto life through Jesus Christ, His adversary. For this reason the law of the Creator had shut up all things under offence, and had led the whole world into guilt, and had stopped every mouth, so that no one might glory through it; so that grace might be reserved for the glory of Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion. Here too I can lay down something beforehand concerning the substance of Christ, with a view to the question that is to follow. For he says that we are dead to the Law. Therefore the body of Christ; and it can be contended that a body is not straightaway flesh. But whatever substance it may be, since he names the body of Him Whom he adds to have risen from the dead, no other body can be understood than that of flesh, against which the law of death was pronounced. But see, he both bears witness to the law and clears it of the charge of being the cause of offence. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? Far from it. Blush, Marcion. Far from it. The Apostle abhors an accusation of the law. But I do not know offence except through the law. O the highest praise of the law from this, through which it becomes plain that offence lies hidden! So it was not the law that seduced, but sin, through the occasion of the commandment. Why do you impute to the God of the Law what the Apostle dares not impute to His Law? Nay, he even heaps it up: The law is holy, and its commandment just and good. If he venerates the law of the Creator in such a way, I do not know how he would destroy Him Himself. Who has distinguished two gods, one just, good

Editors' notes and page, col. 537

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 273)

(58) ‹anchor: ideo legem› · call in col 537

Legem deest. Rhen.

"Legem" is missing in Rhenanus.

(printed under page 273)

(59) ‹anchor: Christi; et› · call in col 537

Legi per corpus Christi. Ergo Ciaccon.

Ciacconius reads "legi per corpus Christi. Ergo".

(printed under page 273)

(60) ‹anchor: delictum latere (call printed lowered, legible as 65)› · call in col 537

Licuit Seml. Oberth.

Semler and Oberthür read "licuit".

(printed under page 273)

(61) ‹anchor: per quam liquet› · call in col 537

Latens Ciacc.

Ciacconius reads "latens".

(printed under page 273)

(44) ‹anchor: ad Deum habere› · call in col 537

(printed under page 273) (44) Monet justficatos ex fide, etc., pacem ad Deum habere. In his verbis initio cap. V, omisso toto cap. IV Epistolæ ad Romanos legit Auctor ἔχομεν, pro eo quod alii ἔχωμεν, habeamus. PAM.

He urges those justified by faith, etc., to have peace with God. In these words at the beginning of chapter 5, having passed over the whole of chapter 4 of the Epistle to the Romans, the Author reads ἔχομεν ("we have"), where others read ἔχωμεν, let us have. Pamelius.

(printed under page 273)

(45) ‹anchor: legem intercalavit› · call in col 537

(printed under page 273) (45) Legem intercalavit. Id est, inquit Rhenanus, interjecit, interposuit, interseruit, mediam immisit : nam hic id significat intercalare. Ejus verbi meminit Macrobius, etiam de ratione intercalandi abunde disserens. Julius Cæsar instituit ut unus dies quarto quoque anno intercalaretur, hoc est insereretur; unde bissextilem annum Plinius intercalarem vocat, et Livius mensem dixit intercalarium. Græci ἐμβόλιμον appellant et ἐμβολιμαῖον. ID

He intercalated the Law. That is, says Rhenanus, he threw it in, put it between, inserted it, sent it into the middle; for that is what "intercalare" means here. Macrobius mentions the word, discussing at length also the method of intercalating. Julius Caesar established that one day should be intercalated, that is, inserted, every fourth year; hence Pliny calls the leap year "intercalary", and Livy spoke of an "intercalary month". The Greeks call it ἐμβόλιμον and ἐμβολιμαῖον ("inserted"). The same (Pamelius).

(printed under page 273)

(46) ‹anchor: nos inquit Legi› · call in col 537

(printed under page 273) (46) Mortuos enim nos inquit Legi. Etiam hoc ex persona Marcionis, et ex corrupta ejus scriptura, quippe qui verterit, mortuos nos legi, ubi Apostolus dicit, mortuos peccato. Rom. VI, sub initium cap. Sed recte eum confutat ex sequentibus verbis, ubi subjicit Christum ex mortuis resurrexisse. ID.

For he says we are dead to the Law. This too is said in Marcion's person and from his corrupted text, since he turned it into we are dead to the law, where the Apostle says dead to sin, Romans 6, near the beginning of the chapter. But he rightly refutes him from the following words, where he adds that Christ rose from the dead. The same (Pamelius).

(printed under page 273)

(47) ‹anchor: Phantasma autem› · call in col 538

(47) Phantasma autem. De quo pluribus ante disseruit contra Marcionem, Christo carnem phantasticam et phantasma, non verum corpus tribuentem. LE PR.

But a phantom. On which he discoursed at length earlier against Marcion, who attributed to Christ a phantom flesh and a phantasm, not a real body. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 273)

Page

running head: 537 LIB. V ADV. MARCI[ONEM] (cut off at the image edge; the column number's middle figure looks like 8 in the print)
marginal letters: A justitia Dei per fidem Christi; B ut negotium procuraret gratiae; C quem subjicit ex mortuis; D scio. Quis disceruit duos deos
old-edition numerals: 505 after legem
other: misprint kept as printed: "disceruit" (for discernit), in "Quis disceruit duos deos" (Q3, 2026-10-18)

PL 2:538

alium; cum is utrumque debeat credi: cujus praeceptum et bonum et justum est? Si autem et spiritalem confirmat legem, utique et propheticam, utique et figuratam. Debeo enim et hinc constituere Christum in lege figurate praedicatum, quo nec a Judaeis omnibus potuerit agnosci.

another, when He ought to be believed to be both, He whose precept is both good and just? But if he also affirms that the law is spiritual, then certainly he affirms that it is prophetic too, and certainly figurative too. For from this too I ought to establish that Christ was preached figuratively in the law, which is why He could not be recognized even by all the Jews.

CAPUT XIV.

Chapter XIV.

(Rom. VIII, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV) Hunc si Pater misit in similitudinem carnis peccati, non ideo phantasma dicetur caro quae in illo videbatur. Peccatum enim carni supra adscripsit, et illam fecit legem peccati habitantem in membris suis, et adversantem legi sensus. Ob hoc igitur missum Filium in similitudinem carnis peccati, ut peccati carnem simili substantia redimeret, id est carnea, qua peccatrici carni similis esset, cum peccatrix ipsa non esset, nam et haec erit Dei virtus, in substantia pari perficere salutem. Non enim magnum, si spiritus Dei carnem remediaret; sed si caro consimilis peccatrici, dum caro est, sed non peccati. Ita similitudo ad titulum peccati pertinebit, non ad substantiae mendacium. Nam nec addidisset peccati, si substantiae similitudinem vellet intelligi, ut negaret veritatem. Tantum enim carnis posuisset, non et peccati. Cum vero tunc sic struxerit, carnis peccati, et substantiam confirmavit, id est carnem, et similitudinem ad vitium substantiae retulit, id est ad peccatum. Puta nunc similitudinem substantiae dictam, non ideo negabitur substantiae veritas. Cur ergo similis vera? Quia vera quidem, sed non ex semine; de statu similis, sed vera de censu, non vero dissimilis. Caeterum, similitudo in contrariis nulla est. Spiritus non diceretur carnis similitudo, quia nec caro similitudinem spiritus caperet; sed phantasma diceretur, si id quod non erat, videbatur. Similitudo autem dicitur, cum est quod videtur. Est enim, dum alterius par est. Phantasma autem, qua hoc tantum est, non est similitudo. Et hic autem ipse edisserens, quomodo nolit esse nos in carne, cum simus in carne; ut scilicet non simus in operibus carnis, ostendit hac ratione scripsisse (I Cor. XV, 50): Caro et sanguis regnum Dei consequi non

(Rom. 8; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14) If the Father sent Him in the likeness of the flesh of sin, the flesh which was seen in Him will not for that reason be called a phantom. For above he ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it the law of sin dwelling in his members, and opposing the law of the mind. For this reason, then, the Son was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, so that He might redeem the flesh of sin by a like substance, that is, a fleshly one, by which He was like to sinful flesh, while He Himself was not sinful; for this too will be the power of God, to accomplish salvation in an equal substance. For it would be no great thing if the spirit of God were to heal the flesh; but it is if a flesh like to the sinful one does so, while it is flesh, yet not of sin. Thus the likeness will pertain to the designation of sin, not to a falsehood of substance. For he would not have added "of sin" if he had wished a likeness of substance to be understood, so as to deny its reality. For he would have put only "of flesh", and not also "of sin". But since he then constructed it thus, "of the flesh of sin", he both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh, and referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to sin. Suppose now that a likeness of substance was spoken of: not for that reason will the reality of the substance be denied. Why then is that which is like also real? Because it is real indeed, but not from seed; like as regards its condition, but real as regards its origin, not, however, unlike. Moreover, there is no likeness between contraries. Spirit would not be called a likeness of flesh, since flesh would not admit a likeness of spirit either; but it would be called a phantom if that which was not was seen. Yet a likeness is spoken of when that which is seen is. For it is, while it is the equal of another. But a phantom, in so far as it is only this, is not a likeness. And here too he himself, explaining how he does not wish us to be in the flesh, although we are in the flesh, that is, that we should not be in the works of the flesh, shows that he wrote with this meaning (1 Cor. 15:50): Flesh and blood, to attain the kingdom of God, are not

Editors' notes and page, col. 538

Footnotes

(62) ‹anchor: tunc sic struxerit› · call in col 538

Tunc sic struxit Seml. utrumque substruxerit Lat.

Semler reads "tunc sic struxit"; Latinius "utrumque substruxerit".

(printed under page 273)

(63) ‹anchor: similis, sed› · call in col 538

Et Lat.

Latinius reads "et".

(printed under page 273)

(64) ‹anchor: non vero dissimilis› · call in col 538

Vera de simili Lat.

Latinius reads "vera de simili".

(printed under page 273)

(65) ‹anchor: alterius par est› · call in col 538

Autem negl. al.

Others leave out "autem".

(printed under page 273)

(66) ‹anchor: Phantasma autem (47), qua› · call in col 538

Quia al.

Others read "quia".

(printed under page 273)

(67) ‹anchor: hoc tantum› · call in col 538

Pro hoc tantum vult. Lat. ostentum.

For "hoc tantum" Latinius wants "ostentum".

(printed under page 273)

(68) ‹anchor: non simus in› · call in col 538

Ex Seml.

Semler reads "ex".

Commentarius

(printed under page 273)

(47) ‹anchor: Phantasma autem› · call in col 538

(printed under page 273)

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM. 588 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A num alium; cum is utrumque; B mili substantia redimeret; C substantiae dictam, non ideo; D xv, 50) : Caro et sanguis
old-edition numerals: 506 after similis

PL 2:539

possunt; non substantiam damnans, sed opera ejus: quae, quia possunt non admitti a nobis in carne adhuc positis, non ad reatum substantiae, sed ad conversationis pertinebunt. Item, si corpus quidem mortuum propter delictum (adeo non animae, sed corporis mors est), spiritus autem vita propter justitiam; ei utique obveniet vita propter justitiam, cui mors obvenit propter delictum, id est corpori. Non enim alicui restituitur quid, nisi quid aliud amisit; et ita erit resurrectio mortuorum, dum est corporum. Nam et subjungit: Qui suscitavit Christum a mortuis, vivificabit et mortalia corpora vestra. Adeo et carnis resurrectionem confirmavit, absque qua nec corpus aliud dici capit, nec mortale aliud intelligi, et Christi substantiam corporalem probavit. Siquidem proinde vivificabuntur et mortalia corpora nostra, quemadmodum et ille resuscitatus est, non alias proinde nisi quia in corpore. Salio et hic amplissimum abruptum intercisae Scripturae; sed apprehendo testimonium perhibentem Apostolum Israeli quod zelum Dei habeant, sui utique, non tamen per scientiam. Deum enim, inquit, ignorantes, et suam justitiam sistere quaerentes, non subjecerunt se justitiae Dei. Finis enim legis Christus in justitiam omni credenti. Hic erit argumentatio haeretici, quasi Deum superiorem ignoraverint Judaei, qui adversus eum justitiam suam, id est, legis suae constituerint, non recipientes Christum finem legis. Cur ergo et zelo eorum erga Deum proprium testimonium perhibet, si non et inscientiam erga eumdem Deum eis exprobrat? quod zelo quidem Dei agerentur, sed non per scientiam; ignorantes scilicet eum, dum dispositiones ejus in Christo ignorant consummationem legi statuturo, atque ita suam justitiam tuentur adversus illum. Atque adeo ipse Creator et ignorantiam erga se eorum contestatur (Isa. I, 3): Israel me non agnovit, et populus meus me non intellexit; et, quod justitiam suam magis sisterent, docentes doctrinas praecepta hominum (Isa. XXIX, 13), nec non et (Psal. II, 2) congregati essent adversus Dominum, et adversus Christum ipsius, ex inscientia scilicet. Nihi igitur potest in alium Deum exponi, quod competit in Creatorem, quia et alias immerito Apostolus Judaeos de ignorantia sugillasset erga Deum ignotum. Quid enim deliquerant, si justitiam Dei sui adversus eum sistebant, quem ignorabant? Atquin exclamat: O profundum divitiarum et sapientiae Dei, et

are able; not condemning the substance, but its works: and these, since they can be left uncommitted by us while we are still placed in the flesh, will pertain not to the guilt of the substance but to that of conduct. Likewise, if the body indeed is dead because of sin (so that death belongs not to the soul but to the body), but the spirit is life because of righteousness; then life will surely come because of righteousness to that to which death comes because of sin, that is, to the body. For nothing is restored to anyone unless it is something that he has lost; and thus there will be a resurrection of the dead, since it is a resurrection of bodies. For he also adds: He Who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies. Thus he has both confirmed the resurrection of the flesh, without which nothing else can be called a body nor anything else be understood as mortal, and proved the bodily substance of Christ. Since indeed our mortal bodies too will be given life in the same way as He also was raised, and in the same way for no other reason than that it was in a body. Here too I leap over a very wide gap of mutilated Scripture; but I seize upon the Apostle bearing witness to Israel that they have a zeal for God, their own God of course, yet not according to knowledge. For, he says, being ignorant of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they have not subjected themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness for everyone who believes. Here will be the heretic's argument: as though the Jews were ignorant of the superior God, they who set up against Him their own righteousness, that is, that of their law, not receiving Christ, the end of the law. Why then does he both bear his own witness to their zeal towards God, if he does not also reproach them with ignorance towards the same God? that they were driven indeed by zeal for God, but not according to knowledge; being ignorant, that is, of Him, while they are ignorant of His dispensations in Christ, Who was to establish the consummation for the law, and so they defend their own righteousness against Him. And so the Creator Himself also attests their ignorance towards Himself (Isa. 1:3): Israel has not known Me, and My people has not understood Me; and that they rather established their own righteousness, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men (Isa. 29:13), and moreover that (Ps. 2:2) they had gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ, out of ignorance, of course. Nothing therefore can be interpreted of another God which applies to the Creator, since otherwise the Apostle would undeservedly have taunted the Jews with ignorance towards an unknown God. For what wrong had they done, if they were upholding the righteousness of their own God against one whom they did not know? Yet he exclaims: O depth of the riches and of the wisdom of God, and

Editors' notes and page, col. 539

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 274)

(69) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Et omitt. Pam.

Pamelius omits "et".

(printed under page 274)

(70) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Qua Jun.

Junius reads "qua".

(printed under page 274)

(71) ‹anchor: in justitiam› · call in col 539

Justitia Seml. Oberth.

Semler and Oberthür read "justitia".

(printed under page 274)

(72) ‹anchor: legi statuturo› · call in col 539

Staturo Rig. statuero Venet.

Rigault reads "staturo"; the Venice edition "statuero".

(printed under page 274)

(73) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Enim Lat.

Latinius reads "enim".

(printed under page 274)

(74) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Non omitt. Pam., sed est in cod. Wouw.

Pamelius omits "non", but it is in Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 274)

(75) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Patebant de Isaia, ut Lat.

"Patebant de Isaia", as Latinius reads.

(printed under page 274)

(48) ‹anchor: O profundum divitiarum› · call in col 539

O profundum divitiarum. ὦ βάθος, pro quo Vulgata: O altitudo. Le Pr.

"O depth of riches." The Greek is ὦ βάθος, for which the Vulgate has "O altitudo" (O height). Le Prieur.

(printed under page 274)

(49) ‹anchor: sapientiae Dei, et› · call in col 539

Investigabiles. Quoniam in Graeco est ἀνεξιχνίαστοι, id est, non vestigabiles, bene multi legendam censent investigabiles, id est qui investigari nequeunt. Id.

"Investigabiles." Since the Greek has ἀνεξιχνίαστοι, that is, "not to be tracked", many rightly judge that "investigabiles" should be read, that is, "which cannot be searched out". The same.

(printed under page 274)

Page

running head: 539 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S[...] (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A possunt; non substantiam damnans; B corporalem probavit. Siquidem; C gis. Cur ergo et zelo; D Christum ipsius, ex inscientia
old-edition numerals: 507 after proinde

PL 2:540

investigabiles viae ejus! Unde illa eruptio? Ex recordatione scilicet Scripturarum, quas retro revolverat, ex contemplatione sacramentorum, quae supra disseruerat in fidem Christi, ex lege venientem. Haec si Marcion de industria non erasit, quid apostolus ejus exclamat, nullas intuens divitias Dei tam pauperis et egeni quam qui nihil condidit, nihil praedicavit, nihil denique habuit, ut qui in aliena descendit? Sed enim et opes et divitiae Creatoris olim absconditae, nunc reseratae repromiserat (Isa. XLV, 5) : Et dabo illis thesauros occultos, invisibiles aperiam eis. Inde ergo exclamatum est : O profundum divitiarum et sapientiae Dei! cujus jam thesauri patebant. Id Isaiae, et sequentia de ejusdem prophetae instrumento (Isa. XL, 13) : Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini aut quis consiliarius ejus fuit? Quis porrexit ei, et retribuetur illi? Qui tanta de Scripturis ademisti, quid ista servasti, quasi non et haec Creatoris? Plane novi Dei praecepta videamus. Odio, inquit, habentes malum, et bono adhaerentes. Aliud est enim apud Creatorem. Anferte malum de vobis, et (Psal. XXXIII, 14) declina a malo, et fac bonum. Amore fraternitatis invicem affectuosi. Non enim id ipsum est : Diliges proximum tanquam te? Spe gaudentes; utique Dei : Bonum est enim (Psal. CXVII) sperare in Dominum, quam sperare in magistratus. Pressuram sustinentes : Exaudiet enim (Psal. XIX, 1) te Dominus in die pressurae. Habes Psalmum : Benedicite et nolite maledicere; quis hoc docebit, quam qui omnia benedictionibus condidit? Non altum sapientes, sed humilibus assentantes, ne sitis apud vos sapientes; vae enim audiunt per Isaiam (V, 21) : Malum pro malo nemini retribueritis; et (Levit. XIX, 18) : Malitiae fratris vestri ne memineritis. Nec vosmetipsos ulciscentes : Mihi enim (Deut. XXXII, 35) vindictam et ego vindicabo, dicit Dominus. Pacem cum omnibus hominibus habetote : ergo et legalis talio non retributionem injuriae permittebat, sed inceptionem metu retributionis comprimebat. Merito itaque totam Creatoris disciplinam principali praecepto ejus conclusit : Diliges proximum tanquam te. ⟨H⟩oc Legis supplementum si ex ipsa Lege est, quis sit Deus Legis jam ignoro (metuo ne deus Marcionis); si vero Evangelium Christi hoc praecepto adimpletur, Christi autem non est Creatoris, quo jam contendimus? Dixerit Christus, an non : Ego non veni legem dissolvere, sed implere (Matth. V, 17)? Frustra de ista sententia neganda Ponticus laboravit.

His ways unsearchable! Whence that outburst? From the recollection, namely, of the Scriptures, which he had been unrolling back over, from the contemplation of the mysteries which he had discussed above with respect to faith in Christ, coming from the law. If Marcion did not erase these on purpose, why does his apostle exclaim, beholding no riches of a God so poor and needy as he who created nothing, foretold nothing, in short had nothing, as one who came down into what belongs to another? But in fact the Creator had promised that His wealth and riches, once hidden, would now be unlocked (Isa. 45:5): And I will give them hidden treasures, invisible ones I will open to them. Hence, therefore, it was exclaimed: O the depth of the riches and of the wisdom of God! whose treasures were now lying open. This is Isaiah's, and so is what follows, from the record of the same prophet (Isa. 40:13): For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor? Who has given to Him, and it shall be repaid to him? You who have taken away so much from the Scriptures, why have you kept these, as though these too were not the Creator's? Now then, let us look at the precepts of the new God. Holding evil in hatred, he says, and cleaving to good. For with the Creator it is something different: Put away evil from you, and (Ps. 33:14) turn aside from evil, and do good. In love of brotherhood affectionate towards one another. For is not this the very same: You shall love your neighbour as yourself? Rejoicing in hope; of God, assuredly: For it is good (Ps. 117) to hope in the Lord rather than to hope in magistrates. Enduring tribulation: For the Lord will hear you (Ps. 19:1) in the day of tribulation. You have the Psalm: Bless and do not curse; who will teach this, rather than He who founded all things with blessings? Not minding high things, but agreeing with the humble, lest you be wise in your own eyes; for they hear woe pronounced through Isaiah (Isa. 5:21): Render to no one evil for evil; and (Lev. 19:18): Do not remember the malice of your brother. Not avenging yourselves: For vengeance is Mine (Deut. 32:35), and I will avenge, says the Lord. Have peace with all men: therefore even the talion of the law did not permit the repaying of injury, but checked its commencement by fear of repayment. Rightly, therefore, he summed up the whole discipline of the Creator in His chief precept: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. If this completion of the Law is from the Law itself, I no longer know who the God of the Law is (I fear lest it be Marcion's god); but if the Gospel of Christ is fulfilled by this precept, and yet Christ is not the Creator's, what are we still contending for? Did Christ say, or did He not: I have not come to dissolve the law, but to fulfil it (Matt. 5:17)? In vain has the man of Pontus laboured to deny that saying.

Editors' notes and page, col. 540

Footnotes

(76) ‹anchor: sperare in Dominum› · call in col 540

Domino Oberth.

Oberthür reads "Domino".

(printed under page 274)

(77) ‹anchor: sed humilibus assentantes› · call in col 540

Adsectantes Venet.

The Venice edition reads "adsectantes".

(printed under page 274)

(78) ‹anchor: ne memineritis› · call in col 540

Memineris Jun.

Junius reads "memineris".

(printed under page 274)

(79) ‹anchor: Pacem cum omnibus› · call in col 540

Omnibus omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "omnibus".

(printed under page 274)

(80) ‹anchor: autem non est› · call in col 540

Et Lat.

Latinius reads "et".

Commentarius

(printed under page 274)

Page

running head: ...M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 540 (left part cut off in the image)
marginal letters: A investigabiles viae ejus! Unde illa; B Domini aut quis consiliarius ejus fuit; C hoc docebit, quam qui omnia; D supplementum si ex ipsa Lege est
old-edition numerals: 508 after praecepta
other: the word laboravit. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 541

PL 2:541

Si Evangelium Legem non adimplevit, ecce Lex Evangelium adimplevit. Bene antem quod et in clausula tribunal Christi comminatur, utique judicis et ultoris, utique Creatoris; illum certe constituens promerendum, quem intentat timendum, etiamsi alium praedicarct.

If the Gospel did not fulfil the Law, behold, the Law fulfilled the Gospel. And it is well that in the closing clause too he threatens with the tribunal of Christ, surely of a judge and avenger, surely of the Creator; certainly establishing as the One Whose favour is to be earned Him Whom he holds out as One to be feared, even if he were preaching another.

CAPUT XV.

Chapter XV.

Brevioribus quoque Epistolis non pigebit intendere: est sapor et in paucis. Occiderant Judaei prophetas suos. Possum dicere: Quid ad apostolum dei alterius, et quidem optimi, qui nec suorum delicta damnare dicatur, quique et ipse prophetas eosdem destruendo quodammodo perimat? Quid enim mali admisit apud illum Israel, si occidit quos et ille reprobavit? si prior inimicam in eos sententiam statuit? Dereliquit apud Deum ipsorum. Is exprobavit iniquitatem, ad quem pertinet laesus; certe quivis alius, quam adversarius laesi. Sed nec onerasset illos, imputando etiam Domini necem, qui et Dominum interfecerunt, dicendo, et prophetas suos; licet suos adjectio sit haeretici. Quid enim tam acerbum, si alterius Dei praedicatorem Christum intermererunt, qui sui Dei prophetas contrucidaverunt? Status autem exaggerationis, quod et Dominum et famulos ejus peremissent. Denique, si alterius Dei Christum, alterius prophetas peremerunt, aequavit impietates, non exaggeravit. Aequanda autem non fuit; ergo exaggerari non potuit, nisi in eumdem Dominum commissa, ex utroque titulo. Ergo ejusdem Dei Christus et prophetae. Quam autem sanctitatem nostram voluntatem Dei dicat, ex contrariis quae prohibet agnosceres. Abstinere inquit, a stupro, non a matrimonio. Scire unumquemque suum vas in honore tractare. Quomodo? Dum non in libidine, qua gentes; libido autem nec apud gentes matrimonio adscribitur, sed extraordinariis, et non naturalibus et portentosis. Sanctitas luxuriae est turpidini quoque immunditiae contraria, quae non matrimonium excludat, sed libidinem; quae vas nostrum in honore matrimonii tractet. Hunc autem locum, salva alterius, id est plenioris sanctitatis praelatione, tractaverim, continentiam et virginitatem nuptiis anteponens, sed non prohibitis; destructores enim Dei nuptiarum, non sectatores castitatis retundo. Ait eos qui remaneant in adventum Christi, cum eis qui mortui in Christo primi

It will not be irksome to attend to the shorter Epistles as well: there is flavour even in a few things. The Jews had killed their own prophets. I can say: What has this to do with the apostle of another god, and that the most good, who is said not to condemn even the offences of his own people, and who himself also in a manner slays those same prophets by destroying them? For what wrong did Israel commit in his eyes, if it killed those whom he too rejected? if he first laid down a hostile sentence against them? It offended against their own God. He reproached the iniquity to whom the injured one belongs; certainly anyone else rather than the adversary of the one injured. But neither would he have burdened them by imputing also the Lord's death, in saying, who also killed the Lord, and their own prophets; although "their own" is the heretic's addition. For what is so bitter, if they who butchered the prophets of their own God slew Christ, the preacher of another God? But the point of the exaggeration is that they had killed both the Lord and His servants. Finally, if they killed the Christ of one God and the prophets of another, he equated the impieties, he did not exaggerate. But it was not to be equated; therefore it could not have been exaggerated unless committed against the same Lord, under both heads. Therefore the Christ and the prophets are of the same God. And what he calls our sanctification, the will of God, you would recognize from the contraries which he forbids. To abstain, he says, from fornication, not from marriage. That each one know how to handle his own vessel in honour. How? Not in lust, as the gentiles; but lust, even among the gentiles, is not ascribed to marriage, but to extraordinary, unnatural and monstrous things. Holiness is contrary to luxury, to baseness also, to uncleanness, a holiness which does not exclude marriage but lust; which handles our vessel in the honour of marriage. But this passage I would treat with the preference of the other, that is, of a fuller holiness, kept intact, setting continence and virginity before marriage, but not forbidding it; for it is the destroyers of God's marriages, not the followers of chastity, whom I rebut. He says that those who remain until the coming of Christ, with those who are dead in Christ first

Editors' notes and page, col. 541

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 275)

(81) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Enim omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "enim".

(printed under page 275)

(82) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Et add. Seml.

Semler adds "et".

(printed under page 275)

(83) ‹anchor: Abstinere› · call in col 541

Enim add. Oberth. post Seml.

Oberthür, following Semler, adds "enim".

(printed under page 275)

(84) ‹anchor: quoque immunditiae› · call in col 541

Portentuosis-Luxuria est, turp. q. et im. non Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "portentuosis. Luxuria est turp[itudini] q[uoque] et im[munditiae], non".

(printed under page 275)

(85) ‹anchor: remaneant in adventum› · call in col 541

Adventu Seml.

Semler reads "adventu".

(printed under page 275)

(86) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Acre Oberth.

Oberthür reads "acre".

(printed under page 275)

(87) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Amos vult Jun., et merito.

Junius wants "Amos", and rightly.

(printed under page 275)

(88) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Nihil Pam.

Pamelius reads "nihil".

(printed under page 275)

(89) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Scias Venet.

The Venice edition reads "scias".

(printed under page 275)

(50) ‹anchor: Ponticus labora-vit› · call on the previous page, col 540–541 turn (not visible)

Ponticus laboravit. Optime conjecit Rhenanus legendum Ponticus, pro Pontus, hoc est Marcion e Ponto oriundus. Le Pr.

"Ponticus laboravit." Rhenanus conjectured very well that "Ponticus" should be read for "Pontus", that is, Marcion, a native of Pontus. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 275)

(51) ‹anchor: est turpidini› · call in col 541

Sanctitas luxuriae est turpitudini, etc. Non adeo textui consentiunt qui legunt luxuria, et qui adeo notam Tertulliano impingunt male habiti matrimonii; nam quae sequitur particula, non, dubium omne tollit. Le Pr.

"Holiness is to lust, to foulness," etc. Those who read "luxuria" do not really agree with the text, nor do those who therefore fasten on Tertullian the reproach of thinking ill of marriage; for the particle that follows, "non", removes all doubt. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 275)

(52) ‹anchor: nuptiis anteponens› · call in col 541

Continentiam et virginitatem nuptiis anteponens. Qui virginitatis vota et continentiae insectantur haeretici, ad hunc locum advertant, aliosque plurimos apud hunc scriptorem, de Cultu fem., de Virg., vel., et lib. I ad Uxorem. Le Pr.

"Setting continence and virginity before marriage." Let the heretics who attack vows of virginity and continence turn their attention to this passage, and to very many others in this writer: De cultu feminarum, De virginibus velandis, and Book I Ad uxorem. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 275)

Footnotes

(90) ‹anchor: constabit Apostolus› · call in col 542

Apostolorum Pam.

Pamelius reads "Apostolorum".

(printed under page 275)

(91) ‹anchor: spiritus quoque ejus› · call in col 542

Eis Seml. mendose.

Semler reads "eis", wrongly.

(printed under page 275)

(92) ‹anchor: habet anima› · call in col 542

Animam Venet. mendose.

The Venice edition reads "animam", wrongly.

Commentarius

(printed under page 275)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:543

CAPUT XVI.

Chapter XVI.

(In II Epist ad Thess.) Cogimur quaedam identidem iterare, ut cohaerentia eis confirmemus. Dominum et hic retributorem utriusque meriti, dicimus circumferri ab Apostolo, aut Creatorem, aut (quod nolit Marcion) parem Creatoris, apud quem justum sit afflictatoribus nostris rependi afflictationem, et nobis qui afflictemur requietem, in revelatione Domini Jesu venientis a caelo cum angelis virtutis suae, et in flamma ignis. Sed flammam et ignem delendo haereticus exstinxit, ne scilicet nostratem Deum faceret. Lucet tamen vanitas liturae. Cum enim ad ultionem venturum scribat Apostolus Dominum exigendam de eis qui Deum ignorent et qui non obaudiant Evangelio, quos ait paenam luituros, exitialem, aeternam, a facie Domini, et a gloria valentiae ejus; sequitur ut flammam ignis inducat, scilicet veniens ad puniendum; ita et in hoc, nolente Marcione, crematoris Dei Christus est, et in illo Creatoris est, quod etiam de ignorantibus Dominum ulciscitur, id est de ethnicis. Seorsum enim posuit Evangelio non obaudientes, sive christianos peccatores, sive Judaeos. Porro de ethnicis exigere poenas, qui Evangelium forte non norint, non est Dei ejus qui naturaliter sit ignotus, nec usquam nisi in Evangelio sit revelatus, non omnibus scibilis. Creatori autem etiam naturali agnitio debetur ex operibus intelligendo, et exinde in pleniorem notitiam requirendo. Illius est ergo etiam ignorantes Deum plectere, quem non liceat ignorari. Ipsum quod ait: A facie Domini et a gloria valentiae ejus, verbis usus Isaiae (II, 19): ex ipsa causa eumdem sapit Dominum consurgentem, ut comminuat terram. Quis autem est homo delicti, filius perditionis, quem revelari prius oportet ante Domini adventum, extollens se super omne quod Deus dicitur, et omnem religionem; confessurus in templo Dei et Deum se jactaturus? Secundum nos quidem Antichristus, ut docent veteres et novae prophetiae; ut Joannes apostolus, qui jam antichristos dicit (I Joan. IV, 1, 2) processisse in mundum, praecursores Antichristi spiritus, negantes Christum

(On the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.) We are compelled to repeat certain things again and again, so that we may confirm the things that cohere with them. Here too we say that the Lord, the repayer of either desert, is presented by the Apostle as either the Creator or (what Marcion would not wish) one equal to the Creator, with Whom it is just that affliction be repaid to our afflicters, and to us who are afflicted rest, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus coming from heaven with the angels of His power, and in a flame of fire. But by deleting 'flame and fire' the heretic has extinguished it, so that, of course, he should not make Him our God. Yet the emptiness of the erasure shows through. For since the Apostle writes that the Lord is coming for vengeance, to be exacted from those who do not know God and who do not obey the Gospel, who, he says, will pay a penalty, deadly, eternal, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His strength, it follows that He brings on a flame of fire, namely as one coming to punish; so in this too, against Marcion's will, Christ belongs to the God who burns, and in this He is the Creator's, that He takes vengeance even on those who do not know the Lord, that is, on the heathen. For he set apart separately those not obeying the Gospel, whether Christian sinners or Jews. Moreover, to exact penalties from the heathen, who perhaps do not know the Gospel, is not the part of that God who is by nature unknown, and who has been revealed nowhere except in the Gospel, not knowable to all. But to the Creator acknowledgement is owed even by nature, by understanding Him from His works, and thence by searching onward into fuller knowledge. It belongs to Him, therefore, to punish even those who are ignorant of God, Whom it is not permitted to be unknown. The very thing he says, From the face of the Lord and from the glory of His strength, he has used the words of Isaiah (Isa. 2:19): from that very cause it savours of the same Lord rising up to shatter the earth. But who is the man of sin, the son of perdition, who must first be revealed before the coming of the Lord, exalting himself above all that is called God, and all religion; about to make profession in the temple of God and to boast himself God? According to us, indeed, the Antichrist, as the old and new prophecies teach; as John the apostle, who says that antichrists have already gone forth into the world (1 John 4:1–2), forerunners of the Antichrist, spirits denying Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 543

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 276)

(93) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Poenam quos ait Lat.

Latinius reads "poenam quos ait".

(printed under page 276)

(94) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Est omitt. Pam.

Pamelius omits "est".

(printed under page 276)

(95) ‹anchor: liceat ignorari› · call in col 543

Ignorare Pam.

Pamelius reads "ignorare".

(printed under page 276)

(96) ‹anchor: et omnem religionem; confessurus› · call in col 543

Consecuturus al.

Others read "consecuturus".

(printed under page 276)

(97) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Nisi sit Christus Wouw.; ne Christus sit Seml.

Wouwer reads "nisi sit Christus"; Semler "ne Christus sit".

(printed under page 276)

(98) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Enim omitt. Pam.

Pamelius omits "enim".

(printed under page 276)

(99) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Est omitt. Fran.

The Franeker edition omits "est".

(printed under page 276)

(1) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Dabit Lat.

Latinius reads "dabit".

(printed under page 276)

(2) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Et Pam.

Pamelius reads "et".

(printed under page 276)

(3) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Secundum nos, et Deus cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's manuscript reads "secundum nos, et Deus".

(printed under page 276)

(4) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Creatoris cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's manuscript reads "Creatoris".

(printed under page 276)

(5) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Si omitt. Pam.

Pamelius omits "si".

(printed under page 276)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Justum sit afflictatoribus nostris. Sic istud vertit II Thessal. I. Graece: ἀνταποδοῦναι τοῖς θλίβουσιν ἡμᾶς. Pam.

"That it be just [to repay] those who afflict us." So he renders this from 2 Thessalonians 1. The Greek: "to repay those who afflict us". Pamelius.

(printed under page 276)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Sed flammam et ignem delendo. Vel hinc patet verum esse quod scribit B. Epiphanius adversus Marcionem nihil se etiam tractare de hac Epistola, quod nimium jam pervertit. Id.

"But by blotting out the flame and fire." Even from this it is clear that what Blessed Epiphanius writes against Marcion is true: that he does not deal with this Epistle at all, because Marcion had already perverted it too much. The same.

(printed under page 276)

(55) ‹anchor: homo delicti› · call in col 543

Homo delicti. Satis explicat statim qui sit homo delicti, Antichristus scilicet; quo nomine Marcionitas appellat, qui eadem perpetrasse videntur quae de Antichristo praedicta sunt. Le Pr.

"The man of sin." He explains well enough at once who the man of sin is, namely the Antichrist; by that name he calls the Marcionites, who seem to have done the very things foretold of the Antichrist. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 276)

Page

running head: 548 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
marginal letters: A (In II Epist ad Thess.) Cogimur quaedam iden-; B nam luituros, exitialem, aeternam, a facie Do-; C titiam requirendo. Illius est ergo etiam ignorantes; D (53) Justum sit afflictatoribus nostris (in the commentary at the page foot)
old-edition numerals: 511 after Christus
other: page number in the head reads 548, probably a blurred 543; ligature in "paenam" (line ending pae-) is unsure and may be oe; "Chri-" is split at the column end; the Variae lectiones and Commentarius at the page foot are editors' apparatus, not set; the headings "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" run across the page and are cut off at the right edge, not set
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): paenam | poenam (page appears to print pœ-; text not changed)

PL 2:544

in carne venisse, et solventes Jesum, scilicet in Deo Creatore. Secundum vero Marcionem nescio ne Christus sit Creatoris: nondum enim venit apud illum. Quisquis est autem ex duobus quaero, cur veniat in omni virtute et signis et ostentis mendacii? Propterea, inquit, quod dilectionem veritatis non susceperint, ut salvi essent; et propter hoc erit eis instinctum fallaciae, ut judicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. Igitur si Antichristus est secundum Creatorem, Deus erit Creator, qui eum mittit ad impingendos eos in errorem, qui non crediderunt veritati ut salvi fierent, ejusdem erit veritas et salus, qui ex submissu erroris ulciscitur, id est Creatoris, cui et competit zelus ipse errore decipere quos veritate non cepit. Si vero non est antichristus secundum nos, ergo Christus est Creatoris secundnm Marcionem. Et quale erit ut ad ulciscendam veritatem suam, Christum Creatori submittat? Sed et si de Antichristo consentit, proinde dixerim, quale est, ut illi Satanas augelus Creatoris sit necessarius, et occidatur ab eo, habens fallaciae operatione fungi Creatori? In summa, si iudubitatum est ejus esse et angelum, et veritatem, et salutem, cujus et ira, et aemulatio, et fallaciae immissio adversus contemptores et desultores, etiam adversus ignorantes (ut jam et Marcion de gradu cedat, Deum quoque zeloten concedens), quis dignius irascetur? Puto, qui a primordio rerum naturam operibus, beneficiis, plagis, praedicationibus, testibus ad agnitionem sui praestruxit, nec tamen agnitus est; an qui semel unico Evangelii instrumento, et ipso incerto, nec palam alium Deum praedicante, productus est? Ita cui competit vindicta et competet materia vindictae: Evangelium dico, et veritas, et salus. Jubere autem operari eum qui velit manducare, ejus disciplina est qui bovi trituranti os liberum jussit.

to have come in the flesh, and dissolving Jesus, that is, in God the Creator. But according to Marcion I do not know whether Christ is the Creator's: for with him He has not yet come. Whichever of the two he is, I ask, why does he come "in all power and signs and portents of falsehood"? "Because," he says, "they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved; and for this reason there will be for them an instigation of deception, that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but consented to iniquity." Therefore, if Antichrist is according to the Creator, God the Creator will be the one who sends him to drive into error those who did not believe the truth that they might be saved; His will be the truth and the salvation Who takes vengeance by the sending in of error, that is, the Creator's, to Whom also belongs this very zeal, to deceive with error those whom He did not capture with truth. But if Antichrist is not according to us, then Christ is the Creator's according to Marcion. And what sort of thing will it be that, to avenge his own truth, he should subject Christ to the Creator? But even if he agrees about Antichrist, I would likewise say: what sort of thing is it that Satan, the Creator's angel, should be necessary to him, and that he should be slain by Him, having by the operation of deception to serve the Creator? In sum, if it is beyond doubt that the angel, and the truth, and the salvation are His Whose are also the wrath, and the jealousy, and the sending in of deception against despisers and deserters, and even against the ignorant (so that now Marcion too may step down from his ground, conceding that God is also a zealot), who will more worthily be angry? He, I suppose, Who from the beginning of things built up nature towards the knowledge of Himself by works, benefits, plagues, preachings, witnesses, and yet was not known; or he who was brought forward once, by the single instrument of the Gospel, and that itself uncertain, and not openly preaching another God? So to Whom vengeance belongs, to Him also will belong the matter of vengeance: I mean the Gospel, and the truth, and salvation. Moreover, to command that he who wishes to eat should work is the discipline of Him Who ordered that the mouth of the ox treading out the grain be left free.

CAPUT XVII.

Chapter XVII.

Ecclesiae quidem veritate Epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam (Epist. ad Ephes I et II), non ad Laodicenos; sed Marcion ei titulum

By the truth of the Church, indeed, we hold this epistle as sent to the Ephesians (Eph. 1 and 2), not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion to it the title

Editors' notes and page, col. 544

Footnotes

(6) ‹anchor: rerum naturam› · call in col 544

Naturae cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's manuscript reads "naturae".

(printed under page 276)

(7) ‹anchor: plagis, praedicationibus› · call in col 544

Praedicationum Pam.

Pamelius reads "praedicationum".

(printed under page 276)

(8) ‹anchor: agnitus est; an› · call in col 544

Nec cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's manuscript reads "nec".

(printed under page 276)

(9) ‹anchor: qui semel unico› · call in col 544

Unito cod. Wouw.

Wouwer's manuscript reads "unito".

Commentarius

(printed under page 276)

(56) ‹anchor: non ad Laodicenos› · call in col 544

Non ad Laodicenos. Errant sane qui putant Epistolam fuisse ad Laodicenos scriptam, quam hic innuere videtur ex Marcione Tertullianus: nam quae fragmenta citantur habentur cap. IV Epist. ad Ephes. Errorem dedit interpretatio parum accurata IV ad Coloss. ubi habetur τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας; verterunt enim eam quae est ad Laodicenses, cum vertendum esset eam quae ex urbe Laodicea. Epistola illa quae hodie circumfertur, apocrypha videtur et supposititia. Beatus Hieron. de Epist. illa ad Laod. falsa et explodenda loquitur: putantque nonnulli primam esse ad Timotheum quae Laodiceae scripta est. Inscripserat autem Marcion Epistolam ad Laodicenos, quae nobis est ad Ephesios. Id.

"Not to the Laodiceans." They are certainly wrong who think there was an Epistle written to the Laodiceans, which Tertullian here seems to hint at from Marcion: for the fragments cited are found in chapter 4 of the Epistle to the Ephesians. The error came from a too careless rendering of Colossians 4, where we have "the one from Laodicea"; they translated "the one that is to the Laodiceans", when it should have been "the one from the city of Laodicea". The epistle that circulates today seems apocryphal and spurious. Blessed Jerome speaks of that Epistle to the Laodiceans as false and to be rejected; and some think it is the First to Timothy, which was written at Laodicea. Marcion, however, had entitled "To the Laodiceans" the Epistle which for us is "To the Ephesians". The same.

(printed under page 276)

Page

running head: M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹stum in carne venisse›; B ‹non cepit. Si vero›; C ‹operibus, beneficiis, plagis›; D ‹quam hic innuere videtur (in the Commentarius at the page foot)›
old-edition numerals: 519 after ‹dixerim,›
other: column begins with the fragment "stum" (end of a word broken from the previous column, presumably Christum); "illi" printed with a damaged letter (i!li), read as illi; "operatione" set as printed, possibly for operationem; "Ephes" printed without a full stop; "et competet" printed run together (etcompetet); Variae lectiones and the editors' Commentarius at the page foot not set

PL 2:545

Editors' notes and page, col. 545

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 277)

(10) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Et inser. Jun.

Junius inserts "et".

(printed under page 277)

(11) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Actas vult Jun.

Junius wants "actas".

(printed under page 277)

(12) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Hujus omitt. Semler. Oberth.

Semler and Oberthür omit "hujus".

(printed under page 277)

(57) ‹anchor: qui praesperavimus in Christum› · call in col 545

Praesperavimus in Christum. Ad verbum ex Graeco προηλπικότας. Le Pr.

"We who first hoped in Christ." Word for word from the Greek προηλπικότας ("having hoped beforehand"). Le Prieur.

(printed under page 277)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:546

19) : Et quis caecus, nisi pueri mei? Et : Excaecati sunt famuli Dei. Apud illum sunt et divitiae haereditatis in sanctis, qui eam haereditatem ex vocatione nationum repromisit (Psal. II, 8) : Postula de me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam. Ille inoperatus est in Christum valentiam suam, suscitando eum a mortuis, et collocando eum ad dexteram suam, et subjiciendo omnia, qui et dixit (Psal CIX, 2, 3) : Sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Quia et alibi spiritus ad Patrem de Filio (Psal. VIII, 7) : Omnia subjecisti sub pedibus ejus. Si ex his alius deus et alius christus infertur quae recognoscuntur in Creatore, quaeramus jam Creatorem. Plane, puto, invenimus, cum dicit : Illos delictis mortuos, in quibus ingressi erant, secundum aevum mundi hujus, secundum principem potestatis aeris hujus, qui operatur in filiis incredulitatis. Sed mundum non potest et hic pro Deo mundi Marcion interpretari. Non enim simile est creatum creatori, factum factori, mundus Deo. Sed nec princeps potestatis aeris dicetur, qui est princeps potestatis saeculorum. Nunquam enim praeses superiorum de inferioribus notatur, licet et inferiora ipsi deputentur. Sed nec incredulitatis operator videri potest, quam ipse potius a Judaeis et a nationibus patitur. Sufficit igitur, si haec non cadunt in Creatorem. Si autem et est in quem magis competant, utique magis hoc Apostolus sciit. Quis iste? Sine dubio ille, qui ipsi Creatori filios incredulitatis obstruit, aere isto potitus, sicut dicere cum propheta refert (Isa. XIV, 14 : Ponam in nubibus thronum meum, ero similis Altissimo. Hic erit diabolus, quem et alibi, (si tamen ita et apostolum legi volunt) Deum aevi hujus agnoscemus. Ita enim totum saeculum mendacio divinitatis implevit. Qui plane si non fuisset, tunc haec in Creatorem spectasse potuissent. Sed et in Judaismo conversatus Apostolus, non quia interposuit de delictis, in quibus et nos omnes conversati sumus, ideo delictorum dominum et principem acris hujus Creatorem praestat intelligi; sed quia in judaismo unus fuerat de filiis incredulitatis, diabolum habens operatorem, cum persequeretur Ecclesiam et Christum Creatoris. Propter quod et iracundiae filii fuimus, inquit, sed natura. Ne, quia filios appellavit Judaeos Creator, argumentetur haereticus dominum irae Creatorem. Cum enim dicit : Fuimus natura filii iracundiae; Creatoris autem non natura sunt filii Judaei, sed adlectione patrum ; irae filios ad naturam retulit, non ad Creatorem. Ad summam subjungens : Sicut et caeteri; qui utique filii Dei non sunt. Apparet communi naturae omnium hominum et delicta et concupiscentias carnis, et incredulitatem, et ira-

19): And who is blind, but My servants? And: The servants of God have been blinded. With Him are also the riches of the inheritance in the saints, Who promised that inheritance from the calling of the nations (Ps. 2:8): Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the nations as Thine inheritance. He worked His might into Christ, by raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His right hand, and subjecting all things [to Him], He Who also said (Ps. 109:2–3): Sit at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies the footstool of Thy feet. For elsewhere also the Spirit [says] to the Father concerning the Son (Ps. 8:7): Thou subjected all things under His feet. If from these things, which are recognized in the Creator, another god and another christ is inferred, let us now seek the Creator. Clearly, I think, we find [Him], when he says: Those dead in trespasses, in which they had walked, according to the age of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, who works in the sons of unbelief. But here too Marcion cannot interpret 'world' as the God of the world. For the created is not like the creator, the made like the maker, the world like God. Nor will he who is prince of the power of the ages be called prince of the power of the air. For the ruler of higher things is never designated from the lower, although the lower are also assigned to him. Nor can he be seen as the worker of unbelief, which he himself rather suffers from the Jews and from the nations. It suffices therefore if these things do not fall upon the Creator. But if there is also one to whom they more fittingly apply, surely the Apostle knew this better. Who is he? Without doubt he who has raised up sons of unbelief as an obstacle to the Creator Himself, having taken possession of this air, as [the Apostle] relates him saying with the prophet (Isa. 14:14: I will set my throne in the clouds, I will be like the Most High. This will be the devil, whom elsewhere also (if indeed they want the apostle to be read so) we shall recognize as the god of this age. For thus he has filled the whole world with the lie of divinity. Clearly, if he had not existed, then these things could have regarded the Creator. But the Apostle too, having lived in Judaism, does not, because he inserted [words] about the trespasses in which we also all lived, therefore give the Creator to be understood as lord of trespasses and prince of this air; but [he says it] because in Judaism he had been one of the sons of unbelief, having the devil as his worker, when he was persecuting the Church and the Christ of the Creator. On which account also we were sons of wrath, he says, but by nature. [He says this] lest, because the Creator called the Jews sons, the heretic should argue that the Creator is the lord of wrath. For when he says: We were by nature sons of wrath, whereas the Jews are sons of the Creator not by nature but by the choice of the fathers, he referred 'sons of wrath' to nature, not to the Creator. In sum, adding: Even as the rest, who certainly are not sons of God. It is evident that to the common nature of all men both trespasses and the lusts of the flesh, and unbelief, and wrath

Editors' notes and page, col. 546

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: quem magis competant› · call in col 546

Competat Pam.

Pamelius reads "competat".

(printed under page 277)

(14) ‹anchor: cum propheta› · call in col 546

Profert. et Pam.

"Profert", and so Pamelius.

(printed under page 277)

(15) ‹anchor: in Judaismo conversatus› · call in col 546

Fuerat add. Lat.

Latinius adds "fuerat".

(printed under page 277)

(16) ‹anchor: argumentetur› · call in col 546

Hoc add. Jun.

Junius adds "hoc".

Commentarius

(printed under page 277)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 278)

(17) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Reputari Pam.

Pamelius reads "reputari".

(printed under page 278)

(18) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Enim omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "enim".

(printed under page 278)

(19) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Qui inser. Oberth.

Oberthür inserts "qui".

(printed under page 278)

(20) ‹anchor: aemulae. Sicubi› · call in col 547

Sicuti Fran.

The Franeker edition reads "sicuti".

(printed under page 278)

(21) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Gentilem populum, in Pam.

Pamelius reads "gentilem populum, in".

(printed under page 278)

(22) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Sinonne Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "sinonne".

(printed under page 278)

(23) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Subducit Pam.

Pamelius reads "subducit".

(printed under page 278)

(58) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Diabolo tamen captante naturam. Sic Dionysius Cato in dist. dixit « captare denarii formam avare. » Rig.

"The devil, however, catching at nature." So Dionysius Cato said in the Distichs, "to catch greedily at the shape of a penny." Rigault.

(printed under page 278)

(59) ‹anchor: non Marrucine, sed Pontice› · call in col 547

Non Marrucine, sed Pontice. Marrucini populi fuerunt Ferentanis et Vestinis vicini in Italia extra Latium, adeoque barbari et inculti, unde Marrucinus, id est ἀμαθὴς καὶ ἀναίσθητος nam convicium eo nomine stupidis fieri solebat. Rupices idem ac Marrucinos significare ferme putaverim, ea autem utitur voce Tertull. bis cap. VI lib. de Pallio. Juvenalis, Sat. II, vocat: Montanum positis audiret vulgus aratris. Le Pr.

"Not Marrucinian, but Pontic." The Marrucini were a people neighbouring the Frentani and the Vestini, in Italy outside Latium, and so barbarous and uncultivated; hence "Marrucinus", that is, "ignorant and senseless", for it was a common taunt to call stupid people by that name. I would think "rupices" (rustics) means much the same as "Marrucini"; Tertullian uses that word twice in chapter 6 of the book De pallio. Juvenal, Satire 2, says: "the mountain crowd would hear it, their ploughs laid down." Le Prieur.

(printed under page 278)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L03 L04 L05 blocked, columns set aside on the volunteer page as refused (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:548

tasma. Novum autem et nove natum ex virgine, Dei spiritu: ut reconciliet ambos Deo; et Deo, quem utrumque genus offenderat, et judaicum et Gentile; In uno corpore, inquit, cum interfecisset inimicitiam in eo per crucem. Ita et hic caro corpus in Christo, quod crucem pati potuit. Hoc itaque adnuntiante pacem iis qui prope, et iis qui longe, accessum consecuti simul ad Patrem, jam non sumus peregrini, nec advenae, sed concives sanctorum, sed domestici Dei; utique ejus, a quo supra ostendimus alienos fuisse nos, et longe constitutos. Superaedificati super fundamentum apostolorum. Abstulit haereticus, et prophetarum, oblitus Dominum posuisse in Ecclesia sicut apostolos, ita et prophetas. Timuit scilicet ne et super veterum prophetarum fundamenta, aedificatio nostra constaret in Christo; cum ipse Apostolus ubique nos de prophetis exstruere non cesset. Unpe enim accepit summum lapidem angularem dicere Christum, nisi de Psalmi (CXVII) significatione: Lapis quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, iste factus est in summo anguli? De manibus haeretici praecidentis non miror, si syllabas subtrahit, cum paginas totas plerumque subducat.

[phan]tasm. But [He made] a new [man], and one newly born of a virgin, by the Spirit of God: that He might reconcile both to God; and to God, Whom both races had offended, both the Jewish and the Gentile; In one body, he says, having slain the enmity in it through the cross. So here too the flesh is the body in Christ, which was able to suffer the cross. With Him, therefore, announcing peace to those who were near and to those who were far off, having obtained access together to the Father, we are no longer strangers, nor sojourners, but fellow-citizens of the saints, and members of the household of God; of Him, surely, from Whom we showed above that we were alienated and set far off. Built upon the foundation of the apostles. The heretic has taken away "and of the prophets", forgetting that the Lord placed in the Church prophets just as He placed apostles. He feared, no doubt, lest our building should stand in Christ upon the foundations of the ancient prophets also; although the Apostle himself never ceases everywhere to build us up out of the prophets. For whence did he take the calling of Christ the chief cornerstone, if not from the meaning of the Psalm (117): The stone which the builders rejected, this has been made at the top of the corner? From the hands of a heretic who cuts things off I am not surprised if he removes syllables, since he generally takes away whole pages.

CAPUT XVIII.

Chapter XVIII.

(In Epist. ad Ephes. III, VI). Datam inquit sibi Apostolus gratiam novissimo omnium, illuminandi omnes; quae dispensatio sacramenti occulti ab aeis in Deo, qui omnia condidit. Rapuit haereticus in praepositionem, et ita legi fecit: Occulti ab aevi. Deo, qui omnia condidit. Sed emicat falsum. Infert enim Apostolus: Ut nota fiat pricipatibus et potestatibus, in supercaelestibus per Ecclesiam, multifaria sapientia Dei. cujus dicit principatibus et potestatibus? Si Creatoris, quale est ut principatibus et potestatibus ejus ostendi voluerit Deus ille sapientiam suam, ipsi autem non? quando nec potestates sine suo principe potuissent quid cognoscere. Aut si ideo Deum non nominavit hic quia in illis et princeps ipse reputetur, ergo et occultatum sacramentum principatibus et potestatibus ejus qui omnia condidit, pronuntiasset; proinde in illis deputans ipsum. Quod si illis dicit occultatum, illi debebat dixisse manifestum; ergo non Deo erat occultatum, sed in Deo omnium conditore; occultum autem principatibus et potestatibus ejus (Isa. XL. 13): Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius ei fuit? Hic captus haereticus fortasse mutavit, ut dicat Deum suum suis potestatibus et principatibus notam

(On the Epistle to the Eph. 3, 6). The Apostle says that grace was given to him, the least of all, to enlighten all; which is the dispensation of the mystery hidden from the ages in God, Who created all things. The heretic has snatched away the preposition "in", and has had it read thus: Hidden from the age. from God, Who created all things. But the falsehood shows through. For the Apostle goes on: That the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the Church. To whose principalities and powers does he mean? If to the Creator's, how is it that that god wished his wisdom to be shown to His principalities and powers, but not to Him Himself? since not even the powers could have come to know anything without their own prince. Or if he did not name God here for this reason, that the prince himself also is reckoned among them, then he would have declared the mystery hidden also from the principalities and powers of Him Who created all things, accordingly counting Him among them. But if he says that it was hidden from them, he ought to have said that it was manifest to Him; therefore it was not hidden from God, but in God the founder of all things; hidden, however, from His principalities and powers (Isa. 40:13): For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor? Here the heretic, caught, perhaps made a change, so as to say that his own god, to his own powers and principalities, known

Editors' notes and page, col. 548

Footnotes

(24) ‹anchor: dicit occultatum, illi› · call in col 548

Ille Seml., illis Rhen.

Semler reads "ille", Rhenanus "illis".

Commentarius

(printed under page 278)

(60) ‹anchor: Hic captus haereticus› · call in col 548

Hic captus haereticus. Marcion, qui locus non indiget mea explicatione. Id.

"Here the heretic, caught." Marcion; the passage needs no explanation from me. The same.

(printed under page 278)

Page

running head: M PARS. II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 548
marginal letters: A ‹tasma. Novum autem›; B ‹menta, aedificatio nostra›; C ‹praepositionem, et ita legi›; D ‹nifestum; ergo non Deo›
old-edition numerals: 516 before CAPUT XVIII

PL 2:549

facere voluisse dispensationem sui sacramenti, quam ignorasset Deus conditor omnium. Et quo competebat praetendere ignorantiam creatoris extranei, et longa separatione discreti, cum domestici quoque superioris Dei nescissent? Tamen et Creatori notum erat futurum. Annon utique notum, quod sub coelo in terra ejus habebat revelari? Ergo ex hoc confirmatur quod supra struximus. Si enim Creator cogniturus erat quandoque occultum illud Dei superioris sacramentum, et ita Scriptura habebat: Occulti Deo, qui omnia condidit; sic inferre debuerat: Ut nota fiat illis multifaria sapientia Dei, tunc et potestatibus et principatibus cujuscunque Dei, cum quibus sciturus esset Creator. Adeo subtractum constat, quod et sic veritati suae salvum est. Volo nunc et ego tibi de allegoriis Apostoli controversiam nectere. Quas novus in prophetis habuisset formas? Captivam, inquit, duxit captivitatem. Quibus armis? quibus praeliis? de cujus gentis vastatione? de cujus civitatis eversione? quas feminas, quas pueros, quosve regulos catenis victor inseruit? Nam et cum apud David (Psal. XLIV, 4) Christus canitur succinctus gladio super femur, aut apud Isaiam (VIII) spolia accipiens Samariae et virtutem Damasci, vere eum et visibilem excondis praeliatorem; agnosce igitur jam et armaturam et militiam ejus spiritalem, si jam didicisti esse captivitatem spiritalem, ut et hanc illius agnoscas: vel quia et captivitatis hujus mentionem de prophetis Apostolus snmpsit, a quibus et mandata: Deponentes mendacium, loquimini veritatem ad proximum suum quisque. Et irascimini, et nolite delinquere, ipsis verbis quibus Psalmus (IV, 5) exponeret sensus ejus. Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram. Nolite communicare operibus tenebrarum. — Cum justo enim justus eris, et cum perverso perverteris (Psal. XVII, 27). Et (I. Cor. V, 13): Auferte malum de medio vestrum. Et (II Cor. VI, 17): Exite de medio eorum, et immundum ne attigeritis. — Separamini, qui fertis vasa Domini (Isa. LII, 11). Sic et, inebriari

had wished to make the dispensation of His mystery, of which God the Founder of all things had been ignorant. And how was it fitting to allege ignorance in the Creator, a stranger, and one set apart by a long separation, when even the household of the superior God had not known? Yet to the Creator too the future was known. Was it not by all means known, since it was to be revealed under His heaven, on His earth? Therefore by this is confirmed what we built up above. For if the Creator was at some time going to come to know that hidden mystery of the superior God, and the Scripture so had it: Hidden from God, Who created all things, then it ought to have added: That the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to them, then also to the powers and principalities of whatever God, together with whom the Creator would come to know it. So it stands established that something has been taken away, which even so remains safe for its own truth. Now I too wish to join a dispute with you about the allegories of the Apostle. What figures would a new [god] have had in the prophets? He led captive, he says, captivity. With what arms? In what battles? From the laying waste of what nation? From the overthrow of what city? What women, what boys, or what princelings did He as victor bind in chains? For when also in David (Ps. 44:4) Christ is sung as girded with a sword upon the thigh, or in Isaiah (8) as taking the spoils of Samaria and the strength of Damascus, you truly fashion Him as a visible warrior too; recognize therefore now also His armour and warfare as spiritual, if you have now learnt that the captivity is spiritual, so that you may recognize this also as His: or because the Apostle took the mention of this captivity also from the prophets, from whom [he took] the commands too: Putting away lying, speak truth each one to his neighbour. And: Be angry, and do not sin, in the very words with which the Psalm (4:5) would set out its meaning. Let not the sun go down upon your anger. Do not have fellowship with the works of darkness. — For with the just you will be just, and with the perverse you will be perverted (Ps. 17:27). And (1 Cor. 5:13): Take away the evil from your midst. And (2 Cor. 6:17): Go out from their midst, and touch not what is unclean. — Be separated, you who carry the vessels of the Lord (Isa. 52:11). So also, to be drunk

Editors' notes and page, col. 549

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 279)

(25) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Et add. Oberth. secutus Seml.

Oberthür, following Semler, adds "et".

(printed under page 279)

(26) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Novas Jun. novimus in prophetis habuisse cod. Vatican.

Junius reads "novas"; the Vatican manuscript had "novimus in prophetis".

(printed under page 279)

(27) ‹anchor: ad proximum suum› · call in col 549

Suum omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "suum".

(printed under page 279)

(28) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Dedecor Rig. Venet. mendose.

Rigault and the Venice edition read "dedecor", wrongly.

(printed under page 279)

(29) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Suam omitt. Oberth.

Oberthür omits "suam".

(printed under page 279)

Page

running head: LIB. V ADV. MARCIO (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A facere voluisse dispensationem; B et ego tibi de allegoriis; C lus snmpsit, a quibus et mandata; D (61) Sed ego, inquit, dico (in commentary, not set)
old-edition numerals: 517 after vere

PL 2:550

vino dedecori inde est, ubi sanctorum inebriatores increpantur: Et potum dabatis sanctis meis vinum (Amos II, 12) quod prohibitus erat potare et Aaron sacerdos, et filii ejus, cum adirent ad sancta (Deut. XXII). Et Psalmis et hymnis Deo canere docere illius est, qui cum tympanis potius et psalteriis vinum bibentes incusari a Deo (Isa. XI, 12) norat. Ita, cujus invenio praecepta et semina praeceptorum vel augmenta, ejus apostolum agnosco. Caeterum, mulieres viris subjectas esse debere, unde confirmat? Quia vir, inquit, caput est mulieris. Dic mihi, Marcion, de opere Creatoris Deus tuus legi suae adstruit auctoritatem? Hoc jam plane minus est, cum et ipsi Christo suo et Ecclesiae ejus inde statum sumit: Sicut et Christus caput est Ecclesiae. Similiter et cum dicit: Carnem suam diligit, qui uxorem suam diligit sicut et Christus Ecclesiam. Vides comparari operi Creatoris Christum tuum, et Ecclesiam tuam. Quantum honoris carni datur in Ecclesiae nomine? Nemo, inquit, carnem suam odio habet, nisi plane Marcion solus: sed et nutrit et fovet eam, sicut et Christus Ecclesiam. At tu solus eam odisti, auferen illi resurrectionem. Odisse debebis et Ecclesiam, quia proinde diligitur a Christo. Atenim Christus amavit et carnem sicut Ecclesiam. Nemo non diliget imaginem quoque sponsae, imo et servabit illam, et honorabit, et coronabit. Habet similitudo cum veritate honoris consortium. Laborabo ego nunc eumdem Deum probare masculi et Christi, mulieris et Ecclesiae, carnis et spiritus; ipso Apostolo sententiam Creatoris adhibente, imo et disserente: Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et erunt duo in carnem unam. Sacramentum hoc magnum est. Sufficit inter ista, si Creatoris magna sunt apud Apostolum sacramenta, minima apud haereticos. Sed ego autem dico, inquit, in Christum et Ecclesiam. Habet interpretationem, non separationem sacramenti. Ostendit figuram sacramenti ab eo praeministratam, cujus erat utique sacramentum. Quid videtur Marcioni? Creator quidem ignoto Deo figuras praeministrare

with wine: the disgrace [of it] comes from that place where those who make the saints drunk are rebuked: And you gave my holy ones wine to drink (Amos 2:12), which Aaron the priest and his sons were forbidden to drink when they went into the holy place (Deut. 22). And to teach singing to God in psalms and hymns belongs to Him who knew that those who drink wine with timbrels and psalteries instead are accused by God (Isa. 11:12). Thus, Whose precepts I find, and the seeds of the precepts or their growth, His apostle I recognize. Moreover, that women ought to be subject to their husbands: from where does he confirm it? Because, he says, the husband is the head of the woman. Tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority for his law from the work of the Creator? This indeed is plainly the lesser thing, since he takes from it even the standing of his Christ Himself and of His Church: Just as Christ also is the head of the Church. Likewise also when he says: He loves his own flesh who loves his wife, just as Christ also [loves] the Church. You see your Christ and your Church compared to the work of the Creator. How much honour is given to the flesh under the name of the Church? No one, he says, holds his own flesh in hatred, except plainly Marcion alone: but he both nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the Church. But you alone have hated it, taking away from it the resurrection. You will have to hate the Church as well, since it is loved by Christ in the same way. But indeed Christ loved the flesh too, just as the Church. No one will fail to love even the image of his bride; indeed he will also guard it, and honour it, and crown it. The likeness has a share of honour with the reality. I shall now labour to prove that the same God is [God] of the male and of Christ, of the woman and of the Church, of the flesh and of the spirit, since the Apostle himself brings in the Creator's sentence, and indeed expounds it: For this reason a man shall leave father and mother, and the two shall be into one flesh. This is a great sacrament. It is enough among these things if the Creator's sacraments are great with the Apostle, though the least with the heretics. But I, he says, speak with reference to Christ and the Church. He gives an interpretation of the sacrament, not a separation of it. He shows a figure of the sacrament ministered beforehand by Him to Whom the sacrament certainly belonged. What does Marcion think? The Creator, indeed, could not furnish figures beforehand to an unknown god;

Editors' notes and page, col. 550

Footnotes

(30) ‹anchor: Propter hoc› · call in col 550

Hanc Seml.

Semler reads "hanc".

(printed under page 279)

(31) ‹anchor: in carnem unam› · call in col 550

Carne una Oter.

Oberthür reads "carne una" (the siglum is printed "Oter.").

Commentarius

(printed under page 279)

(61) ‹anchor: in Christum et Ecclesiam› · call in col 550

Sed ego, inquit, dico in Christum et Ecclesiam. Verba sunt Pauli ad Ephesios V, ubi agit de amore conjugali, et matrimonium ait esse sacramentum, et quidem magnum, sed continuo subjungit, Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. Mysterium, inquit, hoc magnum est; ego autem dico in Christum et Ecclesiam. Innuens conjunctionem illam viri et mulieris magnum esse sacramentum, quia magnum aliquid significat et figurat, quod extenditur in Christum et Ecclesiam. Hortatur Apostolus conjuges, ut se invicem diligant, eo scilicet amore, quo fiat unum e duobus: ita ut ambo una sint carò, una anima. Hanc vero dilectionem, figuram esse ait et sacramentum, sive typum et imaginem et speculum amoris Christi erga Ecclesiam, quae sic adhaerere et agglutinari sponso suo debeat, ut unum fiat ex duobus, et ambo unum sint, adeoque illa non alio spiritu, quam Christi, animata vivat et regatur, ut in ipsa vivat Christus, et ipsa in Christo. Res igitur agit Apostolus duas. Viri et mulieris conjugium a Deo institutum esse ostendit, ut fiat unum ex duobus: itaque non debere hominem separare quod Deus conjunxit, nec fieri inter conjuges divortium; nam si conjux a conjuge divortat, jam alterutrum separare quae sunt a Deo conjuncta. Hoc primum agit Paulus. Deinde vero adjicit, sanctam et castam esse debere inter conjuges concordiam; quandoquidem ex ea sumat Christus exemplum, et sacramentum et similitudinem dilectionis erga Ecclesiam suae, qualis esse debet sponsi erga sponsam: quae dilectio repensari debeat eodem exemplo dilectionis, qualis est sponsae erga sponsum. Hanc vero comparationem Paulus ait magnum esse mysterium. Quod sane doceat pastores τῆς καλλίστης ζώων ἀγέλης ἀνθρώπων, usque et usque fidelium mentibus inculcare. Rig.

"But I, he says, speak of Christ and the Church." These are Paul's words to the Ephesians, chapter 5, where he treats of married love and says that marriage is a sacrament, and a great one, but at once adds, "But I speak of Christ and of the Church." "This mystery," he says, "is great; but I speak of Christ and the Church." He intimates that the union of man and woman is a great sacrament because it signifies and figures something great, which reaches to Christ and the Church. The Apostle urges spouses to love one another, namely with that love by which one is made of two, so that both are one flesh, one soul. This love, he says, is a figure and a sacrament, that is, a type, image and mirror of Christ's love for the Church, which ought so to cleave and be joined to her Bridegroom that one is made of two and both are one, and thus she lives and is ruled, animated by no other spirit than Christ's, so that Christ lives in her and she in Christ. The Apostle, then, is doing two things. He shows that the marriage of man and woman was instituted by God, so that one is made of two: therefore man must not separate what God has joined, nor must there be divorce between spouses; for if a spouse divorces a spouse, both separate what God has joined. This Paul does first. Then he adds that the concord between spouses must be holy and chaste, since Christ takes from it an example, a sacrament and a likeness of His love for His Church, such as the bridegroom's towards the bride ought to be: a love that should be repaid on the same pattern, such as the bride's is towards the bridegroom. This comparison Paul calls a great mystery. Let it teach the pastors "of the fairest flock of living things, men" to press it again and again upon the minds of the faithful. Rigault.

(printed under page 279)

Page

running head: ... ADV. MARCIONEM. 550 (only the right-hand part of the head is in the image)
marginal letters: A ‹vino dedecori inde est›; B ‹cum dicit : Carnem suam diligit›; C ‹Ecclesiae, carnis et spiritus›; D ‹in ipsa vivat Christus› (in the Commentarius at the page foot, not the text)
old-edition numerals: 518 after ‹Atenim Christus›
other: misprints kept as printed: auferen (for auferens)
other: calls 28 (after dedecori) and 29 (after uxorem suam) stand in this column; their notes are listed in n549 (Q1b)
other: the word split at the break to col 551 (prae-|ministrare) is set whole here (Q1b)

PL 2:551

non potuit; etiam quia adversario. Si noto, Deus superior ab inferiore, et ad destruendum potius, mutuari nihil debuit. Obaudiant et parentibus filii. Nam et si Marcion abstulit, Hoc est enim primum in promissione praeceptum. Lex loquitur (Exod. XX): Honora patrem et matrem. Et: Parentes, enutrite filios in disciplina et correptione Domini. Audisti enim et veteribus dictum: Nurrabitis haec in auribus filiorum vestrorum, et filii vestri aeque in auribus filiorum suorum. Quo jam mihi duos deos, si una est disciplina? et si duo sunt, illum sequar qui prior docuit. Sed adversus munditenentes luctatio si nobis, o quanti jam ⟨d⟩ii creatores! Cur enim non et hoc vindicem, unum munditenentem nominari debuisse, si Creatorem significabat, cujus essent quas praemisit potestates? Porro, cum supra quidem induere nos jubeat armaturam, in qua stemus ad machinationes diaboli, jam ostendit diaboli esse, quae diabolo subjungit, potestates et munditenentes tenebrarum istarum, quae et diabolo deputamus. Aut si diabolus creator est, quis erit diabolus apud creatorem? An sicut duo dei, ita et duo diaboli, et pluraliter potestates et munditenentes? Sed quomodo creator et diabolus et Deus idem? cum diabolus non idem et Deus et diabolus. Aut enim ambo et Dei, si ambo jam diaboli; aut qui Deus hic, et non diabolus, sicut nec diabolus Deus. Ipsum vocabulum diaboli, quaero ex qua delatura competat Creatori? Fortasse detulit aliquam Dei superioris intentionem, quod ipse ab archangelo passus est, et quidem mentito. Non ideo enim interdixerat illius arbusculae gustum, ne Dei fierent, sed ne de transgressione morerentur. Nec spiritalia autem nequitiae ideo Creatorem significabant, quia adjecit, in coelis. Sciebat enim et Apostolus in coelis operata esse spiritalia nequitiae angelorum scandalizatorum in filias hominum (Gen. VI). Et quale erit, ut ambiguitatibus, et per aenigmata nescio quae, Creatorem taxaret: qui in catenis jam constitutus, ob libertatem praedicationis, constantiam manifestandi sacramenti in apertione oris, quam ibi expostulare a Deo mandabat, Ecclesiae utique praestabat?

also because [it would have been] to an adversary. If to one known, the superior God ought to have borrowed nothing from the inferior, and from one rather to be destroyed. Let children also obey their parents. For even if Marcion has removed, For this is the first commandment in the promise, the Law speaks (Exod. 20): Honour father and mother. And: Parents, nurture your children in the discipline and correction of the Lord. For you have heard it said also to the ancients: You shall tell these things in the ears of your sons, and your sons likewise in the ears of their sons. What need have I now of two gods, if the discipline is one? And if there are two, I shall follow the one who taught first. But if our wrestling is against the world-rulers, oh, how many creator gods there are now! For why should I not claim this too, that one world-ruler ought to have been named, if he meant the Creator, whose would be the powers which he set before it? Moreover, since above he indeed bids us put on the armour in which we may stand against the devices of the devil, he already shows that the things which he joins to the devil are the devil's, the powers and world-rulers of this darkness, which we too assign to the devil. Or if the devil is the creator, who will be the devil with the creator? Or, just as there are two gods, are there also two devils, and powers and world-rulers in the plural? But how are the creator and the devil and God the same, since the devil is not at once both God and devil? For either both are gods, if both are now devils; or he who is God here is not the devil, just as the devil is not God. The very name of devil, I ask, from what accusation does it befit the Creator? Perhaps He brought some charge against the superior God, such as He Himself suffered from the archangel, and that a lying one. For He had not forbidden the tasting of that little tree lest they should become gods, but lest they should die from the transgression. Nor yet did the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness signify the Creator because he added, in the heavens. For the Apostle too knew that in the heavens there had been at work the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness of the angels who stumbled over the daughters of men (Gen. 6). And how would it be that he should censure the Creator by ambiguities and by I know not what riddles, he who, already set in chains for the freedom of his preaching, was displaying to the Church at any rate the constancy of making known the mystery in the opening of the mouth, which he there bade them ask of God?

CAPUT XIX.

Chapter XIX.

(In Epist. ad. Coloss.) Soleo in praescriptione adversus omnes haereses de testimonio temporum compendium figere, priorem vindicans regulam nostram omni haeretica posteritate. Hoc nunc probabit et Apostolus dicens: De spe reposita in coelis, quam audistis in sermone veritatis Evangelii, quod pervenit ad vos sicut et in totum mundum. Nam si jam

(On the Epistle to the Colossians.) In my prescription against all heresies I am accustomed to fix a short way from the testimony of the times, claiming our rule as prior to all heretical posterity. This the Apostle too will now prove, saying: Of the hope laid up in the heavens, which you heard in the word of the truth of the Gospel, which has come to you just as also into the whole world. For if already

Editors' notes and page, col. 551

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 280)

(32) ‹anchor: in auribus filiorum suorum (the call is printed "33" in the text)› · call in col 551

Aures Pam.

Pamelius reads "aures".

(printed under page 280)

(33) ‹anchor: An sicut› · call in col 551

Si Seml.

Semler reads "si".

(printed under page 280)

(34) ‹anchor: si ambo› · call in col 551

Ambo omitt. Oberth.

Oberthür omits "ambo".

(printed under page 280)

(35) ‹anchor: Creatorem significabant› · call in col 551

Significabunt Seml.

Semler reads "significabunt".

(printed under page 280)

(36) ‹anchor: Et quale erit› · call in col 551 (the call is printed "56" in the text)

Erat Oberth.

Oberthür reads "erat".

(printed under page 280)

(37) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Antoniani Rig.

Rigault reads "Antoniani".

(printed under page 280)

(38) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Dominum Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "Dominum".

(printed under page 280)

(62) ‹anchor: -nentes?› · call in col 551

Adversus munditenentes. Vulgata habet mundi rectores; sed quoniam etymum servat non sine superstitione aliqua, ita vertit quod Graece est κοσμοκράτορας. Daemonem autem significat illos, autem munditenentes spiritalia mox nequitiae pro πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας. Le Pr.

"Against the world-holders." The Vulgate has "rulers of the world"; but because he keeps the etymology, not without a certain scrupulousness, he so renders what in Greek is κοσμοκράτορας ("world-rulers"). By "world-holders" he means demons, and presently "spiritual things of wickedness" for πνευματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 280)

Page

running head: 551 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ministrare non potuit; etiam quia adversario. Si; B quas praemisit potestates? Porro, cum supra quidem; C aliquam Dei superioris intentionem, quod ipse ab; D (In Epist. ad Coloss.) Soleo in praescriptione ad-
old-edition numerals: 519 after munditenentes?
other: ligature read on the page by Q1b: in coelis (œ printed, three times in this column)
other: misprints kept as printed: Nurrabitis (for Narrabitis); ad. Coloss. (stray full stop); call "33" printed for 32 after in auribus
other: the column's first word, ministrare, is the tail of praeministrare, set whole at the end of col 550 (Q1b)

PL 2:552

tum traditio Evangelica ubique manaverat, quanto magis nunc! Porro; si nostra est quae ubique manavit, magis quam omnis haeretica, nedum Antonianiani Marcionis, nostra erit apostolica: Marcionis autem, cum totum impleverit mundum, ne tunc quidem se defendere poterit de Apostolica. Eam enim et sic constabit esse, quae prior mundum replevit, illius scilicet Dei Evangelio, qui et haec cecinit de praedicationibus ejus (Psal. XVIII, 4): In omnem terram exiit sonus eorum, et in terminos orbis verba eorum. Invisibilis Dei imaginem ait Christum. Sed nos enim invisibilem dicimus Patrem Christi, scientes Filium semper retro visum, si quibus visus est in Dei nomine, ut imaginem ipsius: ne quam et hinc differentiam scindat Dei visibilis et invisibilis, cum olim Dei nostri sit definitio (Exod. XXIII, 20): Deum nemo videbit, et vivet. Si non est Christus primogenitus conditionis, ut Sermo Creatoris per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo nihil factum est; si non in illo condita sunt universa in caelis et in terris, visibilia et invisibilia, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates; si non cuncta per illum et in illo sunt condita (haec enim Marcioni displicere oportebat), non utique tam nude posuisset Apostolus: Et ipse est ante omnes. Quomodo enim ante omnes, si non ante omnia? Quomodo ante omnia, si non primogenitus conditionis? si non Sermo Creatoris? Unde ante omnes probabitur fuisse, qui post omnia apparuit? Quis scit priorem fuisse, quem esse nesciit? Quomodo item boni duxit omnem plenitudinem in semetipso habitare? Primo enim, quae est ista plenitudo, nisi ex illis quae Marcion detraxit, conditis in Christo, in caelis et in terris, angelis et hominibus, nisi ex illis invisibilibus et visibilibus? nisi ex thronis, et dominationibus et principatibus, et potestatibus? Aut si haec pseudoapostoli nostri et judaici evangelizatores de suo intulerint, et ad plenitudinem Dei sui Marcion qui nihil condidit: caeterum, quale est ut plenitudinem Creatoris, aemulus et destructor ejus, in suo Christo habitare voluerit? Cui denique reconciliat omnia in semetipsum, pacem faciens per crucis suae sanguinem, nisi quem offenderant una ipsa, adversus quem rebellaverant per transgressionem, cujus novissime fuerant? Conciliari enim extraneo possent; reconciliari vero, non alii quam suo. Ita et nos quondam alienutos et inimicos sensu in malis operibus, Creatori redigit in gratiam, cujus admiseramus offensam, colentes conditionem adversus Creatorem. Sicubi autem et Ecclesiam corpus Christi dicit esse, ut hic

then the Gospel tradition had spread everywhere, how much more now! Further: if ours is the one which has spread everywhere, more than any heretical one, let alone that of Marcion the Antonian, ours will be the apostolic one; whereas Marcion's, even when it has filled the whole world, will not even then be able to defend itself as apostolic. For it will be established in this way too that the apostolic one is that which first filled the world, namely by the Gospel of that God Who also sang these things concerning its preachings (Ps. 18:4): Into all the earth their sound has gone forth, and their words to the ends of the world. He says that Christ is the image of the invisible God. But we too say that the Father of Christ is invisible, knowing that the Son has always from of old been seen, if He was seen by any in the name of God, as His image: lest from this also he should carve out some distinction between a visible and an invisible God, since the definition of our God was laid down long ago (Exod. 33:20): No one shall see God, and live. If Christ is not the firstborn of creation, as the Word of the Creator through Whom all things were made, and without Whom nothing was made; if in Him were not created all things in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; if all things were not created through Him and in Him (for these things were bound to displease Marcion), the Apostle would certainly not have set down so baldly: And He is before all. For how before all, if not before all things? How before all things, if not the firstborn of creation? if not the Word of the Creator? How will He be proved to have been before all, Who appeared after all things? Who knows that He existed earlier, of Whose existence he was ignorant? How again did He think it good that all fullness should dwell in Himself? For in the first place, what is this fullness, if not of those things which Marcion has struck out, created in Christ, in the heavens and on the earth, angels and men, if not of those invisible and visible things? if not of thrones, and dominions and principalities, and powers? Or if our false apostles and Judaizing evangelists brought these things in of their own, and Marcion [transferred them] to the fullness of his God Who created nothing: for the rest, how could it be that the rival and destroyer of the Creator should have willed the Creator's fullness to dwell in his own Christ? To whom, finally, does He reconcile all things in Himself, making peace through the blood of His cross, if not to Him Whom they had all together offended, against Whom they had rebelled by transgression, Whose they had last been? For they could be conciliated to a stranger; but reconciled to none other than their own. So too us, who were once estranged and enemies in mind in evil works, He brings back into favour with the Creator, Whose offence we had incurred by worshipping the creation against the Creator. And wherever he says that the Church too is the body of Christ, as here

Editors' notes and page, col. 552

Footnotes

(39) ‹anchor: Quomodo item› · call in col 552

Autem Seml.

Semler reads "autem".

(printed under page 280)

(40) ‹anchor: una ipsa› · call in col 552

Universa Obert.

Oberthür reads "universa".

Commentarius

(printed under page 280)

(63) ‹anchor: primogenitus conditionis› · call in col 552

Primogenitus conditionis. Hoc est primogenitus omnium a Deo conditorum et creatorum. Rig.

"Firstborn of creation." That is, firstborn of all things founded and created by God. Rigault.

(printed under page 280)

Page

running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 552 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A tum traditio Evangelica; B et invisibilis, cum olim (mark spans from line ne quam et hinc); C nia apparuit? Quis scit; D rebellaverant per transgressionem
old-edition numerals: 520 after (Exod. XXIII, 20):

PL 2:553

ait: Adimplere se reliqua pressurarum Christi in carne, pro corpore ejus quod est Ecclesia; non propterea et in totum mentionem corporis transferes a substantia carnis. Nam et supra reconciliari nos ait in corpore ejus per mortem; utique in eo corpore, in quo mori potuit per carnem; mortuus est, non per Ecclesiam, plane propter Ecclesiam; corpus commutando pro corpore, carnale pro spiritali. At cum monet cavendum a subtililoquentia et philosophia et inani seductione, quae sit secundum elementa mundi; non secundum coelum aut terram dicens, sed secundum litteras saeculares; et secundum traditionem, scilicet hominum subtililoquorum et philosophorum: longum est quidem et alterius operis ostendere, hac sententia omnes haereses damnari, quod omnes ex subtililoquentiae viribus et philosophiae regulis constent. Sed Marcion principalem suae fidei terminum de Epicuri schola agnoscat, Dominum inferens hebetem, ne timeri eum dicat, collocans et cum Deo Creatore materiam, de porticu Stoicorum: negans carnis resurrectionem, de qua proinde nulla philosophia consentit. Cujus ingeniis ta⟨m⟩ longe abest veritas nostra, ut et iram Dei excitare formidet, et omnia illum ex nihilo protulisse confidat, et carnem eamdem restituturum repromittat, et Christum ex vulva virginis natum non erubescat, ridentibus philosophis et haereticis et ethnicis ipsis. Stulta enim mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientes (I Cor. I, 27); ille sine dubio, qui ex respectu hujus suae dispositionis perditurum se sapientiam sapientium praeminabatur. Hac simplicitate veritatis contraria subtililoquentiae et philosophiae, nihil perversi possumus sapere. Denique si nos Deus cum Christo vivificat, donans delicta nobis, non possumus credere ab eo delicta donari, in quem admissa non fuerint, ut retro ignotum. Age jam, cum dicit: Nemo vos judicet in cibo et potu, et in parte diei festi et neomeniae et Sabbati, quae est umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi; quid tibi videtur, Marcion? De lege jam non retractamus, nisi quod et hic quemadmodum exclusa sit edocet, dum scilicet de umbra transfertur in corpus, id est, de figuris ad veritatem, quod est Christus. Ergo et umbra ejus, cujus et corpus; id est et lex ejus, et Christus. Segrega alii Legem, et alii Deo Christum, si potes aliquam umbram ab eo corpore, cujus umbra est, separare. Manifeste

he says that he fills up what remains of the afflictions of Christ in the flesh, for His body, which is the Church; you will not on that account transfer the mention of body wholly away from the substance of flesh. For above too he says that we are reconciled in His body through death; surely in that body in which He was able to die through the flesh; He died, not through the Church, but plainly for the sake of the Church, exchanging body for body, the fleshly for the spiritual. But when he warns that one must beware of subtle speech and philosophy and empty seduction, which is according to the elements of the world, saying not according to heaven or earth, but according to secular letters, and according to tradition, namely that of men of subtle speech and of philosophers: it is indeed a long task, and one for another work, to show that by this sentence all heresies are condemned, in that they all consist of the powers of subtle speech and the rules of philosophy. But let Marcion recognize the chief boundary-mark of his faith as coming from the school of Epicurus, when he brings in a dull Lord, so as not to say that He is to be feared; when he places matter alongside God the Creator, from the porch of the Stoics; when he denies the resurrection of the flesh, which likewise no philosophy accepts. From the cleverness of these men our truth is so far removed that it dreads to provoke the wrath of God, and is confident that He brought forth all things out of nothing, and promises that He will restore the same flesh, and is not ashamed that Christ was born from the womb of a virgin, while philosophers and heretics and the heathen themselves laugh. For God has chosen the foolish things of the world, that He may confound the wise (1 Cor. 1:27); He, without doubt, Who in view of this His dispensation threatened beforehand that He would destroy the wisdom of the wise. By this simplicity of truth, contrary to subtle speech and philosophy, we can hold nothing perverse. Finally, if God makes us alive with Christ, forgiving us our sins, we cannot believe that sins are forgiven by Him against Whom they were not committed, as One formerly unknown. Come now, when he says: Let no one judge you in food and drink, or in respect of a feast day and new moon and Sabbath, which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's; what do you think, Marcion? We are no longer treating of the law, except that here too he teaches how it has been excluded, namely while there is a passing from shadow to body, that is, from figures to the truth, which is Christ. Therefore the shadow belongs to Him to Whom the body also belongs; that is, both the law is His and Christ is His. Assign the Law to one God and Christ to another, if you can separate any shadow from that body whose shadow it is. Plainly

Editors' notes and page, col. 553

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 281)

(41) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Ut Pam.

Pamelius reads "ut".

(printed under page 281)

(42) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Fit Par.

The Paris edition reads "fit".

(printed under page 281)

(43) ‹anchor: est et lex› · call in col 553

Lux Pam.

Pamelius reads "lux".

(printed under page 281)

(44) ‹anchor: Segrega alii› · call in col 553

Deo add. Seml.

Semler adds "Deo".

(printed under page 281)

(64) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Cavendum a subtililoquentia et philosophia. Non uno in loco, licet aliter, hunc locum Apostoli citavit; nam lib. de Praescript., cap. 7, de hac vanitate philosophica locutus est, et alio loco haereticorum patriarchas vocat philosophos. Quaenam autem sit illa philosophia, dubium esset, nisi peripateticam Patres indicarent, quae licet prava consuetudine apud Catholicos invaluerit, Carpocratianis tamen et Gnosticis arma ad turbandam veritatem ministravit. Sanctus Ambrosius in offic. et Origenes contra Celsum Epicuri dogmatis perniciosiorem sectam demonstrant. Atque etiam regnante Philippo Augusto, coacto contra Almarici haeresim concilio, cremata fuisse Aristotelis metaphysica nuper in Galliam e Graecia advecta testatur Rigordus, lib. de Gestis Ph. Aug. Atque, quod in gratiam Peripateticorum observandnm est, memini me legere apud Alexandrum Necam Aegelum lib. de Rerum natura, in ea fuisse tunc sententia viros eruditos, ut libenter pronuntiarent solum Antichristum posse capere libros Aristotelis quibus uteretur ad confutandos eos qui contra se disputaturi essent. Le Pr.

"Beware of subtle talk and philosophy." He has cited this passage of the Apostle in more than one place, though in different words; for in De praescriptione, chapter 7, he spoke of this philosophical vanity, and elsewhere he calls the philosophers "the patriarchs of the heretics". Which philosophy that is would be doubtful, did the Fathers not point to the Peripatetic, which, though by a bad custom it has gained ground among Catholics, yet supplied the Carpocratians and Gnostics with weapons to disturb the truth. Saint Ambrose in De officiis and Origen against Celsus show it to be a sect more pernicious than Epicurus's teaching. And in the reign of Philip Augustus, when a council was gathered against the heresy of Amalric, Aristotle's Metaphysics, lately brought into France from Greece, were burnt, as Rigord attests in his book On the Deeds of Philip Augustus. And, what is to be noted in favour of the Peripatetics, I remember reading in Alexander Neckam the Englishman (printed "Aegelum"), book On the Nature of Things, that learned men were then of the opinion, and gladly declared it, that only the Antichrist could master Aristotle's books, to use them to refute those who would dispute against him. Le Prieur.

Page foot

PATROL. II. (signature line, left); 18 (signature number, right) — printer's marks, not footnotes. (printed under page 281)

Page

running head: 553 LIB. V ADV. MARCI (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ait: Adimplere se reliqua; B gulis constent. Sed Marcion; C traria subtililoquentiae et philosophiae; D eo corpore, cujus umbra est
old-edition numerals: 521 after secundum

PL 2:554

Legis est Christus, si corpus est umbrae. Si autem et aliquos taxat, qui ex visionibus angelicis dicebant cibis abstinendum ne attigeris, ne gustaveris, volentes in humilitate sensus incedere, non tenentes caput; uon ideo Legem et Moysen pulsat, quasi de angelica superstitione constituerit interdictionem quorumdam edulium. Moysen enim a Deo accepisse Legem constat. Denique, hanc disciplinam, secundum praecepta, inquit, et doctrinam hominum deputavit in eos, qui caput non tenerent, id est ipsum; in quo omnia recensentur, in Christum ad initium revocata, etiam indifferentia escarum. Caetera praeceptorum, ut eadem, satis sit jam alibi docuisse quam a Creatore manarint; qui cum vetera praedicaret transitura, nova facturus universa, mandans etiam (Jerem. IV, 3): Novate vobis novamen novum; jam tunc docebat deponere veterem hominem, et novum induere (Epist. ad Philipp.).

Christ is of the Law, if the body is of the shadow. But if he also censures certain people who, on the strength of angelic visions, said that one must abstain from foods, "touch not, taste not", wishing to walk in humility of mind, not holding the head, he does not on that account strike at the Law and Moses, as though Moses had established the prohibition of certain foods out of an angelic superstition. For it is agreed that Moses received the Law from God. Finally, he assigned this discipline, according to the precepts, he says, and doctrine of men, to those who did not hold the head, that is, Him in Whom all things are summed up, recalled to their beginning in Christ, even the indifference of foods. As for the rest of the precepts, as being the same, let it suffice to have already shown elsewhere how they flowed from the Creator, Who, when He proclaimed that the old things would pass away, being about to make all things new, commanding also (Jer. 4:3): Renew for yourselves a new fallow, was even then teaching to put off the old man and to put on the new (Epistle to the Philippians).

CAPUT XX.

Chapter XX.

Cum praedicationis enumerat varietatem, quod alii ex fiducia vinculorum ejus, audentius sermonem enuntiarent, alii per invidiam et contentionem, quidam vero et per sermonis existimationem, plerique ex dilectione, nonnulli ex aemulatione, jam aliqui et ex simultate Christum praedicarent, erat utique vel hic locus taxandae ipsius praedicationis de diversitate sententiae, quae tantam efficeret etiam animorum varietatem. Sed caussas solas animorum, non regulas sacramentorum in diversitate proponens, unum tamen Christum, et unum ejus Deum, quocunque consilio praedicatum confirmat; et ideo: Nihil mea, inquit, sive caussatione, sive veritate Christus annuntietur, quia unus annuntiabatur, sive ex causatione, sive ex veritate fidei. Ad fidem enim praedicationis retulit mentionem veritatis, non ad regulae ipsius: quia una quidem erat regula, sed fides praedicantium quorumdam vera, id est simplex, quorundam nimis docta. Quod cum ita sit, apparet eum Christum praedicatum, qui semper adnuntiabatur. Nam si alius longe ab apostolo induceretur, fecisset diversitatem novitas rei. Nec enim defuissent, qui, praedicationem evangelicam nihilominus in Christum Creatoris interpretarentur; cum et hodie major pars sit omnibus in locis sententiae nostrae, quam haereticae: quo nec hic

When he enumerates the variety of preaching, that some, out of confidence in his bonds, were speaking the word more boldly, others through envy and contention, some indeed also for the esteem of their speech, many out of love, some out of rivalry, and yet others even out of ill will were preaching Christ, here surely, if anywhere, was the place for censuring the preaching itself on account of a diversity of doctrine, which would produce so great a variety of minds as well. But, setting forth as diverse only the motives of minds, not the rules of the sacraments, he nevertheless confirms one Christ, and His one God, preached with whatever intention; and therefore: It is nothing to me, he says, whether Christ be proclaimed by pretext or by truth, because one [Christ] was being proclaimed, whether out of pretext or out of truth of faith. For he referred the mention of truth to the faith of the preaching, not to its rule: because there was indeed one rule, but the faith of some preachers was true, that is, simple, that of others too learned. Since this is so, it is evident that the Christ preached was He Who was always being announced. For if another, far different, had been introduced by the apostle, the novelty of the thing would have produced a diversity. For there would not have been lacking those who would nonetheless interpret the gospel preaching as concerning the Creator's Christ, since even today the greater part in all places is of our opinion rather than of the heretical one: whereby not even here

Editors' notes and page, col. 554

Footnotes

(45) ‹anchor: per sermonis existimationem› · call in col 554

Boni aestimationem Lat.

Latinius reads "boni aestimationem".

(printed under page 281)

(46) ‹anchor: quo nec› · call in col 554

Quo ne Pam. quia nec Lat. quin nec al.

Pamelius reads "quo ne"; Latinius "quia nec"; others "quin nec".

Commentarius

(printed under page 281)

Page

running head: V ADV. MARCIONEM.
marginal letters: A ‹Legis est Christus, si corpus›; B ‹novum ; jam tunc docebat›; C ‹unum tamen Christum, et unum›; D ‹sententiae nostrae, quam haereticae›
old-edition numerals: 522 after ‹mandans›

PL 2:555

Apostolus de diversitatis denotatione et increpatione tacuisset. Ita cum diversitas ne taxatur qui⟨d⟩em, novitas non probatur. Plane de substantia Christi putant et hic Marcionitae suffragari Apostolum sibi, quod phantasma carnis fuerit in Christo, cum dicit, quod in effigie Dei constitutus, non rapinam existimavit pariari Deo, sed exhausit semetipsum, accepta effigie servi, non varietate; et in similitudine hominis, non in homine; et figura inventus homo, non substantia, id est non carne: quasi non et figura, et similitudo, et effigies substantiae quoque accedant. Bene autem quod et alibi Christum imaginem Dei invisibilis appellat. Numquid ergo et hic qua in effigie eum Dei collocat? Aeque non erit Deus Christus vere, si nec homo vere fuit in effigie hominis constitutus. Utrobique enim veritas necesse habebit eludi, si effigies et similitudo et figura phantasmati vindicabitur. Quod si in effigie et imagine, qua Filius Patris vere Dei praedicatus est, etiam in effigie et imagine hominis, qua filius hominis, vere hominem inventum, nam et inventum ratione posuit, id est certissime hominem: quod enim invenitur, constat esse. Sic et Deus inventus est per virtutem, sicut homo per carnem; quia nec morti subditum pronuntiasset, non in substantia mortali constitutum. Plus est autem quod adjecit: Et mortem crucis. Non enim exaggerat atrocitatem, extoll⟨e⟩ndo virtutem subjectionis, quam imaginariam phantasmate scisset, frustrato potius eam, quam experto; nec virtute functo in passione, sed lusu. ⟨Q⟩uae autem retro lucri duxerat, quae et supra numerat, gloriam carnis, notam circumcisionis, generis hebraei ex hebraeo censum, titulum tribus Benjamin, pharisaeae candidae dignitatem; haec modo detrimento sibi deputat, non Deum, sed stuporem Judaeorum. Haec ac si stercora existimat, prae comparatione agnitionis Christi, non prae rejectione Dei Creatoris, habens justitiam, non suam jam quae

the Apostle would have kept silent about pointing out and rebuking the difference. So, since the difference is not even censured, the novelty is not proved. Clearly, concerning the substance of Christ, the Marcionites think that here too the Apostle supports them, namely that there was a phantasm of flesh in Christ, when he says that, being established in the form of God, He did not consider it robbery to be made equal to God, but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, not the reality; and in the likeness of man, not in man; and found in figure as a man, not in substance, that is, not in flesh: as though figure and likeness and form did not also belong to substance. It is well, however, that elsewhere too he calls Christ the image of the invisible God. Does he then here also, in that he places Him in the form of God [, deny Him to be God]? Equally Christ will not truly be God, if neither was He truly man, being established in the form of man. For on both sides the truth will necessarily be evaded, if form and likeness and figure are claimed for a phantasm. But if in the form and image in which, as Son of the Father, He has been proclaimed truly God, then also in the form and image of man, in which, as son of man, He was found truly man; for he set down "found" with deliberate reason, that is, most certainly man: for what is found is established to exist. So also God was found through power, as man through flesh; for he would not have declared Him subject to death, had He not been established in mortal substance. Still more is what he added: And the death of the cross. For he would not be magnifying its atrocity, extolling the virtue of His subjection, if he had known it to be imaginary through a phantasm, since He would rather have cheated it than experienced it, and would have performed in the passion not with virtue but in sport. But the things which formerly he had reckoned gain, which he also enumerates above, the glory of the flesh, the mark of circumcision, the reckoning of his race as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, the title of the tribe of Benjamin, the dignity of a spotless Pharisee, these he now counts loss to himself, not God, but the stupidity of the Jews. These he regards as dung, in comparison with the knowledge of Christ, not in rejection of God the Creator, having righteousness, not now his own which

Editors' notes and page, col. 555

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 282)

(47) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Quia al.

Others read "quia".

(printed under page 282)

(48) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Cura Ven. mendose.

The Venice edition reads "cura", wrongly.

(printed under page 282)

(49) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Praejudicatus Obert.

Oberthür reads "praejudicatus".

(printed under page 282)

(50) ‹anchor: Non enim exaggerat› · call in col 555

Exaggeraret Lat.

Latinius reads "exaggeraret".

(printed under page 282)

(51) ‹anchor: virtutem subjectionis› · call in col 555

Collectionis Rhen.

Rhenanus reads "collectionis".

(printed under page 282)

(52) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

In delet Ciacc.

Ciaconius deletes "in".

(printed under page 282)

(53) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Transfiguravit Venet. transfiguraverit Rig. transfigurabitur Pam.

The Venice edition reads "transfiguravit"; Rigault "transfiguraverit"; Pamelius "transfigurabitur".

(printed under page 282)

(54) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Demutari al. demutati Lat.

Others read "demutari"; Latinius "demutati".

(printed under page 282)

(65) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Non rapinam existimavit pariari Deo. Si phantasticum fuisset Christi corpus, haec omnia illi non contigissent, neque mortem subiisset. Quod hic locus late probat, et paulisper a Vulgata recedit, nam pariari est parem esse, εἶναι ἴσα, et exhausit semetipsum, hoc est, abjecit, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, seipsum exinanivit. Le Pr.

"He did not think it robbery to be made equal to God." Had Christ's body been phantasmal, none of these things would have befallen him, nor would he have undergone death. This the passage amply proves, and it departs a little from the Vulgate, for "pariari" is "to be equal", εἶναι ἴσα, and "exhausit semetipsum" is "abjecit" (he cast himself down), ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, "he emptied himself". Le Prieur.

(printed under page 282)

(66) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Qui in adventu Dei deprehensi, in carne deputari habebunt. Imo demutari, quod mox dicet transfigurari. Rig.

"Those who are found at the coming of God will have to be reckoned in the flesh." Rather "demutari" (to be changed), which he will presently call "transfigurari" (to be transfigured). Rigault.

(printed under page 282)

(67) ‹anchor: not visible in the page-foot image› · call not visible

Quid facient qui resurgent primi. Consimili schemate, quo Paulus dixit, Quid facient qui baptizantur pro mortuis? Rig.

"What will they do who rise first?" In the very same figure in which Paul said, "What will they do who are baptized for the dead?" Rigault.

(printed under page 282)

Page

running head: 555 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge; E of OPERUM damaged)
marginal letters: A Apostolus de diversitatis denotatione; B vere fuit in effigie hominis constitutus; C phantasmate scisset, frustrato potius
old-edition numerals: 523 after id est
other: oldnum digits partly damaged (523 read, middle digit unclear); quidem printed with damaged d, extollendo with damaged e across line break, Quae with damaged Q, enim slightly damaged; right-hand column (556) cut off and not set; Variae lectiones and Commentarius notes (65)-(68) at page foot not set; ornamental rule at foot not set

PL 2:556

ex Lege, sed quae per ipsum, scilicet Christum, ex Deo. Ergo, inquis, hac distinctione Lex non ex Deo erat Christi. Subtiliter satis. Accipe itaque subtilius. Cum enim dicit: Non quae ex lege, sed quae per ipsum; non dixisset, per ipsum, de alio, quam cujus fuit lex. Noster, inquit, municipatus in coelis. Agnosco veterem ad Abraham promissionem Creatoris (Gen. XXII, 17): Et faciam semen tuum tanquam stellas in coelo. Ideo et stella a stella differt in gloria. Quod si Christus adveniens de coelis transfigurabit corpus humilitatis nostrae, conformale corpori gloriae suae; resurget ergo corpus hoc nostrum quod humiliatur in passionibus et in ipsa lege mortis in terram dejectum. Quomodo enim transfigurabit, si nullum erit? Aut si de eis dictum, qui in adventu Dei deprehensi in carne deputari habebunt, quid facient qui primi resurgent? Non habebunt de quo transfigurentur? Atquin, cum illis, dicit, simul rapiemur in nubibus obviam Domino. Si cum illis sublati, utique cum illis et transfigurati.

from the Law, but that which is through Him, that is, Christ, from God. "Therefore," you say, "by this distinction the Law was not from the God of Christ." Subtle enough. Take, then, something subtler. For when he says, Not that which is from the law, but that which is through Him, he would not have said through Him of any other than the one whose the law was. Our citizenship, he says, is in the heavens. I recognize the ancient promise of the Creator to Abraham (Gen. 22:17): And I will make your seed as the stars in heaven. Therefore also star differs from star in glory. But if Christ, coming from the heavens, will transfigure the body of our lowliness, conformed to the body of His glory, then this body of ours will rise again, which is humbled in sufferings and, by the very law of death, cast down into the earth. For how will He transfigure it, if it is to be nothing? Or if this is said of those who, overtaken in the flesh at the coming of God, will have to be assigned [to that change], what will those do who will rise first? Will they not have anything from which to be transfigured? And yet, together with them, he says, we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord. If [we are] taken up with them, then certainly [we are] also transfigured with them.

CAPUT XXI.

Chapter XXI.

(In. Epist. ad Philem.). Soli huic Epistolae brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet. Miror tamen, cum ad unum hominem litteras factas receperit, quid ad Thimotheum duas, et unam ad Titum, de ecclesiastico statu compositas recusaverit. Adfectavit, opinor, etiam numerum Epistolarum interpolare. Memento, inspector, quod ea quae pertractata sunt, retro de Apostolo quoque probaverimus: et si qua in hoc opus dilata erant, expunxerimus; ne aut hic supervacuam existimes iterationem, qua confirmavimus spem pristinam, aut illic suspectam habeas dilationem, qua eruimus tempora ista. Si totum opusculum inspexeris, nec hic redundantiam, nec illic diffidentiam judicabis.

(On the Epistle to Philemon.) To this Epistle alone did its brevity bring benefit, so that it escaped the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, why, since he accepted a letter written to one man, he rejected the two to Timothy and the one to Titus, composed concerning the order of the church. He aimed, I suppose, at interpolating even the number of the Epistles. Remember, reader, that the matters which have been treated we have also proved earlier from the Apostle, and that whatever had been deferred to this work we have discharged; so that you may neither judge here a superfluous repetition, by which we have confirmed our former hope, nor hold there as suspect a deferral, by which we have drawn out these present times. If you inspect the whole little work, you will judge neither redundancy here nor lack of confidence there.

Editors' notes and page, col. 556

Footnotes

(55) ‹anchor: qua eruimus tempora ista. Si› · call in col 556 (the note's number is printed like "86" in the foot)

Sed Fran.

The Franeker edition reads "sed".

Commentarius

(printed under page 282)

(68) ‹anchor: probaverimus› · call in col 556

Expunxerimus. Hoc est, Ex debito absolverimus, praestiterimusque. Sic lib. IV praecedente: Et si commemoremur, inquit, promissionis Moysi, hic invenietur expuncta. Rhen.

"We shall have discharged." That is, we shall have paid off as a debt and made good. So in the preceding Book IV: "And if we are reminded," he says, "of the promise of Moses, it will be found discharged here." Rhenanus.

(printed under page 282)