PL 2 · cols. 175–220

Tertullian, Liber adversus Praxean

Editors' preface

PL 2:175

Q. SEPT. FLOR. TERTULLIANI.

OF Q. SEPT[IMIUS] FLOR[ENS] TERTULLIAN

LIBER

BOOK

ADVERSUS PRAXEAM.

AGAINST PRAXEAS.

ARGUMENTUM. — Praxeas Phryx ex asia oriundus, fidei causa in carcerem conjectus olim, ob cujus aerumnas, non admodum memorandas, animo multum intumuerat; de Ecclesia tamen egregie meritus erat; cum enim Pontifex (Eleutherius aliis, aliis Victor dicitur) Montanistas, qui in transmissa fidei professione catholicos se ferebant, jamjam communionis litteris donare vellet, Praxeas ex Asia tum adventans vulgatos ea in provincia Montanistarum errores aperuit, effecitque, ne homines illi pontifici optimo illuderent; suus demum fastus miserum perdidit: dum enim martyris titulis nunquam non gloriatur, communem cum superbis omnibus sortitus est exitum, novae sectae infelix conditor; unum enim Deum ita agnovit, ut omnem personarum distinctionem tolleret, asseverare ausus, ipsum Patrem carnem sumpsisse, in crucem actum, et ad suam hodie dexteram considere. Sectatores illius Patropassiani aut Monarchici dicti, quod unam duntaxat sanctissimae Trinitatis personam statuerent.

ARGUMENT. — Praxeas, a Phrygian born in Asia, was once cast into prison for the sake of the faith, and on account of the hardships he suffered there, which were not especially memorable, he had grown greatly puffed up in spirit; yet he had deserved exceedingly well of the Church; for when the Pontiff (said by some to be Eleutherius, by others Victor) was on the very point of granting letters of communion to the Montanists, who in the profession of faith they had sent represented themselves as catholics, Praxeas, arriving from Asia at that time, laid open the errors of the Montanists that were current in that province, and brought it about that those men should not make sport of that excellent pontiff; in the end his own pride ruined the wretched man: for while he never ceased to boast of his titles as a martyr, he met the end common to all the proud, the unhappy founder of a new sect; for he acknowledged one God in such a way as to take away every distinction of persons, daring to assert that the Father Himself took flesh, was driven to the cross, and sits today at His own right hand. His followers were called Patripassians or Monarchians, because they posited only one person of the most holy Trinity.

Editors' notes and page, col. 175

Footnotes

NOTE: the foot images begin at the very end of the Variae lectiones; the variants themselves stand above the crop, but are printed in full on the column images (c175_2, c176_2). Q1b: variants 36 and 37, called in this column, are set below from those images; variants 38–43, called in col. 176, are set in n176 (the closing "Fran." on the foot images is the tail of variant 43). Below the notes, the page carries the title and Argumentum of Adversus Praxeam: that is editor's matter belonging to the next unit, not footnotes, so it is not set here. Variae lectiones (numeral calls) [var. 36] ‹Commentarii› Commentari Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

"Commentari": Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

[var. 37] ‹sensissent› Scissent cod. Agobard.

"Scissent" (they had known): the Agobard codex.

Commentarius (bracketed numeral calls; the numbering starts again at 1) (printed under page 92) (1) ‹call not on this foot› (printed under page 92) (1) Et si fidem commentarii voluerit haereticus. Hoc est, si ex publicorum etiam archivorum fide doceri voluerit. Sic lib. de Idololatria: « Volunt scilicet tempus persecutionis, et locum tribunalis, etc. » RIG.

"And if the heretic wants the evidence of the record": that is, if he wants to be shown even from the evidence of the public archives. So in the book On Idolatry: "They want, of course, the time of the persecution and the place of the tribunal, etc." Rigault.

(printed under page 92) (2) ‹call not on this foot› (printed under page 92) (2) Non in terris esse confitendum apud homines. Hi quoque sunt aculei scorpiorum, ut supra.

"That confession is not to be made on earth before men." These too are stings of the scorpions, as above.

(printed under page 92) (3) ‹call not on this foot› (printed under page 92)

(3) Quod audierat a Domino diabolus. Imo, ipse Petrus, Matth. XVI, 23. Sed aliquis erga Petrum affectu Matthaei narrationem sic accipi voluit, quasi ea verba, propter quae Petrum Christus increpat, non tam ipse Petrus protulisset, quam per os Petri diabolus. Enimvero Chrysostomus, ut in manifesta re, aperte contradicit: Οὐκ εἶπεν, Ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐφθέγξατο διὰ σοῦ, ἀλλ' Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ· καὶ γὰρ ἐπιθυμία ἦν τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, τὸ μὴ παθεῖν τὸν Χριστόν. RIG.

"What the devil had heard from the Lord." Rather, Peter himself, Matthew 16:23. But someone, out of affection for Peter, wanted Matthew's account to be taken as though the words for which Christ rebukes Peter were uttered not so much by Peter himself as by the devil through Peter's mouth. But Chrysostom, as in a plain matter, openly contradicts this: "He did not say, 'Satan spoke through you,' but 'Get behind me, Satan'; for it was the adversary's desire that Christ should not suffer." Rigault.

(printed under page 92) (4) ‹call not on this foot› (printed under page 92) (4) Scriptum est: Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, etc. Haec ita se habent in exemplari, quae tamen haud faciunt quidquam ad Tertulliani propositum, et opinamur insita fuisse eadem manu, qua praecedens increpatio detorta in diabolum, ablato nomine Petri. RIG.

"It is written: You shall worship the Lord your God, etc." So these words stand in the exemplar; yet they contribute nothing to Tertullian's purpose, and we think they were inserted by the same hand by which the preceding rebuke was twisted onto the devil and Peter's name removed. Rigault.

(printed under page 92) (5) ‹call not on this foot› (printed under page 92) (5) Nulli infirmorum facile nisi nocitura. Nulli facile nisi, pro, Nulli non facile nocitura. Sic loqui placuit Septimio. RIG.

"To none of the weak easily, except to harm." "Nulli facile nisi" stands for "nulli non facile nocitura" (likely to harm every one of them easily). So it pleased Septimius to speak. Rigault.

(printed under page 92)

Page

running head: 175 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 176 (spread across the page; column numbers 175 and 176)
marginal letters: A ‹sunt. Et si fidem›; B ‹oraverunt. Ille enim›; C (none); D (none)
old-edition numerals: 152 after ‹an›
other: page shared with PL002/scorpiace; this file is a copy of its notes (QA keeps this unit's own)

PL 2:176

Praestantissimum, quod certe post lapsum suum scripsit, est illud contra Praxeam, quo fidem Trinitatis suscipit defendendam, de hac etenim Montanistae ab Ecclesia catholica non dissidebant. Vocabulo Trinitatis hoc in opere Septimius expresse utitur, et fraudem patefacit haereticorum monarchiae nomen usurpantium

The most excellent [work] that he wrote, certainly after his fall, is that against Praxeas, in which he undertakes the defence of the faith of the Trinity, for on this the Montanists did not dissent from the Catholic Church. In this work Septimius expressly uses the word Trinity, and lays bare the fraud of the heretics who usurp the name of monarchy

Editors' notes and page, col. 176

Footnotes

NOTE (Q1b): the Commentarius (2)–(5), called in this column, is set with page 92's notes in n175. Variants 38–43, called here, are printed on the column image (c176_2) and were not set; they are set below. Variae lectiones (numeral calls) [var. 38] ‹tentaverant› Tentaverunt Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

"Tentaverunt" (they tried): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

[var. 39] ‹confitendum› Conandum Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

"Conandum" (to be attempted): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

[var. 40] ‹ne› Homines, quod nec Seml.

"Homines, quod nec" (men, which not even): Semler.

[var. 41] ‹ista› Illa Fran.

"Illa" (those): the Franeker edition.

[var. 42] ‹nisi› Nisi inser. Rig.

"Nisi" (except) is inserted by Rigault.

[var. 43] ‹ex› Ea Fran.

"Ea" (that): the Franeker edition.

Page

running head: 175 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 176 (spread across the page; column numbers 175 and 176)
marginal letters: A ‹mini (Act. XXI, 13, 14)›; B ‹multo post, venena ista›; C (none); D (none)
old-edition numerals: 153 after ‹scandalum›; 154 after ‹ista›
misprint kept as printed (Q1b): "Matth. XXVI, 23" for XVI, 23 (the rebuke of Peter is Matt. 16:23, as the Commentarius (3) gives it); the English gives Matt. 16:23.
other: page shared with PL002/scorpiace; this file is a copy of its notes (QA keeps this unit's own)

PL 2:177

ut unicum omnipotentem mundi creatorem se vindicare rudioribus suadeant, dum interim de unico haeresin faciunt. Ut Patris et Filii personarum distinctionem evincat, Oportet, inquit, totum de Filio examinari, an sit, et qui sit et quomodo sit... Ante omnia Deus erat solus, quia nihil aliud extrinsecus praeter illum... Caeterum ne tunc quidem solus; habebat enim secum rationem suam, verbum, sapientiam: quam postea ad extra emisit, et factus est sermo exterior. Sermonem appellandum censet Verbum Dei Tertullianus, solum post extrinsecam ejus prolationem, seu manifestationem in universi creatione factam juxta antiquissimorum theologorum loquendi phrasin et modum; fatetur tamen Sermonem in primordio apud Deum fuisse. Nam etsi Deus nondum Sermonem suum miserat, proinde eum cum ipsa et in ipsa ratione intra semetipsum habebat tacite cogitando et disponendo secum, quae per Sermonem mox erat dicturus. Ex quo patescit quo in sensu alibi dixerit: Fuit autem tempus, cum et delictum et Filius non fuit, videlicet quantum ad externam per creationem rerum manifestationem, praesertim cum dixit: Fiat lux: nam quantum ad generationem ad intra semper fuit cum Deo Patre Filius ejus Verbum et sapientia. Ostendit insuper Tertullianus, Filium ex Patris esse substantia et Spiritum sanctum a Patre per Filium procedere; Verbum, quod ab omni aeternitate erat apud Deum, quodque quasi ex eo ad creandum et regendum mundum exiit, personam esse subsistentem, quae tamen et varia a Patris substantia non est; inde non sequi duos esse Deos et duos Dominos; Filium, non Patrem, factum hominem, nec desiisse Deum esse, adeo ut naturae humanae idiomata in Christo inventa fuerint. Uno verbo, perspicue in hoc tractatu Ecclesiae fidem de Trinitatis necnon Incarnationis mysteriis explanat. LUMP.

that they may persuade the less instructed that they are upholding one only almighty Creator of the world, while meanwhile they make a heresy out of the one. To establish the distinction of the persons of the Father and the Son, "It is necessary," he says, "that everything about the Son be examined: whether He is, and who He is, and how He is... Before all things God was alone, because there was nothing else outside besides Him... Yet not even then was He alone; for He had with Him His own reason, the word, wisdom: which He afterwards sent forth outward, and the outward discourse was made." Tertullian holds that the Word of God is to be called Discourse only after His outward utterance, or the manifestation made in the creation of the universe, following the phrasing and manner of speaking of the most ancient theologians; yet he admits that the Discourse was in the beginning with God. "For although God had not yet sent forth His Discourse, nevertheless He had Him with and in that very reason within Himself, silently thinking and disposing with Himself the things He was soon to say through the Discourse." From which it becomes plain in what sense he said elsewhere: "But there was a time when there was neither sin nor the Son," namely as regards the outward manifestation through the creation of things, especially when He said: "Let there be light"; for as regards the generation within, His Son, the Word and wisdom, was always with God the Father. Tertullian shows moreover that the Son is of the Father's substance and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son; that the Word, which was with God from all eternity, and which as it were went out from Him to create and govern the world, is a subsisting person, which nevertheless is not different from the Father's substance; that it does not follow from this that there are two Gods and two Lords; that the Son, not the Father, was made man, and did not cease to be God, so that the properties of human nature were found in Christ. In a word, in this treatise he clearly sets out the faith of the Church on the mysteries of the Trinity and of the Incarnation. LUMPER.

CAPUT PRIMUM

CHAPTER I

Varie diabolus aemulatus est veritatem. Affectavit illam aliquando defendendo concutere. Unicum Dominum vindicat omnipotentem mundi conditorem, ut et de unico haeresim faciat. Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in Virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum, denique ipsum esse Jesum Christum. Excidit sibi coluber, quia Jesum Christum post baptisma Joannis tentans, ut Filium Dei aggressus est; certus Filium Deum habere, vel ex ipsis Scripturis de quibus tunc tentationem struebat: Si tu es Filius Dei, dic ut lapides isti panes fiant; item: Si tu es Filius Dei, dejice te hinc: scriptum est enim, quod mandavit angelis suis super te (utique Pater) ut te manibus suis tollant, necubi ad lapidem pedem tuum offendas (Matth. IV, 3-6; Psal. XC, 11). Aut nunquid mendacium Evangeliis exprobravit, dicens:

In various ways has the devil rivalled the truth. He has sometimes aimed to shake it by defending it. He upholds one only Lord, the almighty Founder of the world, so as to make a heresy even out of the one. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, in short that He Himself is Jesus Christ. The serpent forgot himself, since in tempting Jesus Christ after the baptism of John he attacked Him as the Son of God; sure that God had a Son, if only from the very Scriptures out of which he was then building his temptation: "If Thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become bread"; again: "If Thou art the Son of God, cast Thyself down from here: for it is written that He has given His angels charge concerning Thee" (the Father, of course) "that they may lift Thee up in their hands, lest Thou dash Thy foot against a stone" (Matt. 4:3–6; Ps. 90:11). Or did he perhaps reproach the Gospels with a lie, saying:

Editors' notes and page, col. 177

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 93)

(1) ‹anchor: descendisse in Virginem› · call in col 177

Virgine Seml.

Virgine (ablative, "in the Virgin"): Semler.

(printed under page 93)

(2) ‹anchor: quod mandavit› · call in col 177

Mandabit alii.

Mandabit ("he will command"): others.

(printed under page 93)

(3) ‹anchor: mendacium Evangeliis exprobravit› · call in col 177

Exprobrabit Fran. Paris.

Exprobrabit ("will he reproach"): the Franeker and Paris editions.

(printed under page 93)

(4) ‹anchor: call not printed in col 177; it stands in col 178 (its opening lines, near "tentavi"), and belongs in n178, which lacks it› · call in col 178

Tentasse Wouw.

Tentasse ("to have tempted"): Wouwer.

(printed under page 93)

Page

running head: LIBER ADV. PRAXE (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A Varie diabolus aemulatus est veritatem; B tuum offendas (Matth. IV, 3-6; C videatur. Illud certe gravius (in the editors' commentary)
old-edition numerals: 155 after aggressus est;
other: the word dicens was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 178
other: above CAPUT PRIMUM the page prints, across the full width (over cols 177 and 178), the close of the editors' Argumentum continued from page 92 (ending "LUMP."); it is not set in this part (editors' matter; check that the unit's head carries it whole)
running head: 177 LIBER ADV. PRAXEAM. 178
marginal letters: A ‹beside CAPUT PRIMUM / cens : « Viderit Matthaeus›; B ‹tuum offendas (Matth. / agnitione pacem›; C ‹in the Commentarius only: Paraclectum agnovit / cis seu communicationis›; D (none)
old-edition numerals: 155 before certus
other: The opening paragraph (to LUMP.) is the close of the editors' Argumentum (Lumper), printed full-width across the head of page 93: editors' matter, set as instructed. "dicens" is hyphenated di-/cens across into col. 178 on this page and is set whole here. In the Argumentum's quotation of Tertullian the verb set to the Word is "emisit" (here rendered "sent forth"); "varia" (different) as printed. Thou/Thee/Thy in the tempter's words to Christ, including the Psalm verse he applies to Christ, follow the capitalisation rule for God and Christ (Q2: the Psalm pronouns, earlier lower-case, capitalised). Variae lectiones 5 and 6 and Commentarius (1)–(2) are called in col. 178 and belong to n178.
other (Q2): the right half of the full-width Argumentum lines stands on col. 178's images, which this read did not have; only the left half was collated against the page.

PL 2:178

« Viderit Matthaeus et Lucas: caeterum ego ad ipsum Deum accessi, ipsum omnipotentem cominus tentavi. Ideo et accessi, ideo et tentavi. Caeterum si Filius Dei esset, nunquam illum fortasse dignarer? » Sed enim ipse potius a primordio mendax est (I Joan. III, 8); et si quem hominem de suo subornaverit, ut Praxeam. Nam iste primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romae; homo et alias inquietus, insuper de jactatione martyrii inflatus, ob solum et simplex et breve carceris taedium; quando et si corpus suum tradidisset exurendum, nihil profecisset, dilectionem Dei non habens (I Cor. XIII, 3), cujus charismata quoque expugnavit. Nam idem tunc episcopum Romanum, agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ex ea agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum asseverando,

"Let Matthew and Luke see to it: for my part I approached God Himself, I tempted the Almighty Himself face to face. That is why I approached, that is why I tempted. Otherwise, if He were the Son of God, perhaps I would never have deigned to notice Him?" But no: rather he himself is a liar from the beginning (1 John 3:8); and so is any man he has suborned from his own, like Praxeas. For this man was the first to bring this kind of perversity from Asia to Rome; a man restless in other ways too, and moreover puffed up with boasting of martyrdom, on account of a mere, simple and brief irksomeness of prison; when even if he had handed over his body to be burned, he would have profited nothing, not having the love of God (1 Cor. 13:3), whose gifts of grace he also fought against. For the bishop of Rome of that time, who was already acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla, and in consequence of that acknowledgement was bestowing peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, this same man, by asserting falsehoods about the prophets themselves and their churches,

Editors' notes and page, col. 178

Footnotes

(4) ‹anchor: illum fortasse dignarer› · call in col 178

Tentasse Wouw.

Tentasse ("to have tempted", for fortasse): Wouwer.

(printed under page 93)

(5) ‹anchor: de suo subornaverit› · call in col 178

Subornavit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Subornavit ("he suborned"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 93)

(6) ‹anchor: intulit Romae (1); homo› · call in col 178

Intulit homo. Et Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

"Brought in, a man. And [besides restless …]": Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

Commentarius

(printed under page 93)

(1) ‹anchor: perversitatis intulit Romae› · call in col 178

Intulit Romae homo, etc. Intelligit provincias urbi Romanae viciniores. Alioqui ipsa Asia partim romanum agnoscebat imperium. RHEN.

A man brought into Rome, etc. He means the provinces nearer the city of Rome. Otherwise Asia itself in part acknowledged the Roman empire. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 93)

(2) ‹anchor: prophetias Montani› · call in col 178

Episcopum romanum agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani. Haereses Tertulliani quae dicuntur, eae vix aliud praecipiebant quam martyria fortiora, jejunia sicciora, castimoniam sanctiorem, nuptias scilicet unas, aut nullas. In quibus quidquid peccavit, id omne virtutis amore vehementiore peccasse videatur. Illud certe gravius, quod Montani Paracletum agnovit atque defendit. Sed Montani schola, sicut et Baronius observat, aliquandiu stetit innoxia, discipulos habuit adeo morum sanctitate commendabiles, benefica miraculorum potentia reverendos, martyriorum constantia fortes, ut nemo praesentiores alibi numinis vires agnosceret. Et vero recte doctissisimus cardinalis censuit Anicetum tunc pontificem romanum in hominibus nihil adhuc a fidei regula dissentientibus haec divini Spiritus charismata agnovisse, eorum ecclesiis pacem intulisse, atque, ut ait Tertullianus, pacis litteras misisse, neque est quod suspicemur Tertullianum, virum gravem, etsi tunc Montani partibus addictum, in historia tam recenti tamque manifesta, inque opere quod adversus Praxean haereticum pro fidei catholicae articulo inter praecipuos nobili, componebat, mentiri voluisse; cum praesertim mendacio splendido, ac statim facile confutando, pretium nullum. Ergo Praxeas ille, qualis a Tertulliano depingitur, fictis apud pontificem causis, adeoque imminutae auctoritatis pontificiae criminationibus, Montani discipulos onerare non destitit, donec pacis seu communicationis litterae jam, uti diximus, emissae revocarentur. Quare nonnulli fortean plus aequo offensi indignatique, Montanum suum in tantum extollere ac praedicare coeperunt, ut dicerent, in apostolis quidem Spiritum sanctum fuisse, Paracletum non fuisse; et Paracletum illum suum plura in Montano dixisse, quam in Evangelio Christi; nec tantum plura, sed etiam meliora atque majora. Haec nimirum de iis legimus, qui Secundum Phrygas dicuntur in Catalogo haereticorum, qui Tertulliani libro De Praescriptione vulgo adnecti solet. Quae satis arguunt, Phrygas istos Montano suo multa, quae ipse sibi nunquam arrogaverit, tribuisse. Unde verosimile fiat, Montani dogma, quale exstitit, pri- (continues)

The Roman bishop, already acknowledging the prophecies of Montanus. The so-called heresies of Tertullian taught scarcely anything other than braver martyrdoms, drier fasts, holier chastity — that is, one marriage or none. Whatever he sinned in these, he may be seen to have sinned wholly from a too vehement love of virtue. Graver, certainly, is that he acknowledged and defended the Paraclete of Montanus. But the school of Montanus, as Baronius also observes, stood harmless for some time; it had disciples so commendable for holiness of life, so venerable for the beneficent power of miracles, so strong in the constancy of martyrdom, that no one would recognize a more present power of the godhead anywhere else. And indeed the most learned cardinal rightly judged that Anicetus, then Roman pontiff, acknowledged these gifts of the divine Spirit in men who as yet dissented in nothing from the rule of faith, granted peace to their churches, and, as Tertullian says, sent letters of peace; nor is there reason to suspect that Tertullian, a grave man, though then given over to Montanus's party, wished to lie about a history so recent and so plain, and in a work which he was composing against the heretic Praxeas on behalf of an article of the Catholic faith notable among the chief ones; especially since a showy lie, and one at once easily refuted, gains nothing. So that Praxeas, such as Tertullian paints him, by false pleas before the pontiff, and so by charges of diminishing the pontifical authority, did not cease to burden the disciples of Montanus until the letters of peace or communion, already sent, as we have said, were recalled. Hence some, offended and indignant perhaps more than was fair, began to extol and proclaim their Montanus to such a degree as to say that the Holy Spirit indeed was in the apostles, but not the Paraclete; and that this Paraclete of theirs said more in Montanus than in the Gospel of Christ; and not only more, but better and greater things. This, indeed, we read of those called "Kata Phrygas" in the Catalogue of Heretics that is commonly appended to Tertullian's book De Praescriptione. Which shows well enough that these Phrygians attributed to their Montanus many things he never claimed for himself. Whence it may become likely that the teaching of Montanus, such as it was, at fir- (continues)

(printed under page 93)

Page

running head: ...R ADV. PRAXEAM. 178 (left part of head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A cens : « Viderit Matthaeus; B agnitione pacem Ecclesiis; C cis seu communicationis litterae (in the Commentarius notes, not set); D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the word asseverando, was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 179
running head: 177 LIBER ADV. PRAXEAM. 178
marginal letters: A ‹cens : « Viderit Matthaeus et Lucas›; B ‹agnitione pacem Ecclesiis Asiae›; C ‹in the Commentarius only: cis seu communicationis litterae›; D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
misprints kept as printed: ‹doctissisimus› (Commentarius note 2, for doctissimus)

PL 2:179

et praecessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit et litteras pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit: prophetiam expulit, et haeresim intulit; Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit. Fructivaverant avenae praxeanae, hic quoque superseminatae, dormientibus multis (Matth. XIII, 26) in simplicitate doctrinae; traductae dehinc per quem Deus voluit, etiam evulsae videbantur. Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua; et manet chirographum apud Psychicos, apud quos tunc gesta res est, exinde silentium. Et nos quidem postea agnitio Paracleti, atque defensio, disjunxit a Psychicis. Avenae vero illae utique tunc semen excusserant. Ita aliquandiu per hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit, et nunc denuo erupit. Sed et denuo eradicabitur, si voluerit Dominus in isto commeatu; si quo minus, die suo colligentur omnes adulterae fruges, et cum caeteris scandalis igni inextinguibili cremabuntur (Ibid.).

and by defending the authorities of his predecessors, compelled him both to recall the letters of peace already sent out and to desist from his purpose of receiving the gifts. Thus Praxeas managed two pieces of the devil's business at Rome: he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy; he put the Paraclete to flight and crucified the Father. The wild oats of Praxeas had borne fruit, sown over [the good seed] here too, while many slept (Matt. 13:26) in simplicity of doctrine; then, exposed through him whom God willed, they even seemed to have been plucked out. Indeed the teacher, as a teacher of the former [doctrine], had given a written pledge of his amendment, and the signed document remains with the Psychics, among whom the affair was then transacted; from then on, silence. And as for us, the recognition and defence of the Paraclete afterwards separated us from the Psychics. But those wild oats had certainly by then shaken out their seed. So for a while it lay hidden through hypocrisy with crafty vitality, and now it has broken out anew. But it will also be rooted out anew, if the Lord wills, in this interval of time; if otherwise, on its day all the adulterate crops will be gathered, and with the other stumbling-blocks will be burned in unquenchable fire (ibid.).

CAPUT II.

Chapter II.

Itaque post tempus Pater natus, et Pater passus, ipse Deus, Dominus omnipotens, Jesus Christus praedicatur. Nos vero et semper, et nunc magis, ut instructiores per Paracletum deductorem scilicet omnis veritatis, unicum quidem Deum credimus: sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam oeconomiam dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Filius Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil (Joan. I, 3): hunc missum a Patre in Virginem, et ex ea natum hominem et Deum, Filium hominis et Filium Dei, et cognominatum Jesum Christum: hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum Scripturas, et resuscitatum a Patre, et in coelos resumptum, sedere ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos

Accordingly, after a time, the Father is preached as born and the Father as having suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, Jesus Christ. We, however, both always and now the more, as better instructed through the Paraclete, namely the Guide into all truth, believe indeed in one only God, yet under this dispensation, which we call the economy, that the one only God has also a Son, His Word, Who proceeded from Himself, through Whom all things were made and without Whom nothing was made (John 1:3); that He was sent by the Father into the Virgin, and was born of her, man and God, Son of man and Son of God, and was surnamed Jesus Christ; that He suffered, that He died and was buried according to the Scriptures, and was raised again by the Father, and taken back up into the heavens, that He sits at the right hand of the Father, that He will come to judge the living

Editors' notes and page, col. 179

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 94)

(7) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179

Fructificaverant Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Fructificaverant ("had borne fruit"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 94)

(8) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179

Physicos, item infra physicis alii sed vitiose

Physicos, and likewise below physicis: others, but wrongly.

(printed under page 94)

(9) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179

Ubique Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Ubique ("everywhere"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 94)

(10) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179

Quo si Jun.

Quo si: Junius.

(printed under page 94)

(11) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179

Adultae Petr. Ciaccon.

Adultae ("grown"): Pedro Chacón (Ciacconius).

(printed under page 94)

(12) ‹anchor: et in coelos› · call in col 179

Coelo Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Coelo (ablative, "in heaven"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 94)

(3) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179

Negotia. Ludit circa nomen Praxeas, quod a graeco πράσσειν derivari potuit: ita Semler. EDD.

Negotia ("affairs, business"). He plays on the name Praxeas, which could be derived from the Greek πράσσειν ("to do"): so Semler. EDITORS.

(printed under page 94)

(4) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179

Denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua. Praxeas mutata sententia pristinam doctrinam, hoc est, veterem et veram colebat, adeoque docebat; imo et per chirographum de emendatione sua caverat. « Pristinum doctor, ut caetera Graius. » RIG.

Finally he had given a pledge of his amendment, a teacher of the former [doctrine]. Praxeas, having changed his opinion, was cultivating the former doctrine, that is, the old and true, and so was teaching it; indeed, he had even given a pledge of his amendment in a handwritten bond. "Pristinum doctor", like "caetera Graius". RIGAULT.

(printed under page 94)

(5) ‹anchor: instructiores per Paracletum› · call in col 179

Instructiores per Paracletum. Recte annotat Rhenanus loqui illum de Paracleto Montani, cui etiam perperam applicat illud Joan. XVI, 13: Deductorem omnis veritatis. PAM.

Better instructed through the Paraclete. Rhenanus rightly notes that he is speaking of the Paraclete of Montanus, to whom he also wrongly applies John 16:13: Guide into all truth. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 94)

(6) ‹anchor: ex ipso processerit› · call in col 179

Ut unici Dei sit et filius sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit. Procedendi verbum Filio tribuit, quod Ecclesia Spiritui sancto proprium fecit. RIG.

That the one only God has also a Son, his Word, who has proceeded from him. He attributes to the Son the verb "to proceed", which the Church has made proper to the Holy Spirit. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 94)

(7) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179 or 180

Ante Praxeam hesternum. Sic Persius dixit, Hesternos Quirites, hoc est, novos, nuperos. RIG.

Before yesterday's Praxeas. So Persius said, yesterday's Romans, that is, new, recent. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 94)

(8) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 179 or 180

Id esse verum quodcunque primum. Nempe principio sumpto unde coepit veritas. Sic, libro de Praescr. haereticor.: « Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum et verum, quod sit prius traditum. » RIG.

That whatever is first is true. That is, taking the beginning from which the truth began. So in the book On the Prescription of Heretics: "Thus from the very order it is made plain that what was handed down first is the Lord's and true." RIGAULT.

(printed under page 94)

Page

running head: 179 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS. II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A severando, et praecessorum; B utique tunc semen excusserant; C cet omnis veritatis; D mordio quidem sui christianis (beside editors' Commentarius)
old-edition numerals: 156 after proposito; 157 after et (before sine quo factum)
other: column begins with word fragment "severando" broken from previous column (as-/adseverando); Fructivaverant kept as printed (Variae lectiones give Fructificaverant); right-hand column (col. 180) visible but not set; Variae lectiones and editors' Commentarius at page foot not set; running head cut off at right edge

PL 2:180

et mortuos, qui exinde miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a Patre Spiritum sanctum Paracletum, sanctificatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Hanc regulam ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, etiam ante priores quosque haereticos, nedum ante Praxeam hesterum, probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium haereticorum, quam ipsa novellitas Praxeae hesterni. Quo peraeque adversus universas haereses jam hinc praejudicatum sit, id esse verum, quodcunque primum; id esse adulterum, quodcunque posterius. Sed salva ista praescriptione, utique tamen propter instructionem et munitionem quorumdam, dandus est etiam retractatibus locus: vel ne videatur unaquaeque perversitas, non examinata, sed praejudicata damnari, maxime haec, quae se existimat meram veritatem possidere, dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum eumdemque et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum dicat: quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per substantiae scilicet unitatem; et nihilominus custodiatur oeconomiae sacramentum, quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum. Tres autem non statu, sed gradu; nec substantia, sed forma; nec potestate, sed specie: unius autem substantiae, et unius status, et unius potestatis; quia unus Deus, ex quo et gradus isti et formae et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti deputantur. Quomodo autem numerum sine divisione patiuntur, procedentes retractatus demonstrabunt.

and the dead; Who thence sent, according to His promise, from the Father the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. That this rule has come down from the beginning of the Gospel, even before all the earlier heretics, much more before Praxeas of yesterday, will be proved both by the very lateness of all heretics and by the very novelty of Praxeas of yesterday. By this let it be prejudged from now on equally against all heresies that whatever is first is true, and whatever is later is adulterated. But, this prescription remaining intact, nevertheless for the sake of the instruction and fortification of certain people room must also be given to further discussion: if only so that each perversity may not seem to be condemned not examined but prejudged, especially this one, which thinks it possesses the pure truth while it supposes that the one only God cannot be believed otherwise than by saying that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame; as though even so the One were not all, while all are from the One, namely through unity of substance; and nonetheless the mystery of the economy is guarded, which disposes the unity into a trinity, setting in order three, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three, however, not in condition but in degree; not in substance but in form; not in power but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power; because there is one God, from Whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned under the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How, moreover, they admit number without division, the discussions that follow will show.

CAPUT III.

Chapter III.

Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae major semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis saeculi ad unicum et Deum verum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidem, sed cum sua oeconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam. Numerum et dispositionem trinitatis, divi-

For the simple folk, not to say the imprudent and unlearned, who are always the greater part of believers, since the very rule of faith transfers [them] from the many gods of the world to the one and true God, not understanding that He is indeed to be believed one, but together with His economy, take fright at the economy. The number and disposition of the trinity, divi-

Editors' notes and page, col. 180

Footnotes

(13) ‹anchor: Quomodo autem› · call in col 180

Autem demit. Seml. post Rhen.

Semler, following Rhenanus, drops autem.

(printed under page 94)

(14) ‹anchor: procedentes retractatus› · call in col 180

Tractatus Seml.

Tractatus ("treatments"): Semler.

Commentarius

(continued) mordio quidem sui christianis austerioribus probabili, Tertullianum tenuisse; non quale postea, cum sequacium quorumdam imposturis et fraudibus, seu Phrygia interpolatum, ab Ecclesiis passim catholicis despui coepit. Denique Tertullianum Secundum-Phrygas desipuisse unquam, scripta ejus quae exstant non persuadent; quae autem intercidere, ea cum exstarent, neque Cypriano neque Hieronymo persuasisse videntur. RIG.

(printed under page 94)

(7) ‹anchor: ante Praxeam hesterum› · call in col 180

Ante Praxeam hesternum. Sic Persius dixit, Hesternos Quirites, hoc est, novos, nuperos. RIG.

"Before Praxeas of yesterday." So Persius said "yesterday's Quirites", that is, new, recent. Rigault.

(printed under page 94)

(8) ‹anchor: quodcunque primum› · call in col 180

Id esse verum quodcunque primum. Nempe principio sumpto unde coepit veritas. Sic, libro de Praescr. haereticor.: « Ita ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse Dominicum et verum, quod sit prius traditum. » RIG.

"That whatever is first is true." That is, taking as the starting point the place where the truth began. So in the book On the Prescription of Heretics: "Thus from the very order it is made plain that that is the Lord's and true which was handed down earlier." Rigault.

(printed under page 94)

Page

running head: I PARS. II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 180 (left part cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A et mortuos, qui exinde; B maxime haec, quae se; C autem numerum sine divisione; D Graius. » Rig. (in the Commentarius notes)
old-edition numerals: 158 after saeculi
misprint kept as printed (Q2): "hesterum" for hesternum (ante Praxeam hesterum; the Commentarius (7) lemma and the next sentence's "hesterni" give the right form); the English reads "of yesterday".
other (Q2): the column ends on "divi-", hyphenated into col. 181 (a fresh column on the next page); the word is not completed here because this read did not see col. 181's head. The settle step should set it whole at the end of this column (most likely "divisionem") and drop the tail from col. 181.

PL 2:181

praesumunt unitatis; quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem, non destruatur ab illa, sed administretur. Itaque duos et tres jam jactitant a nobis praedicari, se vero unius Dei cultores praesumunt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta, haeresim faciat; et trinitas rationaliter expensa, veritatem constituat. Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. Et ita sonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam Opici, ut putes illos tam bene intelligere monarchiam, quam enuntiant. Sed monarchiam sonare student Latini, oeconomiam intelligere nolunt etiam Graeci. At ego, si utriusque linguae praecerpsi, monarchiam nihil aliud significare scio, quam singulare et unicum imperium; non tamen praescribere monarchiam, ideo, quia unius sit, eum cujus sit, aut filium non habere, aut ipsum se sibi filium fecisse, aut monarchiam suam non per quos velit administrare. Atquin nullam dico dominationem ita unius sui esse, ita singularem, ita monarchiam, ut non etiam per alias proximas personas administretur, quas ipsa prospexerit officiales sibi. Si vero et filius fuerit ei, cujus monarchia sit, non statim dividi eam, et monarchiam esse desinere, si particeps ejus assumatur et filius: sed proinde illius esse principaliter a quo communicatur in filium; et dum illius est, proinde monarchiam esse, quae a duobus tam unicis continetur. Igitur si et monarchia divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur, sicut scriptum est: Millies millia assistebant ei, et millies centena millia apparebant ei (Dan. VII, 10); nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, quia per tanta millia virtutum procuratur: quale est ut Deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in Filio et in Spiritu sancto, secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiae Patris, quas non patitur in tot angelorum numero, et quidem tam a substantia alienis. Membra, et pignora, et instrumenta, et ipsam vim, ac totum censum monarchiae,

presume a division of the unity; whereas the unity, deriving the trinity from its very self, is not destroyed by it but administered. And so they now bandy it about that two and three are preached by us, while they presume themselves to be worshippers of one God, as if the unity too, gathered irrationally, did not make a heresy, and the trinity, weighed rationally, did not constitute the truth. "We hold the monarchy," they say. And they pronounce the sound so vocally, even the Latins, even the Opici, that you would think they understand the monarchy as well as they pronounce it. But the Latins are eager to sound out "monarchy", while even the Greeks refuse to understand the "economy". But I, if I have culled anything of either language, know that "monarchy" signifies nothing other than a single and unique rule; and yet that the monarchy does not, because it is of one, lay it down that he whose it is should either have no son, or should have made himself his own son, or should not administer his monarchy through whom he will. Rather, I say that no dominion is so much one's own, so singular, so much a monarchy, that it is not administered also through other persons closely related, whom it has itself provided as its officers. And if, moreover, he whose monarchy it is should have a son, it is not at once divided, nor does it cease to be a monarchy, if the son too is taken on as a sharer in it; but it is just as much his principally, from whom it is communicated to the son; and while it is his, it is just as much a monarchy, which is held together by two so united. Therefore, if the divine monarchy also is administered through so many legions and hosts of angels, as it is written: "A thousand thousands stood by Him, and a thousand times a hundred thousands appeared before Him" (Dan. 7:10), and it has not on that account ceased to be of one, so as to cease to be a monarchy, because it is managed through so many thousands of powers: how is it that God should be thought to suffer division and dispersion in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, who have been allotted the second and third place, and who are such sharers in the substance of the Father, when He does not suffer these in so great a number of angels, and those indeed so alien from His substance? The members, and the pledges, and the instruments, and the very power, and the whole estate of the monarchy,

Editors' notes and page, col. 181

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 95)

(15) ‹anchor: Et ita sonum› · call in col 181

Solium Seml. Rhen. Jun.

Solium ("throne"): Semler, Rhenanus, Junius.

(printed under page 95)

(16) ‹anchor: etiam Opici› · call in col 181

Et tam opifice Seml. etiam opifices Rig.

Et tam opifice: Semler; etiam opifices ("even the workmen"): Rigault.

(printed under page 95)

(17) ‹anchor: quia unius sit, eum› · call in col 181

Ejus Rhen.

Ejus ("his"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 95)

(18) ‹anchor: ita monarchiam, ut non› · call in col 181

Monarchicam Jun.

Monarchicam ("monarchic"): Junius.

(printed under page 95)

(19) ‹anchor: sed› · call in col 181

Se Fran. Paris.

Se ("itself"): the Franeker and Paris editions.

(printed under page 95)

(20) ‹anchor: Millies millia› · call in col 181

Millies centies centena millia Seml. millies millia centena millia Latin.

Millies centies centena millia ("a thousand times a hundred times a hundred thousand"): Semler; millies millia centena millia: Latinius.

(printed under page 95)

(21) ‹anchor: Patris, quas› · call in col 181

Quod Latin.

Quod ("which", singular): Latinius.

(printed under page 95)

(22) ‹anchor: tam a substantia› · call in col 181

Substantia patris Seml. add. alienorum Fran.

Substantia patris ("from the substance of the Father"): Semler; the Franeker edition adds alienorum.

(printed under page 95)

Commentarius

(printed under page 95)

(9) ‹anchor: Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus› · call in col 181

Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus. Μοναρχικὴν hoc est, Deum unicum asserimus, jure id quidem, nam alias incidimus εἰς τὴν ἄθεον πολυθεότητα. Hier... l. de Scr. Eccl. auctor est librum ab Irenaeo fuisse compositum hoc titulo, de Monarchia, sive, Quod Deus non sit auctor malorum. Ipse Tertullianus Monarchiae vocabulo Deum significavit, lib. II de Cultu feminarum: « Hanc incorruptibilitatem habemus induere ad novam domum, quam monarchia pollicetur. » RIG.

"We hold," they say, "the monarchy." "Monarchic", that is, we assert one only God — and rightly, for otherwise we fall into godless polytheism. Jerome, in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, states that Irenaeus composed a book with this title, On the Monarchy, or That God Is Not the Author of Evils. Tertullian himself signified God by the word Monarchy, in Book II On the Apparel of Women: "This incorruptibility we are to put on for the new home which the Monarchy promises." RIGAULT.

(printed under page 95)

(10) ‹anchor: etiam Opici (10)› · call in col 181

Etiam opici. Id est barbari, quod opice, id est barbare, loquerentur, non Latine, juxta Plin., l. XXIX, c. 1. PAM. — Scio Juvenalem, satira 6, dixisse: Nec curanda viris opicae castigata micae Verba. Sed hic in exemplari legitur: « Et ita sonum ipsum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam opifices, » quod videatur convenientissimum sequentibus istis, « ut putes illos tam bene intelligere monarchiam, quam enuntiant. » Sic vero loquitur Septimius in Apologetico; « Deum quilibet opifex Christianus et invenit et ostendit. » RIG.

Even the Opici. That is, barbarians, because they spoke "opically", that is, barbarously, not in Latin, according to Pliny, Book 29, chapter 1. PAMELIUS. — I know that Juvenal, Satire 6, said: "Nor should men care for the corrected words of an uncouth (opica) girlfriend." But here the copy reads: "And so even Latins, even workmen, utter the very sound aloud," which seems most fitting to what follows, "so that you would think they understand the monarchy as well as they pronounce it." So indeed Septimius speaks in the Apology: "Any Christian workman both finds God and shows Him." RIGAULT.

(printed under page 95)

Page

running head: 181 LIBER ADV. PRAXEA[N.] (right edge cut off in the image)
marginal letters: A ‹sionem praesumunt unitatis›; B ‹quia unius sit, eum cujus sit›; C ‹administratur, sicut scriptum est›; D ‹beside the Commentarius at the page foot, not the text›
old-edition numerals: 159 after ‹ipsam vim,›
other: the part opens with the tail "sionem" of a word divided at the break from col 180; the tail is not restored here (the word stands whole in col 180)
misprints kept as printed: ‹castigata micae› (Commentarius note 10, Juvenal's castigat amicae)

PL 2:182

eversionem deputas ejus: non recte. Malo te ad sensum rei, quam ad sonum vocabuli exerceas. Eversio enim monarchiae illa est tibi intelligenda, cum alia dominatio suae conditionis et proprii status, ac per hoc aemula, superducitur; cum alius Deus infertur adversus Creatorem. Tunc male, cum plures, secundum Valentinos et Prodicos; tunc in monarchiae eversionem, cum in Creatoris destructionem.

you reckon [it] its overthrow: not rightly. I would rather you exercised yourself on the sense of the thing than on the sound of the word. For the overthrow of a monarchy is to be understood by you as this: when another dominion, of its own condition and its own proper state, and therefore a rival, is brought in over it; when another God is introduced against the Creator. Then [it is] wrongly [done], when [there are] many, according to the Valentinuses and the Prodicuses; then [it tends] to the overthrow of the monarchy, when [it tends] to the destruction of the Creator.

CAPUT IV.

Chapter IV.

Caeterum, qui Filium non aliunde deduco, sed de substantia Patris, nihil facientem sine Patris voluntate, omnem a Patre consecutum potestatem, quomodo possum de fide destruere monarchiam, quam, a Patre Filio traditam, in Filio servo? Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit, quia Spiritum non aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. Vide ergo ne tu potius monarchiam destruas, qui dispositionem et dispensationem ejus evertis in tot nominibus constitutam, in quo Deus voluit. Adeo autem manet in suo statu, licet Trinitas inferatur, ut etiam restitui habeat Patri a Filio. Siquidem Apostolus scribit de ultimo fine: Cum tradiderit regnum Deo et Patri. Oportet enim eum regnare usque dum ponat inimicos ejus Deus sub pedes ipsius. — Scilicet secundum psalmum CIX, 2: Sede ad dexteram meam donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. — Cum autem subjecta erunt illi omnia, utique absque eo qui ei subjecit omnia, tunc et ipse subjicietur illi, qui ei subjecit omnia, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus (I Cor. XV, 25-28). Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiae Filium, etsi hodie apud Filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud Filium, et cum suo statu restituetur Patri a Filio. Ita eam nemo hoc nomine destruet, si Filium admittat, cui et traditam eam a Patre, et a quo quandoque restituendam Patri constat. Hoc uno capitulo Epistolae apostolicae potuimus jam et Patrem et Filium ostendisse duos esse, praeter-

But I, who derive the Son from nowhere else but from the substance of the Father, doing nothing without the Father's will, having obtained all power from the Father, how can I, as regards the faith, destroy the monarchy, which, handed down by the Father to the Son, I preserve in the Son? Let this be said by me also with regard to the third degree, since I hold that the Spirit is from nowhere else than from the Father through the Son. See then that it is not rather you who destroy the monarchy, you who overturn its disposition and dispensation, established in so many names, in which God willed [it]. But it so remains in its own state, although a Trinity is brought in, that it must even be restored to the Father by the Son. For indeed the Apostle writes concerning the final end: When He shall have delivered the kingdom to God and the Father. For He must reign until God puts His enemies under His feet. — That is, according to Psalm 109, verse 2: Sit at My right hand until I make Thy enemies the footstool of Thy feet. — And when all things shall have been subjected to Him, apart, of course, from Him Who subjected all things to Him, then He Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:25–28). We see therefore that the Son is no hindrance to the monarchy, even if it is today with the Son, because it is both with the Son in its own state, and with its own state it will be restored to the Father by the Son. Thus no one will destroy it on this account, if he admits the Son, to Whom it is established both that it was handed down by the Father, and by Whom it is at some time to be restored to the Father. By this one passage of the apostolic Epistle we could already have shown that the Father and the Son are two, be-

Editors' notes and page, col. 182

Footnotes

(23) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 182

Prodigos Seml. Proclos Paris.

Prodigos: Semler; Proclos: the Paris edition.

(printed under page 95)

(24) ‹anchor: omnia, utique› · call in col 182

Utique demit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Rhenanus, Semler and Oberthür drop utique ("of course").

(printed under page 95)

(25) ‹anchor: Videmus› · call in col 182

Videmur Venet.

Videmur ("we seem"): the Venice edition.

(printed under page 95)

(26) ‹anchor: si Filium› · call in col 182

Destruet. Filium Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Destruet. Filium (full stop before "Filium"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

Commentarius

(printed under page 95)

(11) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 182

Valentinos et Prodicos. Melius quam Proclos, ut habet Rhenanus, quamvis Proclianitas ex Philastro et Augustino adducat, creatores animarum angelos dicentes ex igne et spiritu, quod etiam Seleucianorum fuit dogma. LE PR.

Valentinuses and Prodicuses. Better than Procluses, as Rhenanus has it, although he cites Proclianites from Philastrius and Augustine, who said that the angels were creators of souls out of fire and spirit, which was also the teaching of the Seleucians. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 95)

(12) ‹anchor: Hoc uno capitulo› · call in col 182

Capitulo. Hoc est, dicto, juxta Semler. EDD.

Capitulo ("little chapter"). That is, saying, according to Semler. EDITORS.

(printed under page 95)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 96)

(27) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 183

Et cui subjecit deerat in Rhenan.

Et cui subjecit ("and to whom he subjected") was missing in Rhenanus.

(printed under page 96)

(28) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 183

Quidam Petr. Ciaccon.

Quidam ("some"): Pedro Chacón (Ciacconius).

(printed under page 96)

(29) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 183

Aliud abest. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Aliud ("another") is absent: Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 96)

(30) ‹anchor: ex te ipso ante› · call in col 183

A me Seml.

A me ("from me"): Semler.

(printed under page 96)

(31) ‹anchor: similitudine Dei quam› · call in col 183

Quo Seml.

Quo ("whereby"): Semler.

(printed under page 96)

(13) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 183

In principio Deus fecit sibi Filium. Docuit me beatus Hieronymus statim ab exordio Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. hunc locum, quem ibidem citat, magis secundum verbi translationem, de Christo accipi posse. Nam LXX interpretes, et Symmachus, et Theodotion transtulerunt in Principio, et in Hebr. est בראשית, quod Aquila interpretatur in Capitulo; et non בבן, quod interpretatur a fililo. LE PR.

In the beginning God made for himself a Son. Blessed Jerome taught me, at the very opening of the Hebrew Questions on Genesis, that this passage, which he cites there, can be taken of Christ rather according to the translation of the word. For the Seventy translators, Symmachus and Theodotion rendered in the Beginning, and in the Hebrew it is בראשית, which Aquila renders in the Chapter; and not בבן, which is rendered by the Son. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 96)

(14) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 183

Qua fuit. Scilicet, Deus. SEML.

Qua fuit ("in which it was"). That is, God. SEMLER.

(printed under page 96)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L04 and L05 blocked, these fresh columns were not written (L01 wrote 181 before its block, L03 wrote 206) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:184

dus quodammodo in te est sermo, per quem loqueris cogitando, et per quem cogitas loquendo. Ipse sermo alius est. Quanto ergo plenius hoc agitur in Deo, cujus tu quoque imago et similitudo censeris, quod habeat in se etiam tacendo rationem, et in ratione sermonem? Possum itaque non temere praestruxisse, et tunc Deum ante universitatis constitutionem solum non fuisse, habentem in semetipso proinde rationem, et in ratione sermonem, quem secundum a se faceret agitando se.

[sec]ond in a certain manner is the word within you, through which you speak by thinking, and through which you think by speaking. The word itself is another. How much more fully, then, is this carried on in God, of Whom you too are reckoned the image and likeness, that He has in Himself, even when silent, reason, and in reason the word? I may therefore not rashly have laid down beforehand that even then, before the establishment of the universe, God was not alone, having within Himself accordingly reason, and in reason the word, which He made second to Himself by stirring Himself.

CAPUT VI.

Chapter VI.

Haec vis et haec divini sensus dispositio, apud Scripturas etiam in Sophiae nomine ostenditur. Quid enim sapientius ratione Dei, sive sermone? Itaque Sophiam quoque exaudi, ut secundam personam conditam. Primo, Dominus creavit me initium viarum in opera sua, priusquam terram faceret, priusquam montes collocarentur; ante omnes autem colles generavit me (Prov. VIII, 22); in sensu suo scilicet condens et generans. Dehinc assistentem eam ipsa separatione cognosce: Cum pararet, inquit, caelum, aderam illi simul, et cum fortia faciebat super ventos quae sursum nubila; et cum tutos ponebat fontes ejus quae sub caelo, ego eram cum illo compingens; ego eram ad quam gaudebat: quotidie autem oblectabar in persona ipsius (Ibid. 27-30). Nam ut primum Deus voluit ea quae cum sophiae ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se, in substantias et species suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem, habentem in se individuas suas, Rationem et Sophiam; ut per ipsum fierent universa, per quem erant cogitata atque disposita; imo et facta jam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cognoscerentur et tenerentur.

This power and this disposition of the divine mind is shown in the Scriptures also under the name of Sophia. For what is wiser than the reason of God, or His word? Therefore hear Sophia too, established as a second Person. First: The Lord created Me the beginning of His ways for His works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were set in place; but before all the hills He begot Me (Prov. 8:22); that is, establishing and begetting [Me] in His own mind. Next, recognize her standing beside [Him] by the very separation: When He was preparing heaven, she says, I was present with Him together, and when He was making strong above the winds the clouds that are on high, and when He was setting secure the fountains of that which is under heaven, I was with Him fitting [them] together; I was she in whom He rejoiced; and daily I delighted in His presence (Prov. 8:27–30). For as soon as God willed to bring forth into their own substances and species those things which He had disposed within Himself with the reason and word of Sophia, He first put forth the Word Himself, having in Himself His inseparable [companions], Reason and Sophia, so that through Him all things might be made, through Whom they had been thought out and disposed; indeed, already made too, so far as in the mind of God. For this was lacking to them, that they should also be known and held openly in their own species and substances.

CAPUT VII.

Chapter VII.

Tunc igitur etiam ipse sermo speciem et ornatum suum sumit, sonum et vocem, cum dicit Deus: Fiat lux. Haec est nativitas perfecta sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit: conditus ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine Sophiae: Dominus condidit me initium viarum. Dehinc generatus ad effectum: Cum pararet caelum, aderam illi simul. Exinde eum parem sibi faciens, de quo procedendo Filius factus est, primogenitus (Coloss., I, 15), ut ante omnia genitus; et unigenitus (I Joan., IV, 9), ut solus ex Deo genitus: proprie de vulva cordis ipsius, secundum quod et Pater ipse testatur: Eructavit

Then therefore the Word Himself also takes up His form and adornment, sound and voice, when God says: Let there be light. This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds from God: established by Him first for thought under the name of Sophia: The Lord established Me the beginning of His ways. Then begotten for effect: When He was preparing heaven, I was present with Him together. Thereupon [God], making Him equal to Himself, from Whom by proceeding He was made Son, firstborn (Col. 1:15), as begotten before all things; and only-begotten (1 John 4:9), as alone begotten from God: properly from the womb of His own heart, according to what the Father Himself also testifies: My heart has belched forth

Editors' notes and page, col. 184

Footnotes

(32) ‹anchor: aderam illi simul› · call in col 184

Simul abest al.

Simul ("together") is absent in others.

(printed under page 96)

(33) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 184

Quem Rhen.

Quem ("whom"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 96)

(34) ‹anchor: Rationem et Sophiam› · call in col 184

Rationes sophiam Rhen.

Rationes sophiam: Rhenanus.

Commentarius

(printed under page 96)

(15) ‹anchor: individuas suas› · call in col 184

Individuas suas. Comites scilicet. Ut lib. de Patientia, sub finem: « Cum ergo Spiritus Dei descendit, individua patientia comitatur eum. » RIG.

Its inseparable [companions]. Companions, that is. As in the book On Patience, near the end: "When therefore the Spirit of God descends, inseparable patience accompanies him." RIGAULT.

(printed under page 96)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 184
marginal letters: A ‹dus quodammodo in te est sermo›; B ‹sonam conditum. Primo›; C ‹sermonem, habentem in se individuas›; D ‹Exinde eum parem sibi faciens›
old-edition numerals: 161 after ‹habentem›

PL 2:185

cor meum sermonem optimum (Psal. XLIV, 1). Ad quem deinceps gaudens proinde gaudentem in persona illius (Psal. II, 7): Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Et: Ante luciferum genui te. Sic et Filius ex sua persona profitetur Patrem in nomine Sophiae: Dominus condidit me initium viarum in opera sua. Ante omnes autem colles generavit me. Nam si hic quidem Sophia videtur dicere conditam se a Domino in opera et vias ejus; alibi autem per sermonem ostenditur omnia facta esse, et sine illo nihil factum: sicut et rursum (Psal. XXXIII, 6): Sermone ejus caeli confirmati sunt, et spiritu ejus omnes vires eorum; utique eo spiritu qui sermoni inerat: apparet unam eamdemque vim esse nunc in nomine Sophiae, nunc in appellatione Sermonis; quae initium accepit viarum in Dei opera: et quae caelum confirmavit; per quam omnia facta sunt, et sine qua nihil factum est (Joan. I, 3). Nec diutius de isto, quasi non de ipso sit sermo, et in sophiae, et in rationis, et in omnis divini animi et spiritus nomine, qui filius factus est Dei, de quo prodeundo generatus est. Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse Sermonem, spiritu et Sophiae traditione constructam? Plane. Non vis enim eum substantivum habere in re per substantiae proprietatem, ut res et persona quaedam videri possit, et ita capiat secundus a Deo constitutus duos efficere, Patrem et Filium, Deum et Sermonem. Quid est enim, dices, sermo, nisi vox et sonus oris, et (sicut grammatici tradunt) aer offensus, intelligibilis auditu; caeterum, vacuum nescio quid, et inane, et incorporale? At ego nihil dico de Deo inane et vacuum prodire potuisse, ut non de inani et vacuo prolatum; nec carere substantia, quod de tanta substantia processit, et tantas substantias fecit, enim et ipse quae facta sunt per illum. Quale est ut nihil sit ipse, sine quo nihil factum est? ut inanis solida, et vacuus plena, et incorporalis corporalia sit operatus? Nam etsi potest aliquando quid fieri diversum ejus per quod fit, nihil tamen potest fieri per id quod vacuum et inane est. Vacua et inanis res est Sermo Dei, qui Filius dictus est, qui ipse Deus cognominatus est: Et sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo? (Joan. I, 1.) Scriptum est: Non sumes nomen Dei in vanum (Exod. XX, 7). Hic certe est, qui in effigie Dei constitutus, non rapinam existimavit

a most excellent Word (Ps. 44:1). To Whom in turn [the Father], rejoicing, [speaks] likewise to Him rejoicing, in His person (Ps. 2:7): Thou art My Son, today have I begotten Thee. And: Before the morning star I begot Thee. So also the Son, from His own person, acknowledges the Father under the name of Wisdom: The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways for His works. And before all the hills He begot Me. For if here indeed Wisdom seems to say that she was created by the Lord for His works and ways, while elsewhere it is shown that all things were made through the Word, and without Him nothing was made, as also again (Ps. 32:6): By His Word the heavens were made firm, and by His Spirit all their powers (that is, by that Spirit which was in the Word), it is apparent that it is one and the same power, now under the name of Wisdom, now under the designation of Word; which received the beginning of the ways for the works of God, and which made firm the heaven; through which all things were made, and without which nothing was made (John 1:3). Let us not [dwell] longer on this, as if the discourse were not about Him, both under the name of Wisdom and of Reason and of every divine mind and spirit, Who became the Son of God, from Whom by proceeding He was begotten. So, you say, you grant that the Word is some substance, built up by the Spirit and the handing on of Wisdom? Certainly. For you do not wish Him to be substantive in reality through the property of substance, so that He may be seen to be a thing and a certain person, and so, constituted second from God, be able to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For what, you will say, is a word except a voice and a sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) struck air, intelligible to the hearing; for the rest, an empty something, void and incorporeal? But I say that nothing void and empty could have come forth from God, since it was not brought forth from what is void and empty; nor could that lack substance which proceeded from so great a substance and made such great substances, for He Himself also [made] the things that were made through Him. How can it be that He Himself is nothing, without Whom nothing was made? that, being void, He wrought solid things, being empty, full things, and being incorporeal, corporeal things? For although something can at times come into being different from that through which it comes to be, yet nothing can come into being through that which is empty and void. Is the Word of God an empty and void thing, He Who is called the Son, Who Himself is surnamed God: And the Word was with God, and God was the Word? (John 1:1). It is written: You shall not take the name of God in vain (Exod. 20:7). This is certainly He Who, being constituted in the form of God, did not consider it robbery

Editors' notes and page, col. 185

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 97)

(35) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Gaudenti Seml.

Gaudenti ("to the one rejoicing"): Semler.

(printed under page 97)

(36) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Quem Franeq.

Quem ("whom"): the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 97)

(37) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Quo Franeq.

Quo ("by which"): the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 97)

(38) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Negavit Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Negavit ("has denied"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 97)

(39) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Si add. Seml. Oberth.

Semler and Oberthür add si ("if").

(printed under page 97)

(40) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Substantiae Rhen.

Substantiae ("of the substance"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 97)

(41) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Hic Lat.

Hic ("this one / here"): Latinius.

(printed under page 97)

(42) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Utatur Fran. Paris. utetur Lat.

Utatur ("let him use"): the Franeker and Paris editions; utetur ("he will use"): Latinius.

(printed under page 97)

(16) ‹anchor: aer offensus› · call in col 185

Quid est enim, dices, sermo, nisi vox et sonus oris, et aer offensus? Sic libro de Resurrectione carnis ubi de dentibus, quos accepisse hominem ait: « Ad vocis articulos offensione signandos. RIG.

For what, you will say, is a word but the voice and sound of the mouth, and air struck? So in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, where of the teeth, which he says man received: "For marking the articulations of the voice by striking." RIGAULT.

(printed under page 97)

(17) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 185 or 186

Quis enim negabit Deum corpus? V. In hunc ocum D. Le Nourrry in Tertulliani Apologet. Dissert., c. 7, art. 3. t. I hujusce edit., p. 811 seqq. EDD.

For who will deny that God is a body? See on this passage Dom Le Nourry, Dissertation on Tertullian's Apology, ch. 7, art. 3, vol. I of this edition, p. 811 ff. EDITORS.

(printed under page 97)

Page

running head: 185 LIBER ADV. PRAX (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A lavit/tavit cor meum sermonem optimum; B nis; quae initium accepit viarum; C vox et sonus oris; D Sermo? (Joan. I, 1.) Scriptum est
old-edition numerals: 162 after et (sicut et ... rursum)
other: the word existimavit was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 186

PL 2:186

esse se aequalem Deo (Philipp. II, 6). In qua effigie Dei? utique in alia, non tamen in nulla. Quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. Sed et invisibilia illa quaecunque sunt, habent apud Deum et suum corpus et suam formam, per quae soli Deo visibilia sunt; quanto magis quod ex ipsius substantia missum est, sine substantia non erit! Quaecunque ergo substantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico personam, et illi nomen Filii vindico; et dum Filium agnosco, secundum a Patre defendo.

to be equal to God (Phil. 2:6). In what form of God? Surely in another, yet not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although God is spirit? For spirit is a body of its own kind, in its own form. But even those invisible things, whatever they are, have with God both their own body and their own form, through which they are visible to God alone; how much more will that which has been sent out from His own substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, the substance of the Word was, that I call a Person, and for it I claim the name of Son; and while I acknowledge the Son, I maintain that He is second from the Father.

CAPUT VIII.

Chapter VIII.

Hoc si quis putaverit me προβολὴν aliquam introducere, id est, prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus, alium atque alium Aeonem de Aeone producens; primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utitur et veritas vocabulo isto, et re ac censu ejus, quia et haeresis potius ex veritate accepit, quod ad mendacium suum strueret. Prolatus est sermo Dei, annon? Hic mecum gradum fige. Si prolatus est, cognosce probolam veritatis, et viderit haeresis si quid de veritate imitata est. Jam nunc quaeritur, quis quomodo utatur aliqua re, et vocabulo ejus. Valentinus probolas suas discernit et separat ab auctore: et ita longe ab eo ponit, ut Aeon patrem nesciat. Denique, desiderat nosse, nec potest; imo et pene devoratur, et dissolvitur in reliquam substantiam. Apud nos autem solus Filius Patrem novit (Matth. XI, 27), et sinum Patris ipse exposuit (Joan. I, 18), et omnia apud Patrem audivit et vidit, et quae mandatus est a Patre, ea et loquitur (Joan. VIII, 26). Nec suam, sed Patris perfecit voluntatem (Joan VI, 38), quam de proximo, imo de initio noverat. Quis enim scit quae sint in Deo, nisi spiritus qui in ipso est? I Cor. II, 11.) Sermo autem spiritu structus est, et ut ita dixerim, sermonis corpus est spiritus. Sermo ergo et in Patre semper, sicut dicit: Ego in Patre (Joan. XIV, 11). et apud Deum semper, sicut scriptum est: Et Sermo erat apud Deum (Joan. I, 1.) Et nunquam separatus a Patre, aut alius a Patre, quia, Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. X, 30). Haec erit probola veritatis, custos unitatis, qua prolatum dicimus Filium a Patre, sed non separatum. Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam Paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et sol radium. Nam et istae species probolae

If anyone should think that I am introducing some προβολή, that is, a putting forth of one thing out of another, as Valentinus does, producing one Aeon after another from an Aeon; first indeed I shall say to you that truth too does not for that reason refrain from using this term, and its reality and substance, because heresy rather took from the truth what it might build into its own lie. Was the word of God put forth, or not? Here plant your foot with me. If it was put forth, recognize the probola of truth, and let heresy see to it whether it has imitated anything from the truth. Now the question is who uses a certain thing and its term, and in what way. Valentinus distinguishes and separates his probolae from their author, and sets them so far from him that the Aeon does not know the father. In fact, it desires to know him, and cannot; indeed it is almost devoured and dissolved into the rest of the substance. With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father (Matt. 11:27), and He Himself has disclosed the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), and He has heard and seen all things with the Father, and the things which He has been commanded by the Father, these He also speaks (John 8:26). Nor has He accomplished His own will, but the Father's (John 6:38), which He had known from close at hand, indeed from the beginning. For who knows the things which are in God, except the spirit which is in Him? (1 Cor. 2:11). Now the Word is constructed of spirit, and, if I may so put it, the body of the word is spirit. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says: I in the Father (John 14:11), and always with God, as it is written: And the Word was with God (John 1:1). And He is never separated from the Father, or other than the Father, because I and the Father are one (John 10:30). This will be the probola of truth, the guardian of unity, by which we say that the Son was put forth from the Father, but not separated. For God put forth the Word, as the Paraclete also teaches, just as a root puts forth a shrub, and a spring a river, and the sun a ray. For these forms too are probolae

Editors' notes and page, col. 186

Footnotes

(43) ‹anchor: audivit et vidit, et› · call in col 186

Ad inser. Latin.

Latinius inserts ad.

(printed under page 97)

(44) ‹anchor: sed non separatum› · call in col 186

Paratum Seml.

Paratum ("prepared"): Semler.

Commentarius

(printed under page 97)

(18) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 186

Putaverit me προβολὴν aliquam. Per hanc vocem seu prolationem id explicat quod SS. Patres generationem vocant, ubi de Filio seu Verbo loquuntur, qui γεννητὸς, cum Spiritus sanctus sit ἐκπορευτός. RIG.

He will have thought that I [introduce] some probolē ("emission"). By this word, or "bringing forth", he expresses what the holy Fathers call generation when they speak of the Son or Word, who is "begotten", whereas the Holy Spirit is "proceeding". RIGAULT.

(printed under page 97)

(19) ‹anchor: sed non separatum› · call in col 186

Sed non separatum. Unde tot quaestiones utrum si aliud a Patre; quod non conceditur, quamvis sit alius. RIG.

But not separated. Hence so many questions whether he is another thing than the Father; which is not granted, although he is another one. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 97)

Page

running head: [LIB]ER ADV. PRAXEAM. 186 (left edge cut off; E of PRAXEAM blurred, looks like B)
marginal letters: A vit esse se aequalem Deo; B Aeonem de Aeone producens; C exposuit (Joan. I, 18); D lit enim Deus Sermonem
old-edition numerals: 163 after aliquam
other: column begins with fragment "vit" (end of existimavit?) from previous column; last word "probo-" split at the column break; spaced type "etvidit", "eaet", "deinitio" set as separate words; lowercase "et" after "(Joan. XIV, 11)." kept as printed; page-foot Variae lectiones and Commentarius (notes 18, 19, Rig.) not set; left column partly visible, not set

PL 2:187

sunt earum substantiarum, ex quibus prodeunt. Nec dubitaverim Filium dicere, et radicis fruticem, et fontis fluvium, et solis radium; quia omnis origo patens est; et omne quod ex origine profertur, progenies est, multo magis Sermo Dei, qui etiam proprie nomen Filii accepit: nec frutex tamen a radice, nec fluvius a fonte, nec radius a sole discernitur, sicut nec a Deo Sermo. Igitur secundum horum exemplorum formam, profiteor me duos dicere, Deum et Sermonem ejus, Patrem et Filium ipsius. Nam et radix et frutex duae res sunt, sed conjunctae. Et fons et flumen duae species sunt, sed indivisae. Et sol et radius duae formae sunt, sed cohaerentes. Omne quod prodit ex aliquo, secundum sit ejus necesse est de quo prodit, non ideo tamen est separatum. Secundus autem ubi est, duo sunt. Et tertius ubi est, tres sunt. Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice; et tertius a fonte, rivus ex flumine; et tertius a sole, apex ex radio. Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur, a qua proprietates suas ducit. Ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a Patre decurrens, et monarchiae nihil obstrepit, et oeconomiae statum protegit.

of those substances from which they come forth. Nor would I hesitate to call the Son both the shoot of the root, and the river of the spring, and the ray of the sun; because every origin is a parent, and everything that is brought forth from an origin is offspring, much more the Word of God, Who has also properly received the name of Son: yet neither is the shoot separated from the root, nor the river from the spring, nor the ray from the sun, just as neither is the Word from God. Therefore, according to the pattern of these examples, I profess that I speak of two, God and His Word, the Father and His Son. For the root and the shoot are two things, but joined. And the spring and the river are two aspects, but undivided. And the sun and the ray are two forms, but cohering. Everything that comes forth from something must be second to that from which it comes forth, yet it is not on that account separated. But where there is a second, there are two. And where there is a third, there are three. For the Spirit is third from God and the Son, as the fruit from the shoot is third from the root, and the stream from the river third from the spring, and the point from the ray third from the sun. Yet nothing is estranged from the source from which it derives its properties. Thus the Trinity, running down from the Father through intertwined and connected degrees, both in no way clashes with the monarchy and protects the state of the economy.

CAPUT IX.

Chapter IX.

Hanc me regulam professum, qua inseparatos ab alterutro Patrem et Filium et Spiritum testor, tene ubique; et ita, quid quomodo dicatur, agnosces. Ecce enim dico alium esse Patrem, et alium Filium, et alium Spiritum. Male accipit idiotes quisque aut perversus hoc dictum, quasi diversitatem sonet, et ex diversitate separationem protendat, Patris et Filii et Spiritus. Necessitate autem hoc dico, cum eumdem Patrem et Filium et Spiritum contendunt, adversus oeconomiam monarchiae adulantes, non tamen diversitate alium Filium a Patre, sed distributione; nec divisione alium, sed distinctione; quia non sit idem Pater et Filius, vel modulo alius ab alio. Praeter enim tota substantia est: Filius vero derivatio totius et portio, sicut ipse profitetur, Quia Pater major me est (Joan. XIV, 28). A quo et minoratus canitur in Psalmo (VIII, 6), Modicum quid citra angelos. Sic et Pater alius a Filio, dum Filio major; dum alius qui generat, alius qui generatur; dum alius qui mittit, alius qui mittitur; dum alius qui facit, alius per quem fit. Bene quod et Dominus usus hoc verbo in persona Paracleti, non divisionem significavit, sed dispositionem: Rogabo enim, inquit (Joan. XIV, 16), Patrem,

Keep everywhere this rule professed by me, by which I testify that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from one another; and so you will recognize what is said and in what way. For see, I say that the Father is one, and the Son another, and the Spirit another. Every unlearned or perverse person takes this saying badly, as though it sounded of diversity, and from diversity extended to a separation of the Father and the Son and the Spirit. But I say this of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the same, flattering the monarchy against the economy: [I say] that the Son is other than the Father, yet not by diversity but by distribution; nor other by division, but by distinction; because the Father and the Son are not the same, being other the one from the other even in measure. For the Father is the whole substance, but the Son a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself professes: Because the Father is greater than I (John 14:28). By Whom also He is sung in the Psalm to have been made less (Ps. 8:6): A little below the angels. Thus the Father too is other than the Son, in being greater than the Son; in that He Who begets is one, He Who is begotten another; He Who sends is one, He Who is sent another; He Who makes is one, He through Whom it is made another. It is well that the Lord too, using this word in the case of the Paraclete, signified not a division but a disposition: For I will ask, He says (John 14:16), the Father,

Editors' notes and page, col. 187

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 98)

(45) ‹anchor: separationem protendat› · call in col 187

Pertendat Jun.

Pertendat ("persists in"): Junius.

(printed under page 98)

(46) ‹anchor: et minoratus› · call in col 187

Minor natu Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Minor natu ("younger by birth"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 98)

(47) ‹anchor: Modicum› · call in col 187

Modico Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Modico ("by a little"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

Commentarius

(printed under page 98)

(20) ‹anchor: Filius vero derivatio› · call in col 187

Filius vero derivatio. Recte adnotavit ad marginem Rhenanus caute hic legi debere Tertullianum, utpote qui, cum jam dudum ante haeresim Arii scripserit, non usque adeo verba sua trutinaverit. Sententia vero ejus, quod ejusdem sint substantiae Pater et Filius et Spiritus manifesta fit, tum ex praecedentibus, tum ex sequentibus hujus libri cap. PAM.

But the Son is a derivation. Rhenanus rightly noted in the margin that Tertullian must be read cautiously here, since, having written long before the heresy of Arius, he did not weigh his words so very carefully. But his view, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are of the same substance, is made plain both from the preceding and from the following chapters of this book. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 98)

Footnotes

(21) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 188

Vanissimi isti monarchiani. Nonnulli Praxeani Trinitatem negare videbantur: contendebant quippe Deum Patrem Filium se fecisse, quod Dei μοναρχίαν appellabant, unde nomen sortiti sunt. LE PR.

These most empty Monarchians. Some Praxeans seemed to deny the Trinity: for they maintained that God the Father had made himself the Son, which they called the "monarchy" of God, whence they got their name. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 98)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L04 and L05 blocked, these fresh columns were not written (L01 wrote 181 before its block, L03 wrote 206) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:189

est, filius non erit. Sic monarchiam tenent, qui nec patrem nec filium continent. Sed nihil Deo difficile. Quis hoc nesciat? et impossibilia apud saeculum, possibilia apud Deum (Matth. XIX, 26) quis ignoret? Et stulta mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientiam (I Cor. I, 27): legimus omnia. Ergo, inquiunt, difficile non fuit Deo, ipsum se et patrem et filium facere, adversus traditam formam rebus humanis, nam et sterilem parere, contra naturam, difficile Deo non fuit, sicut nec virginem. Plane nihil Deo difficile. Sed si tam abrupte in praesumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quidvis de Deo confingere poterimus, quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. Non autem quia omnia potest facere, ideo utique credendum est illum fecisse, etiam quod non fecerit; sed an fecerit, requirendum. Potuit, ita salvus sim, Deus pennis hominem ad volandum instruxisse, quod et milvis praestitit; non tamen, quia potuit, statim et fecit. Potuit et Praxeam, et omnes pariter haereticos statim exstinxisse; non tamen, quia potuit, exstinxit. Oportebat enim et milvos esse, et haereticos: oportebat et Patrem crucifigi. Hac ratione erit aliquid et difficile Deo; id scilicet quodcunque non fecerit, non quia non potuerit, sed quia noluerit. Dei enim posse, velle est; et non posse, nolle; quod autem voluit, et potuit, et ostendit. Ergo quia si voluit semetipsum sibi Filium facere, potuit; et quia si potuit, fecit: tunc probabis illum et potuisse et voluisse, si probaveris illum fecisse.

is, there will be no son. Thus they hold the monarchy who keep neither father nor son. But nothing is difficult for God. Who does not know this? And who is unaware that things impossible with the world are possible with God (Matt. 19:26)? And God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound wisdom (1 Cor. 1:27): we have read it all. Therefore, they say, it was not difficult for God to make Himself both father and son, against the form handed down for human affairs; for for a barren woman to give birth, contrary to nature, was not difficult for God, just as it was not for a virgin. Plainly nothing is difficult for God. But if we use this maxim so abruptly in our presumptions, we shall be able to invent anything whatever about God, as though He had done it because He could have done it. But it is not because He can do all things that we must on that account believe that He has done even what He has not done; rather, whether He has done it must be inquired into. God could, as I hope to be saved, have equipped man with feathers for flying, which He also granted to kites; yet He did not, because He could, at once also do it. He could also have extinguished Praxeas and all heretics alike at once; yet He did not, because He could, extinguish them. For it was necessary that there should be both kites and heretics: it was necessary also that the Father be crucified. By this reasoning there will also be something difficult for God, namely whatever He has not done, not because He could not, but because He would not. For with God to be able is to will, and not to be able is to be unwilling; and what He has willed, He has both been able to do and has shown. Therefore, since if He willed to make Himself a Son to Himself, He was able; and since if He was able, He did it: then you will prove that He both was able and willed, if you prove that He did it.

CAPUT XI.

Chapter XI.

Probare autem tam aperte debebis ex Scripturis, quam nos probamus illum sibi Filium fecisse Sermonem suum. Si enim Filium nominat, Filius autem non alius erit quam qui ex ipso prodiit; Sermo autem prodiit ex ipso, hic erit Filius, non ipse de quo prodiit. Non enim ipse prodiit ex semetipso. Porro, qui eumdem Patrem dicis et Filium, eumdem et protulisse ex semetipso facis, et prodisse quod Deus est. Si potuit fecisse, non tamen fecit. Aut exhibe probationem quam expostulo meae similem; id est, sic Scripturas eumdem Filium et Patrem ostendere, quemadmodum apud nos distincte Pater et Filius demonstrantur; distincte, inquam, non divise, sicut ego profero dictum a Deo: Eructavit cor meum Sermonem optimum (Psal. XLIV, 1). Sic tu contra opponas, alicubi dixisse Deum, Eructavit cor meum Sermonem optimum, ut ipse sit qui et eructavit, et quod eructavit; et ipse qui protulerit, et qui prolatus sit, si ipse est et Sermo et Deus. Ecce ego propono Patrem Filio dixisse: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie generavi te (Psal. II, 7). Si velis ut credam ipsum esse Patrem et Filium, ostende sic pronuntiatum

But you will have to prove from the Scriptures as plainly as we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. For if He names a Son, and the Son will be none other than He who went forth from Him, and the Word went forth from Him, this will be the Son, not He Himself from whom He went forth. For He Himself did not go forth from Himself. Further, you who call the same one Father and Son make the same one both to have brought forth from Himself and to have gone forth, that which is God. Granted He could have done it, yet He did not do it. Or else produce a proof like mine, which I demand; that is, that the Scriptures show the same one as Son and Father, just as with us the Father and the Son are shown distinctly; distinctly, I say, not dividedly, as I put forward the saying of God: My heart has uttered a most excellent Word (Ps. 44:1). So you in turn should set against it that God has said somewhere, My heart has uttered a most excellent Word, in such a way that He Himself is both the one who uttered and what He uttered, and Himself both the one who brought forth and the one who was brought forth, if He Himself is both Word and God. Look, I put forward that the Father said to the Son: Thou art My Son, today I have begotten Thee (Ps. 2:7). If you wish me to believe that He Himself is Father and Son, show it so pronounced

Editors' notes and page, col. 189

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 99)

(48) ‹anchor: ut confundat sapientiam› · call in col 189

Sapientia Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Sapientia ("Wisdom"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 99)

(49) ‹anchor: Sed si tam abrupte› · call in col 189

Difficile sensi. Tam Seml.

Difficile sensi. Tam: Semler.

(printed under page 99)

(50) ‹anchor: ideo utique credendum› · call in col 189

Ideoque Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Ideoque ("and therefore"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 99)

(51) ‹anchor: requirendum. Potuit› · call in col 189

Si voluisset add. Rhen.

Rhenanus adds si voluisset ("if he had willed").

(printed under page 99)

Page

running head: LIB ADV. PRAXE (cut off at image edge); column number 189
marginal letters: A est, filius non erit; B etiam quod non fecerit; C et potuisse et voluisse; D tincte Pater et Filius demonstrantur
old-edition numerals: 166 after scilicet

PL 2:190

alibi: « Dominus dixit ad se, Filius meus sum ego, ego hodie generavi me, » proinde et: « Ante luciferum generavi me (Psal. CIX, 3), et: « Dominus condidit me initium viarum in opera mea; ante omnes autem colles generavi me (Sap. VIII, 22); » et si qua alia in hunc modum sunt. Quem autem verebatur Deus Dominus universitatis ita pronuntiare, si ita res erat; an verebatur nc non crederetur, si simpliciter se et Patrem et Filium pronuntiasset? Unum tamen veritus est, mentiri. Veritus autem semetipsum et suam veritatem. Et ideo veracem Deum credens, scio illum non aliter quam disposuit pronuntiasse, nec aliter disposuisse quam pronuntiavit. Tu porro eum mendacem efficias et fallacem et deceptorem fidei hujus, si cum ipse esset sibi Filius, alii dabat Fili⟨i⟩ personam, quando Scripturae omnes et demonstrationem et distinctionem trinitatis ostendant. A quibus et praescriptio nostra deducitur, non posse unum atque eumdem videri qui loquitur, et de quo loquitur, et ad quem loquitur: quia neque perversitas, neque fallacia Deo congruat: ut cum ipse esset ad quem loquebatur, ad alium potius, et non ad semetipsum loquatur. Accipe igitur et alias voces Patris de Filio per Isaiam (XLII, 1): Ecce filius meus quem elegi, dilectus meus in quem bene sensi. Ponam spiritum meum super ipsum, et judicium nationibus annuntiabit. Accipe et ad ipsum: Magnum tibi est ut voceris filius meus ad statuendas tribus Jacob, et ad convertendam dispersionem Israelis. Posui te in lucem nationum, ut sis salus in extremum terrae (Isa. XLIX, 16). Accipe nunc et Filii voces de Patre: Spiritus Domini super me, quapropter unxit me, ad evangelizandum hominibus (Isa. LXI, 1). Item ad Patrem in Psalmo, de eodem: Ne dereliqueris me, donec annuntiem brachium tuum nativitati universae venturae (Psal. LXXI, 8). Item in alio: Domine, quid multiplicati sunt qui comprimunt me? (Psal. III, 2.) Sed et omnes pene Psalmi Christi personam sustinent; Filium ad Patrem, id est Christum ad Deum verba facientem repraesentant. Animadverte etiam Spiritum loquentem ex tertia persona de Patre et Filio: Dixit Dominus Domino meo, Sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum (Psal. CX, 1, 2). Item per Isaiam (XLV, 1): Haec dicit Dominus Domino meo Christo. Item per eumdem ad Patrem de Filio: Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro? Et brachium Domini cui revelatum est? Annuntiavimus de illo, sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non erat forma ejus, nec gloria (Isa. LIII, 1, 2). Haec pauca de multis. Nec enim affectamus universas Scripturas cvolvere, cum et in singulis capitulis plenam majestatem et auctoritatem contestantes, majorem congressum in retractatibus habeamus

elsewhere: « The Lord said to Himself, I am My own Son, today I have begotten Myself, » and likewise: « Before the morning star I begot Myself (Ps. 109:3), and: « The Lord established Me as the beginning of the ways for My works; but before all the hills I begot Myself (Wis. 8:22); » and whatever others there are of this kind. But whom did God, the Lord of the universe, fear, that He should not declare it so, if the matter was so? Or did He fear that He would not be believed, if He had declared simply that He was both Father and Son? One thing, however, He did fear: to lie. He feared, moreover, Himself and His own truth. And therefore, believing God to be truthful, I know that He declared nothing otherwise than He arranged it, nor arranged anything otherwise than He declared it. You, moreover, would make Him a liar and a deceiver and a betrayer of this faith, if, when He was Himself His own Son, He gave the person of the Son to another, since all the Scriptures show both the demonstration and the distinction of the Trinity. From these too our prescription is drawn, that one and the same cannot be seen to be He who speaks, and He of whom He speaks, and He to whom He speaks: because neither perversity nor deceit befits God, so that, when He Himself was the one to whom He was speaking, He should speak rather to another and not to Himself. Receive, then, other utterances also of the Father concerning the Son, through Isaiah (Isa. 42:1): Behold My Son, Whom I have chosen, My beloved, in Whom I am well pleased. I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He will announce judgement to the nations. Receive also [what is said] to Him: It is a great thing for Thee that Thou be called My Son, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the dispersion of Israel. I have set Thee as a light of the nations, that Thou mayest be salvation to the end of the earth (Isa. 49:16). Receive now also the utterances of the Son concerning the Father: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because of which He has anointed Me, to preach the gospel to men (Isa. 61:1). Likewise to the Father in a Psalm, concerning the same: Do not forsake Me, until I announce Thy arm to all the generation that is to come (Ps. 71:8). Likewise in another: Lord, why are they multiplied who oppress Me? (Ps. 3:2.) But almost all the Psalms, too, sustain the person of Christ; they represent the Son speaking to the Father, that is, Christ speaking to God. Observe also the Spirit speaking in the third person concerning the Father and the Son: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, until I make Thy enemies the footstool of Thy feet (Ps. 110:1–2). Likewise through Isaiah (Isa. 45:1): Thus says the Lord to my Lord Christ. Likewise through the same, to the Father concerning the Son: Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We have announced concerning Him: like a little child, like a root in thirsty ground, and there was no form in Him, nor glory (Isa. 53:1–2). These are a few out of many. For we do not aim to unroll all the Scriptures, since, even in individual chapters attesting the full majesty and authority, we may have a greater engagement in the further treatments

Editors' notes and page, col. 190

Footnotes

(52) ‹anchor: …tur (word cut at the column head)› · call in col 190

Loquebatur Rhen. Seml. Oberth. loqueretur Jun.

Loquebatur ("he was speaking"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür; loqueretur ("he would speak"): Junius.

(printed under page 99)

(53) ‹anchor: in retractatibus habeamus› · call in col 190

Habemus Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Habemus ("we have"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 99)

Page

running head: [LI]B ADV. PRAXEAM. 190 (left edge cut off; only "B ADV. PRAXEAM." visible)
marginal letters: A alibi : « Dominus dixit ad se; B esset sibi Filius, alii dabat; C ad convertendam dispersionem Israelis; D pedum tuorum (Psal. CX
old-edition numerals: 167 after Filio

PL 2:191

His itaque paucis, tamen manifeste distinctio Trinitatis exponitur. Est enim ipse qui pronuntiat, Spiritus, et Pater ad quem pronuntiat, et Filius de quo pronuntiat. Sic et caetera quae nunc ad Patrem de Filio, vel ad Filium, nunc ad Filium de Patre, vel ad Patrem, nunc ad Spiritum pronuntiantur; unamquamque personam in sua proprietate constituunt.

By these few [passages], then, the distinction of the Trinity is nevertheless clearly set forth. For there is the One Himself Who makes the declaration, the Spirit, and the Father to Whom He makes it, and the Son about Whom He makes it. So too the other things which are declared now to the Father about the Son, or to the Son, now to the Son about the Father, or to the Father, now to the Spirit, establish each Person in His own distinctiveness.

CAPUT XII.

Chapter XII.

Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis, quasi non connexae in unitate simplici, interrogo quomodo unicus et singularis pluraliter loquitur: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Gen. I, 26), cum debuerit dixisse: Faciam hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem meam: utpote unicus et singularis? Sed et in sequentibus: Ecce Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis, fallit aut ludit; ut cum unus, et solus, et singularis esset, numerose loqueretur: aut numquid angelis loquebatur, ut Judaei interpretantur, quia nec ipsi Filium agnoscunt? An quia ipse erat Pater, Filius, Spiritus, ideo pluralem se praestans, pluraliter sibi loquebatur? Imo quia jam adhaerebat illi Filius, secunda persona, Sermo ipsius; et tertia, Spiritus in Sermone, ideo pluraliter pronuntiavit, faciamus, et, nostram, et, nobis. Cum quibus enim faciebat hominem, et quibus faciebat similem? Cum Filio quidem, qui erat induturus hominem; Spiritu vero, qui erat sanctificaturus hominem, quasi cum ministris et arbitris, ex unitate Trinitatis loquebatur. Denique, sequens Scriptura distinguit inter personas: Et fecit Deus hominem, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum (Gen. I, 27). Cur non, suam, si unus qui faciebat, et non erat ad cujus faciebat? Erat autem ad cujus imaginem faciebat: ad Filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior, imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo. Sed et in antecedentibus operibus mundi quomodo scriptum est, primum quidem, nondum Filio apparente: Et dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est: ipse statim Sermo lux vera, quae illuminat hominem venientem in hunc mundum, et per illum mundialis quoque lux. Exinde autem in Sermone Christo assistente et administrante Deus voluit fieri, et Deus fecit. Et dixit Deus: Fiat firmamentum, et fecit Deus firmamentum; et dixit Deus: Fiant luminaria, et fecit Deus luminare majus et minus (Gen. I, 7-16); sed et caetera utique idem fecit qui et priora, id est Sermo Dei, per quem omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil. Qui ipse Deus est, secundum Joannem (I, 1), Deus erat Sermo. Habes duos,

If the number of the Trinity still offends you, as though it were not bound together in a simple unity, I ask how a single and solitary One speaks in the plural: Let us make man after our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), when He ought to have said: Let Me make man after My image and likeness, as being single and solitary? And also in what follows: Behold, Adam has become as one of us, He is deceiving or jesting, so that, though He was one, and alone, and solitary, He should speak in the plural; or was He perhaps speaking to angels, as the Jews interpret it, because they too do not acknowledge the Son? Or was it because He Himself was Father, Son, Spirit, that, presenting Himself as plural, He spoke to Himself in the plural? Rather, it was because the Son, the second Person, His Word, already clung to Him, and the third, the Spirit in the Word, that He spoke in the plural, let us make, and, our, and, us. For with whom was He making man, and to whom was He making him like? With the Son indeed, Who was to put on man; and with the Spirit, Who was to sanctify man, He spoke, as with ministers and witnesses, out of the unity of the Trinity. Then the Scripture that follows distinguishes between the Persons: And God made man, after the image of God He made him (Gen. 1:27). Why not 'His own', if He Who was making was one, and there was none after Whose [image] He was making? But there was One after Whose image He was making: that is, after that of the Son, Who, being destined to be man more surely and more truly, had caused the man who was then to be formed from the clay to be called His image, the image and likeness of the true one. And also in the preceding works of the world, how it is written: first indeed, while the Son had not yet appeared: And God said: Let there be light, and it was made: at once the Word Himself, the true light, which enlightens man coming into this world, and through Him also the light of the world. From then on, moreover, with Christ the Word assisting and ministering, God willed it to be made, and God made it. And God said: Let there be a firmament, and God made the firmament; and God said: Let there be lights, and God made the greater and the lesser light (Gen. 1:7–16); and the rest too the same One certainly made Who made the earlier things, that is, the Word of God, through Whom all things were made, and without Whom nothing was made. Who is Himself God, according to John (1:1), the Word was God. You have two,

Editors' notes and page, col. 191

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 100)

(54) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 191

Praeferens Wouw.

Praeferens ("displaying"): Wouwer.

(printed under page 100)

(55) ‹anchor: Cum Filio› · call in col 191

Similem? Filio Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Similem? Filio (question mark after "similem"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 100)

(56) ‹anchor: cum ministris› · call in col 191

Comministris Jun.

Comministris ("fellow ministers"): Junius.

(printed under page 100)

(57) ‹anchor: imago veri› · call in col 191

Vero Rhen. Pam. Seml. Oberth.

Vero ("of the true one", dative): Rhenanus, Pamelius, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 100)

(58) ‹anchor: Deus voluit› · call in col 191

Voluerint Rig. Venet.

Voluerint ("they willed"): Rigault, the Venice edition.

(printed under page 100)

(59) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 191 or 192

Dum juberet enim, fieri Lat. Rig. dum juberet. Fieri per eum tamen jub. Jun.

Dum juberet enim, fieri: Latinius, Rigault; dum juberet. Fieri per eum tamen jub[eret]: Junius.

(printed under page 100)

Page

running head: 191 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A His itaque paucis; B pote unicus et singularis? Sed et in sequentibus; C cum ministris et arbitris, ex unitate Trinitatis lo-; D sistente et administrante Deus voluit fieri, et
old-edition numerals: 168 after persona,

PL 2:192

alium dicentem ut fiat, alium facientem. Alium autem quomodo accipere debeas, jam professus sum; personae, non substantiae nomine; ad distinctionem, non ad divisionem. Caeterum, etsi ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus, tamen alium dicam oportet ex necessitate sensus, eum qui jubet, et eum qui facit. Nam nec juberet, si ipse faceret, dum juberet fieri per eum. Tamen jubebat, haud sibi jussurus si unus esset; aut sine jussu facturus, quia non exspectasset ut sibi juberet.

one who speaks that it be done, another who does it. But how you ought to understand "another", I have already declared: in the sense of person, not of substance; for distinction, not for division. Moreover, although everywhere I hold one substance in three cohering together, yet I must of necessity of meaning call Him who commands another than Him who does. For He would not command if He Himself were doing it, while commanding it to be done through Him. Yet He did command, though He would not have commanded Himself if He were one; or He would have acted without a command, because He would not have waited for Himself to command Himself.

CAPUT XIII.

Chapter XIII.

Ergo, inquit, si Deus dixit, et Deus fecit; si alius Deus dixit, et alius fecit, duo Dii praedicantur. Si tam durus es, puta interim: et ut adhuc amplius hoc putes, accipe in Psalmo (XLIV, 7, 8) duos Deos dictos: Thronus tuus, Deus, in aevum, virga regni tui: dilexisti justitiam, et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus. Si ad Deum loquitur, et unctum Deum a Deo affirmat, scilicet hic duos deos proponit. Inde et Isaias (XLV, 14) ad personam Christi: Et Sabain, inquit, viri elati ad te transibunt, et post tesequentur vincti manibus, et te adorabunt, quia in te Deus est. Tu enim es Deus noster, et nesciebamus, Deus Israelis. Et hic enim dicendo, Deus in te, tu Deus, duos proponit: qui erat, et in quo erat, Christum, et Spiritum. Ipsum plus est, quod in Evangelio totidem invenies: In principio erat Sermo, et Sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo (Joan. I, 1). Unus qui erat, et alius penes quem erat. Sed et nomen Domiui in duobus lego: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede ad dexteram meam. (Psal CIX, 1). Et Isaias haec dicit: Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro? et brachium Domini cui revelatum est? (Isa. LIII, 1). Brachium enim tuum, non Domini dixisset, si non Dominum Patrem et Dominum Filium intelligi vellet. Etiam adhuc antiquior Genesis: Et pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham sulphur et ignem de caelo a Domino (Gen. XIX. 24). Haec aut nega scripta, aut quis es, ut non putes accipienda quemadmodum scripta sunt, maxime quae non in allegoriis et parabolis, sed in definitionibus et certis et simplicibus habent sensum? Quod si ex illis es qui tunc Dominum non sustinebant Dei se Filium ostendentem, nec eum Dominum crederent, recordare tu cum illis scriptum esse: Ego dixi: Vos dii estis, et filii Altissimi (Psal. LXXXII, 6). Et: Stetit Deus in ecclesia deorum; ut si homines, per fidem filios Dei factos, deos Scriptura pronuntiare non timuit, scias illam multo magis vero et unico Dei Filio Dei nomen

Therefore, he says, if God spoke and God made, if one God spoke and another made, two Gods are proclaimed. If you are so hard, think so for the moment; and that you may think it still more, take in the Psalm (Ps. 44:7–8) two Gods named: Thy throne, O God, unto the age, the rod of Thy kingdom: Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee. If he speaks to God, and affirms God anointed by God, plainly he here sets forth two gods. Hence also Isaiah (Isa. 45:14), to the person of Christ: And the Sabaeans, he says, men lifted up, shall pass over to Thee and shall follow after Thee bound in their hands, and shall worship Thee, because God is in Thee. For Thou art our God, and we knew it not, the God of Israel. For here too, by saying "God in Thee, Thou God", he sets forth two: Him who was, and Him in whom He was, Christ and the Spirit. It is even more that you will find just as many in the Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). One who was, and another with whom He was. But I also read the name of Lord in two: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at My right hand (Ps. 109:1). And Isaiah says this: Lord, who has believed our report? and the arm of the Lord, to whom has it been revealed? (Isa. 53:1). For he would have said "Thy arm", not "the Lord's", if he had not wished the Lord the Father and the Lord the Son to be understood. Still more ancient is Genesis: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah sulphur and fire from heaven from the Lord (Gen. 19:24). Either deny that these things are written, or who are you, that you should not think them to be accepted as they are written, especially those which have their sense not in allegories and parables but in definitions both sure and simple? But if you are one of those who at that time would not bear the Lord showing Himself to be the Son of God, nor believed Him to be Lord, remember along with them that it is written: I said: You are gods, and sons of the Most High (Ps. 81:6). And: God stood in the assembly of gods; so that, if Scripture did not fear to pronounce as gods men made sons of God through faith, you may know that much more to the true and only Son of God it the name of God

Editors' notes and page, col. 192

Footnotes

(60) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 192

Sed hic duos deos pro virga regni tui Seml. Pam. affirmat et hic duos deos Lat.

Sed hic duos deos pro virga regni tui: Semler, Pamelius; affirmat et hic duos deos ("here too he affirms two gods"): Latinius.

(printed under page 100)

(61) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 192

Sabaim Fran. Seboim Seml.

Sabaim: the Franeker edition; Seboim: Semler.

(printed under page 100)

(62) ‹anchor: Christum› · call in col 192

Qui erant in Chr. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.

Qui erant in Chr[isto] ("who were in Christ"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.

(printed under page 100)

(63) ‹anchor: Ipsum plus› · call in col 192

Spiritum s. Plus Latin. in Christo ex S. Plus Jun.

Spiritum s[anctum]. Plus: Latinius; in Christo ex S. Plus: Junius.

(printed under page 100)

(64) ‹anchor: Brachium enim tuum› · call in col 192

Enim suum non dixisset, si Seml.

Enim suum non dixisset, si ("for he would not have said 'his own', if"): Semler.

(printed under page 100)

(65) ‹anchor: definitionibus et› · call in col 192

Et abest. Seml.

Et is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 100)

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 101)

(66) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 193

Ad ad. Seml.

Semler adds ad.

(printed under page 101)

(67) ‹anchor: quod ipse sit› · call in col 193

Sit abest. Seml.

Sit is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(68) ‹anchor: ut, quia› · call in col 193

Et Seml.

Et: Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(69) ‹anchor: unius, et› · call in col 193

Ut Seml.

Ut: Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(70) ‹anchor: evadendi quoque› · call in col 193

Quaque Seml.

Quaque: Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(71) ‹anchor: pateret› · call in col 193

Patet Seml.

Patet ("lies open", present): Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(72) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 193 or 194

Duos faciam Seml.

Duos faciam ("I would make two"): Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(73) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 193 or 194

Qua Seml.

Qua: Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(74) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 193 or 194

Quem Seml.

Quem ("whom"): Semler.

(printed under page 101)

(22) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 193

Maxime Paracleti, non hominum discipuli. Sentit, ni fallor, de Paracleto novae prophetiae. Jactabant vero Montani sectatores, se non hominum discipulos, sed Paracleti. RHEN.

Above all disciples of the Paraclete, not of men. He means, unless I am mistaken, the Paraclete of the new prophecy. The followers of Montanus boasted that they were disciples not of men but of the Paraclete. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 101)

(23) ‹anchor: quorum Dii plures› · call in col 193

Quorum dii plures. Propter Aeonum deorum immensam farraginem Valentinianos subindicat, qui Gnosticorum velut surculi, et rami ex corrupta radice. LE PR.

Whose gods are many. Because of the immense medley of Aeon-gods he hints at the Valentinians, who are as it were shoots of the Gnostics, and branches from a corrupt root. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 101)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L04 and L05 blocked, these fresh columns were not written (L01 wrote 181 before its block, L03 wrote 206) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:194

nia benedictus in aevum omne (Rom. I, 7). Nam et radium solis seorsum solem vocabo; solem autem nominans cujus est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo. Nam etsi soles duos non faciam, tamen et solem et radium ejus tam duas res, et duas species unius indivisae substantiae numerabo, quam Deum et Sermonem ejus, quam Patrem et Filium.

all things, blessed unto every age (Rom. 9:5). For I shall also call the ray of the sun, taken separately, "sun"; but when naming the sun whose ray it is, I shall not at once call the ray also "sun". For although I would not make two suns, yet I shall count both the sun and its ray as two things and two forms of one undivided substance, just as I count God and His Word, just as the Father and the Son.

CAPUT XIV.

Chapter XIV.

Adhuc et illa nobis regula adsistit duos vindicantibus Patrem et Filium, quae invisibilem Deum determinavit. Cum enim Moyses (Exod. XXXIII, 13, 29) in Aegypto desiderasset Domini conspectum, dicens : Si ergo inveni gratiam coram te, manifesta mihi te, ut cognoscenter videam te : Non potes videre, inquit, faciem meam; non enim videbit homo faciem meam, et vivet, id est, morietur qui viderit. Invenimus enim et a multis Deum visum, et neminem tamen eorum, qui eum viderant, mortuum. Visum quidem Deum secundum hominum capacitatem, non secundum plenitudinem divinitatis : nam patriarchae Deum vidisse referuntur, ut Abraham et Jacob, et prophetae, ut Isaias, ut Ezechiel; et tamen mortui non sunt. Igitur aut mori debuerant, si eum viderant; Deum enim nemo videbit, et vivet; aut si Deum viderunt, et mortui non sunt, Scriptura mentitur, Deum dixisse. Faciem meam homo si viderit, non vivet; aut Scriptura mentitur, cum invisum, aut cum visum Deum profert. Jam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri, qui videbatur; et consequens erit, ut invisibilem Patrem intelligamus, pro plenitudine majestatis; visibilem vero Filium agnoscamus, pro modulo derivationis : sicut nec solem nobis contemplari licet, quantum ad ipsam substantiae summam quae est in coelis : radium autem ejus toleramus oculis pro temperatura portionis quae in terram inde porrigitur. Hic ex diverso volet aliqais etiam Filium invisibilem contendere, ut sermonem, ut spiritum; et dum unicam conditionem Patris et Filii vindicat, unum potius atque eumdem confirmare Patrem et Filium. Sed diximus Scripturam differentiae patrocinari, per visibilis et invisibilis distinctionem. Nam et illud adjiciunt ad argumentationem : Quod si Filius tunc ad Moysen loquebatur, ipse faciem suam nemini visibilem pronuntiaret, quia scilicet ipse

Furthermore, that rule also stands by us who claim two, the Father and the Son, which has determined that God is invisible. For when Moses (Exod. 33:13, 20) in Egypt had desired the sight of the Lord, saying: If therefore I have found favour before Thee, show Thyself to me, that I may see Thee knowingly: You cannot see, He says, My face; for man shall not see My face and live, that is, he who has seen it shall die. For we find that God was also seen by many, and yet that none of those who had seen Him died. God was seen indeed according to the capacity of men, not according to the fullness of the divinity: for the patriarchs are related to have seen God, as Abraham and Jacob, and the prophets, as Isaiah, as Ezekiel; and yet they did not die. Therefore either they ought to have died, if they had seen Him, for no one shall see God and live; or, if they saw God and did not die, Scripture lies in saying that God said: If a man sees My face, he shall not live; or Scripture lies either when it presents God as unseen or when it presents Him as seen. Now therefore He Who was seen will be another, since the same One Who was seen cannot be defined as invisible; and it will follow that we understand the Father as invisible, on account of the fullness of His majesty, but acknowledge the Son as visible, on account of the measure of His derivation: just as we are not permitted to gaze upon the sun, as regards the very sum of its substance which is in the heavens, but we bear its ray with our eyes on account of the tempering of the portion which is extended thence to the earth. Here someone on the opposing side will wish to contend that the Son too is invisible, as Word, as Spirit; and, while claiming a single condition for the Father and the Son, to affirm rather that the Father and the Son are one and the same. But we have said that Scripture supports the difference, through the distinction of visible and invisible. For they also add this to their argument: that if the Son was then speaking to Moses, He Himself would be declaring His own face visible to no one, since namely He Himself

Editors' notes and page, col. 194

Footnotes

(72) ‹anchor: soles duos non faciam› · call in col 194

Duos faciam Seml.

Duos faciam ("I would make two"): Semler.

(73) ‹anchor: quam Deum et Sermonem› · call in col 194

Qua Seml.

Qua ("by which"): Semler.

(74) ‹anchor: quae invisibilem Deum› · call in col 194

Quem Seml.

Quem ("whom"): Semler.

(75) ‹anchor: dum unicam› · call in col 194

Unum Seml.

Unum ("one"): Semler.

Commentarius

(printed under page 101)

(24) ‹anchor: Domini conspectum› · call in col 194

Moyses in Aegypto desiderasset Domini conspectum. Imo vero non in Aegypto, sed in Sina Arabiae monte Moyses ipse refert ejusmodi se colloquium cum Deo habuisse. Mirandum idcirco nobis videtur, quod ne ullus quidem interpres sive commentator hunc Tertulliani errorem, quantumvis obvium, ad nostra usque tempora observaverit. EDD.

Moses had desired in Egypt the sight of the Lord. No indeed: not in Egypt, but on Mount Sinai in Arabia, Moses himself relates that he had a conversation of this kind with God. It seems to us a wonder, therefore, that not a single interpreter or commentator, down to our own times, has noticed this error of Tertullian, however obvious. EDITORS.

(printed under page 101)

Page

placed: the text of this column is the volunteers' checked text, placed after publication (Ray 2026-10-24); read against the page by QA Q4 on 2026-10-25.
misprint: aliqais (for aliquis), set as printed.

PL 2:195

invisibilis Pater fuerit in Filii nomine. Ac per hoc, sic eumdem volunt accipi visibilem et invisibilem, quomodo eumdem Patrem et Filium: quoniam et paulo supra, antequam faciem Moysi negasset, scriptum sit, Dominum ad Moysen locutum coram, velut si quis loquatur ad amicum suum, non minus quam et Jacob: Ego vidi, inquit (Gen. XXXII, 30), Dominum facie ad faciem. Ergo visibilis et invisibilis idem. Et quia idem utrumque, ideo et ipse, qua Pater, invisibilis; et qua Filius, visibilis. Quasi non expositio Scripturae quae fit a nobis, Filio competat, Patre seposito in sua invisibilitate. Dicimus enim et Filium suo nomine eatenus invisibilem, qua sermo et spiritus Dei ex substantiae conditione jam nunc, et qua Deus, et sermo, et spiritus: visibilem autem fuisse ante carnem eo modo quo dicit (Num. XII, 2) ad Aaron et Mariam: Et si fuerit prophetes in vobis, in visione cognoscar illi, et in somnio loquar illi, non quomodo Moysi. Os ad os loquar illi in specie, id est in veritate; et non in aenigmate, id est, non in imagine. Sicut et Apostolus: Nunc videmus tanquam per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem (I Cor. XIII, 12). Igitur cum Moysi servat conspectum suum et colloquium facie ad faciem in futurum (nam hoc post ea adimpletum est in montis secessu, sicut legimus in Evangelio (Luc. IX, 30) visum cum illo Moysen colloquentem); apparet retro semper in speculo, et aenigmate, et visione, et somnio Deum, id est, Filium Dei, visum tam Prophetis et Patriarchis, quam et ipsi adhuc Moysi. Et ipse quidem Dominus si forte coram ad faciem loquebatur, non tamen ut est, homo faciem ejus videret, nisi forte in speculo et in aenigmate. Denique, si sic Moysi locutus est Dominus, ut et Moyses faciem ejus cominus sciret, quomodo statim atque ibidem desiderat faciem ejus videre quam, quia viderat, non desideraret? Quomodo aeque et Dominus negat videri faciem suam posse, quam ostenderat, si tamen ostenderat? Aut quae est facies Dei, cujus conspectus negatur, si erat quae visa est? Vidi, inquit Jacob, Deum facie ad faciem, et salva facta est anima mea (Gen. XXXII, 30). Alia debet esse facies, quae si videatur, occidit. Aut numquid Filius quidem videbatur, et sic facies, sed ipsum hoc in visione, et somnio, et speculo, et aenigmate, quia sermo, et spiritus, nisi imaginaria forma videri non potest. Faciem autem suam dicit invisibilem Patrem.

the invisible Father was in the name of the Son. And by this means they want the same one to be taken as visible and invisible, in the way that the same one is Father and Son: since a little above also, before He had refused His face to Moses, it is written that the Lord spoke to Moses in His presence, as if someone were speaking to his friend, no less than Jacob also: I have seen, he says (Gen. 32:30), the Lord face to face. Therefore the same one is visible and invisible. And because the same one is both, therefore He Himself is invisible as Father, and visible as Son. As though the exposition of Scripture which is made by us did not apply to the Son, the Father being set apart in His own invisibility. For we say that the Son too, in His own name, is invisible in so far as He is the Word and Spirit of God, by the condition of His substance even now, and in so far as He is God, and Word, and Spirit; but that He was visible before the flesh in the manner in which He speaks (Num. 12:2) to Aaron and Miriam: And if there be a prophet among you, I shall be known to him in a vision, and in a dream I shall speak to him, not as to Moses. Mouth to mouth I shall speak to him in appearance, that is, in truth; and not in an enigma, that is, not in an image. As the Apostle also says: Now we see as through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). Since, therefore, He reserves for Moses the sight of Himself and converse face to face for the future (for this was afterwards fulfilled in the retreat of the mountain, as we read in the Gospel (Luke 9:30) that Moses was seen conversing with Him), it is evident that formerly God, that is, the Son of God, was always seen in a mirror, and an enigma, and a vision, and a dream, as much by the Prophets and Patriarchs as by Moses himself until then. And even if the Lord Himself perhaps spoke in presence, face to face, yet not so that a man should see His face as it is, except perhaps in a mirror and in an enigma. Finally, if the Lord so spoke to Moses that Moses also knew His face at close quarters, how is it that at once and on the very spot he desires to see His face, which he would not desire, since he had seen it? How likewise does the Lord too say that His face cannot be seen, which He had shown, if indeed He had shown it? Or what is the face of God, the sight of which is refused, if there was one which was seen? I saw, says Jacob, God face to face, and my soul has been saved (Gen. 32:30). It must be another face which, if it be seen, kills. Or was it indeed the Son who was seen, and thus the face, but this very thing in vision, and dream, and mirror, and enigma, because the Word and Spirit cannot be seen except in an imaginary form? But His face, He says, is the invisible Father.

Editors' notes and page, col. 195

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 102)

(76) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 195 or 196

Et inserit Seml.

Semler inserts et.

(printed under page 102)

(77) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 195 or 196

Et abest. Fran. Paris.

Et is absent: the Franeker and Paris editions.

(printed under page 102)

(78) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 195 or 196

Quia et filius Seml. pater visibilis antehac Jun.

Quia et filius: Semler; pater visibilis antehac ("the Father visible before this"): Junius.

(printed under page 102)

(79) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 195 or 196

Visibilitatis Seml.

Visibilitatis ("of visibility"): Semler.

(printed under page 102)

(80) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 195 or 196

Quia Seml. quae Deus ut Jun. qua etiam Rig.

Quia: Semler; quae Deus ut: Junius; qua etiam: Rigault.

Commentarius

(printed under page 102)

(25) ‹anchor: Faciem autem suam› · call in col 195

Faciem autem suam, etc. Istud affert Auctor tanquam argumentum Praxeanorum; nam et refutat verbis illis. Quis enim pater? etc., ostendens Filium potius faciem Patris dici debere, idque ex Scrip., Thren. IV. PAM.

But his own face, etc. The Author brings this forward as an argument of the Praxeans; for he also refutes it with those words, For who is the father? etc., showing that it is rather the Son who ought to be called the face of the Father, and that from Scripture, Lamentations 4. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 102)

Page

running head: 195 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹invisibilis Pater fuerit in Filii nomine›; B ‹spiritus : visibilem autem fuisse ante carnem›; C ‹est, Filium Dei, visum tam Prophetis›; D ‹debatur, et sic facies, sed ipsum hoc›
old-edition numerals: 172 after ‹colloquentem);›

PL 2:196

Quis enim Pater? non facies erit Filii, nomine auctoritatis, quam genitus a Patre consequitur? Non enim et de aliqua majore persona congruit dicere: Facies mea est ille homo; et: Faciem mihi praestat. Pater, inquit, major me est (Joan. XIV, 28). Ergo facies erit Filii Pater. Nam et Scriptura quid dicit? Spiritus personae ejus, Christus Dominus (Thren. IV, 20). Ergo si Christus personae paternae spiritus est, merito cujus spiritus persona erat, id est Patris, eum faciem suam, ex unitate scilicet, pronuntiavit. mirarer plane, an facies Filii Pater accipi possit, qui est caput ejus: Caput enim Christi Deus (I Cor. II, 3).

For who is the Father? Will He not be the face of the Son, by the name of the authority which He, as begotten, obtains from the Father? For is it not fitting to say even of some greater person: That man is my face; and: He gives me face? The Father, He says, is greater than I (John 14:28). Therefore the Father will be the face of the Son. For what does Scripture also say? The spirit of His person, Christ the Lord (Lam. 4:20). Therefore if Christ is the spirit of the Father's person, it was rightly that He declared Him of whose person He was the spirit, that is, the Father, to be His face, namely by reason of unity. I would indeed wonder whether the Father, who is His head, could be taken as the face of the Son: for the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3).

CAPUT XV.

Chapter XV.

Si hunc articulum quaestionibus Scripturae veteris non expediam, de Novo Testamento sumam confirmationem nostrae interpretationis; nc quodcunque in Filium reputo, in Patrem proinde defendas. Ecce enim et in Evangeliis et in apostolis visibilem et invisibilem Deum deprehendo, sub manifesta et personali distinctione conditionis utriusque. Exclamat quodammodo Joannes: Deum nemo vidit unquam (Joan. I, 18). Utique nec retro. Ademit enim temporis quaestionem, dicendo Deum nunquam visum. Confirmat et Apostolus de Deo: Quem nemo vidit hominum sed, nec videre potest (I Tim. VI, 18); scilicet, quia morietur qui viderit. Iidem ipsi apostoli et vidisse se Christum, et contrectasse testantur. Porro si ipse est Christus et Pater et Filius, quomodo visus est, et invisus? Ad hanc diversitatem visi et invisi in unum conferendam, quis ex diverso non argumentabitur, recte utrumque dictum: visibilem quidem in carne, invisibilem vero ante carnem; ut idem sit Pater invisibilis ante carnem, qui et Filius visibilis in carne? Atquin, si idem ante carnem invisibilis quomodo visus etiam retro invenitur ante carnem? Aeque si idem post quem et retro visum in aenigmate, plenius visibilem caro effecit; sermo scilicet, qui et caro factus, est alius, quem nunquam quisquam vidit, nisi Pater, scilicet cujus est sermo. Denique, inspiciamus quem Apostoli viderint. Quod vidimus, inquit Joannes (I Joan. I, 1), quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de Sermone vitae. Sermo enim vitae factus, et auditus, et contrectatus, quia caro, qui ante carnem Sermo tantum in primordio apud Deum Patrem,

If I do not settle this point by inquiries into the Old Scripture, I shall take confirmation of our interpretation from the New Testament, lest whatever I assign to the Son you should likewise maintain of the Father. For behold, both in the Gospels and in the apostles I find a visible and an invisible God, under a manifest and personal distinction of the condition of each. John in a manner cries out: No one has ever seen God (John 1:18). Certainly not in times past either. For he removed the question of time by saying that God has never been seen. The Apostle also confirms it concerning God: Whom no one of men has seen, but neither can see (1 Tim. 6:16); that is, because he who has seen Him will die. Yet the very same apostles testify that they both saw Christ and handled Him. Now if Christ Himself is both Father and Son, how was He seen and unseen? To bring this diversity of seen and unseen into one, who on the opposing side will not argue that both were rightly said: visible indeed in the flesh, but invisible before the flesh; so that the same one is the Father invisible before the flesh who is also the Son visible in the flesh? And yet, if the same was invisible before the flesh, how is He found to have been seen in times past also, before the flesh? Likewise, if the same is He whom, having been seen in times past in a riddle, the flesh afterwards made more fully visible, namely the Word, who also was made flesh, then He is another than the One whom no one has ever seen except the Father, namely He whose Word He is. Finally, let us examine whom the Apostles saw. That which we have seen, says John (1 John 1:1), that which we have heard, we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled concerning the Word of life. For the Word of life was made, and heard, and handled, because flesh, who before the flesh was only the Word in the beginning with God the Father,

Editors' notes and page, col. 196

Footnotes

(26) ‹anchor: quia morietur qui viderit› · call in col 196

Iidem ipsi Apostoli, etc. Apostolis plurali numero adtribuit, quod solus Joannes scribit, Epist. I, et mox citatur; ea de causa, quantum apparet, quod pluraliter ille dixerit: Quod vidimus, quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt, de Sermone vitae. Ubi et rursum paulo post verborum ordinem immutat, cum legatur hodie et Graece et Latine: Quod audivimus, quod vidimus oculis nostris, quod prospeximus et manus nostrae contrectaverunt. PAM.

The same apostles themselves, etc. He attributes to the apostles in the plural what John alone writes, in his First Epistle, which is cited just after; for this reason, as it appears, that John spoke in the plural: What we have seen, what we have heard, we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. Where, again, a little later he alters the order of the words, since it reads today both in Greek and in Latin: What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon and our hands have handled. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 102)

Page

running head: …UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 196
marginal letters: A Quis enim Pater? non facies; B Si hunc articulum quaestionibus; C tum, et contrectasse testantur; D mus, oculis nostris vidimus
old-edition numerals: 178 after invisus?

PL 2:197

non Pater apud Sermonem. Nam etsi Deus Sermo, sed apud Deum, quia ex Deo Deus, quia cum Patre apud Patrem: Et vidimus gloriam ejus, tanquam unigeniti a Patre (Joan. I. 14); utique Filii, scilicet visibilis, glorificati a Patre invisibili. Et ideo quoniam, Sermonem Dei Deum dixerat, ne adjuvaret adversariorum praesumptionem, quasi Patrem ipsum vidisset, ad distinguendum inter invisibilem Patrem, et Filium visibilem, superdicit ex abundanti, Deum nemo vidit unquam (Joan I, 18). Quem Deum? Sermonem? Atquin, Vidimus, et audivimus, et contrectavimus, de Sermone vitae praedictum est. Sed quem Deum? Scilicet Patrem, apud Quem Deum erat Sermo, unigenitus scilicet Filius, qui in sinum Patris ipse disseruit. Ipse et auditus, et visus, et ne phantasma crederetur, etiam contrectatus. Hunc et Paulus conspexit, nec tamen Patrem vidit. Nonne, inquit, vidi Jesum (I Cor. IX, 1)? Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit: Quorum patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in aevum (Rom. IX, 5). Ostendit et ipse visibilem Dei Filium, id est Sermonem Dei, quia caro factus est, Christus dictus est. De Patre autem ad Timotheum: Quem nemo vidit hominum sed nec videre potest (I Tim. VI, 16). Exaggerans amplius (Ibid.): Qui solus habet immortalitatem, et lucem habitat inaccessibilem. De quo et supra dixerat: Regi autem saeculorum immortali, invisibili, soli Deo: ut et contraria ipsi Filio ascriberemus, mortalitatem, accessibilitatem; quem mortuum contestatur secundum Scripturas (I Cor. XV, 3); et a se novissime visum, per accessibilem utique lucem: quanquam et illam neque ipse sine periculo luminis expertus est, neque Petrus et Joannes et Jacobus sine rationis et amentia; qui si non passuri Filii gloriam, sed Patrem vidissent, credo, morituri ibidem. Deum enim nemo videbit, et vivet. Si haec ita sunt, constat eum semper visum ab initio, qui visus fuerit in fine; et eum nec in fine visum, qui nec ab initio fuit visus; et ita duos esse, visum et invisum. Filius ergo visus est semper, et Filius conversatus est semper, et Filius operatus.

Not the Father with the Word. For although the Word is God, yet [He is] with God, because [He is] God from God, because, being with the Father, [He is] with the Father: And we have seen His glory, as of the only-begotten of the Father (John 1:14); certainly of the Son, namely the visible one, glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, since he had called the Word of God God, lest he should assist the presumption of the adversaries, as though he had seen the Father Himself, in order to distinguish between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he adds over and above: No one has ever seen God (John 1:18). Which God? The Word? But: We have seen, and we have heard, and we have handled, was said beforehand of the Word of life. But which God? Namely the Father, the God with Whom the Word was, the only-begotten Son, namely, Who in the bosom of the Father has Himself declared [Him]. He was both heard and seen, and, lest He be believed a phantasm, even handled. Him Paul too beheld, and yet he did not see the Father. Have I not, he says, seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1)? But Christ he too surnamed God: Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all, God blessed for ever (Rom. 9:5). He too shows the Son of God visible, that is, the Word of God, because, having been made flesh, He has been called Christ. But of the Father, to Timothy: Whom none of men has seen, nor indeed can see (1 Tim. 6:16). Heightening it further (ibid.): Who alone has immortality, and dwells in light inaccessible. Of Whom he had also said above: But to the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, to God alone: so that we might also ascribe the contrary [attributes] to the Son Himself, mortality, accessibility; Whom he testifies to have died according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3), and to have been seen last of all by himself, by means of a light that was certainly accessible: although even that he did not experience without danger to his sight, nor did Peter and John and James without [danger] of reason and [without] madness; who, if they had seen not the glory of the Son Who was to suffer, but the Father, would, I believe, have died on the spot. For no one shall see God and live. If these things are so, it is established that He was always seen from the beginning Who was seen at the end; and that He was not seen at the end Who was not seen from the beginning either; and thus that there are two, the seen and the unseen. The Son therefore has always been seen, and the Son has always held converse, and the Son has worked

Editors' notes and page, col. 197

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 103)

(81) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Quomodo Seml.

Quomodo ("how"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(82) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Ut Seml.

Ut: Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(83) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Deus Seml.

Deus ("God"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(84) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Scilicet abest Seml.

Scilicet is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(85) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Est in sinu Seml.

Est in sinu ("is in the bosom"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(86) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Ipsum Dominum Seml.

Ipsum Dominum ("the Lord himself"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(87) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Per Seml.

Per ("through"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(88) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 197

Ipse abest Seml.

Ipse is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(89) ‹anchor: mortalitatem› · call in col 197

Et inser. Jun.

Junius inserts et.

(printed under page 103)

(90) ‹anchor: illam neque› · call in col 197

Et add. Seml.

Semler adds et.

(printed under page 103)

(91) ‹anchor: sine rationis› · call in col 197

Rationes Seml. irratione Fran. erratione Rhen. et Jun. rationis ex amentia Wouw.

Rationes: Semler; irratione: the Franeker edition; erratione: Rhenanus and Junius; rationis ex amentia: Wouwer.

(printed under page 103)

(27) ‹anchor: immortali, invisibili› · call in col 197

Regi autem saeculorum immortali, invisibili, etc. Hic adnotatu dignum, quod non modo BB. Ambr. Hieron. et August. hunc locum Apost. I Tim. I, citantes, sed et hic Auctor, non aliud legant quam soli Deo, ex quo colligitur, quod quidam ex graecis hodiernis exemplaribus interponunt sapientt, adjectum esse ex calce Epist. ad Rom. Quare etiam in illo nimis libera Clarii castigatio. PAM.

Now to the King of ages, immortal, invisible, etc. It is worth noting here that not only blessed Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, citing this passage of the Apostle, 1 Timothy 1, but also the Author here, read nothing other than to God alone; from which it is gathered that the word wise, which some present-day Greek copies insert, was added from the end of the Epistle to the Romans. Hence Clarius's correction there too is over-free. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 103)

(28) ‹anchor: sine rationis et amentia› · call in col 197

Neque Petrus et Joannes et Jacobus sine rationis et amentia. Hoc est, neque sine periculo rationis, neque sine amentia. Periculum rationis dicit, ut supra Periculum luminis, hoc est, damnum. Liber Ursini, sine rationis examentia; Pithaei sine ratione et amentia. RIG.

Nor Peter and John and James without [peril] of reason and madness. That is, neither without peril of reason nor without madness. He says "peril of reason" as above "peril of sight", that is, loss. Ursinus's book: sine rationis examentia; Pithou's: sine ratione et amentia. RIGAULT.

(printed under page 103)

Page

running head: 197 LIBER ADV. PRAXE (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹trem, non Pater apud Sermonem›; B ‹Filius, qui in sinum Patris›; C ‹soli Deo: ut et contraria›; D ‹Filius conversatus est semper›
old-edition numerals: 174 after ‹immortalitatem›

PL 2:198

est semper, ex auctoritate Patris et voluntate; quia Filius nihil a semetipso potest facere, nisi viderit Patrem facientem; in sensu scilicet facientem, Pater enim sensu agit. Filius vero quod in Patris sensu est videns perficit. Sic omnia per Filium facta sunt, et sine illo factum est nihil.

always, by the authority and will of the Father; because the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless He has seen the Father doing it; doing it, that is, in His mind, for the Father acts by mind. The Son, however, seeing what is in the Father's mind, brings it to completion. Thus all things were made through the Son, and without Him nothing was made.

CAPUT XVI.

Chapter XVI.

Nec putes sola opera mundi per Filium facta, sed et quae a Deo exinde gesta sunt. Pater enim qui diligit Filium, et omnia tradidit in manu ejus; utique a primordio diligit, et a primordio tradidit. Ex quo, a primordio Sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo (Joan. I. 1), cui data est omnis potestas a Patre in coelis et in terra Matth. XXVIII, 8). Non judicat Pater quemquam: sed omne judicium tradidit Filio (Joan. V, 22); a primordio tamen. Omnem enim dicens potestatem, et omne judicium, et omnia per eum facta, et omnia tradita in manu ejus, nullam exceptionem temporis permittit: quia omnia non erunt, si non omnis temporis fuerint. Filius itaque est qui ab initio judicavit, turrim superbissimam elidens, linguasque dispertiens, orbem totum aquarum violentia puniens, pluens super Sodomam et Gomorrham ignem et sulphurem; Dominus a Domino (Gen. XIX, 24). Ipse enim et ad humana semper colloquia descendit, ab Adam usque ad patriarchas et prophetas, in visione, in somnio, in speculo, in aenigmate, ordinem suum praestruens ab initio semper, quem erat persecuturus in finem. Ita semper ediscebat, et Deus in terris cum hominibus conversari non alius potuit quam Sermo, qui caro erat futurus. Ediscebat autem, ut nobis fidem sterneret, ut facilius crederemus Filium Dei descendisse in saeculum, si et retro tale quid gestum cognosceremus. Propter nos enim sicut scripta sunt, ita et gesta sunt, in quos aevorum fines decucurrerunt. Sic etiam affectus humanos sciebat jam tunc, suscepturus etiam ipsas substantias hominis, carnem et animam; interrogans Adam quasi nesciens, Ubi, es Adam? poenitens quod hominem fecisset, quaesi non praesciens; tentans Abraham, quasi ignorans quid sit in homine; offensus,

Nor should you think that only the works of the world were made through the Son, but also the things that were done by God thereafter. For the Father, Who loves the Son, has also given all things into His hand; certainly He loves Him from the beginning, and from the beginning He has given them over. From that time, from the beginning, the Word was with God, and God was the Word (John 1:1), to Whom was given all power by the Father in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18). The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son (John 5:22); yet from the beginning. For in saying all power, and all judgement, and all things made through Him, and all things given into His hand, He permits no exception of time: for they will not be all things if they were not of all time. It is the Son, therefore, Who from the beginning judged, overthrowing the most proud tower, and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of the waters, raining fire and sulphur upon Sodom and Gomorrah; the Lord from the Lord (Gen. 19:24). For it was He Who always came down to converse with men, from Adam right up to the patriarchs and prophets, in vision, in dream, in a mirror, in a riddle, always laying down from the beginning the groundwork of the course which He was to follow through to the end. Thus He was always rehearsing, and no other God could converse with men on earth than the Word, Who was to become flesh. And He was rehearsing in order to pave the way of faith for us, so that we might more readily believe that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we knew that something of the kind had been done in times past as well. For it was for our sake that, as these things were written, so too they were done, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Thus also He already knew human feelings even then, being about to take upon Himself the very substances of man, flesh and soul; asking Adam as though not knowing, Where are you, Adam? repenting that He had made man, as though not foreknowing; testing Abraham, as though ignorant of what is in man; offended,

Editors' notes and page, col. 198

Footnotes

(92) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 198

Sentientem Seml.

Sentientem ("perceiving"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(93) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 198

In sensu Jun.

In sensu ("in the sense"): Junius.

(printed under page 103)

(94) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 198

Qui Venet. Rhen.

Qui ("who"): the Venice edition, Rhenanus.

(printed under page 103)

(95) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 198

Sinu Rhen.

Sinu ("bosom"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 103)

(96) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 198

Et add. Seml.

Semler adds et.

(printed under page 103)

(97) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 198

Disperdens Seml.

Disperdens ("destroying utterly"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(98) ‹anchor: ignem et sulphurem› · call in col 198

Sulphur Jun.

Sulphur: Junius.

(printed under page 103)

(99) ‹anchor: Dominus› · call in col 198

Deus a Deo Seml.

Deus a Deo ("God from God"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(1) ‹anchor: in somnio› · call in col 198

Somno Seml.

Somno ("sleep"): Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(2) ‹anchor: persecuturus in finem› · call in col 198

Quae erat persecuturus infinita Seml.

Quae erat persecuturus infinita: Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(3) ‹anchor: non alius potuit› · call in col 198

Potuit abest Seml.

Potuit is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 103)

(4) ‹anchor: in saeculum, si› · call in col 198

Si abest Seml.

Si is absent: Semler.

Commentarius

(printed under page 103)

(29) ‹anchor: Ita semper ediscebat› · call in col 198

Ita semper ediscebat. Sic in libro de carne Christi: « Et liberare, inquit, et judicare humanum genus ediscebat in carnis habitu non natae adhuc. » Rursum, de Resurr. carnis: « Immunitatem carnis ediscunt. » Et hic mox: « Ediscebat autem. » In libello ad Martyres: « Etiam in pace, inquit, labore et incommodis bellum pati jam ediscunt. » RHEN.

So he was always learning thoroughly. So in the book On the Flesh of Christ: "He was learning thoroughly," he says, "both to free and to judge the human race, in the guise of flesh not yet born." Again, On the Resurrection of the Flesh: "They thoroughly learn the immunity of the flesh." And here, a little after: "But he was learning thoroughly." In the little book To the Martyrs: "Even in peace," he says, "they already learn thoroughly to suffer war by toil and hardships." RHENANUS.

(printed under page 103)

Page

running head: [LIB]ER ADV. PRAXEAM. 198 (left part cut off; E of PRAXEAM and 8 of 198 imperfectly printed)
marginal letters: A est semper, ex auctoritate; B erat Sermo (Joan. I. 1); C praestruens ab initio semper; D Abraham, quasi ignorans
old-edition numerals: 175 after in (in somnio, in)

PL 2:199

reconciliatus eisdem. Et si qua haeretici apprehendunt quasi Deo indigna, ad destructionem Creatoris, ignorantes haec in Filium competisse, qui etiam passiones humanas, et sitim, et esuriem, et lacrymas, et ipsam nativitatem, ipsamque mortem erat subiturus : Propter hoc minoratus a Patre modicum quid citra angelos (Psal. VIII, 6). Sed haeretici quidem nec Filio Dei deputabunt convenire, quae tu ipsi Patri inducis, quasi ipse se denominaverit propter nos; cum Scriptura alium dicat ab alio minoratum, non ipsum a semetipso. Quid si et alius qui coronabatur gloria et honore, alius qui coronabat, utique Filium Pater? Caeterum, quale est, ut Deus omnipotens ille invisibilis, quem nemo vidit hominum, nec videre potest : ille qui inaccessibilem lucem habitat : ille qui non habitat in manufactis; a cujus conspectu terra contremiscit, montes liquescunt ut cera; qui totum orbem manu apprehendit velut nidum; cui caelum thronus, et terra scabellum; in quo omnis locus, non ipse in loco; qui universitatis extrema linea est; ille Altissimus, in paradiso ad vesperam deambulaverit, quaerens Adam; et arcam post introitum Noe clauserit; et apud Abraham sub quercu refrigeraverit; et Moysen de rubo ardenti vocarit; et in fornace Babylonii regis quartus apparuerit (quanquam Filius hominis est dictus), ni haec in imagine, et speculo, et aenigmate fuissent? Scilicet et haec nec de Filio Dei credenda fuisse, si scripta non essent; fortasse non credenda de Patre, licet scripta, quem isti in vulvam Mariae deducunt, et in Pilati tribunal imponunt, et in monumento Joseph concludunt. Hinc igitur apparet error illorum. Ignorantes enim, a primordio omuem ordinem divinae dispositionis per Filium decucurrisse, ipsum credunt Patrem et visum, et congressum, et operatum, et sitim et esuriem passum, adversus Prophetam dicentem : Deus aeternus non sitiet, nec esuriet omnino (quanto magis nec morietur, nec sepelietur!) et ita unum Deum semper egisse, id est Patrem, quae per Filium gesta sunt.

reconciled to them. And if the heretics seize upon certain things as unworthy of God, for the destruction of the Creator, not knowing that these things befitted the Son, Who was also to undergo human passions, both thirst and hunger and tears, and birth itself, and death itself: For this reason He was made less by the Father a little below the angels (Ps. 8:6). But the heretics will not even reckon as befitting the Son of God the things which you bring in upon the Father Himself, as though He Himself had named Himself [so] for our sake; whereas Scripture says that one was made less by another, not that He [was made less] by Himself. What if also the one who was crowned with glory and honour is one, and the one who crowned is another, namely the Father [crowning] the Son? Besides, what sort of thing is it that God, that almighty invisible One, Whom none of men has seen nor can see; He Who dwells in light inaccessible; He Who does not dwell in things made by hand; at Whose sight the earth trembles, the mountains melt like wax; Who grasps the whole world in His hand like a nest; Whose throne is heaven, and the earth His footstool; in Whom is every place, not He Himself in a place; Who is the outermost boundary of the universe; that He, the Most High, should have walked in paradise towards evening, seeking Adam; and should have shut the ark after Noah's entry; and should have refreshed Himself with Abraham under the oak; and should have called Moses from the burning bush; and should have appeared as the fourth in the furnace of the Babylonian king (although He is called the Son of man), unless these things had been in image, and in a mirror, and in an enigma? Doubtless even these things would not have been to be believed of the Son of God, had they not been written; perhaps not to be believed of the Father, even though written, Whom these men bring down into the womb of Mary, and set before the tribunal of Pilate, and shut up in the tomb of Joseph. Hence, therefore, their error is evident. For, not knowing that from the beginning the whole order of the divine dispensation has run its course through the Son, they believe that the Father Himself was both seen, and met with, and worked, and suffered thirst and hunger, against the Prophet who says: The eternal God shall not thirst, nor hunger at all (how much more shall He neither die nor be buried!), and so that one God, that is the Father, always did the things which were done through the Son.

CAPUT XVII.

Chapter XVII.

Facilius existimaverunt Patrem in Filii nomine egisse, quam Filium in Patris; dicente ipso Domino : Ego veni in Patris mei nomine (Joan. V, 43). Item ad ipsum Patrem : Nomen tuum manifestavi hominibus (Joan. XVII. 6). Condicente etiam Scriptura:

They have thought it easier that the Father acted in the name of the Son than the Son in that of the Father; though the Lord Himself says: I have come in the name of My Father (John 5:43). Likewise to the Father Himself: I have made Thy name manifest to men (John 17:6). Scripture also agreeing:

Editors' notes and page, col. 199

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 104)

(5) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 199

Quid abest Seml.

Quid is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(6) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 199

Ipse Seml.

Ipse ("himself"): Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(7) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 199

Gloriam et honorem Seml.

Gloriam et honorem ("glory and honour"): Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(8) ‹anchor: in imagine› · call in col 199

Dictus, et in imagine Seml.

Dictus, et in imagine: Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(9) ‹anchor: credenda fuisse› · call in col 199

Fuissent Jun.

Fuissent ("would have been"): Junius.

(printed under page 104)

(10) ‹anchor: in monumento› · call in col 199

Monumentis Seml.

Monumentis ("tombs", plural): Semler.

(printed under page 104)

Page

running head: 199 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A ‹sus, reconciliatus eisdem›; B ‹lem lucem habitat : ille qui›; C ‹tasse non credenda de Patre›; D ‹egisse, quam Filium in Patris›
old-edition numerals: 176 after ‹credenda›

PL 2:200

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini (Matth, XXI, 6), utique Filius in Patris nomine. Sed et nomina Patris, Deus omnipotens, Altissimus, Dominus virtutum, Rex Israelis, Qui est, quatenus ita Scripturae docent, haec dicimus et in Filium competisse, et in his Filium venisse, et in his semper egisse, et sic ea in se hominibus manifestasse. Omnia, inquit, Patris mea sunt. Cur non et nomina? Cum ergo legis Deum omnipotentem et Altissimum, et Deum virtutum, et Regem Israelis, et QUI EST, vide ne per haec Filius etiam demonstretur, suo jure Deus omnipotens, qua Sermo Dei omnipotentis, quaque omnium accepit potestatem; Altissimus, qua dextera Dei exaltatus. sicut Petrus in Actis (II, 22) concionatur; Dominus virtutum, qui omnia subjecta sunt illi a Patre; Rex Israelis, quia ille proprie excidit sors gentis istius; item, QUI EST, quoniam multi filii dicuntur, et non sunt. Si autem volunt et Christi nomen Patris esse, audient suo loco. Interim, hic mihi promotum sit responsum adversus id quod et de Apocalypsi Joannis proferunt: Ego Dominus qui est, et qui fuit, et venit omnipotens; et sicubi alibi Dei omnipotentis appellationem non putant etiam Filio convenire: quasi qui venturus est, non sit omnipotens, cum et Filius omnipotentis tam omnipotens sit, quam Deus Dei Filius.

Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord (Matt. 21:6), that is, the Son in the Father's name. But also the names of the Father, God Almighty, Most High, Lord of hosts, King of Israel, He Who Is, insofar as the Scriptures so teach, these we say also belonged to the Son, and that in these the Son came, and in these always acted, and thus manifested them in Himself to men. All things of the Father, He says, are Mine. Why not the names also? When therefore you read of God Almighty and Most High, and God of hosts, and King of Israel, and HE WHO IS, see whether by these the Son too is not shown: by His own right God Almighty, inasmuch as He is the Word of God Almighty, and inasmuch as He has received power over all things; Most High, inasmuch as He was exalted by the right hand of God, as Peter declares in the Acts (Acts 2:22); Lord of hosts, because all things have been subjected to Him by the Father; King of Israel, because to Him properly fell the lot of that nation; likewise HE WHO IS, because many are called sons, and are not. But if they would have the name of Christ also to be the Father's, they will hear [of it] in its place. Meanwhile let this answer be put forward by me against what they also bring forward from the Apocalypse of John: I am the Lord Who is, and Who was, and comes, the Almighty; and wherever else they think the designation of God Almighty does not suit the Son as well: as though He Who is to come were not almighty, when the Son of the Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.

CAPUT XVIII.

Chapter XVIII.

Sed hanc societatem nominum paternorum in Filio ne facile perspiciant, perturbat illos Scriptura, si quando unicum Deum statuit; quasi non eadem et Deos et Dominos duos proposuerit, ut supra ostendimus. Ergo quia duos et eum, inquiunt, invenimus, ideo ambo unus atque idem, et Filius et Pater. Porro, non periclitatur Scriptura, ut illi de tua argumentatione succurras, ne sibi contraria videatur. Habet rationem, et cum unicum Deum statuit, et cum duos Patrem et Filium ostendit, et sufficit sibi, Filium nominari ab ea constat. Salvo enim Filio recte unicum Deum potest determinasse, cujus est Filius. Non enim desinit esse qui habet Filium ipse unicus, suo scilicet nomine, quotiens sine Filio nominatur; sine Filio autem nominatur, cum principaliter determinatur ut prima persona, quae ante Filii nomen erat proponenda; quia Pater ante cognoscitur, et post Patrem Filius nominatur. Igitur unus Deus Pater, et alius absque

But lest they should readily perceive this sharing of the Father's names in the Son, Scripture disturbs them whenever it establishes one only God; as if the same [Scripture] had not set forth both two Gods and two Lords, as we have shown above. Therefore, they say, because we find two and one, both are one and the same, both Son and Father. But Scripture is in no danger, that you should come to its aid with your argumentation, lest it seem contrary to itself. It has its reason, both when it establishes one only God and when it shows two, Father and Son, and it is sufficient for itself; it is established that the Son is named by it. For, the Son being kept safe, it can rightly have determined one only God, Whose Son He is. For He Who has a Son does not cease to be Himself the only one, namely by His own name, whenever He is named without the Son; and He is named without the Son when He is determined principally as the first Person, which had to be set forth before the name of the Son; because the Father is known first, and after the Father the Son is named. Therefore one God the Father, and another apart from

Editors' notes and page, col. 200

Footnotes

(11) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Nomini: et nomen patris Seml.

Nomini: et nomen patris: Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(12) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Altissimus abest Seml.

Altissimus ("Most High") is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(13) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Cur Fran. Paris.

Cur ("why"): the Franeker and Paris editions.

(printed under page 104)

(14) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Omnipotens abest Seml.

Omnipotens ("Almighty") is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(15) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Accidit Jun. propria exivit Latin.

Accidit: Junius; propria exivit: Latinius.

(printed under page 104)

(16) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Dei conjic. Ciaccon.

Dei ("of God"): conjecture of Chacón (Ciacconius).

(printed under page 104)

(17) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Audiunt Seml.

Audiunt ("they hear"): Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(18) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Ergo Seml.

Ergo ("therefore"): Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(19) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Et qui erat add. Seml. et qui erat et qui venit Jun.

Semler adds et qui erat ("and who was"); et qui erat et qui venit ("and who was and who came"): Junius.

(printed under page 104)

(20) ‹anchor: venturus est, non sit› · call in col 200

Est, non abest Seml.

Est, non is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 104)

(21) ‹anchor: omnipotens sit› · call in col 200

Dei filius add. Seml.

Semler adds Dei filius ("Son of God").

Commentarius

(printed under page 104)

(30) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image (after "Condicente etiam Scrip-")› · call in col 200

Condicente etiam Scriptura. Condicere nove usurpat pro similiter dicere, sive assentiri. RHEN.

Scripture also saying the same. He uses condicere in a new sense, for "to say likewise", or "to agree". RHENANUS.

(printed under page 104)

(31) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 200

Qui est. ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, dicit Dominus Deus; et alio loco: Qui est me misit, etc.; ad cujus vocis interpretationem subjicitur statim: Qui est, quoniam multi filii dicuntur et non sunt. Quae explicatio an vera sit non ausim dicere. Ibi enim significari quis crederet nomen tetagrammaton Jehova, in quo tot mysteria latent ut tradunt rabbini et Cabalistae. LE PR.

Who is. "I am he who is", says the Lord God; and in another place: He who is has sent me, etc.; and to interpret this word there is at once added: He who is, because many are called sons and are not. Whether this explanation is true I would not dare to say. For who would believe that the tetragrammaton name Jehovah is signified there, in which so many mysteries lie hidden, as the rabbis and Cabbalists teach? LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 104)

Page

running head: [cut off]UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA.
marginal letters: A tura (30) : Benedictus qui venit; B virtutum, qui omnia subjecta; C Sed hanc societatem nominum; D cum principaliter determinatur
old-edition numerals: 177 after sit

PL 2:201

eo non est. Quod ipse inferens, non Filium negat, sed alium Deum: caeterum alius a Patre Filius non est. Denique, inspice sequentia hujusmodi pronuntiationum, et invenies fere ad idolorum factitatores atque cultores definitionem earum pertinere, ut multitudinem falsorum deorum unio divinitatis expellat, habens tamen Filium quanto individuum et inseparatum a Patre, tanto in Patre reputandum, etsi non nominatum. Atquin si nominasset illum, separasset, ita dicens: « Alius praeter me non est, nisi Filius meus. » Alium enim etiam Filium fecisset, quem de aliis excepisset. Puta solem dicere: « Ego sol, et alius praeter me non est, nisi radius meus, » nonne denotasses vanitatem, quasi non et radius in sole deputetur? Itaque praeter semetipsum non esse alium Deum, hoc propter idololatriam tam nationum quam Israelis, etiam propter haereticos, qui, sicut nationes manibus, ita et ipsi verbis idola fabricantur, id est, alium Deum, et alium Christum. Igitur et cum se unum pronuntiabat, Filio Pater procurabat, ne ab alio Deo Christus venisse credatur, sed ab illo qui praedixerat: Ego Deus, et alius absque me non est; qui se unicum, sed cum Filio ostendit, cum quo coelum solus extendit.

Him there is not. In adding this He does not deny the Son, but another God; for the rest, the Son is not other than the Father. Finally, look at what follows declarations of this kind, and you will find that their definition pertains, as a rule, to the makers and worshippers of idols, so that the oneness of the Godhead may drive out the multitude of false gods, while yet having the Son, Who, the more He is undivided and unseparated from the Father, the more He is to be reckoned in the Father, even though not named. But if He had named Him, He would have separated Him, saying thus: "There is no other besides Me, except My Son." For He would have made even the Son an other, by excepting Him from the others. Suppose the sun were to say: "I am the sun, and there is no other besides me, except my ray": would you not have remarked the absurdity, as though the ray too were not counted in the sun? Therefore [He declared] that besides Himself there is no other God on account of the idolatry both of the nations and of Israel, and also on account of the heretics, who, just as the nations [make idols] with their hands, so they too fashion idols with words, that is, another God and another Christ. Accordingly, even when He was declaring Himself one, the Father was making provision for the Son, lest Christ be believed to have come from another God, rather than from Him Who had foretold: I am God, and there is no other apart from Me; Who shows Himself unique, but with the Son, with Whom He alone stretched out the heaven.

CAPUT XIX.

Chapter XIX.

Quin et hoc dictum ejus, in argumentum singularitatis arripient: Extendi, inquit, caelum solus. Quantum ad caeteras virtutes, solus, praestruens adversus conjecturas haereticorum, qui mundum ab angelis et potestatibus diversis volunt structum; qui et ipsum Creatorem aut angelum faciunt, aut ad alia quae extrinsecus, ut opera mundi, ignorantem quoque subornatum. Aut si sic solus coelum extendit, quomodo isti praesumunt in perversum haeretici, quasi singularis non admittatur Sophia illa dicens: Cum pararet caelos, ego aderam illi simul. Et si dixit Apostolus: Quis cognovit sensum Domini, et quis illi consilio fuit? (I Cor. II, 15) utique praeter Sophiam ait, quae illi aderat. In ipso tamen et cum illo universa compingebat, non ignorante quid faceret. Praeter Sophiam autem, praeter Filium dicit, qui est Christus, Sophia et Virtus Dei secundum Apostolum, solus sciens sensum Patris: Quis enim scit quae sunt in Deo nisi Spiritus qui in ipso est? Non qui extra ipsum. Erat ergo qui non solum Deum

Moreover, they will seize upon this saying of His too as an argument for singularity: I stretched out, He says, the heaven alone. "Alone" as regards the other powers, fortifying [the truth] in advance against the conjectures of the heretics, who will have the world constructed by angels and various powers; who make the Creator Himself either an angel, or one suborned for other external things, such as the works of the world, and ignorant besides. Or if He stretched out the heaven alone in the way these heretics perversely presume, as though Sophia were not admitted [as present with Him], being single, she who says: When He was preparing the heavens, I was present with Him together. And if the Apostle said: Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been His counsellor? (1 Cor. 2:16), he certainly means besides Sophia, who was present with Him. Yet in Him and with Him He was framing all things, He not being ignorant of what He was doing. Moreover, "besides Sophia" he means "besides the Son", Who is Christ, the Wisdom and Power of God according to the Apostle, alone knowing the mind of the Father: For who knows the things that are in God except the Spirit Who is in Him? Not one who is outside Him. There was therefore one who would make God not alone,

Editors' notes and page, col. 201

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 105)

(22) ‹anchor: eo non est› · call in col 201

Absque eo alius Seml.

Absque eo alius ("another apart from him"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(23) ‹anchor: Quod ipse inferens› · call in col 201

Inserens Seml.

Inserens ("inserting"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(24) ‹anchor: Filius non est. Denique› · call in col 201

Deus add. Jun.

Junius adds Deus ("God").

(printed under page 105)

(25) ‹anchor: nonne denotasses› · call in col 201

Denotasset Seml.

Denotasset ("had marked out"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(26) ‹anchor: vanitatem, quasi non› · call in col 201

Unitatem alii.

Unitatem ("unity"): others.

(printed under page 105)

(27) ‹anchor: Itaque praeter semetipsum› · call in col 201

Per Seml.

Per ("through"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(28) ‹anchor: Quin› · call in col 201

Qui Seml.

Qui ("who"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(29) ‹anchor: aut ad alia› · call in col 201

Ad illa Jun.

Ad illa ("for those things"): Junius.

(printed under page 105)

(30) ‹anchor: Cum pararet caelos› · call in col 201

Coelum Seml.

Coelum ("the heaven", singular): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(31) ‹anchor: aderam illi simul› · call in col 201

Simul abest Seml.

Simul ("together") is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(32) ‹anchor: praeter Sophiam (33) ait› · call in col 201

Fuit Seml.

Fuit ("was"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(33) ‹anchor: qui extra ipsum› · call in col 201

Ipsum erat. Ergo Seml.

Ipsum erat. Ergo: Semler.

(printed under page 105)

Commentarius

(printed under page 105)

(32) ‹anchor: mundum ab angelis› · call in col 201

Qui mundum ab angelis, etc. Notat Valentinianos et similes alios, et Procli sectatores ac Seleucianos. RHEN.

Who [will have] the world [built] by angels, etc. He censures the Valentinians and others like them, and the followers of Proclus and the Seleucians. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 105)

(33) ‹anchor: utique praeter Sophiam› · call in col 201

Utique praeter Sophiam. Sensus est: cum Paulus dicit, Quis illi consilio fuit? intelligit: Quis praeter Sophiam consilio fuit, quae Sophia illi aderat? RHEN.

Except, of course, Wisdom. The sense is: when Paul says, Who has been His counsellor?, he means: Who was His counsellor except Wisdom, the Wisdom who was present with Him? RHENANUS.

(printed under page 105)

Page

running head: 201 LIBER ADV. PRAXE[AM] (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: A eo non est. Quod ipse inferens; B Deum, hoc propter idololatriam; C gelum faciunt, aut ad alia; D quae sunt in Deo nisi Spiritus
old-edition numerals: 178 after singularitatis
other: the page prints the reference as I Cor. II, 15 (the verse is 2:16); the source keeps it as printed, the English gives 2:16

PL 2:202

faceret, nisi a caeteris solum. Sed et Evangelium recusetur, quod dicat omnia per Sermonem a Deo facta esse, et sine eo nihil factum. Nisi enim fallor, et alibi scriptum est: Sermone ejus caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris ejus omnes virtutes eorum. Et Sermo autem, Virtus et Sophia, ipse erit Dei Filius. Ita si per Filium omnia, coelum quoque per Filium extendens, non solus extendit, nisi illa ratione qua a caeteris solus. Atque adeo statim de Filio loquitur: Quis alius dejecit signa ventriloquorum, et divinationes a corde, avertens sapientes retrorsum, et consilium eorum infatuans? Sistens verba Filii sui, discendo scilicet: Hic est Filius meus dilectus; hunc audite. Ita Filium subjungens ipse interpretator est, quomodo coelum solus extenderit, scilicet cum Filio solus, sicut cum Filio unum. Proinde et Filii erit vox, Extendi caelum solus; quia Sermone caeli confirmati sunt. Quia Sophia, id est, Sermone assistente, paratum est coelum, et omnia per Sermonem sunt facta, competit et Filium solum extendisse coelum, quia solus operationi Patris ministravit. Idem erit dicens: Ego primus, et insuper ventura ego sum. Primum scilicet omnium, Sermo: In principio erat Sermo; in quo principio prolatus a Patre est. Caeterum Pater non habens initium, ut a nullo prolatus, ut innatus, non potest videri. Qui solus fuit semper, ordinem habere non potuit. Igitur si propterea eumdem et Patrem et Filium credendum putaverunt, ut unum Deum vindicent, salva est unio ejus, qui cum sit unus, habet et Filium, aeque et ipsum eisdem Scripturis comprehensum. Si Filium nolunt secundum a Patre reputari, ne secundus duos faciat deos dici, ostendimus etiam duos Deos in Scriptura relatos, et duos Dominos; et tamen ne de isto scandalizentur, rationem reddidimus, qua Dei non duo dicantur, nec Domini, sed qua Pater et Filius duo; et hoc non ex separatione substantiae, sed ex dispositione, cum individuum et inseparatum Filium a Patre pronuntiamus; nec statu, sed gradu alium; qui etsi Deus dicatur, quando nominatur singularis, non ideo duos deos faciat, sed unum, hoc ipso quod et Deus ex unitate Patris vocari habeat.

except alone apart from the rest. But then let the Gospel also be rejected, because it says that all things were made by God through the Word, and without Him nothing was made. For unless I am mistaken, it is also written elsewhere: By His Word the heavens were made firm, and by the spirit of His mouth all their powers. And the Word, moreover, the Power and the Wisdom, will Himself be the Son of God. Thus, if all things [were made] through the Son, then in stretching out the heaven too through the Son, He did not stretch it out alone, except in that sense in which He is alone apart from the rest. And so He speaks straightway of the Son: Who else has cast down the signs of the ventriloquists, and divinations from the heart, turning the wise backwards, and making their counsel foolish? establishing the words of His Son, namely by saying: This is My beloved Son; hear Him. Thus by adding the Son He is Himself the interpreter of how He stretched out the heaven alone, namely alone with the Son, just as He is one with the Son. Accordingly the saying will also be the Son's: I stretched out the heaven alone; because by the Word the heavens were established. Since the heaven was prepared with Wisdom, that is, the Word, assisting, and all things were made through the Word, it is fitting that the Son too alone stretched out the heaven, because He alone ministered to the working of the Father. It will be He Who says: I am the first, and I am also the things to come. First, namely, of all things, the Word: In the beginning was the Word; in which beginning He was brought forth from the Father. But the Father, having no beginning, as brought forth by no one, as unborn, cannot be seen. He Who alone always was could not have an order. Therefore, if they have thought that the Father and the Son must be believed to be one and the same for this reason, that they may uphold one God, His unity is preserved, Who, though He is one, has also a Son, Who is equally comprehended in the same Scriptures. If they will not have the Son reckoned second from the Father, lest being second He cause two gods to be spoken of, we have shown that two Gods are also recorded in Scripture, and two Lords; and yet, lest they be scandalized at this, we have given the reason by which they are not called two Gods, nor two Lords, but by which the Father and the Son are two; and this not from a separation of substance, but from disposition, since we declare the Son undivided and unseparated from the Father; other not in state but in degree; Who, though He is called God when He is named on His own, does not on that account make two gods, but one, by the very fact that He is to be called God too from the unity of the Father.

CAPUT XX.

Chapter XX.

Sed argumentationibus eorum adhuc retundendis opera praebenda est, si quid de Scripturis ad sententiam

But effort must still be given to blunting their arguments, if anything from the Scriptures for the opinion

Editors' notes and page, col. 202

Footnotes

(34) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 202

Et abest Seml.

Et is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(35) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 202

Oris abest Seml.

Oris ("of the mouth") is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(36) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 202

A abest Seml.

A ("from") is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(37) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 202

Sophia in sermone Seml.

Sophia in sermone ("Wisdom in the Word"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(38) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 202

Filio Wouw.

Filio ("to/with the Son"): Wouwer.

(printed under page 105)

(39) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 202

In superventura Seml. In abest Fran.

In superventura: Semler; in is absent: the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 105)

(40) ‹anchor: ut unum Deum vindicent,› · call in col 202

Salvus Seml.

Salvus (masculine, "safe"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(41) ‹anchor: cum sit unus, habet› · call in col 202

Habeat Seml.

Habeat (subjunctive, "has"): Semler.

(printed under page 105)

(42) ‹anchor: ne de isto scandalizentur› · call in col 202

Scandalizarentur alii.

Scandalizarentur (imperfect, "should be scandalized"): others.

(printed under page 105)

(43) ‹anchor: nec Domini› · call in col 202

In qua Domini cod. Wouw.

In qua Domini: Wouwer's manuscript.

Commentarius

(printed under page 105)

Page

running head: ER ADV. PRAXEAM. 202 (left part of running head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A faceret, nisi a caeteris solum; B unum. Proinde et Filii erit vox; C lium nolunt secundum a Patre; D Sed argumentationibus eorum adhuc
old-edition numerals: 179 after salva
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): caeli firmati | coeli firmati
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): Extendi caelum | Extendi coelum
other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): caeli confirmati | coeli confirmati

PL 2:203

suam excerpent, caetera nolentes intueri, quae et ipsa regulam servant, et quidem salva unione divinitatis, et monarchiae sonitu. Nam sicut in veteribus nihil aliud tenent quam, Ego Deus, et alius praeter me non est (Psal. XLV, 5); ita in Evangelio, responsionem Domini ad Philippum tuentur: Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. XIV); et, Qui me viderit, videt et Patrem; et, Ego in Patre, et Pater in me. His tribus capitulis totum instrumentum utriusque Testamenti volunt cedere, cum oporteat secundum plura intelligi pauciora, sed proprium hoc est omnium haereticorum. Nam quia pauca sunt quae in sylva inveniri possunt, pauca adversus plura defendunt, et posteriora adversus priora suscipiunt. Regula autem omni rei semper ab initio constituta ex prioribus et ex pluribus in posteriora praescribit, utique et in pauciora.

of their own they will pick out, unwilling to look at the rest, which themselves also keep the rule, and indeed with the unity of the divinity and the sound of the monarchy preserved. For just as in the Old [Testament] they hold to nothing else than, I am God, and there is no other besides Me (Ps. 45:5); so in the Gospel they defend the Lord's reply to Philip: I and the Father are one (John 14); and, He who has seen Me sees the Father also; and, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. To these three little passages they want the whole instrument of both Testaments to yield, whereas the fewer ought to be understood in accordance with the more; but this is the peculiar mark of all heretics. For because there are few things that can be found in the forest, they defend the few against the many, and take up the later against the earlier. But the rule, established for every matter always from the beginning, prescribes from the earlier and from the more to the later, and indeed also to the fewer.

CAPUT XXI.

Chapter XXI.

Aspice itaque quanta praescribat tibi etiam in Evangelio, ante Philippi consultationem, et ante omnem argumentationem tuam. Et in primis, ipsa statim praefatio Joannis Evangelizatoris demonstrat, quod retro fuerit, qui caro fieri habebat: In principio erat Sermo, et Sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo. Hic erat in principio apu⟨d⟩ Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil (Joan. I, 1 seqq.). Nam si haec non aliter accipi licet, quam quomodo scripta sunt, indubitanter alius ostenditur, qui fuerit a principio, alius apud quem fuit: alium Sermonem esse, alium Deum (licet et Deus Sermo, sed qua Dei Filius, non qua Pater); alium per quem omnia, alium a quo omnia. Alium autem quomodo dicamus, saepe jam edidimus; quo alium dicamus necesse est, ne eumdem; alium autem, non quasi separatum, sed dispositione alium, non divisione. Hic ergo factus est caro, non ipse cujus erat Sermo. Hujus gloria visa est tanquam unici a Patre, non tanquam Patris. Hic unus sinum Patris disseruit, non sinum suum Pater. Praecedit enim: Deum nemo vidit unquam. Idem et agnus Dei ab Joanne designatur, non ipse cujus est dilectus. Certe Filius Dei semper, sed non ipse cujus est Filius. Hoc eum Nathanael statim sensit, sicut et alibi Petrus: Tu es Filius Dei (Joan. I, 50;

See, therefore, how much prescribes against you even in the Gospel, before Philip's inquiry and before all your argumentation. And first of all, the very preface of John the Evangelist shows at once that He who was to become flesh existed beforehand: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made (John 1:1 ff.). For if these things may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, beyond doubt One is shown who was from the beginning, and Another with whom He was: the Word is One, God is Another (although the Word too is God, but as Son of God, not as Father); One through whom are all things, Another from whom are all things. But in what sense we call Him Another we have often set forth already; in what respect we must call Him Another, so as not [to call Him] the same; yet Another not as separated, but Another by disposition, not by division. He therefore became flesh, not He Himself whose Word He was. His glory was seen as of the only-begotten from the Father, not as of the Father. He alone set forth the bosom of the Father, not the Father His own bosom. For it comes just before: No one has ever seen God. He likewise is designated by John the Lamb of God, not He Himself whose beloved He is. Certainly always the Son of God, but not He Himself whose Son He is. This Nathanael perceived about Him at once, as also elsewhere Peter did: Thou art the Son of God (John 1:50;

Editors' notes and page, col. 203

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 106)

(44) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 203

Vidit Fran. Paris. Rig.

Vidit ("saw"): the Franeker and Paris editions, Rigault.

(printed under page 106)

(45) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 203

Credere Seml.

Credere ("to believe"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(46) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 203

Invenire Jun.

Invenire ("to find"): Junius.

(printed under page 106)

(47) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 203

Semper abest Seml.

Semper ("always") is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(48) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 203

In prioribus, et in posteriora praescribit utique et in paucioribus Rhen.

In prioribus, et in posteriora praescribit utique et in paucioribus: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 106)

(49) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 203

Praescribant Seml.

Praescribant ("they prescribe"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(50) ‹anchor: alium Deum› · call in col 203

Dei, alium Dominum Seml.

Dei, alium Dominum ("of God, another Lord"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(51) ‹anchor: sed dispositione› · call in col 203

Necesse est non eumdem autem, non quasi separatum, dispositione Seml. Necesse est non eumdem, non autem quasi Jun.

Necesse est non eumdem autem, non quasi separatum, dispositione: Semler; Necesse est non eumdem, non autem quasi: Junius.

(printed under page 106)

(52) ‹anchor: Hic unus› · call in col 203

Unius Seml.

Unius ("of one"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(53) ‹anchor: Idem et› · call in col 203

Inde etsi Seml.

Inde etsi ("thence, although"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(34) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 203

Quanta praescribant tibi. Quanta pro quam multa, ut ante in superioribus plus semel.

How great are the things they prescribe to you. Quanta for "how many", as earlier, above, more than once.

(printed under page 106)

(35) ‹anchor: unici a Patre› · call in col 203

Tanquam unici a Patre, μονογενοῦς ἀπὸ πατρός. Per vocem unici quippe reddidit quod habetur Joan. I. LE PR.

As of the only one from the Father, "of the only-begotten from the Father". For by the word unicus he rendered what is found in John 1. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 106)

Page

running head: 203 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
marginal letters: A tentiam suam excerpent; B et ex pluribus in posteriora; C non aliter accipi licet; D Filius. Hoc eum Nathanael
old-edition numerals: 180 after seqq.).
other: first word "tentiam" is the end of a word broken from the previous column; "apu1" printed with damaged final letter, set apu⟨d⟩; "dicamus" and "eumdem" smudged but legible; "excerpent" read as printed, UNSURE; quotation in Psal. XLV, 5 is in fact Isa. 45:5, English keeps printed reference; stray "(" in left margin beside "separatum" not set; full-width "Variae lectiones" apparatus and "Commentarius" editors' notes at page foot not set

PL 2:204

Matth, XVI, 16). Hoc et ipse recte sensisse illos confirmat. Nathanaeli quidem respondens: Quia dixi: Vidi te sub ficu, ideo credis (Joan. II, 50); Petrum vero beatum affirmans, cui non caro, neque sanguis revelasset (quod et Patrem senserat), sed Pater qui in coelis est (Matth. XVI, 17). Quo dicto utriusque personae constituit distinctionem, et Filii in terris, quem Petrus agnoverat Dei Filium et Patris qui in coelis, qui Petro revelaverat quod Petrus agnoverat Dei Filium Christum. Cum in templum introiit, aedem Patris appellat, ut Filius. Cum ad Nicodemum dicit: Ita dilexit Deus mundum, ut Filium suum unicum dederit, in quem omnis qui crediderit, non pereat, sed habeat vitam sempiternam (Joan. III, 16). Et rursus (Ibid. 17): Non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum, ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvus sit mundus per eum. Qui crediderit in illum, non judicatur; qui non crediderit in illum, jam judicatus est, quia non credidit in nomine unici Filii Dei. Joannes autem cum interrogaretur quid de Jesu contingeret: Pater, inquit, diligit Filium, et omnia tradidit in manu ejus. Qui credit in Filium, habet vitam aeternam; qui non credit in Filium Dei non videbit Deum, sed ira Dei manebit super eum (Joan. III, 35, 36). Quem vero Samaritidi ostendit? Si Messiam qui dicitur Christus, Filium utique se, non Patrem demonstravit, qui et alibi Christus Dei Filius, non Pater dictus est. Exinde discipulis: Meum est, inquit, ut faciam voluntatem ejus qui me misit, ut consummen opus ejus. Et ad Judaeos, de paralytici sanitate: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor (Joan. V, 17). Pater et ego, Filius dicit. Denique, propter hoc magis Judaei illum interficere volebant, non tantum quod solveret sabbatum, sed quod Patrem suum Deum diceret, aequans se Deo. Tunc ergo dicebat ad eos: Nihil Filius facere potest a semetipso, nisi viderit Patrem facientem (Ibid. 19 seqq.). Quae enim ille facit, eadem et Filius facit. Pater enim diligit Filium, et omnia demonstravit illi quae ille fecit et majora istis opera demonstravit illi, ut vos miremini. Quomodo enim suscitat mortuos et vivificat, ita et Filius quos vult vivificat. Neque enim Pater judicat, sed omne judicium dedit Filio, uti omnes honorent Filium, sicut honorant Patrem. Qui non honorat Filium

Matt. 16:16). He Himself also confirms that they had understood this rightly. Answering Nathanael, indeed: Because I said, I saw you under the fig tree, therefore you believe (John 2:50); but declaring Peter blessed, to whom flesh and blood had not revealed it (because he had perceived the Father too), but the Father who is in the heavens (Matt. 16:17). By this saying He established the distinction of both Persons: of the Son on earth, whom Peter had recognized as the Son of God, and of the Father who is in the heavens, who had revealed to Peter that which Peter had recognized, Christ the Son of God. When He entered the temple, He calls it the house of the Father, as the Son. When He says to Nicodemus: God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him may not perish, but may have everlasting life (John 3:16). And again (ibid. 17): For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe in Him is judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And John, when he was asked what was happening concerning Jesus: The Father, he says, loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not believe in the Son of God will not see God, but the wrath of God will remain upon him (John 3:35–36). And whom did He show to the Samaritan woman? If the Messiah who is called Christ, He certainly showed Himself to be the Son, not the Father, He who elsewhere too is called Christ the Son of God, not the Father. Then to the disciples: It is mine, He says, to do the will of Him who sent me, to complete His work. And to the Jews, concerning the healing of the paralytic: My Father is working until now, and I am working (John 5:17). The Father and I, says the Son. Finally, for this reason the Jews wanted all the more to kill Him, not only because He was breaking the sabbath, but because He called God His Father, making Himself equal to God. Then therefore He said to them: The Son can do nothing of Himself, unless He has seen the Father doing it (ibid. 19 ff.). For whatever He does, the Son also does the same. For the Father loves the Son, and has shown Him the things which He did, and has shown Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as He raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son also gives life to whom He will. For neither does the Father judge, but He has given all judgement to the Son, so that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son

Editors' notes and page, col. 204

Footnotes

(54) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

Nathanael Rhen.

Nathanael: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 106)

(55) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

Dixit Rhen.

Dixit ("said"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 106)

(56) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

Qui omitt. Jun.

Junius omits qui.

(printed under page 106)

(57) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

Templo Seml.

Templo ("temple"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(58) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

De omitt. Ciaccon.

Chacón (Ciacconius) omits de.

(printed under page 106)

(59) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

Dilexit Seml.

Dilexit ("loved", perfect): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(60) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

Credidit Seml.

Credidit ("believed", perfect): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(61) ‹anchor: credit in Filium› · call in col 204

Credidit in filio Seml.

Credidit in filio: Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(62) ‹anchor: non tantum› · call in col 204

Tamen Seml.

Tamen ("yet"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(63) ‹anchor: nisi viderit› · call in col 204

Videat Seml.

Videat ("sees", subjunctive): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(64) ‹anchor: majora istis› · call in col 204

Ista Seml.

Ista ("these things"): Semler.

(printed under page 106)

(65) ‹anchor: quos vult vivificat› · call in col 204

Vivificabit alii.

Vivificabit ("will give life"): others.

Commentarius

(printed under page 106)

(36) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 204

Joannes autem cum interrogaretur. Joannem Baptistam intelligit, cujus sunt verba etiam Joan. III, quae sequuntur, Pater diligit Filium, etc.; sic enim castigavimus, pro, dilexit. PAM.

But John, when he was asked. He means John the Baptist, whose words, in John 3, are also those that follow, The Father loves the Son, etc.; for so we have corrected it, instead of loved. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 106)

Page

running head: [...]UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 204
marginal letters: A Matth, xvi, 16). Hoc et ipse; B judicet mundum, sed ut salvus; C non Pater dictus est. Exinde; D judicium dedit Filio, uti omnes
old-edition numerals: 181 after utique

PL 2:205

non honorat Patrem, qui Filium misit. Amen, amen dico vobis, quod qui audit sermones meos, et credit ei qui me misit, habet vitam aeternam, et in judicium non venit, sed transit de morte in vitam. Amen dico vobis, quod veniet hora, qua mortui audient vocem Filii Dei; et cum audierint, vivent. Sicut enim Pater habet vitam aeternam a semetipso, ita et Filio dedit vitam aeternam habere in semetipso, et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate, qua Filius hominis est; per carnem scilicet, sicut et Filius Dei per spiritum ejus. Adhuc adjicit: Ego autem habeo majus quam Joannis testimonium (Joan. V, 36, 37). Opera enim quae Pater mihi dedit consummare, illa ipsa de me testimonium perhibent, quod me Pater miserit. Et qui me misit Pater, ipse testimonium dixit de me. Subjungens autem: Neque vocem ejus audistis unquam; neque formam ejus vidistis; confirmat retro non Patrem, sed Filium fuisse, qui videbatur et audiebatur. Denique dicit: Ego veni in Patris mei nomine, et non me recepistis (Ibid., 43). Adeo semper Filius erat in Dei et Regis et Domini, et Omnipotentis, et Altissimi nomine. Interrogantibus autem quid facere debeant, respondit: Ut credatis in eum quem Deus misit (Joan. VI, 29). Panem quoque se affirmat, quem Pater praestaret de coelo (Ibid., 32). Ergo omne quod ei daret Pater ad se venire, nec rejecturum se, quia de coelo descendisset, non ut suam, sed ut Patris faceret voluntatem: voluntatem autem Patris esse, uti qui viderit Filium, et crediderit in eum, vitam et resurrectionem consequatur (Ibid., 35); neminem porro ad se venire posse, nisi quem Pater adducat: omnem qui a Patre audisset et didicisset, venire ad se (Ibid., 14). Non quasi Patrem aliquis viderit, adjiciens et hic, ut ostenderet Patris esse Sermonem per quem docti fiant. At cum discedunt ab eo multi (Ibid., 66), et apostolis suis offert, si velint discedere et ipsi, quid respondit Simon Petrus? Quo discedimus? verba vitae habes, et nos credimus quod tu sis Christus. Patrem illum esse, an Patris Christum?

does not honour the Father, Who sent the Son. Amen, amen I say to you, that he who hears My words and believes Him Who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgement, but passes from death into life. Amen I say to you, that the hour will come in which the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and when they have heard, they will live. For just as the Father has eternal life from Himself, so also He has granted to the Son to have eternal life in Himself, and He has granted Him to execute judgement in the authority by which He is the Son of man; that is to say, through the flesh, just as He is also the Son of God through His spirit. He adds further: But I have a greater testimony than John's (John 5:36–37). For the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish, those very works bear testimony concerning Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Who sent Me has Himself given testimony concerning Me. But by adding: Neither have you ever heard His voice, nor have you seen His form, He confirms that in former times it was not the Father but the Son Who was seen and heard. Finally He says: I have come in the name of My Father, and you have not received Me (John 5:43). So it was always the Son Who was in the name of God and King and Lord, and Almighty, and Most High. When they asked what they ought to do, He answered: That you believe in Him Whom God has sent (John 6:29). He affirms also that He is the bread which the Father would provide from heaven (John 6:32). Therefore [He says] that all that the Father gave Him would come to Him, and that He would not cast it out, because He had come down from heaven not to do His own will but the Father's; and that the will of the Father was that whoever had seen the Son and believed in Him should obtain life and resurrection (John 6:35); further, that no one could come to Him except him whom the Father draws; that everyone who had heard from the Father and learned comes to Him (John 6:44). Not as though anyone has seen the Father, adding this here too, so as to show that it is the Father's Word through which they are taught. But when many depart from Him (John 6:66), and He offers His apostles [the choice], whether they too wish to depart, what did Simon Peter answer? Where are we to go? Thou hast the words of life, and we believe that Thou art the Christ. That He was the Father, or the Father's Christ?

CAPUT XXII.

Chapter XXII.

Cujus autem doctrinam dicit ad quam mirabantur? suam, an Patris? Aeque ambigentibus inter se, ne ipse esset Christus, utique non Pater, sed Filius: Neque me scitis, inquit (Joan. VII, 28), unde sim, et non veni a meipso, sed est verus qui me misit, quem vos non nostis. Ego novi illum, qui ab illo sum, et ille me misit. Non dixit, quia ipse sum,

But whose doctrine does He say it was, at which they marvelled? His own, or the Father's? Likewise, when they were in doubt among themselves whether He were the Christ (certainly not the Father, but the Son): Neither do you know Me, He says (John 7:28), whence I am, and I have not come of Myself, but He Who sent Me is true, Whom you do not know. I know Him, I Who am from Him, and He sent Me. He did not say, Because I am Myself,

Editors' notes and page, col. 205

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 107)

(66) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Quod et qui audierit Latin.

Quod et qui audierit: Latinius.

(printed under page 107)

(67) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Meos abest Seml.

Meos ("my") is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 107)

(68) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Veniet Seml.

Veniet ("will come"): Semler.

(printed under page 107)

(69) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Transiit al. venit cod. Wouw.

Transiit ("passed over"): others; venit ("came"): Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 107)

(70) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Aeternam abest Rhen.

Aeternam ("eternal") is absent: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 107)

(71) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Et abest Seml. et Domini abest cod. Wouw.

Et is absent: Semler; et Domini is absent: Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 107)

(72) ‹anchor: Quo discedimus› · call in col 205

Discedemus Fran.

Discedemus ("shall we go away"): the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 107)

(73) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Atque Jun.

Atque ("and"): Junius.

(printed under page 107)

(74) ‹anchor: qui ab illo sum› · call in col 205

Quia apud illum sum Seml. Quia ab illo sum Jun.

Quia apud illum sum ("because I am with him"): Semler; Quia ab illo sum ("because I am from him"): Junius.

(printed under page 107)

(37) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 205

Judicium dedit illi facere in potestate qua Filius hominis est. Fere omnes codices et interpretes proponunt quia, quod intellectu facilius est. Nam S. Chrysostomus illam non adhibuit distinctionem, eo quod ea uteretur Paulus Samosat. LE PR.

He gave him to execute judgement in the power in which he is Son of Man. Almost all manuscripts and interpreters put quia ("because"), which is easier to understand. For St Chrysostom did not use that division, because Paul of Samosata used it. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 107)

(38) ‹anchor: nisi quem Pater adducat› · call in col 205

Nisi quem Pater adducat Septem hisce capitibus a vigesimo Monarchianos impetit, probatque e Scriptura Filium alium esse a Patre, ideoque Patrem non se filium fecisse. LE PR.

Except whom the Father draws. In these seven chapters from the twentieth he attacks the Monarchians, and proves from Scripture that the Son is other than the Father, and therefore that the Father did not make himself the Son. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 107)

Page

running head: 205 LIBER ADV. PRAX (cut off at the image edge; "LIBER" printed blurred, looks like "LIBBR")
marginal letters: A non honorat Patrem, qui Filium misit; B mare, illa ipsa de me testimonium perhibent; C crediderit in eum, vitam et resurrectionem conse-; D Filius : Neque me scitis, inquit
old-edition numerals: 182 after venire

PL 2:206

et ipse me misi, sed: Ille misit. Item, cum misissent ad invadendum eum Pharisaei: Modicum adhuc temporis, ait, vobiscum sum, et vado ad eum qui me misit. At ubi se negat esse solum? Sed ego, inquit, et qui me misit Pater; nonne duos demonstrat, tam duos quam inseparatos? imo totum erat hoc quod docebat, inseparatos duos esse. Siquidem et legem proponens duorum hominum testimonium confirmantem, subjungit: Ego testimonium dico de me, et testimonium dicit de me, qui me misit Pater. Quod si unus esset, dum idem est et Filius et Pater, non uteretur legis patrocinio fidem imponentis, non unius testimonio, sed duorum. Item, interrogatus ubi esset Pater, neque se, neque Patrem notum esse illis respondens, duos dixit ignotos; quod si ipsum nossent, Patrem nossent, non quidem quasi ipse esset Pater et Filius, sed quia per individuitatem neque agnosci, neque ignorari alter sine altero potest. Qui me, ait, misit, verax est, et ego quae ab eo audivi, ea et loquor in mundum. Interpretante extrinsecus Scriptura, non cognovisse illos quod de Patre dixisset, cum scilicet cognoscere debnisset sermones Patris in Filio esse, legendo apud Jeremiam (I, 9): Et dixit mihi Dominus: Ecce dedi sermones meos in os tuum. Et apud Isaiam (I, 4): Dominus dat mihi linguam disciplinae ad cognoscendum quando oporteat dicere sermonem. Sicut ipse rursus: Tunc, inquit (Joann. VII, 28), cognoscetis, quod ego sim, et a memetipso nihil loquar: sed sicut me docuit, ita et loquor; quia et qui me misit, mecum est. Et hoc ad testimonium individuorum duorum. Item, in altercatione Judaeorum, exprobrans quod occidere eum vellent: Ego, inquit (Ibid. 38 seqq.), quae vidi penes Patrem meum, loquor, et vos quod vidistis penes patrem vestrum, id facitis: et nunc vultis occidere hominem veritatem vobis locutum, quam audierit a Deo, et: Si Deus esset pater vester, dilexissetis me. Ego enim ex Deo exivi et veni (et tamen non separantur, licet exiisse dixerit, ut quidem arripiunt hujus dicti occasionem; exivit autem a Patre, ut radius ex sole, ut rivus ex fonte, ut frutex ex semine). Ego daemonium non habeo, sed honoro Patrem meum, et: Si ego me ipse glorificem, nihil est gloria mea. Est qui me glorificet Pater, quem vos dicitis Deum esse vestrum, nec nostis illum, at ego novi eum. Et si dicam, Non novi, ero similis vestri mendax, sed novi illum, et sermonem ejus servo. Ac cum subjungit: Abraham diem meum vidit, et laetatus est, nempe demonstrat

and I Myself sent Myself, but: "He sent." Again, when the Pharisees had sent to seize Him: "Yet a little while," He says, "I am with you, and I go to Him Who sent Me." But where does He deny that He is alone? "But I," He says, "and the Father Who sent Me"; does He not show two, as much two as inseparable? Nay, this was the whole of what He was teaching, that the two are inseparable. For indeed, setting forth also the law which confirms the testimony of two men, He adds: "I bear testimony of Myself, and the Father Who sent Me bears testimony of Me." But if He were one, being Himself both Son and Father, He would not avail Himself of the patronage of a law that lays faith not on the testimony of one, but of two. Again, being asked where the Father was, answering that neither He nor the Father was known to them, He spoke of two unknown; and that if they had known Him, they would have known the Father: not indeed as if He Himself were Father and Son, but because, by reason of their indivisibility, the one can neither be acknowledged nor be unknown without the other. "He Who sent Me," He says, "is true, and the things I have heard from Him, these also I speak to the world." The Scripture interpreting from without that they had not understood that He had spoken of the Father, when they ought of course to have understood that the words of the Father are in the Son, by reading in Jeremiah (Jer. 1:9): "And the Lord said to me: Behold, I have given My words into your mouth." And in Isaiah (Isa. 50:4): "The Lord gives me a tongue of instruction, to know when I ought to speak a word." As He Himself again: "Then," He says (John 8:28), "you will know that I am, and that I speak nothing of Myself: but as He taught Me, so also I speak; for He also Who sent Me is with Me." And this too is to the testimony of two indivisible. Again, in the dispute with the Jews, reproaching them that they wished to kill Him: "I," He says (ibid. 38 ff.), "speak the things which I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father: and now you seek to kill a man who has spoken the truth to you, which He heard from God"; and: "If God were your father, you would have loved Me. For I came forth from God and came" (and yet they are not separated, although He said He had come forth, as some indeed seize the occasion of this saying; but He came forth from the Father as a ray from the sun, as a stream from a spring, as a shoot from a seed). "I have not a demon, but I honour My Father"; and: "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father Who glorifies Me, of Whom you say that He is your God, and you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like you; but I know Him, and I keep His word." And when He adds: "Abraham saw My day, and was glad," He certainly shows

Editors' notes and page, col. 206

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 107)

(75) ‹anchor: et tamen non separantur› · call in col 206

Separamus Seml.

Separamus ("we separate"): Semler.

(printed under page 107)

Commentarius

(printed under page 107)

Page

running head: [TERTULLIANI LI]BR ADV. PRAXEAM. 206 (left part cut off in the image)
marginal letters: A ‹et ipse me misi›; B ‹gatus ubi esset Pater›; C ‹docuit, ita et loquor›; D ‹glorificet Pater, quem vos›
old-edition numerals: 183 after ‹Ego,›
other: no other note calls are printed in this column; the Commentarius note (38) on this page is called in col 205
other (UNSURE): "debnisset" is set as printed; at this resolution the page's u/n in that word cannot be told apart with certainty.
misprint kept as printed: the Isaiah reference prints as "I, 4" (the verse quoted is Isa. 50:4); the source keeps the print, the English gives Isa. 50:4.
misprint kept as printed (Q2): "Joann. VII, 28" for VIII, 28 (the words quoted are John 8:28); the source keeps the print, the English gives John 8:28.

PL 2:207

Filium Abrahae retro visum, non Patrem. Item, super caecum illum Patris opera dicit se facere oportere. Cui post restitutionem luminum: Tu, inquit (Joan. IX, 35), credis in Filium Dei? et interroganti quis esset iste, ipse se demonstrans, utique Filium demonstravit, quem credendum esse dixerat. Dehinc, cognosci se profitetur a Patre, et Patrem a se. Et ideo se diligi a Patre, quod animam suam ponat: quia hoc praeceptum accepisset a Patre. Et interrogatus a Judaeis si ipse esset Christus (uti que Dei, nam usque in hodiernum Judaei Christum Dei, non ipsum Patrem sperant, quia nunquam Christus Pater scriptus est venturus): Loquor, inquit, vobis, et non creditis. Opera quae ego facioin nomine Patris, ipsa de me testimonium dicunt. Quid testimonium? ipsum scilicet esse, de quo interrogabant, id est Christum Dei. De ovibus etiam suis, quod nemo illas de manu ejus eriperet: Pater enim quod mihi dedit, majus est omnibus et: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Hic ergo jam gradum volunt figere stulti, imo caeci, qui non videant, primo, Ego et Pater, duorum esse significationem; dehinc in novissimo, sumus, non ex unius esse persona, quod pluraliter dictum est; tum quod, unum sumus, non, « Unus sumus. » Si enim dixisset. « Unus sumus, » potuisset adjuvare sententiam illorum. Unus etiam singularis numeri significatio videtur. Adhuc cum duo, masculini generis. Unum dicit, neutrali verbo, quod non pertinet ad singularitatem, sed ad unitatem, ad similitudinem, ad conjunctionem, ad dilectionem Patris, qui Filium diligit; et ad obsequium Filii, qui voluntati Patris obsequitur. Unum sumus, dicens, ego et Pater, ostendit duos esse, quos aequat et jungit. Adeo addit etiam multa se opera a Patre ostendisse, quorum nihil lapidari mereretur. Et ne putarent ideo se illum lapidare debere, quasi se Deum ipsum, id est Patrem voluisset intelligi; quia dixerat, Ego et Pater unum sumus, qua Filium Dei Deum ostendens, non qua ipsum Deum. Si in lége, inquit, scriptum est. Ego dixi, Vos dii estis, et non potest solvi Scriptura, quem Pater sanctificavit, et misit in mundum, vos eum blasphemare dicitis, quia dixi, Filius Dei sum? Si non facio opera Patris mei, nolite credere, si vero facio, et mihi credere non vultis, vel propter opera credite. Et scitote quod ego in Patre sim, et Pater in me. Per opera ergo erat Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre; et ita per opera intelligimus unum esse Patrem et Filium.

that it was the Son Who was seen by Abraham long ago, not the Father. Likewise, over that blind man He says that He must do the works of the Father. To him, after the restoration of his sight, He says (John 9:35): Do you believe in the Son of God? and to him when he asked who that was, He, pointing to Himself, certainly pointed out the Son, Whom He had said was to be believed in. Then He declares that He is known by the Father, and the Father by Him; and that He is loved by the Father for this reason, that He lays down His life, because He had received this commandment from the Father. And when He was asked by the Jews whether He were the Christ (that is, of God, for to this day the Jews hope for the Christ of God, not for the Father Himself, since it is nowhere written that the Christ will come as the Father), He says: I speak to you, and you do not believe. The works which I do in the name of the Father, they bear witness concerning Me. What witness? namely, that He was the one about whom they were asking, that is, the Christ of God. Concerning His sheep also, that no one would snatch them out of His hand: For what the Father has given Me is greater than all; and: I and the Father are one. Here, then, the fools, nay the blind, wish to plant their foot, who do not see, first, that I and the Father is the designation of two; next, at the end, that we are is not from the person of one, because it is said in the plural; then, that He says we are one thing [unum], not 'We are one person [unus].' For if He had said 'We are one person,' He could have helped their opinion; for unus seems to be the designation of the singular number. Further, since two are spoken of, of the masculine gender, He says unum, a neuter word, which pertains not to singularity but to unity, to likeness, to conjunction, to the love of the Father, Who loves the Son, and to the obedience of the Son, Who obeys the will of the Father. In saying, We are one, I and the Father, He shows that there are two, whom He makes equal and joins together. Moreover, He adds that He has also shown many works from the Father, none of which deserved stoning. And lest they should think that they ought to stone Him on this account, as if He had wished Himself to be understood as God Himself, that is, the Father, because He had said, I and the Father are one, showing Himself as the Son of God, God, not as God Himself, He says: If it is written in the law, I said, You are gods, and Scripture cannot be broken, do you say of Him Whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world that He blasphemes, because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe; but if I do them, and you are unwilling to believe Me, believe at least because of the works. And know that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. Through the works, therefore, the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and thus through the works we understand that the Father and the Son are one.

Editors' notes and page, col. 207

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 108)

(76) ‹anchor: Christus (uti que Dei› · call in col 207

Deus Seml.

Deus ("God"): Semler.

(printed under page 108)

(77) ‹anchor: majus est omnibus› · call in col 207

Pater enim qui major est omnibus dedit mihi alii; Pater enim qui dedit mihi, major est omn. Jun.

Pater enim qui major est omnibus dedit mihi ("for the Father who is greater than all gave to me"): others; Pater enim qui dedit mihi, major est omn[ibus] ("for the Father who gave to me is greater than all"): Junius.

(printed under page 108)

(78) ‹anchor: quia dixi› · call in col 207

Dixerat Seml.

Dixerat ("he had said"): Semler.

(printed under page 108)

Commentarius

(printed under page 108)

(39) ‹anchor: Ego et Pater unum sumus (39)› · call in col 207

Ego et Pater unum sumus. Haec eadem verba quae ex Joan. X, assumpsit, retulit cap. 20 superius. Illa autem detorquebant haeretici monarchiani, qui inde factum putabant ut constaret alium non esse Filium a Patre; cum tamen unitatem essentiae dicant, non personae. LE PR.

I and the Father are one. These same words, which he took from John 10, he quoted above in chapter 20. The Monarchian heretics twisted them, thinking it followed from them that the Son was evidently not other than the Father; whereas they express a unity of essence, not of person. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 108)

Page

running head: 207 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A monstrat Filium Abrahae retro visum; B quae ego facioin nomine Patris; C tudinem, ad conjunctionem; D dere non vultis, vel propter opera credite
old-edition numerals: 184 after aequat
other: the word Filium. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 208
misprints kept as printed: ‹uti que› (for utique); ‹facioin› (for facio in); ‹dixisset.› (full stop for comma); ‹lége› (accented, for lege)

PL 2:208

Adeo totum hoc perseverabat inducere, ut duo tamen crederentur in una virtute; quia aliter Filius credi non posset, nisi duo credere⟨n⟩tur.

So far did he persist in introducing this whole [matter], that two should nevertheless be believed in one power; because otherwise the Son could not be believed in unless two were believed in.

CAPUT XXIII.

Chapter XXIII.

Post haec autem Martha Filium Dei eum confessa, non magis erravit, quam Petrus (Matth. XVI, 16) et Nathanael; quanquam etsi errasset, statim didicisset. Ecce enim, ad suscitandum fratrem ejus a mortuis, ad coelum et ad Patrem Dominus suspiciens: Pater, inquit (Joan. II, 42 [utique Filius]), gratias ago tibi, quod me semper exaudias. Propter istas turbas circumstantes dixi ut credant quod tu me miseris. Sed et in conturbatione animae: Et quid dicam? Pater, salvum me fac de ista hora. Atquin propter hoc veni in istam horam. Verum, Pater, glorifica nomen tuum (Joan. XII, 27). In quo erat et Filius. Ego, inquit (Joan. V, 43), veni in Patris nomine. Inde scilicet suffecerat Filii ad Patrem vox. Ecce ex abundantia respondet de coelo Pater, Filio contestatur (Matth. XVII, 5): Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo bene sensi, audite illum. Ita et in isto, Glorificavi, et glorificabo rursus, quot personae tibi videntur, perversissime Praxea, nisi quot et voces? habes Filium in terris, habes Patrem in coelis. Non est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina. Caeterum, scimus Deum etiam intra abyssos esse, et ubique consistere, sed vi et potestate. Filium quoque, ut individuum cum ipso ubique. Tamen in ipsa oeconomia, Pater voluit Filium in terris haberi, se vero in coelis; quo et ipse Filius suspiciens, et orabat et postulabat a Patre, quo et nos erectos docebat orare: Pater noster qui es in coelis (Matth. VI, 19), et cum sit et ubique, hanc sedem suam voluit Pater; minoravit Filium modico citra angelos (Psal. VIII, 6), ad terram demittendo; gloria tamen et honore coronaturus illum, in coelos resumendo. Haec jam praestabat illi, dicens, Et glorificavi, et glorificabo. Postulat Filius de terris, Pater promittit a coelis. Quid mendacem facis et Patrem et Filium, si aut Pater de coelis loquebatur ad Filium, cum ipse esset Filius apud terras; aut Filius ad Patrem precabatur, cum ipse esset Pater apud coelos? Quale est ut Filius item postularet a semetipso, postulando a Patre, si Filius erat Pater; aut iterum Pater sibi ipsi promitteret, promittendo Filio, si Pater erat? ut sic duos divisos diceremus, quomodo jactitatis, tolerabilius erat duos divisos,

After these things, moreover, Martha, having confessed Him to be the Son of God, erred no more than Peter (Matt. 16:16) and Nathanael; although, even if she had erred, she would at once have learned better. For behold, in order to raise her brother from the dead, the Lord, looking up to heaven and to the Father, says (John 11:42 [the Son, that is]): Father, I give Thee thanks that Thou always hearest Me. Because of these crowds standing around I have said [it], that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me. And also in the troubling of His soul: And what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour. Yet for this cause I came unto this hour. But, Father, glorify Thy name (John 12:27). In which name the Son also was. I, He says (John 5:43), have come in the Father's name. Thus, clearly, the voice of the Son to the Father had sufficed. Behold, out of abundance the Father answers from heaven, and bears witness to the Son (Matt. 17:5): This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear Him. So too in that [saying], I have glorified, and I will glorify again, how many persons do you think there are, most perverse Praxeas, if not as many as there are voices? You have the Son on earth, you have the Father in heaven. This is not a separation, but a divine disposition. For the rest, we know that God is even within the abysses, and is present everywhere, but by power and authority; and that the Son also, as one undivided from Him, is everywhere. Yet in the economy itself the Father willed that the Son be held on earth, and Himself in heaven; towards which the Son Himself also looking up both prayed and made request of the Father; towards which He also taught us, standing upright, to pray: Our Father, Who art in heaven (Matt. 6:9), and though He is also everywhere, the Father willed this to be His seat; He made the Son a little lower than the angels (Ps. 8:6), by sending Him down to earth; yet intending to crown Him with glory and honour, by taking Him back into the heavens. This He was already granting Him, saying, And I have glorified, and I will glorify. The Son makes request from earth, the Father promises from heaven. Why do you make both the Father and the Son liars, if either the Father was speaking from heaven to the Son when He Himself was the Son on earth, or the Son was praying to the Father when He Himself was the Father in heaven? What sort of thing is it that the Son should likewise make request of Himself by making request of the Father, if the Son was the Father; or again that the Father should make a promise to Himself by promising to the Son, if He was the Father? Even if we were thus to speak of two divided, as you keep boasting, it would be more tolerable [to speak of] two divided,

Editors' notes and page, col. 208

Footnotes

(79) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 208

Et Filium abest Seml.

Et Filium is absent: Semler.

(printed under page 108)

(80) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 208

Sed add. Lat.

Latinius adds sed.

(printed under page 108)

(81) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 208

Et omitt. Seml.

Semler omits et.

(printed under page 108)

(82) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 208

Ex abundanti Latin.

Ex abundanti ("over and above"): Latinius.

(printed under page 108)

(83) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 208

Respondit Fran.

Respondit ("answered"): the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 108)

(84) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 208

Glorificabo, rursus Seml. Venet.

Glorificabo, rursus: Semler, the Venice edition.

(printed under page 108)

(85) ‹anchor: in coelis; quo› · call in col 208

Quod Seml.

Quod: Semler.

(printed under page 108)

(86) ‹anchor: in coelis, et cum› · call in col 208

Coelis: cum Seml.

Coelis: cum: Semler.

(printed under page 108)

(87) ‹anchor: ubique, hanc› · call in col 208

Utique, hanc alii.

Utique, hanc: others.

(printed under page 108)

(88) ‹anchor: minoravit› · call in col 208

Voluit. Pater minoravit Seml.

Voluit. Pater minoravit: Semler.

(printed under page 108)

(89) ‹anchor: si aut› · call in col 208

Autem Seml.

Autem: Semler.

(printed under page 108)

(90) ‹anchor: item postularet› · call in col 208

Postulet Seml.

Postulet (present subjunctive, "should ask"): Semler.

(printed under page 108)

(91) ‹anchor: a Patre, si› · call in col 208

Si omitt. Seml.

Semler omits si.

Commentarius

(printed under page 108)

Page

running head: UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 208
marginal letters: A lium. Adeo totum hoc; B quid dicam? Pater, salvum; C Filium in terris haberi; D postulando a Patre, si
old-edition numerals: 185 after minoravit

PL 2:209

quam unum Deum versipellem praedicare. Itaque ad istos tunc Dominus pronuntiavit (Joan. XIII, 30): Non propter me ista vox venit, sed propter vos; ut credant hi, et Patrem et Filium, in suis quemque nominibus, et personis, et locis. Sed adhuc exclamat Jesus et dicit: Qui credit in me, non in me credit, sed in eum credit qui me misit (quia per Filium in Patrem creditur, et auctoritas credendi Filio, Pater est); et qui conspicit me, conspicit eum qui me misit. Quomodo? Quoniam scilicet a memetipso non sum locutus; sed qui me misit Pater, ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam et quid loquar, Dominus enim dat mihi linguam disciplinae, ad cognoscendum quando oporteat dicere sermonem quem ego loquor (Isa. IV, 4). Sicut mihi Pater dixit, ita et loquor (Joan. XII, 50). Haec quomodo dicta sint, Evangelizator et utique tam clarus discipulus Joannes magis, quam Praxeas, noverat, ideoque ipse de suo sensu: Ante autem solemnitatem Paschae, inquit (Joan. XIII, 1), sciens Jesus omnia sibi tradita a Patre esse, et se ex Deo exiisse, ad Deum vadere. Sed Praxeas ipsum vult Patrem de semetipso exiisse, et ad semetipsum abiisse, ut diabolus in cor Judae, non Filii traditionem, sed Patris ipsius immiserit. Nec diabolo bene, nec haeretico; quia nec in Filio bono suo diabolus operatus est traditionem. Filius enim traditus est Dei, qui erat in filio hominis, sicut Scriptura subjungit: Nunc glorificatus est Filius hominis, et Deus glorificatus est in illo. Quid Deus? utique non Pater, sed Sermo Patris, qui erat in filio hominis, id est in carne, in qua et glorificatus jam; virtute vero et sermone, et ant⟨e⟩ Jesum: Et Deus, inquit, glorificavit illum in semetipso, id est, Pater Filium in semetipso habens, etsi porrectum ad terram, mox per resurrectionem glorificavit, morte devicta.

than to preach one turncoat God. And so the Lord then declared to them (John 12:30): Not on account of Me did this voice come, but on account of you; that these may believe both the Father and the Son, each in His own names and persons and places. But further Jesus cries out and says: He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but believes in Him who sent Me (because it is through the Son that one believes in the Father, and the authority for believing in the Son is the Father); and he who beholds Me beholds Him who sent Me. How so? Because, namely, I have not spoken from Myself; but the Father who sent Me, He Himself gave Me a commandment what I should say and what I should speak. For the Lord gives Me the tongue of instruction, to know when one ought to speak the word which I speak (Isa. 50:4). As the Father said to Me, so also I speak (John 12:50). How these things were said, the evangelist, and indeed so illustrious a disciple, John, knew better than Praxeas; and therefore he himself, of his own understanding, says (John 13:1): Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that all things had been delivered to Him by the Father, and that He had come out from God, [and] was going to God. But Praxeas will have it that the Father Himself came out from Himself and went away to Himself, so that the devil put into the heart of Judas the betrayal not of the Son but of the Father Himself. That turns out well neither for the devil nor for the heretic; for not even in the case of the Son did the devil work the betrayal to his own good. For it was the Son of God who was betrayed, He who was in the son of man, as Scripture adds: Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. What God? Certainly not the Father, but the Word of the Father, Who was in the son of man, that is, in the flesh, in which He had also already been glorified; but in power and word even before Jesus: And God, it says, has glorified Him in Himself, that is, the Father, having the Son in Himself, although He was laid low to the earth, soon glorified Him through the resurrection, death having been conquered.

CAPUT XXIV.

Chapter XXIV.

Erant plane qui et tunc non intelligerent. Quoniam et Thomas aliquandiu incredulus: Domine enim, inquit (Joan. XIV, 5 seqq.), non scimus quo eas, et quomodo viam novimus? Et Jesus: Ego sum via, veritas et vita. Nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me. Si cognovissetis me, cognovissetis et Patrem: sed abhinc nostis illum, et videtis illum. Et pervenimus

There were clearly some who even then did not understand. For Thomas too was for a while unbelieving: For Lord, he says (John 14:5ff.), we do not know where Thou art going, and how do we know the way? And Jesus: I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known the Father also; but from now on you know Him, and you see Him. And we have come

Editors' notes and page, col. 209

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 109)

(92) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 209

Nunc Seml.

Nunc ("now"): Semler.

(printed under page 109)

(93) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 209

Me abest Rhen.

Me is absent: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 109)

(94) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 209

Nominat Seml.

Nominat ("names"): Semler.

(printed under page 109)

(95) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 209

Esse Seml.

Esse ("to be"): Semler.

(printed under page 109)

(96) ‹anchor: et ante Jesum› · call in col 209

Jesus Seml.

Jesus (nominative): Semler.

(printed under page 109)

(97) ‹anchor: inquit, glorificavit› · call in col 209

Glorificabit Jun.

Glorificabit ("will glorify"): Junius.

(printed under page 109)

(98) ‹anchor: Pater Filium› · call in col 209

Quem add. Seml.

Semler adds quem ("whom").

(printed under page 109)

(99) ‹anchor: resurrectionem glorificavit› · call in col 209

Glorificabit omitt. Seml.

Semler omits glorificabit.

(printed under page 109)

(1) ‹anchor: Erant› · call in col 209

Devicta erant Paris.

Devicta erant: the Paris edition.

(printed under page 109)

(2) ‹anchor: sed› · call in col 209

Et add. Seml.

Semler adds et.

(printed under page 109)

(40) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 209

Ante autem solemnitatem Paschae. Haec verba Joan. XIII transposito citat ordine; alioqui cum reliquis consentit, legens etiam cum vulgato interprete, quamtumvis Graece sit ἐν αὐτῷ, in semetipso. PAM. Haec vox, ἐν αὐτῷ, non reperitur in nostro certe exemplari, Parisiis edito, an. 1549, sed multo rectius, ἐν ἑαυτῷ, id est, in semetipso, ut in Vulgata (καιν. Διαθ., 177, 1, 11). Potuit igitur Tertullianus lectionem nostrae similem habuisse prae oculis etiam Graecam, cui Vulgata in posterum accommodata fuerit. EDD.

Now before the feast of the Passover. He cites these words of John 13 in a transposed order; otherwise he agrees with the rest, reading also with the Vulgate translator, although the Greek is "in him", in himself. PAMELIUS. This word, "in him", is certainly not found in our copy, printed at Paris in 1549, but, much more correctly, "in himself", that is, in semetipso, as in the Vulgate (New Testament, 177, 1, 11). Tertullian may therefore have had before his eyes a Greek reading like ours too, to which the Vulgate was afterwards adapted. EDITORS.

(printed under page 109)

(41) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 209 or 210

Nobis omnes Scripturae et veteres, etc. Alludit ad omnes Scripturas eas veteres, in quibus Christus Dei appellatur, utpote Psal. II, Isa. XLV, Thren. IV, et Dan. IX. PAM.

For us all the Scriptures, both the old, etc. He alludes to all those old Scriptures in which he is called the Christ of God, such as Psalm 2, Isaiah 45, Lamentations 4 and Daniel 9. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 109)

(42) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 209 or 210

Et novae Filium Dei praefiniunt. Scripturas ejusmodi Novi Testamenti habes initio Evangeliorum Marci, Lucae ac Joan. et alibi apud eosdem. Matth. IV. Act. II. et IX, et Epist. ad Roman., Galat., Ephes. et Hebr., denique et Apoc. II. PAM.

And the new declare the Son of God. You have Scriptures of this kind in the New Testament at the beginning of the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John, and elsewhere in the same; Matthew 4, Acts 2 and 9, and the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Hebrews, and finally Revelation 2. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 109)

Page

running head: 209 LIBER ADV. PRAXE (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A quam unum Deum versipellem; B dum quando oporteat dicere; C qui erat in filio hominis; D per me. Si cognovissetis me
old-edition numerals: 186 after Quid

PL 2:210

jam ad Philippum, qui spe excitatus videndi Patris, nec intelligens quomodo visum Patrem audisset: Ostende, inquit, nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis. Et Dominus: Philippe, tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non cognovistis me? Quem dicit cognosciabillis debuisse (hoc enim solum discuti oportet), quasi Patrem, an quasi Filium? Si quasi Patrem, doceat Praxeas, tanto tempore Christum cum eis conversatum, Patrem aliquando, non dico intelligi, verum vel aestimari potuisse. Nobis omnes Scripturae, et veteres Christum Dei, et novae Filium Dei praefiniunt. Hoc et retro praedicabatur, hoc et ab ipso Christo pronuntiabatur; imo jam et ab ipso Patre coram de coelis Filium profitente, et Filium glorificante: Hic est Filius meus; et: Glorificavi et glorificabo. Hoc et a discipulis credebatur, hoc et a Judaeis non credebatur, hoc se volens credi ab illis, omni hora Patrem nominabat, et Patrem praeferebat, et Patrem honorabat. Si ita est, ergo non Patrem tanto tempore secum conversatum ignoraverant, sed Filium. Et Dominus eum se ignoranti exprobrans, quem ignoraverant, eum utique agnosci volebat, quem tanto tempore non agnosci exprobraverat, id est Filium. Et apparere jam post quomodo dictum sit, Qui me videt, videt et Patrem (Joan. XVI, 9). Scilicet quo et supra: Ego et Pater unum sumus (Joan. XVI, 28). Quare? quia, Ego ex Deo exivi et veni; et, Ego sum via; nemo ad Patrem venit, nisi per me (Joan. XIV, 6); et, Nemo ad me venit, nisi Pater eum adduxerit (Joan. VI, 44); et, Omnia mihi Pater tradidit (Matth. XI, 27); et, Sicut Pater vivificat, ita et Filius (Joan. V, 21); et, Si me cognovistis, et Patrem cognovistis (Joan. XIV, 7). Secundum haec enim, vicarium se Patris ostenderat, per quem Pater et videretur in factis, et audiretur in verbis, et cognosceretur in Filio, facta et verba Patris administrante; quia invisibilis pater, quod et Philippus didicerat in lege, et meminisse debuerat: Deum nemo videbit et vivet (Exod. 33). Et ideo suggillatur Patrem videre desiderans quasi visibilem, et instruitur visibilem eum in Filio fieri ex virtutibus, non ex personae repraesentatione. Denique, si Patrem eumdem Filium vellet intelligi, dicendo: Qui me videt, Patrem videt: quomodo

now to Philip, who, roused by the hope of seeing the Father, and not understanding how he had heard that the Father was seen, said: Show us the Father, and it suffices us. And the Lord: Philip, have I been with you so long a time, and you have not known Me? Whom does He say they ought to have known (for this alone needs to be discussed), as the Father, or as the Son? If as the Father, let Praxeas show how, when Christ had conversed with them for so long a time, the Father could at any time have been, I do not say understood, but even supposed. For us all the Scriptures, both the old define beforehand the Christ of God, and the new the Son of God. This was both proclaimed of old, and this was declared by Christ Himself; nay, even by the Father Himself, openly from the heavens acknowledging the Son and glorifying the Son: This is My Son; and: I have glorified and I will glorify. This was both believed by the disciples, and this was not believed by the Jews; wishing this to be believed by them, He named the Father at every hour, and set the Father before them, and honoured the Father. If it is so, then it was not the Father, conversing with them for so long a time, whom they had not known, but the Son. And the Lord, reproaching the one who did not know Him, wished that the one whom they had not known should surely be acknowledged, the one whom He had reproached for not being acknowledged for so long a time, that is, the Son. And it may now appear afterwards how it was said, He who sees Me, sees also the Father (John 16:9). That is, in the same sense as above: I and the Father are one (John 16:28). Why? Because, I came forth from God and have come; and, I am the way; no one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6); and, No one comes to Me unless the Father has led him (John 6:44); and, The Father has delivered all things to Me (Matt. 11:27); and, As the Father gives life, so also the Son (John 5:21); and, If you have known Me, you have known the Father also (John 14:7). For according to these things He had shown Himself the Father's deputy, through Whom the Father might be both seen in deeds and heard in words and known in the Son, Who administered the deeds and words of the Father; because the Father is invisible, as Philip too had learned in the Law, and ought to have remembered: No one shall see God and live (Exod. 33). And therefore he is rebuked for desiring to see the Father as if He were visible, and is taught that He becomes visible in the Son from His mighty works, not from the representation of His person. Finally, if He had wished the Father to be understood as the same as the Son, by saying: He who sees Me, sees the Father: how

Editors' notes and page, col. 210

Footnotes

(3) ‹anchor: Qui me videt, videt› · call in col 210

Vidit alii.

Vidit ("has seen"): others.

Commentarius

(printed under page 109)

Page

running head: ER ADV. PRAXEAM. (cut off at left edge; presumably LIBER ADV. PRAXEAM.)
marginal letters: A ‹nimus jam ad Philippum›; B ‹Patre coram de coelis›; C ‹Deo exivi et veni›; D ‹cendo : Qui me videt›
old-edition numerals: 187 after ‹via›

PL 2:211

subjicit, Non creditis quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me est? Debuerat enim subjunxisse, Non creditis quia ego sum Pater? Aut quo exaggeravit, si non illud manifestavit quod voluerat intelligi, se scilicet Filium esse? Porro dicendo, Non creditis quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me; propterea potius exaggeravit, ne quia dixerat, Qui me videt, et Patrem videt, Pater existimaretur: quod nunquam existimari se voluit, qui semper se Filium, et a Patre venisse profitebatur. Igitur et manifestam fecit duarum personarum conjunctionem, ne Pater seorsum quasi visibilis in conspectu desideraretur, et ut Filius repraesentator Patris haberetur. Et nihilominus hoc quoque interpretatus est, quomodo Pater esset in Filio, et Filius in Patre: Verba, inquit, quae ego loquor vobis, non sunt mea; utique quia Patris. Pater autem manens in me, facit opera. Per opera ergo virtutum, et verba doctrinae manens in Filio Pater per ea videtur, per quae manet, et per eum in quo manet: ex hoc ipso apparente proprietate utriusque personae, dum dicit: Ego sum in Patre, et Pater in me. Atque adeo: Credite, ait. Quid? Me Patrem esse? Non puto scriptum esse; sed: Quia ego in Patre, et Pater in me. Si quominus, vel propter opera credite. Ea utique opera, per quae Pater in Filio, non visu, sed sensu videbatur.

does He add, Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? For He ought to have added, Do you not believe that I am the Father? Or why did He press the point, if He did not make plain what He had wished to be understood, namely that He was the Son? Moreover, by saying, Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me, He pressed the point rather for this reason, lest, because He had said, He who sees Me sees the Father also, He should be thought to be the Father: which He never wished Himself to be thought, Who always professed that He was the Son and had come from the Father. Therefore He both made manifest the conjunction of the two Persons, so that the Father should not be longed for separately as though visible to sight, and so that the Son should be held to be the representative of the Father. And nonetheless He explained this too, how the Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father: The words, He says, which I speak to you are not Mine; namely, because they are the Father's. But the Father, abiding in Me, does the works. Through the works of powers, therefore, and the words of doctrine, the Father abiding in the Son is seen through those things through which He abides, and through Him in Whom He abides: the distinct property of each Person being apparent from this very fact, when He says: I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. And so: Believe, He says. What? That I am the Father? I do not think it is written so; but: That I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. If otherwise, believe at least on account of the works. Those works, namely, through which the Father was seen in the Son, not by sight but by understanding.

CAPUT XXV.

Chapter XXV.

Post Philippum, et totam substantiam quaestionis istius, quem in finem Evangelii perseverant in eodem genere sermonis, quo Pater et Filius in sua proprietate distinguuntur, Paracletum qnoque a Patre se postulaturum, cum ascendisset ad Patrem, et missurum repromittit, et quidem alium, sed jam praemisimus quomodo alium. Caeterum: De meo sumet (Joan. XVI, 4), inquit: sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero, qui tres unum sint, non unus. Quomodo dictum est: Ego et Pater unum sumus; ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. Percurre adhuc, et invenies quem Patrem credis, vice Patris dictum. Et Patrem agricolam, utique in terra tu putas fuisse. Hunc rursus in coelis a Filio agnosci, cum illuc respiciens, discipulos suos Patri tradit. Sed et si in isto Evangelio non esset revelatum: Deus meus, ad quid me dereliquisti (Matth. XXVII, 46)? et, Pater, in tuis manibus depono spiritum meum. Luc. XXIII, 46), tamen post resurrectionem et devictae gloriam mortis, exposita

After Philip, and the whole substance of that question, [the words] which continue to the end of the Gospel in the same kind of discourse, by which the Father and the Son are distinguished, each in His own distinct property, [show that] He promises that He will also ask the Paraclete from the Father when He has ascended to the Father, and will send Him, and indeed another; but we have already set out in what sense another. Further: He will take of Mine (John 16:4), He says: just as He Himself [took] of the Father's. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes three cohering, one from the other, which three are one [thing], not one [person]. In the way that it was said: I and the Father are one; with reference to unity of substance, not to singularity of number. Run through further, and you will find that He Whom you believe to be the Father is spoken of in the character of Father. And the Father as husbandman, you surely think, was on earth. Him again [you will find] acknowledged by the Son in the heavens, when, looking up thither, He commits His disciples to the Father. But even if it had not been revealed in this Gospel: My God, to what end hast Thou forsaken Me (Matt. 27:46)? and, Father, into Thy hands I lay down My spirit. Luke 23:46), yet after the resurrection and the glory of death overcome, having laid aside

Editors' notes and page, col. 211

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 110)

(4) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 211

Credis Seml.

Credis ("you believe"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(5) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 211

Id.

The same (Semler).

(printed under page 110)

(6) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 211

Id.

The same (Semler).

(printed under page 110)

(7) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 211

Vidit Seml.

Vidit ("has seen"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(8) ‹anchor: quaestionis istius, quem› · call in col 211

Quae Seml.

Quae ("which"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(9) ‹anchor: in finem Evangelii perseverant› · call in col 211

Evangelia perseverant Seml.

Evangelia perseverant ("the Gospels persist"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(10) ‹anchor: in sua proprietate distinguuntur› · call in col 211

Distinguitur Seml.

Distinguitur (singular, "is distinguished"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(11) ‹anchor: agricolam, utique› · call in col 211

Et quem Jun.

Et quem ("and whom"): Junius.

(printed under page 110)

(12) ‹anchor: discipulos suos Patri tradit› · call in col 211

Tradidit Seml.

Tradidit ("handed over", perfect): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(13) ‹anchor: non esset› · call in col 211

Est Seml.

Est ("is"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(14) ‹anchor: devictae gloriam› · call in col 211

Gloria Seml.

Gloria (ablative, "in glory"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(43) ‹anchor: ipse de Patris› · call in col 211

Sicut ipse de Patris. Defectiva oratio, qualiter in superioribus saepe locutus est, subauditur de eo, quod est Patris. Sic infra: Non scitis, inquit, quod in Patris mei me esse oportet? ubi subauditur rebus. RHEN.

As he himself from the Father's. An elliptical expression, such as he has often used above: understand from that which is the Father's. So below: Do you not know, he says, that I must be in my Father's?, where affairs is understood. RHENANUS.

(printed under page 110)

Page

running head: 211 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at the right edge of the image)
marginal letters: A ‹subjicit, Non creditis›; B ‹quomodo Pater esset in Filio›; C ‹Post Philippum, et totam›; D ‹tum. Et Patrem agricolam›
old-edition numerals: 188 after ‹jam›

PL 2:212

necessitate omnis humilitatis, cum jam Patrem se posset ostendere tam fideli feminae, ex dilectione, non ex curiositate, nec ex incredulitate Thomae, tangere eum aggressae: Ne, inquit, contigeris me nondum ascendi ad Patrem meum; vade autem ad fratres meos (quin et in hoc se Filium ostendit; filios enim appellasset illos, si Pater fuisset), et dices eis: Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum Deum meum et Deum vestrum (Joan. XX, 17). Pater ad Patrem et Deus ad Deum; an Filius ad Patrem, et Sermo ad Deum? Ipsa quoque clausula Evangelii propter quid consignat haec scripta, nisi: Ut credatis, inquit, Jesum Christum Filium Dei? Igitur quaecunque ex his putaveris ad demonstrationem ejusdem Patris et Filii proficere tibi posse, adversus definitivam Evangelii sententiam niteris. Non ideo enim scripta sunt, ut Patrem credas Jesum Christum, sed ut Filium.

the necessity of all humility, when He could already have shown Himself to be the Father to so faithful a woman, who had attempted to touch Him out of love, not out of curiosity nor out of the unbelief of Thomas: Do not touch Me, He says, I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brothers (and indeed in this He shows Himself to be the Son; for He would have called them sons, if He had been the Father), and you will say to them: I ascend to My Father and your Father, My God and your God (John 20:17). Is it the Father to the Father and God to God, or the Son to the Father and the Word to God? Why does the very close of the Gospel also seal these writings, if not: That you may believe, it says, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Therefore whatever of these things you have thought could avail you for demonstrating that the Father and the Son are the same, you strive against the definitive pronouncement of the Gospel. For these things were not written so that you might believe Jesus Christ to be the Father, but the Son.

CAPUT XXVI.

Chapter XXVI.

Propter unum Philippi sermonem, et Domini responsionem ad eum, videmus Joannis Evangelium decucurrisse, ne tot manifeste pronuntiata, et ante et postea unus sermo subvertat secundum omnia potius, quam adversus omnia, etiam adversus suos sensus interpretandus. Caeterum ut alia Evangelia non interponam quae de nativitate Dominica idem confirmant, sufficit, eum qui nasci habebat ex virgine, ab ipso annuntiari angelo, Filium Dei determinatum: Spiritus Dei superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit te: propterea quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur Filius Dei (Luc. I, 3-5.) Volent quidem et hic argumentari, sed veritas praevalebit. Nempe, inquiunt, Filius Dei Deus est, et virtus Altissimi Altissimus est. Nec pudet illos injicere, quod, si esset, scriptum fuisset. Quem enim verebatur, ut non aperte pronuntiaret: Deus superveniet, et Altissimus obumbrabit te? Dicens autem Spiritus Dei etsi Spiritus Dei Deus, tamen non directo Deum nominans, portionem totius intelligi voluit, quae cessura erat in Filii nomen. Hic Spiritus Dei, idem erit Sermo. Sicut enim Joanne dicente, Sermo caro factus est, Spiritum quoque intolligimus in mentione Sermonis; ita et hic Sermonem quoque agnoscimus in nomine Spiritus. Nam et spiritus. substantia est sermonis, et sermo operatio spiritus, et duo unum sunt. Caeterum, alium Joannes profitebitur carnem factum, alium angelus carnem futurum, si non et spiritus sermo est, et sermo spiritus. Sicut ergo sermo Dei non est ipse cujus est,

Because of one saying of Philip, and the Lord's reply to him, we see that John's Gospel has run its course, lest one saying should overturn so many things plainly declared both before and after, a saying which is to be interpreted in accordance with all of them rather than against all of them, even against its own sense. Moreover, not to bring in the other Gospels which confirm the same thing concerning the Lord's nativity, it suffices that He Who was to be born of a virgin was announced by the angel himself as determined to be the Son of God: The Spirit of God will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: therefore the holy thing that will be born of you will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). They will want to argue even here, but truth will prevail. Clearly, they say, the Son of God is God, and the power of the Most High is the Most High. Nor are they ashamed to insinuate what, if it were so, would have been written. For whom did he fear, that he should not openly declare: God will come upon you, and the Most High will overshadow you? But in saying the Spirit of God, although the Spirit of God is God, yet not naming God directly, he wished to be understood a portion of the whole, which was to pass into the name of the Son. This Spirit of God will be the same as the Word. For just as, when John says, The Word was made flesh, we also understand the Spirit in the mention of the Word, so here too we recognize the Word also in the name of the Spirit. For spirit is also the substance of word, and word the operation of spirit, and the two are one. Otherwise John will profess one to have been made flesh, the angel another as about to be flesh, unless spirit too is word and word is spirit. Just as, therefore, the Word of God is not He Whose it is,

Editors' notes and page, col. 212

Footnotes

(15) ‹necessitate omnis› · call in col 212

Necessitatem Seml.

Necessitatem ("necessity"): Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(16) ‹se Filium ostendit› · call in col 212

Quia et in hoc filium Seml.

Quia et in hoc filium: Semler.

(printed under page 110)

(17) ‹Patrem credas Jesum› · call in col 212

In inserit. Rhen.

Rhenanus inserts in.

(printed under page 110)

(18) ‹videmus Joannis› · call in col 212

Videmur Rhen.

Videmur ("we seem"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 110)

(19) ‹nativitate Dominica idem› · call in col 212

Fidem Rhen.

Fidem ("faith"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 110)

(20) ‹sufficit, eum› · call in col 212

Enim Rhen.

Enim ("for"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 110)

(21) ‹etsi Spiritus› · call in col 212

Spiritum Fran.

Spiritum (accusative): the Franeker edition.

Commentarius

(printed under page 110)

Page

running head: [cut off at left] ...M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 212
marginal letters: A ‹necessitate omnis humilitatis›; B ‹dem Patris et Filii proficere›; C ‹ab ipso annuntiari angelo›; D ‹mentione Sermonis; ita et hic›
old-edition numerals: 189 after praevalebit
other: column begins mid-sentence (necessitate) and ends mid-sentence (cujus est,); several worn letters read as intended (Patrem, ex, et, eis); mark after "Nam et spiritus" unclear, period or comma; "contigeris me nondum ascendi" set as printed without enim; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes) at page foot seen, not set; the headings of those notes run across both columns and are cut off at the left edge, not set
misprints set as printed: "intolligimus" (for intelligimus); "(Luc. I, 3-5.)" (for I, 35)

PL 2:213

ita nec Spiritus; et si Deus dictus est, non tamen ipse est cujus est dictus. Nulla res alicujus, ipsa est cujus est. Plane cum quid ex ipso est, et sic ejus est dum ex ipso sit, potest tale quid esse, quale et ipse ex quo est, et cujus est. Et ideo Spiritus Dei Deus, et Sermo Dei Deus, quia ex Deo non tamen ipse ex quo est. Quod si Deus Dei, tanquam substantiva res, non erit ipse Deus, sed hactenus Deus, quia ex ipsius Dei substantia, qua et substantiva res est, et ut portio aliqua totius. Multo magis virtus Altissimi, non erit ipse Altissimus, quia nec substantiva res est quod est spiritus, sicut nec sapientia, nec providentia; et haec enim substantiae non sunt, sed accidentia uniuscujusque substantiae. Virtus spiritui accidit, nec ipsa erit spiritus. His itaque rebus quodcumque sunt spiritu Dei et sermone et virtute collatis in virginem quod de ea nascitur, Filius Dei est. Hoc se et in istis Evangeliis ipse testatur statim a puero: Non scitis, inquit (Luc. II, 49), quod in Patris mei me esse oportet? Hoc et Satanas eum in tentationibus novit: Si Filius Dei es (Matth. II, 3). Hoc et exinde daemonia confitentur: Scimus qui sis, Filius Dei. Patrem et ipse adorat. Christum se Dei a Petro agnitum non negat. Exsultans in spiritu ad Patrem: Confiteor, inquit, tibi, Pater, quod absconderis haec a sapientibus (Matth. XI, 25). Hic quoque Patrem nemini totum nisi Filio affirmat. Et Patris Filium confessurum confessores, et negaturum negatores suos apud Patrem; inducens parabolam filii, non patris, in vineam missi post aliquot servos, et occisi a malis rusticis, et a patre defensi; ignorans et ipse diem et horam ultimam soli Patri notam, disponens regnum discipulis, quomodo et sibi dispositum dicit a Patre; habens potestatem legiones angelorum postulandi ad auxilium a Patre si vellet; exclamans quod se Deus reliquisset, in Patris manibus spiritum ponens et post resurrectionem spondens missurum se discipulis promissionem Patris; et novissime mandans ut tinguerent in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, non in unum. Nam nec semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas tinguimur.

so neither is the Spirit; and even if it has been called God, yet it is not itself the one whose it is said to be. Nothing that belongs to someone is itself the one whose it is. Clearly, when something is from him, and is his in this way, inasmuch as it is from him, it can be such a thing as he himself is from whom it is and whose it is. And therefore the Spirit of God is God, and the Word of God is God, because [He is] from God, yet not Himself the one from whom He is. But if [He is] God of God, as a substantive thing, He will not be God Himself, but God to this extent, because [He is] from the substance of God Himself, by which He also is a substantive thing, and as some portion of the whole. Much more will the power of the Most High not be the Most High Himself, because it is not a substantive thing, as spirit is, just as neither wisdom nor providence is; for these too are not substances, but accidents of each substance. Power is an accident of spirit, nor will it itself be spirit. These things, then, whatever they are, the Spirit of God and the Word and the power, having been conferred upon the virgin, that which is born of her is the Son of God. That He is this He Himself also testifies in these very Gospels, straight from boyhood: Do you not know, He says (Luke 2:49), that I must be in My Father's [house]? Satan too knew Him to be this in the temptations: If Thou art the Son of God (Matt. 4:3). Thereafter the demons also confess this: We know who Thou art, the Son of God. He Himself also worships the Father. He does not deny that He is recognized by Peter as the Christ of God. Exulting in spirit, [He says] to the Father: I confess to Thee, He says, Father, that Thou hast hidden these things from the wise (Matt. 11:25). Here too He affirms that the Father is [known] wholly to no one except the Son. And [He affirms] that He, as the Son of the Father, will confess those who confess Him, and will deny those who deny Him, before the Father; bringing in the parable of the son, not of the father, sent into the vineyard after several servants, and killed by wicked husbandmen, and avenged by the father; Himself also not knowing the last day and hour, known to the Father alone; appointing the kingdom to the disciples, just as He says it was appointed to Himself by the Father; having power to ask for legions of angels from the Father for help if He wished; crying out that God had forsaken Him, placing His spirit in the Father's hands, and after the resurrection promising that He would send to the disciples the promise of the Father; and lastly commanding that they should baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not into one. For not once, but three times, are we baptized into the several persons at the several names.

CAPUT XXVII.

Chapter XXVII.

Et quid ego in tam manifestis moror, cum ea aggredi debeam, de quibus manifesta obum-

And why do I linger over things so manifest, when I ought to approach those matters concerning which the manifest things

Editors' notes and page, col. 213

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 111)

(22) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Dei omitt. Rhen.

Rhenanus omits Dei.

(printed under page 111)

(23) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Id.

The same (Rhenanus omits Dei).

(printed under page 111)

(24) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Si omitt. Seml.

Semler omits si.

(printed under page 111)

(25) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Qua Lat.

Qua: Latinius.

(printed under page 111)

(26) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Quae Rhen.

Quae: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 111)

(27) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Qui Seml.

Qui: Semler.

(printed under page 111)

(28) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Si add. Rhen.

Rhenanus adds si.

(printed under page 111)

(29) ‹anchor: Exsultans› · call in col 213

Insultans Venet.

Insultans ("leaping upon / insulting"): the Venice edition.

(printed under page 111)

(30) ‹anchor: in tam manifestis moror› · call in col 213

Morabor Rhen.

Morabor ("shall I linger"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 111)

(44) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 213

Dividere illos potius quam unare. Unare inquit Rhenanus, simplex verbum usurpat, unde nos adunare dicimus et coadunare. Quanquam vero tres mss. Vaticani cod. legant unire, tamen retinuimus unare, quod Africanam magis phrasin redoleat. PAM.

To divide them rather than to unite them. Unare, says Rhenanus: he uses the simple verb from which we say adunare and coadunare. Although three Vatican manuscripts read unire, we have kept unare, as smacking more of African idiom. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 111)

Footnotes

(31) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 214

Alius deest. in. Rhen.

Alius is missing in Rhenanus.

(printed under page 111)

(32) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 214

Retractatis Rhen.

Retractatis: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 111)

(33) ‹anchor: caro utique› · call in col 214

Itaque Rhen.

Itaque ("and so"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 111)

(34) ‹anchor: sanctum, vocabitur› · call in col 214

Vocabitur sanctum Rhen.

Vocabitur sanctum (word order reversed): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 111)

(35) ‹anchor: et de hoc› · call in col 214

Denique hoc Latin.

Denique hoc: Latinius.

Commentarius

(printed under page 111)

(45) ‹anchor: interemptio est pristini› · call in col 214

Transfiguratio autem interemptio est pristini. Facit hic locus pro transsubstantiatione, quam catholici in sacramento Eucharistiae asserunt, in assumptione vero humanitatis Christi negant: utpote qui juxta Symbolum B. Athanasii, unus non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. PAM.

But transfiguration is the destruction of what was before. This passage supports transubstantiation, which Catholics assert in the sacrament of the Eucharist but deny in the assumption of Christ's humanity: since, according to the Creed of blessed Athanasius, he is one not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking up of the humanity into God. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 111)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L04 and L05 blocked, these fresh columns were not written (L01 wrote 181 before its block, L03 wrote 206) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:215

transfigurari, consequens est, ut sic caro factus intelligatur dum fit in carne, et manifestatur, et videtur, et contrectatur per carnem: quia et caetera sic accipi exigunt: Si enim Sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione substantiae caro factus est, una jam erit substantia Jesus ex duabus, ex carne et spiritu mixtura quaedam, ut electrum ex auro et argento; et incipit nec aurum esse, id est spiritus, neque argentum, id est, caro, dum alterum altero mutatur, et tertium quid efficitur. Neque ergo Deus erit Jesus. Sermo enim desiit esse, qui caro factus est; neque caro, id est homo, caro enim non proprie est, qui Sermo fuit. Ita ex utroque neutrum est; aliud longe tertium est, quam utrumque. Sed enim invenimus illum directo et Deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente, quoniam Deus homo natus est in illa, aedificavit eam voluntate Patris; certe usquequaque Filium Dei et filium hominis, cum Deum et hominem sine dubio secundum utramque substantiam in sua proprietate distantem: quia neque Sermo aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo. Sic et Apostolus. (Rom. I, 37) de utraque ejus substantia docet: Qui factus est, inquit, ex semine David. Hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est Filius Dei secundum spiritum. Hic erit Deus, et Sermo Dei filius. Videmus duplicem statum non confusum, sed conjunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem Jesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiae, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo, sitiens sub Samaritide, flens Lazarum, anxia usque ad mortem; denique et mortua est. Quod si tertium quid esset ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta paterent utriusque substantiae. Sed et spiritus carnalia, et caro spiritalia egissent ex translatione, aut neque carnalia, neque spiritalia, sed tertiae alicujus formae, ex confusione: imo aut sermo mortuus esset, aut caro mortua non esset, si sermo conversus esset in carnem; aut caro enim immortalis fuisset, aut sermo mortalis. Sed quia substantiae ambae in statu suo quaeque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operae et exitus sui occurrerunt. Disce igitur cum Nicodemo: Quia quod in carne natum est, caro est, et quod de spiritu spiritus est. (Joan., III, 6.) Neque caro spiritus fit,

be transfigured, it follows that He is to be understood to have become flesh in this way, in that He comes to be in the flesh, and is manifested, and is seen, and is handled through the flesh: because the other things too demand to be taken in this way. For if the Word became flesh by transfiguration and change of substance, Jesus will now be one substance out of two, out of flesh and spirit, a kind of mixture, like electrum out of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold, that is spirit, nor silver, that is flesh, while the one is changed by the other, and some third thing is produced. So Jesus will not be God either. For the Word, which was made flesh, has ceased to be; nor will He be flesh, that is man, for He Who was the Word is not properly flesh. Thus out of both comes neither; it is a third thing, far different from both. But indeed we find Him set forth directly as both God and man, this very psalm suggesting it, For God was born man in her, He built her by the will of the Father; certainly in every way Son of God and son of man, since [He is] God and man, without doubt distinct according to each substance in its own property: because neither is the Word anything other than God, nor the flesh anything other than man. So too the apostle (Rom. 1:3) teaches about each of His substances: Who was made, he says, of the seed of David. This will be the man and son of man, Who was defined as Son of God according to the spirit. This will be God, and the Word, the Son of God. We see a twofold state, not confused but conjoined in one person, God and man, Jesus. Concerning Christ, however, I defer. And so far is the property of each substance kept safe, that both the spirit carried out its own things in Him, that is, powers and works and signs, and the flesh underwent its own passions, hungering under the devil, thirsting under the Samaritan woman, weeping for Lazarus, anxious even unto death; finally it also died. But if it were some third thing confused out of both, like electrum, such distinct proofs of each substance would not be evident. But the spirit would have done fleshly things and the flesh spiritual things by transference, or neither fleshly nor spiritual things but those of some third form, by confusion: indeed either the Word would have died, or the flesh would not have died, if the Word had been converted into flesh; for either the flesh would have been immortal, or the Word mortal. But because both substances acted each distinctly in its own state, therefore their own works and outcomes befell them. Learn therefore with Nicodemus: That what is born in the flesh is flesh, and what is of the spirit is spirit (John 3:6). Neither does flesh become spirit,

Editors' notes and page, col. 215

Variae lectiones

(printed under page 112)

(36) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 215

Configurari Rhen.

Configurari ("to be conformed"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(37) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 215

Sit Fran.

Sit: the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 112)

(38) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 215

Erat Rhen.

Erat ("was"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(39) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 215

Neque homo caro Rhen.

Neque homo caro: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(40) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 215

Quia Rhen.

Quia ("because"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(41) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 215

Et inser. Rhen.

Rhenanus inserts et.

(printed under page 112)

(42) ‹anchor: autem differo› · call in col 215

Dissero Seml.

Dissero ("I discuss"): Semler.

(printed under page 112)

(43) ‹anchor: spiritalia egissent› · call in col 215

Egisset Seml.

Egisset (singular): Semler.

(printed under page 112)

(44) ‹anchor: ex translatione, aut› · call in col 215

Ut Rhen.

Ut: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(45) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 215

Ex deest. Venet., Fran., Paris., Rig.

Ex is missing: the Venice, Franeker and Paris editions, Rigault.

(printed under page 112)

(46) ‹anchor: quaeque distincte› · call in col 215

Distinctae Paris.

Distinctae ("distinct", adjective): the Paris edition.

(printed under page 112)

(47) ‹anchor: Quia quod in› · call in col 215

De Latin.

De ("of"): Latinius.

(printed under page 112)

(46) ‹anchor: in una persona› · call in col 215

Non confusum, sed conjunctum in una persona, etc. Conjunctus nimirum Deus et homo, salva utriusque substantiae proprietate, οὐχὶ ἐκ συγχύσεως τῆς οὐσίας. Quae a Symbolo B. Athanasii non adeo videntur recedere. LE PR.

Not confused, but joined in one person, etc. God and man, that is, joined with the property of each substance kept intact, "not by confusion of the substance". Words which do not seem to depart much from the Creed of blessed Athanasius. LE PRIEUR.

(printed under page 112)

Page

running head: 215 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
marginal letters: A transfigurari, consequens est; B et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo; C autem differo. Et adeo salva est; D agebant, ideo illis et operae
old-edition numerals: 199 after spiritalia

PL 2:216

neque spiritus caro. In uno plane esse possunt. Ex his Jesus constitit, ex carne homo, ex spiritu Deus, quem tunc angelus ex ea parte qua spiritus erat, Dei Filium pronuntiavit, servans carni Filium hominis dici. Sic et Apostolus etiam Dei et hominum appellans sequestrem (I. Tim. II, 5), utriusque substantiae confirmavit. Novissime qui Filium Dei carnem interpretaris, exhibe qui sit filius hominis. Aut numquid spiritus erit? sed spiritus Patrem ipsum vis haberi; quia Deus spiritus, quasi non et Dei spiritus: sicut et sermo Deus, et Dei sermo.

nor the spirit flesh. In one [person] they plainly can be. Of these Jesus was constituted, of flesh as man, of spirit as God, Whom the angel then, in respect of that part in which He was spirit, pronounced the Son of God, reserving it to the flesh to be called the Son of man. So also the Apostle, calling Him too the mediator of God and men (1 Tim. 2:5), confirmed [that He is] of both substances. Lastly, you who interpret the Son of God as the flesh, show who the son of man is. Or will he perhaps be the spirit? But you want the spirit to be held to be the Father Himself, because God is spirit, as though there were not also a Spirit of God; just as the Word is God, and also the Word of God.

CAPUT XXVIII.

Chapter XXVIII.

Itaque Christum facis Patrem, stultissime, qui nec ipsam vim inspicias nominis hujus, si tamen nomen est Christus, et non appellatio potius; unctus enim significatur. Unctus autem nos magis nomen est, quam vestitus, quam calceatus, accidens nomini res. An tu, si ex aliquo argumento vestitus quoque vocaretur Jesus, quomodo Christus ab unctionis sacramento, aeque Jesum Filium Dei diceres, vestitum vero Patrem crederes? Nunc de Christo. Si Pater Christus est, Pater unctus est, et utique ab alio. Aut si a semetipso, proba. Sed non ita docent Acta apostolorum, in illa exclamatione Ecclesiae ad Deum (Act. IV, 27) Convenerunt enim universi in ista civitate adversus sanctum Filium tuum Jesum quem unxisti, Herodes et Pilatus cum Nationibus; ita et Filium Dei Jesum contestati sunt, et Filium a Patre unctum. Ergo Jesus idem erit Christus, qui a Patre unctus est, non Pater. qui Filium unxit. Sic et Petrus (Act. II, 36): Firmissime itaque cognoscat omnis domus Israel, quod et Dominum et Christum, id est unctum, fecerit eum Deus hunc Jesum, quem vos crucifixistis. Joannes autem (I Joan. II, 22) etiam mendacem notat eum, qui negaverit Jesum esse Christum: contra, de Deo datum, omnem qui crediderit Jesum esse Christum. Propter quod et hortatur ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, ut scilicet communio sit nobis cum Patre, et Filio ejus Jesu Christo. Sic et Paulus ubique Deum Patrem ponit, et Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Cum ad Romanos (I. 8) scribit, gratias agit Deo per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Cum ad Galatas (I, 1), non ab hominibus se apostolum praefert, nec per hominem, sed per Jesum Christum, et Deum Patrem. Et habes

And so you make Christ the Father, most foolish man, you who do not even look into the very force of this name, if indeed Christ is a name and not rather an appellation; for it signifies "anointed". But "anointed" is no more a name than "clothed", than "shod": it is a thing accidental to a name. If by some reasoning Jesus were also called "clothed", as He is called Christ from the sacrament of anointing, would you likewise call Jesus the Son of God, but believe "clothed" to be the Father? Now concerning Christ. If the Father is Christ, the Father is anointed, and certainly by another. Or if by Himself, prove it. But the Acts of the Apostles do not teach so, in that cry of the Church to God (Acts 4:27): For there gathered together in this city against Thy holy Son Jesus, Whom Thou hast anointed, Herod and Pilate with the Gentiles; thus they bore witness both that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Son was anointed by the Father. Therefore Jesus will be the same as Christ, Who was anointed by the Father, not the Father, Who anointed the Son. So also Peter (Acts 2:36): Let all the house of Israel therefore know most surely that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, that is, anointed, this Jesus Whom you crucified. John, moreover (1 John 2:22), brands as a liar him who denies that Jesus is the Christ; on the contrary, [he declares] born of God everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ. For this reason he also exhorts us to believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, so that, namely, we may have communion with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. So also Paul everywhere sets down God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. When he writes to the Romans (Rom. 1:8), he gives thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. When to the Galatians (Gal. 1:1), he presents himself as an apostle not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. And you have

Editors' notes and page, col. 216

Footnotes

(48) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 216

Potius enim unctus Rhen.

Potius enim unctus ("for rather anointed"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(49) ‹anchor: call not visible in the image› · call in col 216

At tu Rhen.

At tu ("but you"): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(50) ‹anchor: exclamatione Ecclesiae› · call in col 216

Ecclesiae deest Rhen.

Ecclesiae is missing: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(51) ‹anchor: Filium tuum Jesum› · call in col 216

Jesum est Rhen.

Jesum est: Rhenanus.

(printed under page 112)

(52) ‹anchor: Ergo Jesus› · call in col 216

Dominus Seml.

Dominus ("Lord"): Semler.

Commentarius

(printed under page 112)

Page

running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I. POLEMICA. (cut off at left edge)
marginal letters: A neque spiritus caro; B nec ipsam vim inspicias; C quem unxisti, Herodes; D scribit, gratias agit
old-edition numerals: 193 after etiam
other: "nos magis" read as printed but may be damaged "non"; "erit", "etiam", "crederes", "de Christo", "Filium" (qui Filium unxit), "aeque" have damaged letters, set as intended; "de Deo datum" printed, translated as intended "natum" (cf. 1 John 5:1); running head cut off at left edge; page-foot Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes, Le Pr.) not set

PL 2:217

tota instrumenta ejus, quae in hunc modum pronuntiant, et duos proponunt, Deum Patrem, et Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium Patris, et Jesum ipsum esse Christum, in altero quoque nomine Dei Filium. Nam exinde eo jure quo utrumque nomen unius est, id est Dei Filii, etiam alterum sine altero ejusdem est. Et sive Jesus tantummodo positum est, intelligitur et Christus: quia Jesus unctus est. Sive solummodo Christus, idem est Jesus, quia unctus est Jesus. Quorum nominum alterum est proprium, quod ab angelo impositum est; alterum accidens, quod ab unctione convenit; dum tamen Christus Filius sit, non Pater. Postremo, quam caecus est, qui nec in Christi nomine intelligit alium Deum portendi, si Christo nomen Patris adscribat? Si enim Christus Pater Deus est, qui dicit (Joan. XX, 17): Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum, et Deum meum et Deum vestrum; utique alium Patrem super se et Deum ostendit. Si item Pater Christus est, alius est qui solidat tonitruum et condit spiritum, et annuntiat in homines Christum suum (Amos, IV, 13); et si astiterunt reges terrae, et archontes congregati sunt in unum adversus Christum ipsius (Psal. II, 2); alius erit Dominus, contra cujus Christum congregati sunt reges ot archontes. Et si: Haec dicit Dominus Domino meo Christo (Isa. XLV, 1); alius erit Dominus qui loquitur ad Patrem Christi. Et cum Apostolus scribit (Ephes. I, 17): Uti Deus Domini nostri Jesu Christi det vobis spiritum sapientiae et agnitionis; alius erit Deus Christi Jesu charismatum spiritualium largitor (Rom. VIII, 11). Certe, ne per omnia evagemur; qui suscitavit Christum, suscitaturus est et mortalia corpora nostra; jamque alius erit suscitator quam Pater mortuus, et Pater suscitatus, si Christus qui est mortuus, Pater est.

all his documents, which make declaration in this manner and set forth two, God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, and that Jesus Himself is the Christ, and under the other name also the Son of God. For hence, by the same right by which both names belong to one, that is, to the Son of God, each also without the other belongs to the same. And if Jesus alone is set down, Christ also is understood, because Jesus is anointed. Or if Christ only, the same is Jesus, because Jesus is anointed. Of these names the one is proper, which was imposed by the angel; the other accidental, which belongs to Him from the anointing; provided, however, that Christ is the Son, not the Father. Finally, how blind is he who does not understand that even in the name of Christ another God is signified, if he ascribes to Christ the name of the Father? For if Christ is God the Father, He Who says (John 20:17): I ascend to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God, certainly shows another Father and God above Himself. Likewise, if the Father is Christ, there is Another Who makes firm the thunder and creates the wind, and announces to men His Christ (Amos 4:13); and if the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together in one against His Christ (Ps. 2:2), there will be another Lord, against Whose Christ the kings and rulers were gathered together. And if: Thus says the Lord to my Lord Christ (Isa. 45:1), there will be another Lord Who speaks to the Father of Christ. And when the Apostle writes (Eph. 1:17): That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give you the spirit of wisdom and of knowledge, there will be another God of Christ Jesus, the bestower of spiritual gifts (Rom. 8:11). Surely, lest we range over everything: He Who raised Christ will also raise our mortal bodies; and then the raiser will be another than the Father who died and the Father who was raised, if Christ, Who died, is the Father.

CAPUT XXIX.

Chapter XXIX.

Obmutescat, obmutescat ista blasphemia, sufficiat Christum Filium Dei mortuum dici; et hoc qui ita scriptum est. Nam et Apostolus, non sine onere pronuntians Christum mortuum, adjecit, secundum Scripturas; ut duritiam pronuntiationis Scripturarum auctoritate molliret, et scandalum auditori everteret. Quanquam cum duae substantiae censeantur in Christo Jesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam, sicut mortalem quae humana sit, apparet, quatenus eum mortuum dicat, id est, qua carnem et hominem et filium hominis, non qua spiritum et

Let it be silent, let this blasphemy be silent; let it suffice that Christ the Son of God is said to have died, and this because it is so written. For the Apostle too, declaring not without a sense of burden that Christ died, added, according to the Scriptures, so that he might soften the harshness of the declaration by the authority of the Scriptures, and remove the stumbling block for the hearer. Although, since two substances are reckoned in Christ Jesus, divine and human, and it is agreed that the divine is immortal, just as the human is mortal, it is evident in what respect he says that He died, that is, as flesh and man and son of man, not as Spirit and

Editors' notes and page, col. 217

Footnotes

(printed under page 113)

(53) ‹tota instrumenta ejus› · call in col 217

Totum instrumentum Rhen.

"Totum instrumentum" (the whole instrument/document): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 113)

(54) ‹id est Dei Filii› · call in col 217

Filius Rhen.

"Filius" (the Son): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 113)

(55) ‹quia Jesus unctus› · call in col 217

Christus add. Rhen.

Rhenanus adds "Christus".

(printed under page 113)

(56) ‹idem est Jesus› · call in col 217

Solummodo deest et Jesus Rhen.

"Solummodo" is lacking, and Rhenanus has "et Jesus".

(printed under page 113)

(57) ‹nomen Patris adscribat› · call in col 217

Christi nomen patri Seml.

"Christi nomen patri" (the name of Christ to the Father): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(58) ‹jamque alius› · call in col 217

Tanquam alius Rhen. Utique alius cod. Wouw.

"Tanquam alius" (as if another): Rhenanus. "Utique alius" (assuredly another): Wouwer's manuscript.

(printed under page 113)

(59) ‹adjecit› · call in col 217

Adjicit alii.

"Adjicit" (he adds): others.

(printed under page 113)

(60) ‹sicut mortalem› · call in col 217

Eam mortalem Jun. Cum mortalem Rhen.

"Eam mortalem" (that it is mortal): Junius. "Cum mortalem" (since mortal): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 113)

(61) · call in col 218 (upper part, not in this column's images)

Patrem mortuum omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "Patrem mortuum" (the Father dead).

(printed under page 113)

(62) · call in col 218 (upper part, not in this column's images)

Nos Rhen.

"Nos" (we): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 113)

(63) · call in col 218 (upper part, not in this column's images)

At cum Seml.

"At cum" (but when): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(64) · call in col 218 (upper part, not in this column's images)

Maledictione Fran., Paris., Rig.

"Maledictione" (with a curse): the Franeker and Paris editions, Rigault.

(printed under page 113)

(65) · call in col 218 (upper part, not in this column's images)

Sicut Rhen.

"Sicut" (as): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 113)

(66) · call in col 218 (upper part, not in this column's images)

Siquidem Rhen.

"Siquidem" (since indeed): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 113)

Footnotes

(67) ‹hoc timore tuo› · call in col 218

Veluti mortuo Seml.

"Veluti mortuo" (as to one dead): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(68) ‹Tam autem incompassibilis› · call in col 218

Compassibilis Seml.

"Compassibilis" (capable of suffering with): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(69) ‹Sed quomodo› · call in col 218

Quando cod. Wouw., lib. Ursin.

"Quando" (when): Wouwer's manuscript, Orsini's book.

(printed under page 113)

(70) ‹Separabatur› · call in col 218

Separatur Rhen.

"Separatur" (he is separated): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 113)

(71) ‹fontis sit quae› · call in col 218

Utique vel aeque Latin.

"Utique" or "aeque" (assuredly, or equally): Latinius.

(printed under page 113)

(72) ‹Ita, et si› · call in col 218

Et, Seml.

"Et" (and): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(73) ‹pati posset› · call in col 218

Possit Seml. Ita et qui patitur Paris.

"Possit" (can): Semler. "Ita et qui patitur" (so also he who suffers): the Paris edition.

(printed under page 113)

(74) ‹erat et› · call in col 218

Quidem erat ut Pater Semler.

"Quidem erat ut Pater" (was indeed as Father): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(73) ‹cum Filius› · call in col 218 (the call there is 75; the note is numbered 73 as printed)

Filio Id.

"Filio" (in the Son): the same (Semler).

(printed under page 113)

(76) ‹hoc retractatum› · call in col 218

Retractatus, Id.

"Retractatus" (treated, discussed): the same (Semler).

(printed under page 113)

(77) ‹pro Deo non› · call in col 218

Non deest. Seml.

"Non" is lacking: Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(78) ‹possumus, nisi› · call in col 218

Si Seml.

"Si" (if): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

(79) ‹ultra pergas› · call in col 218

Pergens Seml.

"Pergens" (proceeding): Semler.

(printed under page 113)

Page

gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 L02 L04 and L05 blocked, these fresh columns were not written (L01 wrote 181 before its block, L03 wrote 206) (2026-10-18). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.

PL 2:219

committere, uti dicam : Quid de isto quaeris? Habes ipsum exclamantem in passione : Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid me dereliquisti? Ergo aut Filius patiebatur a Patre derelictus, et Pater passus non est, qui Filium dereliquit; aut si Pater erat qui patiebatur, ad quem Deum exclamabat? Sed haec vox carnis et animae, id est hominis, non Sermonis, nec Spiritus, id est non Dei, propterea emissa est, ut impassibilem Deum ostenderet, qui sic Filium dereliquit, dum hominem ejus tradidit in mortem. Hoc et Apostolus sensit, scribens (Rom. VIII, 32) : Si Pater Filio non pepercit. Hoc et Esaias (Isa. LIII, 6) prior pronuntiavit : Et Dominus eum tradidit pro delictis nostris. Sic reliquit, dum non parcit; sic reliquit, dum tradit. Caeterum, non reliquit Pater Filium, in cujus manibus Filius spiritum suum posuit. Denique posuit, et statim obiit : spiritu enim manente in carne, caro omnino mori non potest. Ita, relinqui a Patre, mori fuit Filio. Filius igitur et moritur (I Cor. XV, 3 seqq.) et resuscitatur a Patre, secundum Scripturas. Filius ascendit in superiora coelorum, qui et descendit in interiora terrae : hic sedet ad dexteram Patris, non Pater ad suam. Hunc videt Stephanus cum lapidatur, adhuc stantem ad dexteram Dei, ut exinde sessurum, donec ponat illi Pater omnes inimicos sub pedibus suis (Psal. CIX, 2). Hic et venturus est rursus super nubes (I Cor. XV) caeli, talis qualis et ascendit. Hic interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit, Spiritum Sanctum, tertium nomen

to commit, so that I may say: What are you asking about this? You have Him crying out in the passion: My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me? Therefore either the Son was suffering, forsaken by the Father, and the Father, Who forsook the Son, did not suffer; or, if it was the Father Who was suffering, to what God was He crying out? But this voice of the flesh and soul, that is, of the man, not of the Word nor of the Spirit, that is, not of God, was uttered for this reason, that it might show God to be impassible, Who thus forsook the Son, in that He handed over His man to death. This the Apostle too perceived, writing (Rom. 8:32): If the Father did not spare the Son. This Isaiah too pronounced beforehand (Isa. 53:6): And the Lord handed Him over for our sins. Thus He forsook, in that He does not spare; thus He forsook, in that He hands over. Otherwise, the Father did not forsake the Son, into Whose hands the Son placed His spirit. In fact He placed it, and at once died: for while the spirit remains in the flesh, the flesh cannot die at all. So, to be forsaken by the Father was, for the Son, to die. The Son therefore both dies (1 Cor. 15:3 ff.) and is raised again by the Father, according to the Scriptures. The Son ascended to the upper parts of the heavens, He Who also descended into the inner parts of the earth: He sits at the right hand of the Father, not the Father at His own. Him Stephen sees while he is being stoned, still standing at the right hand of God, so as to sit thereafter, until the Father puts all enemies under His feet for Him (Ps. 109:2). He also is to come again upon the clouds (1 Cor. 15) of heaven, such as He also ascended. He meanwhile has poured out the gift received from the Father, the Holy Spirit, the third name

Editors' notes and page, col. 219

Footnotes

(printed under page 114)

(80) ‹Habes ipsum› · call in col 219

Habet Seml.

"Habet" (has): Semler.

(printed under page 114)

(81) ‹dum tradit› · call in col 219

Tradet Seml.

"Tradet" (will hand over): Semler.

(printed under page 114)

(82) ‹descendit in interiora› · call in col 219

Inferiora alii.

"Inferiora" (the lower parts): others.

(printed under page 114)

(83) ‹Hunc videt› · call in col 219

Vidit Fran.

"Vidit" (saw): the Franeker edition.

(printed under page 114)

(84) ‹cum lapidatur› · call in col 219 (printed there as a second 83)

Lapidaretur Rhen.

"Lapidaretur" (was being stoned): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 114)

(85) ‹tertium nomen› · call in col 219

Numen Paris.

"Numen" (divinity): the Paris edition.

(printed under page 114)

Page

placed: the text of this column is the volunteers' checked text, placed after publication (Ray 2026-10-24); read against the page by QA Q4 on 2026-10-25.

PL 2:220

divinitatis, et tertium gradum majestatis, unius praedicatorem monarchiae, sed et oeconomiae interpretatorem, si quis sermones novae prophetiae ejus admiserit, et deductorem omnis veritatis, quae est in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto, secundum christianum sacramentum.

of the divinity, and the third degree of majesty, the preacher of the one monarchy but also the interpreter of the economy, if anyone has admitted the words of His new prophecy, and the guide into all truth, which is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Christian mystery.

CAPUT XXXI.

Chapter XXXI.

Caeterum Judaicae fidei ista res, sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium adnumerare ei nolis, et post Filium, Spiritum. Quid enim erit inter nos et illos, nisi differentia ista? Quod opus Evangelii, quae est substantia Novi Testamenti, statuens legem et prophetas usque ad Joannem, si non exinde Pater et Filius et Spiritus, tres crediti, unum Deum sistunt? Sic Deus voluit novare sacramentum, ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum, ut coram jam Deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur, qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum praedicatus non intelligebatur. Viderint igitur Antichristi, qui negant Patrem et Filium. Negant enim Patrem, dum eumdem Filium dicunt; et negant Filium, dum eumdem Patrem credunt, dando illis quae non sunt, auferendo quae sunt. Qui vero confessus fuerit Christum Filium Dei non Patrem, Deus in illo manet, et ipse in Deo. Nos credimus testimonio Dei, quo testatus est de Filio suo: Qui Filium non habet, nec vitam habet (I Joan. V, 12). Non habet autem Filium, qui eum alium quam Filium credit.

But this is a matter of the Jewish faith: so to believe in one God that you refuse to count the Son with Him, and after the Son the Spirit. For what will there be between us and them, except this difference? What is the work of the Gospel, which is the substance of the New Testament, setting the Law and the Prophets as lasting until John, if from then on the Father and the Son and the Spirit, believed as three, do not constitute one God? God willed so to renew the mystery that He should be believed one in a new way through the Son and the Spirit, so that God might now be openly recognized in His own proper names and persons, He Who even formerly, though preached through the Son and the Spirit, was not understood. Let the Antichrists, then, see to it, who deny the Father and the Son. For they deny the Father, while they say He is the same as the Son; and they deny the Son, while they believe Him to be the same as the Father, giving them what they are not, taking away what they are. But whoever has confessed Christ as the Son of God, not the Father, God abides in him, and he in God. We believe the testimony of God, by which He testified concerning His Son: He who does not have the Son does not have life either (1 John 5:12). But he does not have the Son who believes Him to be other than the Son.

Editors' notes and page, col. 220

Footnotes

(86) ‹tertium gradum majestatis› · call in col 220

Et tertium gradum majestatis omitt. Seml.

Semler omits "et tertium gradum majestatis" (and the third degree of majesty).

(printed under page 114)

(87) ‹et deductorem› · call in col 220

Deductoris Rhen.

"Deductoris" (of the guide): Rhenanus.

(printed under page 114)

(88) ‹ista res› · call in col 220

Instares conjic. Seml.

"Instares" (you would press on): Semler's conjecture.

(printed under page 114)

(89) ‹Nos credimus testimonio› · call in col 220

Testimonium Seml.

"Testimonium" (the testimony): Semler.

(printed under page 114)

Commentarius

(47) ‹sermones novae prophetiae› · call in col 220

Sermones novae prophetiae. Montani vaticinia, quibus occaecatus Tertullianus, hic ab eodem innuuntur. Le Pr.

The discourses of the new prophecy. Montanus's prophecies, by which Tertullian was blinded, are hinted at here by him. Le Prieur.

(printed under page 114)