Migne Reading Room
PL 2 · cols. 797–838
Tertullian, Liber de carne Christi
Editors' preface
Q. SEPT. FLOR. TERTULLIANI LIBER DE CARNE CHRISTI.
The Book of Q. Septimius Florens Tertullian on the Flesh of Christ.
ARGUMENTUM.
ARGUMENT.
Cap. I. De carnis Christi veritate disputaturus Tertullianus, imprimis scripti occasionem significat; quod, qui resurrectionis fidem inquietarent, etiam carnem Christi quaestionibus distraherent.
Chapter I. Tertullian, being about to dispute on the reality of the flesh of Christ, first of all indicates the occasion of the writing: that those who were unsettling faith in the resurrection were also tearing the flesh of Christ apart with questions.
Cap. II. Ad institutum autem veniens, adversus Marcionem, qui ejus historiam ex Evangelio auferebat, traditionis apostolicae praescriptione Christi nativitatem probat.
Chapter II. Coming, however, to his purpose, against Marcion, who was removing its history from the Gospel, he proves the nativity of Christ by the prescription of apostolic tradition.
Cap. III. Deinde neque impossibilem fuisse aut inconvenientem Deo.
Chapter III. Next, that it was neither impossible nor unfitting for God.
Cap. IV. Neque etiam Deo indignam, neque stultam.
Chapter IV. Nor yet unworthy of God, nor foolish.
Cap. V. Non itaque in phantasmate, sed vere crucifixum et mortuum (quantumvis etiam id negaret Marcion), vere quoque natum Christum.
Chapter V. That Christ, therefore, was not crucified and dead in a phantasm but truly (however much Marcion denied even this), and was truly born as well.
Cap. VI. Jam adversus Apellem deducit, Christum de sideribus et substantiis superioris mundi carnem non esse mutuatum.
Chapter VI. Now against Apelles he shows that Christ did not borrow flesh from the stars and the substances of the higher world.
Cap. VII. Interserens, nihil pro illis facere illud Christi: Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres?
Chapter VII. Inserting that that saying of Christ does nothing for them: Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?
Cap. VIII. Addens, angelum illum igneum Apellecianorum, secundum eos etiam coelestia ex poenitentia delicti instituisse, atque adeo si de sideribus structa, peccatricem fuisse carnem Christi.
Chapter VIII. Adding that that fiery angel of the Apelleans, according to them, set up even the heavenly things out of repentance for a sin, and so, if it was built of the stars, the flesh of Christ was sinful.
Cap. IX. Et vero, omnia verae carnis signa in Christo fuisse.
Chapter IX. And indeed, that all the signs of real flesh were in Christ.
Cap. X. Rursum, adversus alios quosdam, neque animalem fuisse Christi carnem deducit.
Chapter X. Again, against certain others, he shows that the flesh of Christ was not made of soul either.
Cap. XI. Neque etiam carnalem.
Chapter XI. Nor yet carnal.
Cap. XII. Venisse etiam Christum, non ut anima seipsam cognosceret, sed ut ipsam salvam faceret.
Chapter XII. Also that Christ came, not so that the soul should know itself, but so that He should save it.
Cap. XIII. Fuisse item in Christo diversas substantias, carnem et animam.
Chapter XIII. Likewise, that there were in Christ diverse substances, flesh and soul.
Cap. XIV. Solum etiam Christum fuisse salutificatorem, non angelum.
Chapter XIV. Also that Christ alone was the bringer of salvation, not an angel.
Cap. XV. Adversus autem Valentinum, Christi carnem spiritalem non fuisse, prosequitur.
Chapter XV. Against Valentinus, then, he goes on to show that the flesh of Christ was not spiritual.
Cap. XVI. Sicuti etiam adversus Alexandrum quemdam, peccatricem non fuisse carnem Christi, et, etiamsi non ex semine, veram tamen.
Chapter XVI. Just as also against a certain Alexander, that the flesh of Christ was not sinful, and, even if not from seed, yet real.
Editors' notes and page, col. 797
Footnotes
(none) ‹Q2: the only foot note on page 403 is Variae lectiones 34 (above the title band), which belongs to the previous unit (De anima). The ARGUMENTUM printed below the band is editors' prose set in layer 1 (parts c797_a.md and c798_a.md), not a footnote; a duplicate of it formerly entered here as a "continued" footnote was removed.›
(printed under page 403)
Page
- running head: 797 LIBER DE CARNE CHRISTI. (running head printed across the page, cols 797–798)
- marginal letters: A ‹tione promissorum charismatum› (above the band, previous unit); B ‹ARGUMENTUM. / Cap. I.›; C ‹crucifixum et mortuum›; D ‹animalem fuisse Christi carnem / Cap. XI.›
- old-edition numerals: 753 after ‹peccatricem›
- other: full_width: the title Q. SEPT. FLOR. TERTULLIANI / LIBER / DE CARNE CHRISTI. is printed across both columns in mid-page (three lines), set once here at the head of the unit. The three lines above the band (…tione promissorum charismatum admiserit … justae dumtaxat ac ne-, with Variae lectiones 34) end the previous unit (De anima) and are not set here. ARGUMENTUM and its chapter summaries are editors' matter (Pamelius), not Tertullian's.
Cap. XVII. Obiter probans ex Scripturis Christum de virgine nasciturum.
Chapter XVII. Proving in passing from the Scriptures that Christ was to be born of a virgin.
Cap. XVIII. Non competere etiam ex semine humano Dei Filium nasci; ne si esset totus filius hominis, juxta Hebionis opinionem, non crederetur Dei Filius.
Chapter XVIII. That it was not fitting, moreover, for the Son of God to be born of human seed; lest, if He were wholly a son of man, according to the opinion of Hebion, He should not be believed to be the Son of God.
Cap. XIX. Neque tamen Valentino favere illud ab eo adulteratum: Non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis voluntate, nec ex viri, sed ex Deo natus est.
Chapter XIX. Nor yet does that saying corrupted by him favour Valentinus: He was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of a man's, but of God.
Cap. XX, XXI. Porro adversus eosdem non per virginem, sed ex virgine natum Christum, latissime ex Scripturis demonstrat.
Chapters XX, XXI. Further, against the same, he demonstrates most fully from the Scriptures that Christ was born not through a virgin but of a virgin.
Cap. XXII, XXIII. Proinde adimpleri in his omnibus propheticam vocem Simeonis de Christo: Ecce hic positus est in signum cui contradicetur.
Chapters XXII, XXIII. Accordingly, that in all these things the prophetic word of Simeon concerning Christ is fulfilled: Behold, this one is set for a sign that shall be spoken against.
Cap. XXIV. Et suggillatos esse haereticos illos omnes, praedictosque in Scripturis.
Chapter XXIV. And that all those heretics are rebuked, and foretold in the Scriptures.
Cap. XXV. Denique epilogi vice repetens quid hoc libro probaverit, ad sequentem de resurrectione carnis librum transitum facit.
Chapter XXV. Finally, by way of epilogue, going over again what he has proved in this book, he makes the transition to the following book, on the resurrection of the flesh.
Caeterum Tertullianus, praeterquam quod librum jam dictum de Resurrectione Carnis citat infra lib. v adv. Marcionem, in illo etiam argumenti et tituli hujus fit mentio. « Propterea, inquit, c. ii, et nos volumen prae⟨m⟩isimus de Carne Christi, quo eam et solidam probamus adversum phantasmatis nativitatem, et humanam vindicamus adversus qualitatis proprietatem. » Et rursum: « Igitur quantum ad haereticos, demonstravimus quo cuneo occurrendum sit a nobis, et occursum est jam suo quoque titulo de Carne Domini adversus haereses; ad hanc maxime quaestionem praestruendam. » Praeterquam autem, quod ms. viderunt olim hunc librum Trithemius abbas et Politianus locis saepe citatis; edidit primus in lucem ex Hirsaugiensi et Paterniacensi Rhenanus cum scholiis, deinde et annotationibus illustratum castigavit ex Gorziensi codice. Interea vero, quod desideraretur in Laelandi Britannico codice, cum a Gelonio non sit recognitus, operae pretium fuit conferre cum tribus mss. vaticanis Codicibus, e quibus non paucos locos restituimus; additis etiam argumento novo, et adnotationibus nostris. PAM.
For the rest, besides the fact that Tertullian cites the book just named, on the Resurrection of the Flesh, below, in Book V against Marcion, mention is also made in that book of the argument and title of this one. « For this reason, » he says in chapter II, « we too have sent ahead a volume on the Flesh of Christ, in which we both prove it solid against the nativity of a phantasm and vindicate it as human against a peculiarity of quality. » And again: « Therefore, as far as the heretics are concerned, we have shown with what wedge they are to be met by us, and they have already been met under its own title too, on the Flesh of the Lord against the heresies, chiefly in order to lay the ground for this question. » Moreover, besides the fact that Trithemius the abbot and Politianus once saw this book in manuscript, in the places often cited, Rhenanus first brought it to light from the Hirsau and Payerne [manuscripts] with scholia, and afterwards, illustrated with annotations as well, corrected it from the Gorze codex. Meanwhile, however, since it was lacking in Leland's British codex, and so was not reviewed by Gelonius, it was worth the effort to collate it with three Vatican manuscript codices, from which we have restored not a few passages; adding also a new argument and our own annotations. PAM.
Editors' notes and page, col. 798
Page
- running head: LIBER DE CARNE CHRISTI. 798 (running head printed across the page, cols 797–798)
- marginal letters: A ‹cessariae curiositati satisfecimus› (above the band, previous unit); B ‹Cap. XVII.›; C ‹omnes, praedictosque in Scripturis›; D ‹titulo de Carne Domini›
- old-edition numerals: 754 after ‹tium fuit›
- other: The three lines above the band in this column (cessariae curiositati satisfecimus 34 … inquirere.) end the previous unit and are not set; the title band is set once under col 797. Cap. XVII–XXV and the paragraph Caeterum Tertullianus … PAM. are editors' matter (Pamelius's argument and introductory note), not Tertullian's. Cap. XIX ends with a stray mark after est. (not set). prae⟨m⟩isimus: printed with a gap and a damaged letter (reads præ nisimus); UNSURE whether the type shows a broken m. Gelonio as printed (Gelenius intended?), left as printed, not marked a misprint.
Christum humanam assumpsisse carnem demonstrat, contra haereticos quatuor, Marcionem, Apellem, Valentinum et Basilidem, seu potius adversus quatuor haereses scribit, primam M⟨a⟩rcionitarum, secundam Apellis, te⟨r⟩tiam et quartam Valentinianorum. VENET.
He demonstrates that Christ assumed human flesh, against four heretics, Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus and Basilides; or rather he writes against four heresies: the first that of the Marcionites, the second that of Apelles, the third and fourth those of the Valentinians. VENET.
CAPUT I.
CHAPTER I.
Qui fidem resurrectionis, ante istos Sadducaeorum propinquos sine controversia moratam, student inquietare, ut eam spem negent etiam a⟨d⟩ carnem pertinere, merito Christi quoque carnem quaestionibus distrahunt, tanquam aut nullam omnino, aut quoquo modo aliam praeter humanam; ne si humanam constiterit fuisse, praejudicatum sit adversus illos eam resurgere omni modo, quae in Christo resurrexit. Igitur unde illi destruunt carnis vota, inde nobis erunt praestruenda. Examinemus corporalem substantiam Domini: de spiritali enim certum est. Carnis quaeritur veritas, et qualitas ejus retractatur, an fuerit, et un⟨d⟩e, et cujusmodi fuerit. Renuntiatio ejus, dabit legem nostrae resurrectioni. Marcion, ut carnem Christi negaret, negavit etiam nativitatem; aut ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et carnem: scilicet, ne invicem sibi testimonium redderent et responderent nativitas et caro: quia nec nativitas sine carne, nec caro sine n⟨a⟩tivitate. Quasi non eadem licentia haeretica et ipse potuisset, aut, admissa
Those who strive to unsettle the faith of the resurrection, which until these near kinsmen of the Sadducees had remained without controversy, so as to deny that that hope pertains to the flesh as well, with good reason tear apart the flesh of Christ also with questions, as though it were either none at all, or in some way other than human; lest, if it should be established that it was human, it should stand prejudged against them that that flesh rises again in every way which rose again in Christ. Therefore from the point at which they tear down the hopes of the flesh, from there our defences must be built up. Let us examine the bodily substance of the Lord: for about the spiritual there is no doubt. It is the reality of the flesh that is in question, and its quality that is handled: whether it existed, and whence, and of what kind it was. The declaration of it will give the law for our resurrection. Marcion, in order to deny the flesh of Christ, denied His nativity also; or, in order to deny the nativity, denied the flesh as well: that is, lest nativity and flesh should bear witness to each other and answer to each other: since there is neither nativity without flesh nor flesh without nativity. As if he could not himself, with the same heretical licence, either, having admitted
Editors' notes and page, col. 799
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
¹ ‹anchor: sine controversia moratam› · call in col 799 Ista add. Rig. Venet.
Rigault and the Venice edition add "ista" ("these").
² ‹anchor: in Christo resurrexit› · call in col 799 Christum Paris. Rhen. Pam.
"Christum": the Paris edition, Rhenanus, Pamelius.
³ ‹anchor: inde nobis erunt› · call in col 799 Nobis abest a Rig. Venet.
"Nobis" ("to us") is absent from Rigault and the Venice edition.
⁴ ‹anchor: Carnis quaeritur veritas› · call in col 799 Caro Seml. Rig. Ven.
"Caro" ("flesh"): Semler, Rigault, Venice edition.
⁵ ‹anchor: qualitas ejus retractatur› · call in col 799 Retractantur Seml.
"Retractantur" ("are handled again"): Semler.
⁶ ‹anchor: et responderent› · call in col 799 Responderent Wouw. delet et abest a Par. redderent et abest a lib. Ursini
Wouwer deletes "responderent", and it is absent from the Paris edition; "redderent et" is absent from Ursinus's book.
⁷ ‹anchor: aut et carnem› · call in col 800 Et abest a Rig.
"Et" ("and") is absent from Rigault.
⁸ ‹anchor: aliter illas interpretari› · call in col 800 Illis Seml. Rhen.
"Illis" ("to them"): Semler, Rhenanus.
⁹ ‹anchor: nativitatem quoque phantasma› · call in col 800 Nativitatis q. phantasmata Pam. Rhen.
"Nativitatis q[uasi] phantasmata" ("phantasms, as it were, of the nativity"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
¹⁰ ‹anchor: τὸ δοκεῖν› · call in col 800 Τῷ mavult Jun.
Junius prefers "τῷ".
¹¹ ‹anchor: haberentur› · call in col 800 Haberetur Pam. Rhen.
"Haberetur" ("would be held"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
¹² ‹anchor: in Virginis uterum› · call in col 800 Et Virginis utero Pam. Par. Fran.
"Et Virginis utero" ("and in the Virgin's womb"): Pamelius, Paris edition, Franeker edition.
¹³ ‹anchor: Isaia propheta› · call in col 800 Propheta omitt. Seml. cum essentia Creatoris Paris. Fran. Pam.
Semler omits "Propheta" ("the prophet"); "cum essentia Creatoris" ("with the essence of the Creator"): Paris edition, Franeker edition, Pamelius.
¹⁴ ‹anchor: Aufer hinc› · call in col 800 Aufers Seml.
"Aufers" ("you take away"): Semler.
¹⁵ ‹anchor: parentes suos› · call in col 800 Suo Fran.
"Suo" ("his"): Franeker edition.
¹⁶ ‹anchor: sumptu oblationis› · call in col 800 Obligationis Rhen. cod. Agob.
"Obligationis" ("of the obligation"): Rhenanus, the Agobardinus codex.
¹⁷ ‹anchor: tradatur Simeoni› · call in col 800 Simeonis Pam.
"Simeonis" ("of Simeon"): Pamelius.
¹⁸ ‹anchor: moriturum exinde contristet› · call in col 800 Senex moriturus ex inde constristetur Rig. Ven.
"Senex moriturus ex inde constristetur" ("the old man, about to die, be saddened by it"): Rigault, Venice edition.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 404)
(1) ‹anchor: Sadducaeorum propinquos› · call in col 799
Sadducaeorum propinquos. Haereticos significat Marcionem, Apellem et Valentinum, qui longo intervallo Sadducaeorum haeresim sequebantur. Sive propinquos Sadduc. vocat quoslibet haereticos de anima male sentientes. Controversia est an Sadducaei dicti sint ab hebr. צדוק [Hebrew as printed; letters uncertain at this resolution] justus, quod credere videtur S. Hieronymus, an a Sadock haeresiarcha qui sub Alexandro Magno floruit. Sic R. Abraham in Cabala hist. et Helias levita in Tisbi. LE PR.
"Kinsmen of the Sadducees." He means the heretics Marcion, Apelles and Valentinus, who long afterwards followed the heresy of the Sadducees. Or else he calls "kinsmen of the Sadducees" any heretics who think wrongly about the soul. It is disputed whether the Sadducees were named from the Hebrew word for "just", as St Jerome seems to believe, or from Sadoc, a heresiarch who flourished under Alexander the Great. So Rabbi Abraham in the Cabala historica and Elias Levita in the Tishbi. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 404)
(2) ‹anchor: controversia moratam› · call in col 799
Moratam. Moratam fidem vocat stabilem ac firmam atque inconcussam. PAM.
"Moratam." By "a settled faith" he means one stable, firm and unshaken. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 404)
(3) ‹anchor: qualitas ejus retractatur› · call in col 799
Retractatur. Retractare, pro tractare, praeterquam alibi, etiam hoc libro non semel usurpat Auctor. PAM.
"Retractatur." The Author uses "retractare" for "tractare" (to handle) more than once in this book too, besides elsewhere. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 404)
(4) ‹anchor: Renuntiatio ejus› · call in col 799
Renuntiatio ejus. Renuntiantur magistratus cum eliguntur; renuntiatur amicitia quae dissolvitur. Hic renuntiatio demonstratio est et definitio. RHEN.
"Its renuntiatio." Magistrates are "proclaimed" (renuntiantur) when they are elected; a friendship that is dissolved is "renounced". Here "renuntiatio" is a showing and a defining. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 404)
(5) ‹anchor: testimonium redderent› · call in col 799
Scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium redderent. Asyntheton est; nam solet omittere connexivas particulas, quae res obscuritatem sermoni nonnunquam parit, ceu monuimus ante. RHEN.
"That is, lest they should bear witness to each other." It is asyndeton; for he is in the habit of leaving out connecting particles, a thing that sometimes makes his language obscure, as we noted before. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 404)
(6) ‹anchor: et praegnatus› · call in col 800
Praegnatus. Praegnatum sub forma quartae inflexionis usurpat pro impraegnatione, gaudens hujus terminationis vocabulis. RHEN.
"Praegnatus." He uses "praegnatus", in the form of the fourth declension, for "impregnation", delighting in words of this ending. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 404)
(7) ‹anchor: τὸ δοκεῖν› · call in col 800
TO ΔΟΚΕΙΝ Synecdochica locutio est. Subauditur praepositio κατὰ, κατὰ τὸ δοκεῖν, hoc est secundum existimationem, ut videlicet ita videretur,, licet reipsa non esset. RHEN. — Hieronymus, lib. II adv. Pelag. : « Carnis infirmitas Deo habitatore gaudebat, et tamen mensuram fragilitatis suae excedere non potuit, » ut non τὸ δοκεῖν juxta veteres haereticos, sed vere Dei Filius hominis Filius crederetur. RIG.
"TO DOKEIN" ("the seeming"). It is a synecdochic expression. The preposition "kata" is understood: "kata to dokein", that is, by supposition, so that it should seem so, though it was not so in reality. RHENANUS. — Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Book II: "The weakness of the flesh rejoiced in God dwelling in it, and yet it could not exceed the measure of its frailty," so that the Son of God might be believed to be the Son of man not in seeming, as the old heretics held, but truly. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 404)
(8) ‹anchor: Aufer hinc, inquit› · call in col 800
Aufer hinc, inquit. Verba haec ex persona Marcionis afferri recte adnotavit Rhenanus (quae finiuntur ibi : His opinor) : nam ille ex Evangelio Lucae, quod solum agnoscebat, capita illa prima, quibus haec continentur, rescindebat, uti mox et lib. IV adv. Marcion. fusius dicitur. Omnia autem haec ironice dicta sunt. PAM.
"Take away from here, he says." Rhenanus rightly noted that these words are put in Marcion's mouth (they end at "His, opinor"); for from the Gospel of Luke, the only one he acknowledged, he cut away those first chapters which contain these things, as is said presently and more fully in Book IV against Marcion. All this is said ironically. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 404)
(9) ‹anchor: angelica multitudo› · call in col 800
Viderit angelica multitudo. Festive dictum per ironiam, quod nocturnum tempus aptum sit ad fallendum, quasi et angeli decipi potuerint. Commemorata Lucae res est in initio historiae suae Evangelicae. RHEN.
"Let the angelic multitude see to it." Said wittily, by irony, because night-time is suited to deceiving, as if even angels could have been deceived. The event is recorded by Luke at the beginning of his Gospel history. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 404)
(10) ‹anchor: Jeremias glorietur› · call in col 800
Ne Jeremias glorietur. Ac si dicat, ne interfecerit Herodes parvulos in Bethleem, ne Jeremias (seu Michaeas) de sua prophetia, quae citatur etiam Matth. II, glorietur tanquam jam completa. Est autem etiam illud ironice dictum : ne fascinet puerum; nam fascinare ad incantamenti genus spectat. PAM. — emendantibus. EDD.
"Lest Jeremiah boast." As if he said: let Herod not have killed the little ones in Bethlehem, lest Jeremiah (or Micah) boast of his prophecy, which is also cited in Matthew 2, as already fulfilled. That too is said ironically: "lest she bewitch the child"; for "fascinare" belongs to a kind of enchantment. PAMELIUS. — With the editors' corrections. EDITORS.
(printed under page 404)
Page
- running head: 799 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S… (running head cut at the right edge of this image; continues over col 800)
- marginal letters: A ‹Christum humanam assumpsisse carnem›; B ‹sit adversus illos eam resurgere›; C ‹auditur› (commentary, foot of col 800 side); D ‹lib. iv› (commentary, foot of col 800 side)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
carne, nativit⟨a⟩tem negare, ut Apelles discipulus, et postea desertor ipsius; aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus, aliter illas interpretari, ut condiscipulus et condesertor ejus Valentinus. Sed et qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit, aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma confingere, ut et conceptus, et praegnatus, et partus Virginis, et ipsius exinde infantis ordo, τὸ δοκεῖν haberentur: eosdem oculos, eosdem sensus fefellissent, quos carnis opi⟨n⟩io elusit.
flesh, to deny the nativity, as did Apelles, his disciple and afterwards his deserter; or, having confessed both the flesh and the nativity, to interpret them otherwise, as did his fellow disciple and fellow deserter Valentinus. But he too who introduced a putative flesh of Christ could equally have fabricated the nativity also as a phantasm, so that the conception, and the pregnancy, and the childbearing of the Virgin, and thereafter the whole course of the infant Himself, would be held as a mere seeming (to dokein): they would have deceived the same eyes, the same senses, which the opinion of the flesh eluded.
CAPUT II.
Chapter II.
Plane nativitas a Gabriele annuntiatur: quid illi cum angelo Creatoris? Et in Virginis uterum conceptus inducitur: quid illi cum Isaia propheta Creatoris? Odit moras, qui subito Christum de coelis deferebat. « Aufer hinc, inquit, molestos semper Caesaris census, et diversoria angusta, et sordidos pannos, et dura praesepia. Viderit angelica multitudo, Dominum suum noctibns honorans. Servent potius pecora pastores. Et Magi ne fatigentur de longinquo; dono illis aurum suum. Melior sit et Herodes, ne Jeremias glorietur. Sed nec circumcidatur infans, ne doleat; nec ad templum deferatur, ne parentes suos oneret sumptu oblationis; nec in manus tradatur Simeoni, ne senem moriturum exinde contristet. Taceat et anus illa, ne fascinet puerum. » His, opinor, consiliis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere
Plainly the nativity is announced by Gabriel: what has he to do with the angel of the Creator? And the conception is brought into the womb of a Virgin: what has he to do with Isaiah, the prophet of the Creator? He hates delays, who was bringing Christ down suddenly from the heavens. "Take away from here," he says, "the census of Caesar, ever troublesome, and the cramped lodgings, and the filthy rags, and the hard mangers. Let the angelic multitude see to it, honouring their Lord by night. Let the shepherds rather keep watch over their flocks. And let the Magi not be wearied from afar; I make them a present of their gold. Let Herod too be better, lest Jeremiah should boast. But neither let the infant be circumcised, lest He feel pain; nor be carried to the temple, lest He burden His parents with the expense of the offering; nor be delivered into the hands of Simeon, lest He thereby sadden the old man about to die. Let that old woman also keep silent, lest she bewitch the boy." By these designs, I suppose, to blot out so many original records of Christ
Editors' notes and page, col. 800
Page
- running head: [cut off] PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 800
- marginal letters: A carne, nativitatem negare; B Creatoris? Odit moras; C auditur praepositio κατὰ (commentarius); D lib. IV adv. Marcion. (commentarius)
- old-edition numerals: 755 before CAPUT II.
- other: Greek τὸ δοκεῖν badly printed, set in normal form; damaged letters in nativit⟨a⟩tem and opi⟨n⟩io UNSURE; column ends mid-sentence at delere; running head cut off at left edge; editors' variae lectiones and commentarius at the page foot not set; left-column fragments belong to col. 799
- misprints kept as printed: noctibns (for noctibus)
Marcion ausus est, ne caro ejus probaretur. Ex qua, oro te, auctoritate? Si propheta es, praenuntia aliquid; si apostolus, praedica publice; si apostolicus, cum apostolis senti; si tantum Christianus es, crede quod traditum est; si nihil istorum es, merito dixerim, morere: nam et mortuus es, qui non es Christianus, non credendo quod traditum Christianos facit. Et eo magis mortuus es, quo magis non es Christianus: qui cum fuisses, excidisti, rescindendo quod retro credidisti: sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola, et tui non negant, et nostri probant. Igitur rescindens quod credidisti, jam non credens rescidisti: non tamen quia credere desiisti, recte rescidisti. Atque in rescindendo quod credidisti, probas, antequam rescinderes, aliter fuisse quod credidisti. Aliter illud, ita erat traditum: porro, quod traditum erat, id erat verum, ut ab eis traditum, quorum fuit tradere; ergo quod erat traditum rescindens, quod erat verum rescidisti, nullo jure fecisti. Sed plenius ejusmodi praescriptionibus adversus omnes haereses, alibi jam usi sumus. Post quas nunc ex abuudanti retractamus desiderantes rationem, qua non putaveris natum esse Christum.
Marcion dared, lest His flesh be proved. By what authority, I pray you? If you are a prophet, foretell something; if an apostle, preach publicly; if apostolic, think with the apostles; if merely a Christian, believe what has been handed down; if you are none of these, I might rightly say: die. For you are indeed dead, you who are not a Christian, by not believing what, having been handed down, makes Christians. And you are the more dead, the more you are not a Christian: you who, when you had been one, fell away by rescinding what you formerly believed, as you yourself also confess in a certain letter, and your own people do not deny, and ours prove. Therefore, in rescinding what you believed, you rescinded it already no longer believing; yet it was not because you ceased to believe that you rescinded it rightly. And in rescinding what you believed, you prove that, before you rescinded it, what you believed was otherwise. Otherwise was that, thus it had been handed down; moreover, what had been handed down was true, as handed down by those whose part it was to hand down; therefore, in rescinding what had been handed down, you rescinded what was true, and you acted by no right. But we have already made fuller use elsewhere of prescriptions of this kind against all heresies. After these we now, out of abundance, take the matter up again, desiring the reason why you have thought that Christ was not born.
CAPUT III.
Chapter III.
Necesse est, quatenus hoc putas arbitrio tuo licuisse, aut ut impossibilem, aut inconvenientem Deo existimaveris nativitatem. Sed Deo nihil impossibile, nisi quod non vult. An ergo voluerit nasci (quia si voluit, et potuit, et natus est) consideremus. Ad compendium decurro. Si enim nasci se Deus noluisset quacunque de causa, nec hominem se videri praestitisset. Nam quis, hominem videns, eum negaret natum? Ita quod noluisset esse, nec
It is necessary, inasmuch as you think this was permitted to your own judgement, that you have considered birth either impossible or unbecoming for God. But to God nothing is impossible except what He does not will. Let us consider, then, whether He willed to be born (for if He willed, He was also able, and He was born). I hasten to the short way. For if God had been unwilling to be born, for whatever reason, neither would He have presented Himself to be seen as a man. For who, seeing a man, would deny that he was born? Thus what He had been unwilling to be, neither
Editors' notes and page, col. 801
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
¹⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et Rhen. Pam.
"Et" ("and"): Rhenanus, Pamelius.
²⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Exhibe add. cod. Agob. auctoritatem.
The Agobardinus codex adds "Exhibe auctoritatem" ("show your authority").
²¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Tantummodo Fran. Pam.
"Tantummodo" ("only"): Franeker edition, Pamelius.
²² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Creditum Rig. Pam. Par. Fran.
"Creditum" ("believed"): Rigault, Pamelius, Paris edition, Franeker edition.
²³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Es, qui non Rhen.
"Es, qui non" ("you are, who not"): Rhenanus.
²⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quod Wouw. lib. Ursini.
"Quod" ("which"): Wouwer, Ursinus's book.
²⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Simus Ven.
"Simus" ("we are"): Venice edition.
²⁶ ‹anchor: rationem, qua› · call in col 801 Quia Ven.
"Quia" ("because"): Venice edition.
²⁷ ‹anchor: An ergo voluerit› · call in col 801 Noluerit Seml. Rig. Ven.
"Noluerit" ("he was unwilling"): Semler, Rigault, Venice edition.
²⁸ ‹anchor: et potuit› · call in col 801 Et potuit omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "et potuit" ("and he could").
²⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Homini lib. Agob.
"Homini" ("to a man"): the Agobardinus book.
³⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Illud abest a Rig. Ven.
"Illud" ("that") is absent from Rigault and the Venice edition.
³¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Falsum Pam. Rhen.
"Falsum" ("false"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
³² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Edoce ut cum sciens Rhen. Seml.
"Edoce ut cum sciens" ("teach how, knowing"): Rhenanus, Semler.
³³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Esse Rhen. Pam.
"Esse" ("to be"): Rhenanus, Pamelius.
³⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ne inser. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition insert "ne" ("lest").
³⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Fit Rig. Ven.
"Fit" ("becomes"): Rigault, Venice edition.
³⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Operaretur Rig. Ven.
"Operaretur" ("would work"): Rigault, Venice edition.
³⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ejus add. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition add "ejus" ("his/its").
³⁸ ‹anchor: permanendo pereant› · call in col 802 Pareant Rig. Ven.
"Pareant" ("obey"): Rigault, Venice edition.
³⁹ ‹anchor: a Deo distant,› · call in col 802 Aut inser. lib. Ursin.
Ursinus's book inserts "aut" ("or").
⁴⁰ ‹anchor: contrarium obtineat› · call in col 802 Contineat Pam. Par. Fran.
"Contineat" ("contains"): Pamelius, Paris edition, Franeker edition.
⁴¹ ‹anchor: in omnibus impar› · call in col 802 Par Rhen. Seml. Pam.
"Par" ("equal"): Rhenanus, Semler, Pamelius.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 405)
(11) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Ex qua, oro te, auctoritate? Recte infra subjungit : Sed plenius ejusmodi praescriptionibus adversus haereses alibi jam usi sumus; alludens nempe ad ejus tituli librum mox citatum, praesertim c. 20, 21, 31, 32, 35 et 36. PAM.
"On what authority, I ask you?" He rightly adds below: "But we have already made fuller use of prescriptions of this kind against heresies elsewhere," alluding, that is, to the book of that title cited shortly, especially chapters 20, 21, 31, 32, 35 and 36. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 405)
(12) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Si apostolicus. Si apostolorum disciplinam doctrinamque hausisti. LE PR.
"If apostolic." If you have drawn in the discipline and doctrine of the apostles. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 405)
(13) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Crede quod traditum est. Pulcher locus contra eos qui cum neque apostoli sint, neque apostolici, perpetuo tamen de fide ex Scripturis disputant, cum sufficere eis debeat traditio, de qua latissimo lib. de Corona mil., c. 3. PAM.
"Believe what has been handed down." A fine passage against those who, though they are neither apostles nor apostolic men, are forever disputing about the faith from the Scriptures, when tradition ought to suffice them; on which see at great length the book On the Soldier's Crown, chapter 3. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 405)
(14) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Qui cum fuisses excidisti. Adnotandus etiam hic locus contra eos qui haereticos Christianos dicere non verentur; cum eo nomine nolit Auctor appellari, qui resciderunt quod retro crediderunt, et (uti infra de eodem Marcione loquitur) ab Ecclesia et fide recesserunt. Quo pertinet etiam illud infra cap. 15 : Haeretici credendo non credunt. Atqui de hoc Marcionis a fide et Ecclesia recessu vide lib. de Praescriptionibus, c. 30. PAM.
"Who, though you had been, have fallen away." This passage too is to be noted against those who are not afraid to call heretics Christians, since the Author will not have those called by that name who have rescinded what they formerly believed and (as he says below of the same Marcion) have withdrawn from the Church and the faith. To this also belongs the saying below, chapter 15: "Heretics, in believing, do not believe." And on this withdrawal of Marcion from the faith and the Church, see the book On Prescriptions, chapter 30. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 405)
(15) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Rescindendo quod retro credidisti. Abrogando nimirum. Ex usu forensi vox sumpta est; nam in variis formulis adhibetur, ut in testamentis, de rescindendis testamentis, hoc est pactum istud solvere et invalidare. LE PR.
"By rescinding what you formerly believed." That is, by abrogating it. The word is taken from legal usage; for it is used in various formulae, as in wills, of rescinding wills, that is, dissolving and invalidating that compact. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 405)
(16) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Quam tu ad fiduciam reputas. Dixerat, Sed satis erat illi, inquis, conscientia sua. Marcionis enim excusatio erat, nihil interesse Deum videri hominem, dummodo vere non esset, quia salva conscientia sua fidenter et constanter ferre posset existimationem, qua judicabatur homo, licet inconveniens et indignum Deo videretur. Ita asserebat Marcion, et addebat hanc opinionem falsam reputari a Deo ad fiduciam, id est, judicabat Deus satis esse ut cum fortitudine et fiducia falsam et indignam famam sustineret. LAC.
"Which you reckon as confidence." He had said: "But his own conscience, you say, was enough for him." For Marcion's excuse was that it made no difference that God seemed a man, provided he was not truly one, because with his conscience intact he could bear confidently and steadily the opinion by which he was judged a man, though this seemed unbefitting and unworthy of God. So Marcion asserted, and he added that this false opinion was reckoned by God as confidence; that is, God judged it enough to bear a false and unworthy reputation with fortitude and confidence. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 405)
Page
- running head: 801 · LIBER DE CARNE CH (cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A Marcion ausus est; B disti, probas, antequam rescinderes; C sibile, nisi quod non vult; D (11) Ex qua, oro te, auctoritate? (in the Commentarius, not author's text)
- old-edition numerals: 756 after quod
videri omnino voluisset. Omnis rei displicentis etiam opinio reprobatur. Quia nihil interest, utrum sit quid, an non sit, si, cum non sit esse praesumitur. Plane interest illud, ut falso non patiatur, quod vere non est. « Sed satis erat illi, inquis, conscientia sua. Viderint homines, si natum putabant, quia hominem videbant. » Quanto ergo dignius, quantoque constantius humanam sustinuisset existimationem vere natus, eamdem existimationem etiam non natus subiturus cum injuria conscientiae suae! quam tu ad fiduciam reputas, ut non natus, adversus conscientiam suam natum se existimari sustineret. Quid tanti fuit, edoce, ut consciens Christus quid esset, id se quod non erat, exhiberet? Non potes dicere : « Si natus fuisset, et hominem vere induisset, Deus esse desisset, amittens quod erat, dum assumit quod non erat. » Periculum enim status sui Deo nullum est. « Sed ideo, inquis, nego Deum in hominem vere conversum, ita ut et nasceretur, et carne corporaretur; quia qui sine fine est, etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est : converti enim in illud, finis est pristini : non competit ergo conversio, cui non competit finis. » Plane natura convertibilium ea lege est, ne permaneant in eo quod convertitur in eis; et ita non permanendo pereant dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt. Sed nihil Deo par est : natura ejus ab omnium rerum conditione distat. Si ergo quae a Deo distant, a quibus distat, cum convertuntur, amittunt quod fuerunt : ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a caeteris rebus, nisi ut contrarium obtineat, id est, ut Deus et in omnia converti possit, et qualis est, perseverare. Alioquin par erit eorum, quae conversa amittunt quod fuerunt; quorum utique Deus in omnibus impar non est, si nec in exitu conversionis. Angelos
had He wished to be seen at all. Of every thing that displeases, even the opinion is rejected. For it makes no difference whether something is or is not, if, when it is not, it is presumed to be. Clearly it does make a difference that it should not falsely undergo what it truly is not. "But his own conscience was enough for him," you say. "Let men see to it, if they thought Him born because they saw a man." How much more worthily, then, and how much more steadfastly would He have borne the human estimation if truly born, when, not born, He was to undergo that same estimation even with injury to His own conscience! This you reckon as confidence: that, not born, He should endure being thought born against His own conscience. What was of such worth, explain, that Christ, knowing what He was, should display Himself as that which He was not? You cannot say: "If He had been born and had truly put on man, He would have ceased to be God, losing what He was while He takes up what He was not." For to God there is no danger to His state. "But for this reason," you say, "I deny that God was truly converted into man, so as both to be born and to be embodied in flesh: because He who is without end must necessarily also be inconvertible; for to be converted into something is the end of what was before; conversion therefore does not befit Him whom an end does not befit." Clearly the nature of convertible things is under this law, that they do not abide in that which is converted in them; and so by not abiding they perish, while by being converted they lose what they were. But nothing is equal to God: His nature stands apart from the condition of all things. If therefore the things which stand apart from God, from which He stands apart, lose what they were when they are converted, where will the difference of divinity from other things be, unless it obtain the contrary, that is, that God can both be converted into all things and persevere such as He is? Otherwise He will be equal to those things which, once converted, lose what they were; from which assuredly God is not unequal in all things, if not even in the outcome of conversion. Angels
Editors' notes and page, col. 802
Page
- running head: DE CARNE CHRISTI. 802
- marginal letters: A videri omnino voluisset; B fuisset, et hominem vere induisset; C ubi erit diversitas divinitatis; D de hoc Marcionis (beside the editors' commentary, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 757 after natus,
- other: the word Angelos was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 803
Creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti, et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem, ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham, et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth; colluctatus quoque homini angelus toto corporis pondere dimitti desideravit ab eo a quo de⟨t⟩inebatur. Quod ergo angelis inferioribus Deo licuit, uti, conversi in corpulentiam humanam, angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori Deo aufers, quasi non valuerit Christus, vere hominem indutus, Deus perseverare? Aut numquid et angeli illi phantasmata carnis apparuerunt? Sed non audebis hoc dicere. Nam si sic apud te angeli Creatoris, sicut et Christus, ejus Dei erit Christus, cujus angeli tales qualis et Christus. Si Scripturas opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias rejecisses, alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie Evangelium Joannis, praedicans Spiritum columbae corpore lapsum desedisse super Dominum. Qui Spiritus cum hoc esset, tam vere erat et columba, quam et Spiritus, nec interfecerat substantiam propriam, assumpta substantia extranea. Sed quaeris, corpus columbae ubi sit, resumpto Spiritu in coelum. Aeque et angelorum, eadem ratione interceptum est, qua et editum fuerat. Si vidisses, cum de nihilo proferebatur, scisses, cum in nihilum subducebatur. Si non fuit initium visibile, nec finis. Tamen corporis soliditas erat, quo momento corpus videbatur. Non potest non fuisse quod scriptum est.
of the Creator changed into human form you have at some time read of, and you believed it, and that they bore such reality of body that Abraham even washed their feet, and Lot was snatched from the Sodomites by their hands; an angel too, having wrestled with a man with the whole weight of his body, desired to be let go by him by whom he was being held. What therefore was permitted to angels, who are inferior to God, namely that, changed into human bodiliness, they should nevertheless remain angels, this you take away from the more powerful God, as though Christ, having truly put on man, was not able to persevere as God? Or did those angels too appear as phantasms of flesh? But you will not dare to say this. For if with you the angels of the Creator are thus, just as Christ also is, Christ will belong to that God whose angels are such as Christ also is. If you had not deliberately rejected some Scriptures that resist your opinion and corrupted others, the Gospel of John would have confounded you in this matter, proclaiming that the Spirit, having descended in the body of a dove, settled upon the Lord. And that Spirit, though it was this, was as truly a dove as it was also Spirit, nor had it destroyed its own substance by assuming a foreign substance. But you ask where the body of the dove is, now that the Spirit has been taken back into heaven. Likewise also that of the angels: it was withdrawn by the same means by which it had also been produced. If you had seen when it was brought forth from nothing, you would have known when it was withdrawn into nothing. If the beginning was not visible, neither was the end. Yet there was solidity of body at the moment when a body was seen. That which is written cannot not have been.
CAPUT IV.
Chapter IV.
Igitur si neque ut impossibilem, neque ut periculosam Deo repudias corporationem, superest ut quasi indignam rejicias et accuses. Ab ipsa quidem exorsus nativitate, perora, age jam, spurcitias genitalium in utero elementorum, humoris et sanguinis foeda coagula, carnis ex eodem coeno alendae per novem menses. Describe uterum de die in diem inolescentem, gravem, anxium, nec somno tutum, incertum libidinibus fastidii et
Therefore, if you repudiate embodiment for God neither as impossible nor as dangerous, it remains that you reject and accuse it as unworthy. Beginning, indeed, from birth itself, declaim, come now, on the filth of the generative elements in the womb, the foul clots of fluid and blood, of the flesh that is to be nourished from that same mire for nine months. Describe the womb growing day by day, heavy, anxious, not safe even in sleep, unsteady in its cravings of distaste and
Editors' notes and page, col. 803
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁴² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Adeo Rig. Ven. Seml. Rhen.
"Adeo" ("so far"): Rigault, Venice edition, Semler, Rhenanus.
⁴³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Auferes Rig. Ven. Par.
"Auferes" ("you will take away"): Rigault, Venice edition, Paris edition.
⁴⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Phantasma Seml. Pam.
"Phantasma" ("phantasm"): Semler, Pamelius.
⁴⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ejusdem substantiae Pam.
"Ejusdem substantiae" ("of the same substance"): Pamelius.
⁴⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Angeli repet. Pam.
Pamelius repeats "angeli" ("of the angel").
⁴⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Te hinc Pam. Rhen.
"Te hinc" ("you hence"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁴⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Delapsum Rig. Ven.
"Delapsum" ("slipped down"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁴⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Descendisse Pam. Vatic. cod.
"Descendisse" ("to have come down"): Pamelius, the Vatican codex.
⁵⁰ ‹anchor: Aeque et angelorum› · call in col 803 Angelorum et Rhen. Seml.
"Angelorum et" ("and of the angels"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁵¹ ‹anchor: erat, quo› · call in col 803 Quoquo Rig. Ven.
"Quoquo" ("at whatever"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁵² ‹anchor: Ab ipsa quidem exorsus› · call in col 803 Odio habita add. Pam.
Pamelius adds "odio habita" ("held in hatred").
⁵³ ‹anchor: de die in diem› · call in col 803 In diem omitt. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition omit "in diem" ("to day").
⁵⁴ ‹anchor: inolescentem› · call in col 803 Insolescentem Pam. Seml.
"Insolescentem" ("growing unwonted"): Pamelius, Semler.
⁵⁵ ‹anchor: nec somno tutum› · call in col 803 Nexum, totum Pam. Seml. nixum totum lib. Urs. cod. Wouw. nec sono totum cod. Agob.
"Nexum, totum": Pamelius, Semler; "nixum totum": Ursinus's book, Wouwer's codex; "nec sono totum": the Agobardinus codex.
⁵⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Vel pro periculo honorandum omitt. Seml.
Semler omits "vel pro periculo honorandum" ("or to be honoured for its danger").
⁵⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Dedignaberis Pam. Seml.
"Dedignaberis" ("you will disdain"): Pamelius, Semler.
⁵⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ducitur alii.
"Ducitur" ("is led"): others.
⁵⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Unctionibus Rig. Ven. Seml. Rhen.
"Unctionibus" ("with anointings"): Rigault, Venice edition, Semler, Rhenanus.
⁶⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Venationem Rhen. Seml.
"Venationem" ("hunting"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁶¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› O inser. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus insert "O".
⁶² [numeral not visible on the crop] ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Aliter natuses Pam. aliter natus. Et Rhen.
"Aliter natus es" ("you were born otherwise"): Pamelius; "aliter natus. Et": Rhenanus.
⁶³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Pretio add. Pam. Vatic. 3 cod.
Pamelius and three Vatican codices add "pretio" ("at a price").
⁶⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Creator ejus Pam. Rhen.
"Creator ejus" ("its Creator"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁶⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Aut add. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus add "aut" ("or").
⁶⁶ ‹anchor: Nativitate reformata› · call in col 804 Nativitatem reformat a morte Rig. Ven.
"Nativitatem reformat a morte" ("he reforms the nativity from death"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁶⁷ ‹anchor: caecam perluminat› · call in col 804 Reluminat alii.
"Reluminat" ("gives light again"): others.
⁶⁸ ‹anchor: daemoniacam expiat› · call in col 804 Captat Rig. Ven.
"Captat" ("catches"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁶⁹ ‹anchor: in illam erubescit› · call in col 804 Et nos illam erubescemus? alii.
"And shall we blush at it?": others.
⁷⁰ ‹anchor: propterea qui› · call in col 804 Quia Rig. Ven.
"Quia" ("because"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁷¹ ‹anchor: stultum, si› · call in col 804 Si abest a Rig. Ven.
"Si" ("if") is absent from Rigault and the Venice edition.
⁷² ‹anchor: ut confundat sapientes› · call in col 804 Sapientia Rig. Ven. sapientiam Pam. Fran.
"Sapientia": Rigault, Venice edition; "sapientiam": Pamelius, Franeker edition.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 406)
(17) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Tam vere erat et columba, quam et spiritus. Consentit in hac hujus loci expositione Tertulliano auctor libri de Agone Christiano (inter opera B. Augustini), c. 22. Sed ipse Augustinus, ep. 102 ad Evod. et lib. de Trinitate, c. 5. contra sentit : cui consentiunt etiam BB. Ambros. lib. I de Sacram., c. 5; Chrysos. hom. 12 in Matth., id colligentes ex verbis illis, Quasi columba, et, In specie columbae.
"The dove was as truly a dove as the Spirit was spirit." The author of the book On the Christian Combat (among the works of blessed Augustine), chapter 22, agrees with Tertullian in this interpretation of the passage. But Augustine himself, letter 102 to Evodius and On the Trinity, chapter 5, holds the contrary; and with him agree also the blessed Ambrose, On the Sacraments, Book I, chapter 5, and Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Matthew, gathering it from the words "as a dove" and "in the form of a dove".
(printed under page 406)
(18) ‹anchor: in utero elementorum› · call in col 803
Perora, age jam, spurcitias genitalium in utero elementor. Consimilia sunt istis ea quae libro adversus Marcionem tertio : « Age jam, perora in sanctissima et reverenda opera naturae. » RIG.
"Come now, declaim against the filth of the generative elements in the womb." Very like these words is what he says in the third book against Marcion: "Come now, declaim against the most holy and venerable works of nature." RIGAULT.
(printed under page 406)
(19) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Libidinibus fastidii et gulae. Libidines vocat quaslibet inclinationes et appetitus. LAC.
"With the cravings of loathing and of appetite." By "cravings" he means any inclinations and appetites. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 406)
(20) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Hanc venerationem naturae. Intelligit venerationem quae naturae debetur. Sensus est : Quod venerari debueras, tu despuis. Sic lib. III adv. Marcionem, Sanctissima, inquit, et reverenda opera naturae. RHEN.
"This reverence of nature." He means the reverence that is owed to nature. The sense is: what you ought to have revered, you spit upon. So in Book III against Marcion: "the most holy," he says, "and venerable works of nature." RHENANUS.
(printed under page 406)
Page
- running head: 803 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹gelos Creatoris conversos›; B ‹stus, cujus angeli›; C ‹CAPUT IV.›; D ‹(17) Tam vere erat› (in the Commentarius)
- old-edition numerals: 758 after ‹indutus›
gulae. Invehere jam et in ipsum mulieris enitentis pudorem, vel pro periculo honorandum, vel pro natura religiosum. Horres utique et infantem, cum suis impedimentis profusum utique et oblitum. Dedignaris, quod pannis dirigitur, quod vinctionibus formatur, quod blanditiis deridetur. Hanc venerationem naturae, Marcion, despuis; et quo modo natus es? Odisti nascentem hominem; et quo modo diligis aliquem? Te quidem plane non amasti, cum ab Ecclesia et fide Christi recessisti. Sed videris, si tibi displices, aut si aliter es natus. Certe Christus dilexit hominem illum in immunditiis, in utero coagulatum, illum per pudenda prolatum, illum per ludibria nutritum: propter eum descendit; propter eum praedicavit; propter eum omni se humilitate dejecit usque ad mortem, et mortem crucis (Philip. II). Amavit utique, quem magno redemit. Si Christus Creatoris est, suum merito amavit; si ab alio Deo est, magis adamavit, quando alienum redemit. Amavit ergo cum homine etiam nativitatem, etiam carnem ejus. Nihil amari potest sine eo, per quod est id quod est. Aufer nativitatem, et exhibe hominem; adime carnem, et praesta quem Deus redemit. Si haec sunt homo, quem Deus redemit, tu haec erubescenda illi facis, quae redemit, et indigna, quae, nisi dilcxisset, non redemisset. Nativitate reformata regeneratione coelesti, carnem ab omni vexatione restituit, leprosam emaculat, caecam perluminat, paralyticam redintegrat, daemoniacam expiat, mortuam resuscitat; et nasci in illam erubescit? Si revera de lupa, aut sue, aut vacca prodire voluisset, et ferae aut pecoris corpore indutus, regnum coelorum praedicaret, tua, opinor, illi censura praescriberet, turpe hoc Deo, et indiguum hoc Dei Filio, et stultum propterca qui ita credat. Sit plane stultum, si de nostro sensu judicemus Deum. Sed circumspice (I Cor. I, 27), Marcion, si tamen non delesti: Stulta mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientes. Quae⟨nam⟩
of gluttony. Inveigh now also against the very modesty of a woman in labour, which ought to be honoured on account of its peril, or held sacred on account of its nature. You shudder, of course, at the infant too, poured forth with its encumbrances, and besmeared as well. You disdain it because it is straightened with swaddling-cloths, because it is shaped with bindings, because it is made sport of with caresses. This reverence due to nature, Marcion, you spit upon; and how were you born? You hate man being born; and how do you love anyone? Yourself, indeed, you plainly did not love, when you withdrew from the Church and from the faith of Christ. But see to it yourself whether you are displeasing to yourself, or whether you were born otherwise. Certainly Christ loved that man, curdled in uncleanness in the womb, that man brought forth through the shameful parts, that man nourished through things that are laughed at: for his sake He came down; for his sake He preached; for his sake He cast Himself down in all humility even unto death, and the death of the cross (Phil. 2:8). He loved, surely, him whom He redeemed at a great [price]. If Christ belongs to the Creator, He rightly loved His own; if He is from another God, He loved the more, since He redeemed one belonging to another. He loved, therefore, together with man, his birth also, his flesh also. Nothing can be loved without that through which it is what it is. Take away birth, and show me man; remove the flesh, and present him whom God redeemed. If these things are the man whom God redeemed, you make these things, which He redeemed, shameful to Him, and unworthy, things which He would not have redeemed had He not loved them. Having reformed birth by a heavenly regeneration, He restored the flesh from every affliction: He cleanses the leprous, He gives light to the blind, He makes whole the paralysed, He purges the demoniac, He raises the dead; and is He ashamed to be born into it? If indeed He had willed to come forth from a she-wolf, or a sow, or a cow, and, clothed in the body of a wild beast or of cattle, were preaching the kingdom of heaven, your censure, I suppose, would lay it down for Him that this is shameful for God, and this unworthy of the Son of God, and that he who so believes is foolish on that account. Let it plainly be foolish, if we judge God by our own sense. But look around (1 Cor. 1:27), Marcion, if indeed you have not erased it: God has chosen the foolish things of the world, that He may confound the wise. What
Editors' notes and page, col. 804
Page
- running head: [cut off at left] PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 804
- marginal letters: A gulae (19). Invehere jam; B tritum: propter eum descendit; C daemoniacam expiat; D sus Marcionem tertio (in the Commentarius at page foot)
- old-edition numerals: 759 after deridetur.
- other: misprints kept as printed: dilcxisset (for dilexisset), indiguum (for indignum), propterca (for propterea).
- other: the column ends with the word Quae- hyphenated across the column break; its tail, at the head of col 805, is lost where the scan is cut at the binding, so it is supplied here as a conjecture, Quae⟨nam⟩ (QA Q4a, 2026-10-18).
haec stulta sunt? conversio hominis ad cul⟨tum⟩ veri Dei? rejectio erroris? disciplina justitiae, ⟨pudic⟩itiae, patientiae, misericordiae, innocen⟨tiae⟩? Omnia haec quidem stulta non sunt. Quaere ⟨ergo d⟩e quibus dixerit; et si te praesumpseris inve⟨nisse⟩, non erit tam stultum, quam credere in ⟨Deum⟩ natum, et quidem ex Virgine, et quidem ⟨carne⟩um, qui per illas naturae contumelias voluta⟨tus sit⟩. Dicat haec aliquis stulta non esse, et alia ⟨sint⟩ quae Deus in aemulationem elegerit sapientiae ⟨saecul⟩aris. Et tamen apud illam facilius creditur ⟨Jupite⟩r taurus factus aut cycnus, quam vere ⟨homo⟩ Christus, penes Marcionem.
foolish things, then, are these? The conversion of man to the worship of the true God? The rejection of error? The discipline of justice, chastity, patience, mercy, innocence? All these things are certainly not foolish. Seek, then, of which things he spoke; and if you presume to have found it, nothing will be so foolish as believing in a God born, and indeed of a Virgin, and indeed of flesh, who was rolled through those indignities of nature. Let someone say that these things are not foolish, and that there are other things which God chose in rivalry with the wisdom of the world. And yet with that wisdom it is more easily believed that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than, with Marcion, that Christ truly became man.
CAPUT V.
CHAPTER V.
⟨Sun⟩t plane et alia tam stulta, quae pertinent ad ⟨contu⟩melias et passiones Dei; aut prudentiam di⟨cant⟩ Deum crucifixum. Aufer hoc quoque, ⟨Marcio⟩n, imo hoc potius. Quid enim indignius Deo? ⟨quid m⟩agis erubescendum, nasci an mori? carnem ⟨gestar⟩e, an crucem? circumcidi, an suffigi? edu⟨cari, a⟩n sepeliri? in praesepe deponi, an in monu⟨mento⟩ recondi? Sapientior eris, si nec ista credi⟨deris⟩. Sed non eris sapiens, nisi stultus saeculo ⟨fueris⟩, Dei stulta credendo. An ideo passiones a ⟨Christ⟩o non rescidisti, quia ut phantasma vacabat ⟨a sens⟩u earum? Diximus retro aeque illum et na⟨tivitati⟩s et infantiae imaginariae vacua ludibria ⟨subire⟩ potuisse. Sed jam hic responde, interfe⟨ctor v⟩eritatis. Nonne vere crucifixus est Deus? ⟨nonne⟩ vere mortuus, ut vere crucifixus?
There are certainly other things just as foolish, which pertain to the indignities and sufferings of God; or else let them call a crucified God prudence. Take this away too, Marcion, nay, this above all. For what is more unworthy of God, what is more to be ashamed of: to be born or to die? to bear flesh or a cross? to be circumcised or to be nailed up? to be nursed or to be buried? to be laid in a manger or to be put away in a tomb? You will be wiser if you do not believe these things either. But you will not be wise unless you have become foolish to the world, by believing the foolish things of God. Or did you refrain from cutting the sufferings away from Christ for this reason, that as a phantasm He was free from feeling them? We said earlier that He could equally have undergone the empty mockeries of an imaginary nativity and infancy too. But now answer here, murderer of the truth: was not God truly crucified? Did He not truly die, as He was truly crucified?
Editors' notes and page, col. 805
Footnotes
<!-- CROP DEFECT: the left-foot image is cut at the left margin of col 805; the first letters of each line of the variants and of commentary notes (21)–(23) are lost. Lost text is marked […]; letters supplied from context are in [square brackets]. Re-read this page from a wider render. --> Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
[⁷³ numeral lost in crop] ‹anchor: cul⟨tum⟩ veri Dei› · call in col 805 […] Hominum ad cultum verum alii.
"[…] of men to true worship": others.
⁷⁴ ‹anchor: tam stultum› · call in col 805 Jam Pam. Rhen.
"Jam" ("now"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁷⁵ ‹anchor: quam credere› · call in col 805 Quam abest a Pam. Rhen.
"Quam" ("than") is absent from Pamelius and Rhenanus.
⁷⁶ ‹anchor: di⟨cant⟩ Deum crucifixum› · call in col 805 Dicam Rhen. […]
"Dicam" ("I shall say"): Rhenanus [the rest of the line is lost in the crop].
⁷⁷ ‹anchor: Aufer hoc› · call in col 805 Aufers Rhen. Seml.
"Aufers" ("you take away"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁷⁸ ‹anchor: hoc quoque› · call in col 805 Haec Pam. Paris. Fran.
"Haec" ("these things"): Pamelius, Paris edition, Franeker edition.
⁷⁹ ‹anchor: nisi stultus› · call in col 805 In inser Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition insert "in".
⁸⁰ ‹anchor: […]u earum› · call in col 805 Ad sensum Rhen. Seml.
"Ad sensum" ("to the sense"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁸¹ ‹anchor: infantiae imaginariae› · call in col 805 […]aria et Pam. Seml. imaginarium imaginariae Rhen.
"[…]aria et": Pamelius, Semler; "imaginarium imaginariae": Rhenanus.
⁸² ‹anchor: Sed jam hic› · call in col 805 Hinc Rig. Ven.
"Hinc" ("hence"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁸³ ‹anchor: vere mortuus, ut› · call in col 805 Et Seml.
"Et" ("and"): Semler.
⁸⁴ ‹anchor: Falso ergo› · call in col 806 Ergo abest a […] Seml.
"Ergo" ("therefore") is absent from […] Semler.
⁸⁵ ‹anchor: Jesum crucifixum› · call in col 806 Jesum abest a Rhen. Seml.
"Jesum" is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
⁸⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Erit Rig. Ven.
"Erit" ("will be"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁸⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Qui Pam. Rhen.
"Qui" ("who"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁸⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Decus Pam. Rhen.
"Decus" ("honour"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁸⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› […]m. Rhen.
[Reading lost in the crop] Rhenanus.
⁹⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Eum Pam. Fran.
"Eum" ("him"): Pamelius, Franeker edition.
⁹¹ ‹anchor: Humana› · call in col 806 Humanam Pam. Rhen.
"Humanam" ("human", accusative): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁹² ‹anchor: ut nata› · call in col 806 Natam Pam. Rhen.
"Natam" ("born", accusative): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁹³ ‹anchor: ideoque› · call in col 806 Quia Rhen. Seml.
"Quia" ("because"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁹⁴ ‹anchor: haec erit› · call in col 806 […]ml. Pam.
[Reading lost in the crop] Semler, Pamelius.
⁹⁵ ‹anchor: quia Christus› · call in col 806 Quia Christus abest a Rhen. Seml.
"Quia Christus" ("because Christ") is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
⁹⁶ ‹anchor: nisi si› · call in col 806 Si abest a Rig. Ven.
"Si" ("if") is absent from Rigault and the Venice edition.
⁹⁷ ‹anchor: aut aliud› · call in col 806 Est add. Pam. Fran. Par.
Pamelius, the Franeker edition and the Paris edition add "est" ("is").
⁹⁸ ‹anchor: quam homo,› · call in col 806 […]omo omitt. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus omit "[…]omo" [the start of the omitted words is lost in the crop].
Commentarius.
Commentary.
[(21)] ‹anchor: veritatis› · call in col 805 […]Interfector veritatis. Haereticos olim gravio[…]verbis notatos nemo est qui dubitet. Non se[…] […]uctor hic; nam lib. I ad Marcionem, haereti[…]llum veris coloribus effingit, et tetriorem […]immanitate profitetur, quae in ipsius patria […]it. Non absimili sensu epist. ad Trallianos […]gnatius vocat haereticos κακὰς παραφυάδας, […]n progaginem. S. Prosper carm. de ingratis, […]agio : […]tifero vomuit coluber sermone Britannus. […] Hieronymo norunt omnes haereticos acriter […]tum fuisse. LE PR.
"Slayer of the truth." No one doubts that heretics were once branded in [heavier] words. [The Author] here […]; for in Book I against Marcion he paints that heretic in his true colours and declares him more loathsome than the savagery found in his own homeland. In a not dissimilar sense Ignatius, in the letter to the Trallians, calls heretics "evil offshoots", "[an evil] progeny". St Prosper, in the poem On the Ungrateful, [of Pel]agius: "The British serpent spewed forth with [pes]tilent speech." Everyone knows that heretics were sharply [rebuked] by Jerome. LE PRIEUR.
[(22)] ‹anchor: vere crucifixus› · call in col 805 Nonne vere mortuus, ut vere crucifixus? […]ortus ex morte probatur. Ideo autem infa[…]mortem elegit, et spectaculum ignominiae […]i, ut ab omnibus veritas agnosceretur, nul[…] vera morte dubitaret, nullusque resurrectio[…] dubium revocaret. Abstineo a citandis Pa[…]: allego tantum seu indico S. Ignat., epist. […]l., ubi fuse de hac materia. LE PR.
"Did He not truly die, as He was truly crucified?" [His …] rising is proved from death. And for this reason He chose a [shameful] death and [offered] a spectacle of ignominy, so that the truth might be recognized by all, that no one should doubt the true death, and no one call [the] resurrection into doubt. I refrain from citing the [Fathers]; I adduce, or point to, only St Ignatius, letter [to the Tral]lians, where this matter is treated at length. LE PRIEUR.
[(23)] ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible Interemptores excusas Dei. Marcion, quem […]nter urget Tertullianus, praedicabat Chri[…]n vere hominem fuisse, sed putative, nihil[…] homine assumpsisse. Si igitur certum esset […] nostrae substantiam non accepisse, neque verum fuisse hominem, certe vere mortuus non fuisset, sicque Judaeos carnifices impio illo et venenato dogmate excusaret. LE PR.
"You excuse the slayers of God." Marcion, whom Tertullian presses [hard], preached that Christ was not truly a man but only putatively, and took nothing from man. If, then, it were certain that [He] had not received our substance and was not a true man, He certainly would not have truly died; and so by that impious and poisonous doctrine he would excuse the Jews who were His executioners. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 407)
(24) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Quid destruis necessarium dedecus fidei? Hoc dici potest etiam iis qui, adversus Tertulliani et omnium veterum scriptorum traditionem, Christum statura vultuque formosissimum sibi imaginantur. Sic enim omnino legendum est, non ut vulgo, decus. Nam hoc adversus Marcionem probare instituit, omnia ista, Deum nasci, Deum crucifigi, Deum mori, Deum sepeliri, quae secundum sensum humanum pudenda, stulta, fatua judicantur, quaeque Marcio destruebat, tanquam indigna Deo : haec omnia, inquam, a Deo electa fuisse, ut sapientia saecularis confunderetur. Ait igitur Septimius haec dedecora quae putamus, non esse apud Deum dedecora, imo necessaria esse fidei Christianae. « Quid destruis, inquit, dedecus necessarium fidei? » Georgius Baeticus, lib. de Fide : « Vides quam pulchrum, quamve decorum nostrae salutis sacramentum. In eo quod filius est, minoratus ostenditur. Quomodo ergo ad offuscandam divinitatem ejus improperas, quod exsequitur ad decorem? » RIG.
"Why do you destroy the disgrace that is necessary to the faith?" This can be said also to those who, against the tradition of Tertullian and of all the ancient writers, imagine Christ as most beautiful in stature and face. For so it must certainly be read, not "decus" (honour), as commonly. For what he set out to prove against Marcion is this: that all those things, God being born, God crucified, God dying, God buried, which by human judgement are thought shameful, foolish and silly, and which Marcion was destroying as unworthy of God, all these, I say, were chosen by God so that worldly wisdom might be confounded. Septimius therefore says that these things we think disgraces are not disgraces with God, but rather are necessary to the Christian faith. "Why do you destroy," he says, "the disgrace that is necessary to the faith?" Gregory of Baetica, On the Faith: "You see how beautiful, how seemly is the mystery of our salvation. In that He is Son, He is shown as lessened. How then do you reproach, so as to darken His divinity, what serves His glory?" RIGAULT.
(printed under page 407)
Page
- running head: LIBER DE CARNE CHRISTI. (centred head; column number not visible in the cut scan)
- marginal letters: A ‹haec stulta sunt›; B ‹⟨Sun⟩t plane et alia›; C ‹⟨nonne⟩ vere mortuus›; D ‹Nam hoc adversus Marcionem› (commentary (24), foot of col 806 side)
- old-edition numerals: 760 after ‹patientiae,›
- other: the scan is cut at the binding: every line of col 805 loses its first letters (and the text layer with them); the lost letters are supplied as conjectures in ⟨ ⟩ from the sense, the line-end hyphens and the parallel editions. The first crucifixus of the last line but one shows a broken f (reads crucitixus at this resolution); set as crucifixus, UNSURE whether it is a misprint.
- other: the first line continues the word Quae- hyphenated at the foot of col 804; its lost tail, supplied as ⟨nam⟩, is set whole at the end of col 804 and the column opens with haec (QA Q4a, 2026-10-18; an earlier ⟨Quae⟩ here repeated col 804's word).
- other: misprint kept as printed in Commentarius (21): progaginem (for propaginem).
- other: misprint kept as printed in Commentarius (24): Georgius Baeticus (for Gregorius, Gregory of Elvira); the English gives Gregory.
nonne vere resuscitatus, ut vere scilicet mortuus? Falso ergo statuit inter nos scire Paulus tantum Jesum crucifixum? falso sepulturum ingessit? falso resuscitatum inculcavit? Falsa est igitur et fides nostra, et phantasma est totum quod speramus a Christo? Scelestissimo hominum, qui interemptores excusas Dei. Nihil enim ab eis passus est Christus, si nihil vere est passus. Parce unicae spei totius orbis. Quid destruis necessarium dedecus fidei? Quodcunque Deo indignum est, mihi expedit. Salvus sum, si non confundar de Domino meo. Qui mei, inquit, confusus fuerit, confundar et ego ejus. Alias non invenio materias confusionis, quae me per contemptum ruboris probent bene impudentem et feliciter stultum. Natus est Dei Filius; non pudet quia pudendum est; et mortuus est Dei Filius; prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est: et sepultus, resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile. Sed haec quomodo in illo vera erunt, si ipse non fuit verus, si non vere habuit in se quod figeretur, quod moreretur, quod sepeliretur et resuscitaretur, carnem scilicet sanguine suffusam, ossibus structam, nervis intextam, venis implexam, quae nasci et mori novit? Humana sine dubio, ut nata de homine; ideoque mortalis haec erit in Christo, quia Christus homo et filius hominis. Aut cur homo Christus et filius hominis, si nihil hominis et nihil ex homine? nisi si aut aliud est homo quam caro, aut aliunde caro hominis, quam ex homine; aut aliud Maria, quam homo, aut homo
was He not truly raised again, just as He truly died? Falsely, then, did Paul determine to know among us only Jesus crucified? Falsely did he urge that He was buried? Falsely did he impress upon us that He was raised again? False, therefore, is our faith too, and a phantasm is all that we hope for from Christ? Most wicked of men, who excuse the slayers of God! For Christ suffered nothing from them, if He truly suffered nothing. Spare the one hope of the whole world. Why do you destroy the necessary disgrace of the faith? Whatever is unworthy of God is profitable to me. I am saved, if I am not ashamed of my Lord. 'Whoever', He says, 'is ashamed of Me, of him will I also be ashamed.' I find no other grounds of shame which, through contempt of blushing, may prove me to be well shameless and happily foolish. The Son of God was born: I am not ashamed, because it is shameful; and the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is absurd; and, having been buried, He rose again: it is certain, because it is impossible. But how will these things be true in Him, if He Himself was not true, if He did not truly have in Himself that which could be fixed to the cross, which could die, which could be buried and raised again, namely flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with sinews, entwined with veins, which knew how to be born and to die? Human [flesh] without doubt, as born of a human being; and therefore this will be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and son of man. Or why is Christ man and son of man, if there is nothing of man and nothing from man in Him? Unless either man is something other than flesh, or man's flesh comes from somewhere other than from man; or Mary is something other than a human being, or a man
Editors' notes and page, col. 806
Footnotes
(25) ‹anchor: aut homo› · call in col 806
Aut homo deus Marcionis. Homo scilicet imaginarius et falsus. Sic enim mox ipse declarabit : « Ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram, sine (continues)
"Or Marcion's god a man." A man, that is, imaginary and false. For so he will himself shortly declare: "That he should bear flesh hard without bones, without (continues)
(printed under page 407)
Page
- running head: [cut off at left] ARNE CHRISTI. 806
- marginal letters: A nonne vere resuscitatus; B feliciter stultum; C aut aliud Maria; D Nam hoc adversus Marcionem (in the commentary notes, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 761 after totius
deus Marcionis. Aliter, non diceretur homo Christus, sine carne; nec hominis filius, sine aliquo parente homine: sicut nec Deus, sine Spiritu Dei; nec Dei Filius, sine Deo Patre. Ita utriusque substantiae census hominem et Deum exhibuit: hinc natum, inde non natum; hinc carneum, inde spiritalem; hinc infirmum, inde praefortem; hinc morientem, inde viventem. Quae proprietas conditionum, divinae et humanae, aequa utique naturae utriusque veritate, dispuncta est eadem fide, et spiritus et carnis. Virtutes Spiritum Dei, passiones carnem hominis probaverunt. Si virtutes non sine spiritu, proinde et passiones non sine carne; si caro cum passionibus ficta, et spiritus ergo cum virtutibus falsus. Quid dimidias mendacio Christum? Totus veritas fuit. Maluit, crede, nasci, quam ex aliqua parte mentiri, et quidem in semetipsum; ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram, sine musculis solidam, sine sanguine cruent⟨a⟩m, sine tunica vestitam, sine fame esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine lingua loquentem; ut phantasma auribus fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis. Fuit itaque phantasma etiam post resurrectionem, cum manus et pedes suos discipulis conspiciendos offerret. Aspicite, inquit, quod ego sum, quia spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me habentem videtis (Luc. XXIV), sine dubio manus et pedes et ossa, quae spiritus non habet, sed caro. Quomodo hanc vocem interpretaris, Marcion, qui a Deo optimo, et simplici, et bono tantum, infers Jesum? Ecce fallit et decipit, et circumvenit omnium oculos, omnium sensus, omnium accessus et contractus. Ergo jam Christum non de coelo deferre debueras, sed de aliquo circulatorio coetu; nec Deum praeter hominem, sed magum hominem; nec salutis pontificem, sed spectaculi artificem; nec mortuorum
is the god of Marcion. Otherwise Christ would not be called man without flesh, nor son of man without some human parent, just as He would not be called God without the Spirit of God, nor Son of God without God the Father. Thus the register of both substances has displayed Him as man and God: on the one side born, on the other not born; on the one side fleshly, on the other spiritual; on the one side weak, on the other exceedingly strong; on the one side dying, on the other living. This distinct character of the conditions, divine and human, has been established, with the truth of each nature certainly equal, by the same faith both of the spirit and of the flesh. The powers proved the Spirit of God, the sufferings proved the flesh of man. If the powers were not without the spirit, then likewise the sufferings were not without the flesh; if the flesh with its sufferings was feigned, then the spirit too with its powers was false. Why do you halve Christ with a lie? He was wholly truth. He preferred, believe me, to be born rather than to lie in any part, and that against Himself; so that He would have borne flesh hard without bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clothed without a tunic, hungry without hunger, eating without teeth, speaking without a tongue; so that His speech would have been a phantasm to the ears through an image of a voice. He was therefore a phantasm even after the resurrection, when He offered His hands and feet to the disciples to be looked at. Look, He says, that it is I, for a spirit does not have bones, as you see that I have (Luke 24:39), meaning without doubt hands and feet and bones, which a spirit does not have, but flesh does. How do you interpret this utterance, Marcion, you who bring in Jesus from a God who is supremely good, and simple, and only good? Behold, He deceives and beguiles, and gets round the eyes of all, the senses of all, the approaches and touchings of all. Then you ought not to have brought Christ down from heaven, but from some troupe of mountebanks; not God besides man, but a man who is a magician; not a high priest of salvation, but a contriver of a show; nor
Editors' notes and page, col. 807
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁹⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Deus, Marcion Pam. Denique, Marcion. Haud Fran. lib. Ursin. Deus Marcionis aut Rhen. Seml.
"Deus, Marcion": Pamelius; "Denique, Marcion. Haud": Franeker edition, Ursinus's book; "Deus Marcionis aut": Rhenanus, Semler.
¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Qua Jun.
"Qua" ("by which"): Junius.
² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Utriusque abest a Rhen. Pam.
"Utriusque" ("of both") is absent from Rhenanus and Pamelius.
³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Cujusque add. Pam.
Pamelius adds "cujusque" ("of each").
⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Fide spiritus et caro codd. Ursin. et Divion. Seml.
"Fide spiritus et caro" ("in faith, spirit and flesh"): the codices of Ursinus and of Dijon, Semler.
⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Perinde Rig. Ven.
"Perinde" ("just so"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Se add. Pam. Par. Fran.
Pamelius, the Paris edition and the Franeker edition add "se" ("himself").
⁷ ‹anchor: conspiciendos offerret.› · call in col 807 Offert Rhen. Seml.
"Offert" ("offers"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁸ ‹anchor: Aspicite, inquit› · call in col 807 Dicens Pam. Rhen. Seml.
"Dicens" ("saying"): Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler.
⁹ ‹anchor: Marcion, qui› · call in col 807 Quia Rhen. Ven.
"Quia" ("because"): Rhenanus, Venice edition.
¹⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quid jam Rhen. Paris.
"Quid jam" ("what now"): Rhenanus, Paris edition.
¹¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Dominus cod. Agob. Pithae.
"Dominus" ("the Lord"): the Agobardinus codex, Pithou.
¹² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Paruimus cod. Agob. Pithae. Rhen. Jun. pariamus alii.
"Paruimus" ("we have obeyed"): the Agobardinus codex, Pithou, Rhenanus, Junius; "pariamus" ("let us bring forth"): others.
¹³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Muliere lapsum Rhen. Seml.
"Muliere lapsum" ("fallen through a woman"): Rhenanus, Semler.
¹⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et abest. a Rig.
"Et" ("and") is absent from Rigault.
¹⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Spiritus Ven.
"Spiritus" ("spirit"): Venice edition.
[¹⁶ numeral not seen; possibly cut at the line end] ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et Pam. Rhen.
"Et" ("and"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
¹⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Praedicans Pam. Rhen. susceptum ab eo praedicat cod. Wouw.
"Praedicans" ("proclaiming"): Pamelius, Rhenanus; "susceptum ab eo praedicat" ("proclaims taken up by him"): Wouwer's codex.
¹⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ut angelus cod. Wouw. Pam. Rhen.
"Ut angelus" ("as an angel"): Wouwer's codex, Pamelius, Rhenanus.
¹⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quidam Lat. Illius Pam. Fran.
"Quidam" ("certain"): Latinius; "Illius" ("of that"): Pamelius, Franeker edition.
²⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Philumenes abest a cod. Wouw. Philomenes alii.
"Philumenes" is absent from Wouwer's codex; "Philomenes": others.
²¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quia Rhen. Seml.
"Quia" ("because"): Rhenanus, Semler.
²² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Qui Pam. Rhen.
"Qui" ("who"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
²³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Resistimus Rhen.
"Resistimus" ("we resist"): Rhenanus.
²⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Confitentis Pam.
"Confitentis" ("of one confessing"): Pamelius.
²⁵ ‹anchor: in carnem› · call in col 808 Carni Rig. Ven.
"Carni" ("to flesh"): Rigault, Venice edition.
²⁶ ‹anchor: argumentationibus suis mutuetur› · call in col 808 Mutentur Rig. Ven.
"Mutentur" ("be changed"): Rigault, Venice edition.
²⁷ ‹anchor: Deum Moysi› · call in col 808 Mose q. D. Mosi Seml.
"Mose qui Deum Mosi": Semler.
²⁸ ‹anchor: Sed› · call in col 808 Et Rhen. Seml.
"Et" ("and"): Rhenanus, Semler.
²⁹ ‹anchor: in testimonium› · call in col 808 Illius hoc quoque testimonium cod. Agob.
"Illius hoc quoque testimonium" ("this too a testimony of that"): the Agobardinus codex.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(continued) (25) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call on the previous page
musculis solidam, sine sanguine cruentam, sine tunica vestitam, sine fame esurientem, sine lingua loquentem, ut phantasma fuerit sermo ejus per imaginem vocis. » RIG.
solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clothed without a tunic, hungry without hunger, speaking without a tongue, so that his speech was a phantasm through the image of a voice." RIGAULT.
(printed under page 408)
(26) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Quid dimidius mendacio Christum? totus veritas est. Ignatius, ep. ad Trallianos : Ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ τῷ δοκεῖν ἔχω τὰς ἐλπίδας ἐπὶ τῷ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ ἀποθανόντι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι· ἀληθείας γὰρ ἀλλότριον τὸ ψεῦδος· Ego vero non opinione tantummodo spem in eo habeo, qui pro me mortuus est, sed revera : omne enim mendacium alienum a veritate est, id est, a Christo. LAC.
"Why do you halve Christ with a lie? He is wholly truth." Ignatius, letter to the Trallians: "But I have my hopes in him who died for me not in seeming but in reality; for falsehood is foreign to truth." "And I have hope in him who died for me not in opinion only but in reality: for every lie is foreign to the truth," that is, to Christ. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 408)
(27) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Sine tunica. Tunicae vocabulo cutem intelligit. RHEN.
"Without a tunic." By the word "tunic" he means the skin. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 408)
(28) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Sed vivorum avocatorem. Qui vivos avocat a vita ad mortem, a recta fide ad haeresim, a Deo ad Satanam. RIG. — Vivorum avocatorem. Frustratorem intellige et deceptorem; neque insulse ludit vocabulo, quoniam mortuorum animae avocari dicuntur. LAC.
"But a caller-away of the living." One who calls the living away from life to death, from right faith to heresy, from God to Satan. RIGAULT. — "Caller-away of the living." Understand a cheat and deceiver; and he plays on the word not without wit, since the souls of the dead are said to be "called up". LA CERDA.
(printed under page 408)
(29) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Sed quidam discentes Pontici illius. Discipulos intelligit Marcionis, inter quos antesignanus erat Apelles. Ponticus Marcion dicitur, ut et initio lib. I adv. eumdem, mus Ponticus; fuit enim patria Sinopensis in Ponto. LE PR.
"But certain disciples of that man of Pontus." He means the disciples of Marcion, among whom Apelles was the standard-bearer. Marcion is called "of Pontus", as also at the beginning of Book I against him, "the Pontic mouse"; for by birth he was from Sinope in Pontus. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 408)
(30) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
In virginem Philumenem spiritu eversus est. Seductus nempe a daemone, quo infame prostibulum intercipiebatur. LE PR.
"He was overthrown in spirit towards the virgin Philumene." Seduced, that is, by the demon by which that infamous prostitute was possessed. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 408)
Page
- running head: 807 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II.
- marginal letters: A deus Marcionis. Aliter, non diceretur homo Chri-; B Christum? Totus veritas fuit. Maluit, crede,; C Ecce fallit et decipit, et circumvenit omnium ocu-; D musculis solidam, sine sanguine cruentam (beside the commentary, not the text)
- old-edition numerals: 762 after dispuncta est
- other: the word mortuorum was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 808
suscitatorem, sed vivorum avocatorem Nisi quod et si magus fuit, natus est.
raiser of the dead, but a caller-away of the living. Except that, even if He was a magician, He was born.
CAPUT VI.
Chapter VI.
Sed quidam discentes Pontici illius, supra magistrum sapere compulsi, concedunt Christo carnis veritatem, sine praejudicio tamen renuendae nativitatis, Habuerit, inquiunt, carnem, dum omnino non natam. Pervenimus igitur de calcaria, quod dicit solet, in carbonariam, a Marcione ad Apellem, qui posteaquam a disciplina Marcionis in mulierem carne lapsus, et dehinc in virginem Philumenem spiritu eversus est, solidum Christi corpus, sed sine nativitate, suscepit ab ea praedicare. Et angelo quidem illi Philumenes eadem voce Apostolus respondebit. qua ipsum illum jam tunc praecinebat, dicens (Galat. I, 8): Etiamsi angelus de coelis aliter evangelizaverit vobis, quam nos evangelizavimus, anathema sit. His vero quae insuper argumentantur, nos resistemus. Confitentur vere corpus habuisse Christum. Unde materia, si non ex ea qualitate, in qua videbatur? unde corpus, si non caro corpus? unde caro, si non nata? quia nasci haberet, ea futura quae nascitur. De sideribus, inquiunt, et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem: et utique proponunt non esse mirandum corpus sine nativitate, cum et apud nos angelis licuerit nulla uteri opera in carnem processisse. Agnoscimus quidem ita relatum; sed tamen quale est, ut alterius regulae fides ab ea fide quam impugnat instrumentum argumentationibus suis mutuetur. Quid illi cum Moyse, qui Deum Moysi rejicit? Si alius Deus est, aliter sint res ejus. Sed utantur haeretici omnes Scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam mundo: erit illis hoc quoque in testimonium judicii, quod de exemplis ipsius blasphemias suas instruunt.
But certain disciples of that man of Pontus, compelled to be wiser than their master, grant to Christ the reality of flesh, yet without prejudice to their denial of His birth. He may have had flesh, they say, provided it was not born at all. We have come, then, from the lime-kiln, as the saying goes, into the charcoal-furnace, from Marcion to Apelles, who, after he had fallen in the flesh from the discipline of Marcion into a woman, and thereafter had been overthrown in the spirit into the virgin Philumene, took up from her the preaching of a solid body of Christ, but without birth. And to that angel of Philumene the Apostle will answer with the same voice with which he was even then foretelling that very one, saying (Gal. 1:8): Even if an angel from the heavens should preach the gospel to you otherwise than we have preached it, let him be anathema. But to the things which they argue besides, we shall make resistance. They confess that Christ truly had a body. Whence the matter, if not out of that quality in which He was seen? Whence a body, if the body was not flesh? Whence flesh, if not born? For it would have had to be born, being going to be that which is born. From the stars, they say, and from the substances of the upper world He borrowed His flesh; and they certainly put forward that a body without birth is not to be wondered at, since among us too it was permitted to angels to come forth into flesh with no working of the womb. We acknowledge indeed that this is so related; but yet what sort of thing is it, that the faith of another rule should borrow for its arguments an instrument from that faith which it attacks? What has he to do with Moses, who rejects the God of Moses? If He is another God, let His things be otherwise. But let all the heretics use the Scriptures of Him whose world also they use: this too will be to them for a testimony of judgement, that from His own examples they build up their blasphemies.
Editors' notes and page, col. 808
Page
- running head: [...]RUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 808
- marginal letters: A ‹tuorum suscitatorem, sed vivorum›; B ‹bit. qua ipsum illum jam tunc›; C ‹instrumentum argumentationibus suis›; D ‹(28) Sed vivorum avocatorem (commentary)›
- old-edition numerals: 763 after ‹carnis›
Facile est veritati etiam nihil tale adversus eos praescribenti obtinere. Igitur, qui carnem Christi ad exemplum proponunt angelorum, non natum dicentes, licet carnem, comparent velim et causas tam Christi quam angelorum, ob quas in carnem processerint. Nullus umquam angelus ideo descendit, ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte resuscitaretur, Si numquam ejusmodi fuit causa angelorum corporandorum, habes causam cur non nascendo acceperint carnem. Non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci. At vero Christus mori missus, nasci quoque necessario habuit, ut mori posset. Non enim mori solet, nisi quod nascitur. Mutuum debitum est inter se nativitati cum mortalitate. Forma moriendi causa nascendi est. Si propter id quod moritur mortuus est Christus, id autem moritur quod et nascitur, consequens erat, imo praecedens, ut aeque nasceretur propter id quod nascitur; quia propter idipsum mori habebat, quod, quia nascitur, moritur. Non competebat non nasci, pro quo mori competebat. « Atquin tunc quoque inter illos angelos ipse Dominus apparuit Abrahae sine nativitate cum carne. » Scilicet, pro eadem causae diversitate. Sed vos hoc non recipitis, non eum Christum recipientes, qui jam tunc et adloqui, et liberare, et judicare humanum genus ediscebat in carnis habitu, non natae adhuc, quia nondum moriturae, nisi prius et nativitas ejus et mortalitas adnuntiarentur. Igitur probent angelos illos de sideribus accepisse substantiam carnis.
It is easy for the truth to prevail even while prescribing nothing of the kind against them. Therefore those who put forward the flesh of Christ after the example of the angels, saying that it was not born, though it was flesh, I should like them to compare also the reasons, both Christ's and the angels', for which they came forth into flesh. No angel ever descended for this purpose, that he might be crucified, that he might experience death, that he might be raised again from death. If there was never a reason of this kind for angels being embodied, you have the reason why they did not receive flesh by being born. They had not come to die, and therefore not to be born either. But Christ, sent to die, necessarily had also to be born, so that He could die. For nothing is wont to die except what is born. Birth and mortality owe a mutual debt to each other. The form of dying is the cause of being born. If Christ died on account of that which dies, and that dies which is also born, it was consequent, nay rather antecedent, that He should likewise be born on account of that which is born; since He had to die for that very thing which, because it is born, dies. It was not fitting not to be born for that on behalf of which it was fitting to die. 'And yet then too, among those angels, the Lord Himself appeared to Abraham with flesh, without birth.' Of course, on account of the same difference of reason. But you do not accept this, since you do not accept that Christ who even then was learning to address, and to set free, and to judge the human race in the guise of flesh, flesh not yet born, because not yet about to die, unless first both His birth and His mortality had been announced. Therefore let them prove that those angels received from the stars the substance of flesh.
Editors' notes and page, col. 809
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
³⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Scilicet carneam Pam. Rhen.
"Scilicet carneam" ("that is, fleshly"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
³¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et add. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus add "et" ("and").
³² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› In carne Rig. Ven.
"In carne" ("in flesh"): Rigault, Venice edition.
³³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Venerunt Pam. Fran. Par. processerunt Rh. Seml.
"Venerunt" ("they came"): Pamelius, Franeker edition, Paris edition; "processerunt" ("they came forth"): Rhenanus, Semler.
³⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Suscitaretur Rig. Ven.
"Suscitaretur" ("would be raised"): Rigault, Venice edition.
³⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Autem add. Rhen. Seml. item Pam. Fran. Par.
Rhenanus and Semler add "autem" ("but"); so also Pamelius, the Franeker edition and the Paris edition.
³⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Id quod add. Rhen. Pam.
Rhenanus and Pamelius add "id quod" ("that which").
³⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Atqui Seml.
"Atqui" ("and yet"): Semler.
³⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Angelos illos Rig.
"Angelos illos" ("those angels"): Rigault.
³⁹ ‹anchor: eum Christum recipientes, qui› · call in col 809 Quia Rhen. Seml.
"Quia" ("because"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁴⁰ ‹anchor: probent angelos illos› · call in col 809 Carnem add. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition add "carnem" ("flesh").
⁴¹ ‹anchor: de sideribus accepisse› · call in col 809 Concupisse Rig. Ven.
"Concupisse" ("to have coveted"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁴² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Substantiam carnis abest a Rig. Ven.
"Substantiam carnis" ("the substance of flesh") is absent from Rigault and the Venice edition.
⁴³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Utputa Pam. Rhen.
"Utputa" ("as for instance"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁴⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Natura Rh. Seml. a natura cod. Agob. naturae Pam. Paris.
"Natura": Rhenanus, Semler; "a natura": the Agobardinus codex; "naturae": Pamelius, Paris edition.
⁴⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ut omitt. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition omit "ut".
⁴⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Posse Rig. Ven.
"Posse" ("to be able"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁴⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quia Rhen. Seml. Oberth.
"Quia" ("because"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
⁴⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et Rhen. Seml. Oberth.
"Et" ("and"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
⁴⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Substantiam Rhen. Seml. Oberth.
"Substantiam" ("substance"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
⁵⁰ ‹anchor: et› · call in col 810 Et abest a Rhen. Pam.
"Et" ("and") is absent from Rhenanus and Pamelius.
⁵¹ ‹anchor: necesse fuisset› · call in col 810 Fuit Rig. Ven.
"Fuit" ("was"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁵² ‹anchor: Fuerit› · call in col 810 Fuerit omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "fuerit".
⁵³ ‹anchor: nunc› · call in col 810 Si add. Rhen.
Rhenanus adds "si" ("if").
⁵⁴ ‹anchor: siderea eodem› · call in col 810 Eadem Rhen.
"Eadem" ("the same"): Rhenanus.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 409)
(31) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Christus mori missus, nasci quoque necessario habuit ut mori posset. Nondum bene Christianus erat Marius Victorinus, cum in I Rhetoricorum Ciceronis ita scriberet : « Tantum inter homines potest necessarium, quantum secundum opinionem humanam valet : alioqui secundum Christianorum opinionem, non est necessarium argumentum : Si peperit, cum viro concubuit; neque hoc rursus : Si natus est, morietur. Nam apud eos manifestum est sine viro natum, et non mortuum. » Imo Dominum nostrum, quem vere natum scimus, hunc vere mortuum fatemur, hunc vere quoque resurrexisse dicimus. RIG.
"Christ, sent to die, necessarily had also to be born so that he could die." Marius Victorinus was not yet a good Christian when he wrote thus on Book I of Cicero's Rhetorics: "Among men a thing is necessary only so far as it holds by human opinion: otherwise, by the opinion of the Christians, it is not a necessary argument that 'if she has given birth, she has lain with a man'; nor this, again: 'if he was born, he will die'. For with them it is plain that one was born without a man, and did not die." On the contrary, our Lord, whom we know to have been truly born, we confess to have truly died, and we say that he truly rose again too. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 409)
(32) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Forma moriendi causa nascendi est. Qui dixit mutuum fuisse debitum inter vitam et mortem, modo ait formam esse causam nascendi. Forma igitur mutui est veluti quaedam formalis in mutuo qualitas, in eo residens. Sensus ergo Tertulliani est : De pacto et conditione morimur, ut nonnisi quia nati adstringamur hac lege mortis, quasi conditio mortis esset velut finalis nascendi causa; quia non nascimur, nisi sub conditione moriendi, et contractus vitae factus est sub hac conditione. Sic Seneca de Remed. fortuit. LAC.
"The form of dying is the cause of being born." He who said that there was a mutual debt between life and death now says that the form is the cause of being born. The form of the loan, then, is as it were a formal quality in the loan, residing in it. Tertullian's sense, therefore, is: we die by compact and condition, so that only because we were born are we bound by this law of death, as though the condition of death were, so to speak, the final cause of being born; for we are not born except under the condition of dying, and the contract of life was made under this condition. So Seneca, On Remedies for Chance Events. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 409)
(33) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
At quin tunc quoque inter angelos illos ipse Dominus apparuit Abrahae. Haec interpretatio, quae ortum inde habere videtur, quod legatur Gen. III : « Tres vidit, unum adoravit : » a B. Augustino non probatur, quem ideo videat lector lib. II de Trin. cap. 17. Porro legimus iterum ex ms. 3 Vatic. Atquin pro atqui. PAM.
"And yet then too the Lord himself appeared to Abraham among those angels." This interpretation, which seems to have arisen from the reading in Genesis 3 [sic]: "He saw three, he worshipped one," is not approved by blessed Augustine; so let the reader see him, On the Trinity, Book II, chapter 17. Further, we again read "atquin" for "atqui" from three Vatican manuscripts. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 409)
(34) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Constat angelos carnem non propriam gestasse. Scilicet non esse carneos omnino, et proprie ut nos, nec pondere corporis graves. Illud propriam appellat supra angelos, nempe propriam sibi, non supra carnem. Nam et statim indicat, et alibi docet angelos illos propriam carnem prae se tulisse, sed assumptam, non sibi propriam et naturalem, ut in hoc Augustinus et Bernardus citandi aliquando ambigunt. LAC.
"It is agreed that the angels bore flesh not their own." That is, that they are not fleshly at all, and properly as we are, nor heavy with the weight of a body. He applies the word "own" to the angels, namely their own to themselves, not to the flesh. For he indicates at once, and teaches elsewhere, that those angels displayed flesh as their own, but assumed, not proper and natural to themselves, as Augustine and Bernard, who should be cited, sometimes hesitate on this point. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 409)
(35) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Quid postea factum sit corporibus illorum. Latinissime dictum. Id est, quo pervenerint. Subauditur de praepositio. Sic Cicero in Verrem : « Quid te futurum est? quo confugies? » Plautus : « Quid argento factum est quod dedi. « Rursum Cicero pro Cluentio : « Quid est, » etc. RHEN.
"What afterwards became of their bodies." A most Latin expression; that is, where they ended up. The preposition "de" is understood. So Cicero against Verres: "What will become of you? Where will you flee?" Plautus: "What has become of the silver I gave?" Again Cicero, for Cluentius: "What is," etc. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 409)
Page
- running head: 809 LIBER DE CARNE CHRISTI. (cut off at the image edge after "CHR"; rest presumed)
- marginal letters: A struunt. Facile est veritati; B inter se nativitati cum mortalitate; C illos de sideribus accepisse; D potest necessarium, quantum secundum opinionem (in the commentary at the page foot)
- old-edition numerals: 764 after praescribenti
- other: the word carnis. was split at the column break and stands whole here (joined on receipt); check that the English reads whole across the break into col 810
Si non probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. Constat angelos carnem non propriam gestasse, utpote naturas substantiae spiritalis, et, si corporis alicujus, sui tamen generis; in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus, ut videri et congredi cum hominibus possent. Igitur, cum relatum non sit unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare, hoc esse proprium angelicae potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. « Quanto magis, inquis, ex aliqua certum est! » Sed nihil de eo constat, quia Scriptura non exhibet. Caeterum, qui valent facere semetipsos quod natura non sunt, cur non valeant etiam ex nulla substantia facere? Si fiunt quod non sunt, cur non ex eo fiant quod non est? Quod autem non est, cum sit, ex nihilo est. Propterea nec requiritur, nec ostenditur, quid postea factum sit corporibus illorum. Quod de nihilo fuit, nihil factum est. Possunt nihil ipsum convertere in carnem, qui semetipsos potuerunt convertere in carnem. Plus est naturam demutare, quam facere materiam. Sed et si de materia necesse fuisset angelos sumpsisse carnem, credibilius utique est de terrena materia, quam de ullo genere coelestium substantiarum; cum adeo terrenae qualitatis exstiterit, ut terrenis pabulis pasta sit. Fuerit nunc quoque siderea eodem modo terrenis pabulis pasta, quando terrena non esset; quo terrena coelestibus pasta est, quando coelestis non esset (legimus enim manna
If they do not prove it, because it is not written either, then neither will the flesh of Christ be from that source, for which they adapt the example of the angels. It is established that the angels bore flesh not their own, being as they are natures of a spiritual substance, and, if of some body, yet of a kind of their own; but transfigurable for a time into human flesh, so that they might be seen and have dealings with men. Therefore, since it is not related whence they took flesh, it remains for our understanding not to doubt that this is a property of angelic power, to take a body to itself out of no matter. 'How much more,' you say, 'is it certain that it was out of some [matter]!' But nothing is established about that, because Scripture does not set it forth. Moreover, those who are able to make themselves what they are not by nature, why should they not be able also to make [it] out of no substance? If they become what they are not, why should they not become [so] out of that which is not? But that which is not, when it comes to be, is out of nothing. For this reason it is neither inquired into nor shown what afterwards became of their bodies. What was from nothing became nothing. Those who were able to convert themselves into flesh are able to convert nothing itself into flesh. It is a greater thing to change a nature than to make matter. But even if it had been necessary for the angels to have taken flesh from matter, it is certainly more credible that it was from earthly matter than from any kind of heavenly substances, since it proved to be of so earthly a quality that it was fed on earthly foods. Grant that even now a starry [flesh] was fed in the same way on earthly foods, though it was not earthly, in the way that earthly [flesh] was fed on heavenly things, though it was not heavenly (for we read that manna
Editors' notes and page, col. 810
Page
- running head: DE CARNB CHRISTI.
- marginal letters: A ‹nis. Si non probant›; B ‹qui valent facere semetipsos›; C ‹est, quando coelestis non esset›; D ‹« Tres vidit, unum adoravit›
- old-edition numerals: 765 after ‹propriam›
- other: column begins with the tail "nis" of carnis, split at the break from column 809, where the word stands whole (joined on receipt) and its English ("the substance of flesh") is carried; the tail is not restored here in source or English (Q1a removed a duplicated "[of fle]sh." from this column's English). Col 809's English lacks the closing full stop after "flesh" (to be fixed there). Column ends mid-sentence at "manna". Running head reads CARNB (for CARNE), possibly damaged type. Margin letter D stands beside the Commentarius notes, not the text. Left-hand fragments belong to column 809, not set. The page foot (Variae lectiones 30–54, Commentarius (31)–(35)) is set in n809; the calls in this column are ⁴² ‹nis›, ⁴³ ‹utpote›, ⁴⁴ ‹naturas›, ⁴⁵ ‹ut videri›, ⁴⁶ ‹possent›, ⁴⁷ ‹qui valent›, ⁴⁸ ‹etiam›, ⁴⁹ ‹substantia›, ⁵⁰–⁵⁴ as anchored in n809, (34) ‹gestasse›, (35) ‹corporibus illorum›; n809 still marks 42–49, (34) and (35) "not visible on the crop". Page signature 26 not set.
esui populo fuisse : Panem, inquit (Psal. LXXVII), angelorum edit homo); non tamen infringitur semel separata conditio Dominicae carnis, ex causa alterius dispositionis. Homo vere futurus usque ad mortem eam carnem oportebat ut indueret, cujus est mors : eam porro carnem, cujus est mors, nativitas antecedit.
was for the people to eat: Man, it says (Ps. 77), ate the bread of angels); yet the condition of the Lord's flesh, once set apart, is not weakened on account of another dispensation. Being truly to be man even unto death, He had to put on that flesh to which death belongs: and that flesh to which death belongs, birth precedes.
CAPUT VII.
CHAPTER VII.
Sed quotiens de nativitate contenditur, omnes qui respuunt eam ut praejudicantem de carnis in Christo veritate, ipsum Deum volunt negare esse natum, quod dixerit (Matth. XII, 48) : Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres? Audiat igitur et Apelles, quid jam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello, quo ad Evangelium ipsius provocavimus, considerandam scilicet materiam pronuntiationis istius. Primo quidem, nunquam quisquam adnuntiasset illi matrem et fratres ejus foris stare, qui non certus esset habere illum matrem et fratres, et ipsos esse, quos tunc nuntiabat, vel retro cognitos, vel tunc ibidem compertos, licet propterea abstulerint haereses ista de Evangelio, quod et creditum patrem ejus Joseph fabrum, et matrem Mariam, et fratres et sorores ejus optime notos sibi esse dicebant; qui mirabantur doctrinam ejus. « Sed tentandi gratia nuntiaverant et matrem et fratres, quos non habebat. » Hoc quidem Scriptura non dicit, alias non tacens, cum quid tentationis gratia factum est circa eum; Ecce, inquit (Matth. XXII), surrexit legis doctor tentans eum. Et alibi (Matth. XIX) : Et accesserunt ad eum Pharisaei, tentantes. Quod nemo prohibebat hic quoque significari tentandi gratia factum. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. Dehinc, materia tentationis debet subesse. Quid tentandum putaverunt in illo? Utique, natusne
But whenever there is dispute about the nativity, all who reject it as prejudging the question of the reality of the flesh in Christ would have it that God Himself denies that He was born, because He said (Matt. 12:48): Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? Let Apelles too, then, hear what answer has already been given by us to Marcion in that little book in which we appealed to his own Gospel, namely, that the occasion of that utterance must be considered. First, no one would ever have announced to Him that His mother and brothers were standing outside, unless he were certain that He had a mother and brothers, and that they were the ones whom he was then announcing, whether known before or found out then and there; although the heresies have for that reason removed these things from the Gospel, that those who marvelled at His teaching said that both His supposed father Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brothers and sisters were very well known to them. “But they had announced a mother and brothers whom He did not have, for the sake of testing Him.” This indeed Scripture does not say, though elsewhere it is not silent when something was done about Him for the sake of testing: Behold, it says (Matt. 22), a doctor of the law rose up, testing Him. And elsewhere (Matt. 19): And the Pharisees came to Him, testing Him. Nothing prevented it from being indicated here too that it was done for the sake of testing. I do not accept what you bring in of your own outside Scripture. Next, there must be some ground for testing. What did they think was to be tested in Him? Surely, whether He was born
Editors' notes and page, col. 811
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁵⁵ ‹anchor: ut indueret› · call in col 811 Ut omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "ut".
⁵⁶ ‹anchor: ad Evangelium› · call in col 811 Ad omitt. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus omit "ad".
⁵⁷ ‹anchor: foris stare› · call in col 811 Stantes cod. Agob.
"Stantes" ("standing"): the Agobardinus codex.
⁵⁸ ‹anchor: certus esset› · call in col 811 Et add. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition add "et" ("and").
⁵⁹ ‹anchor: compertos› · call in col 811 Repertos alii.
"Repertos" ("found"): others.
⁶⁰ ‹anchor: ista› · call in col 811 Istae Rhen. Seml.
"Istae" ("these"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁶¹ ‹anchor: nuntiaverant› · call in col 811 Nuntiaverunt Fran.
"Nuntiaverunt" ("they announced"): Franeker edition.
⁶² ‹anchor: circa› · call in col 811 Erga cod. Agob.
"Erga" ("towards"): the Agobardinus codex.
⁶² [so printed; the next number, 63, is meant] ‹anchor: Eo adjicimus› · call in col 812 Adjecimus Pam. Fran. Par.
"Adjecimus" ("we have added"): Pamelius, Franeker edition, Paris edition.
⁶⁴ ‹anchor: mendacio petitus› · call in col 812 Potius Rhen. Seml.
"Potius" ("rather"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁶⁵ ‹anchor: praesentia› · call in col 812 Adnuntiatae add. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition add "adnuntiatae" ("announced").
⁶⁶ ‹anchor: in praesenti› · call in col 812 Praesentia Rig. Ven.
"Praesentia" ("presence"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁶⁷ ‹anchor: etsi› · call in col 812 Sic cod. Agob.
"Sic" ("thus"): the Agobardinus codex.
⁶⁸ ‹anchor: vacuisset› · call in col 812 Valuisset Par.
"Valuisset" ("had availed"): Paris edition.
⁶⁹ ‹anchor: vel valetudinis› · call in col 812 Valetudine Rig. Ven.
"Valetudine" ("by ill health"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁷⁰ ‹anchor: peregrinationis nota› · call in col 812 Notae Rig. Ven.
"Notae" ("of the mark"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁷¹ ‹anchor: simplicitas nuntiatoris› · call in col 812 Nuntiationis Rig. Ven.
"Nuntiationis" ("of the announcement"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁷² ‹anchor: non crediderant› · call in col 812 Crediderunt Pam. Fran. Par.
"Crediderunt" ("believed"): Pamelius, Franeker edition, Paris edition.
⁷³ ‹anchor: sicut et in› · call in col 812 Et in omitt. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition omit "et in".
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 410)
(36) ‹anchor: a nobis› · call in col 811
Quid jam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni, Intelligit haud dubie libros IV adv. Marc.; ibi enim etiam iisdem pene, sed paulo paucioribus hanc scripturam explicat verbis, paulo post adlegandis. Proinde etiam hinc constat verum esse eodem pene tempore scriptos hunc et sequentem librum ac libb. IV primos adv. Marcionem : his vero absolutis, tum demum esse conscriptum quintum lib. adversus eumdem. PAM.
"What answer has already been given by us to Marcion." He means, beyond doubt, the four books against Marcion; for there he explains this scripture in almost the same words, but a few fewer, which are to be quoted shortly. Hence too it is clear that this book and the following one were written at almost the same time as the first four books against Marcion, and that only when these were finished was the fifth book against him composed. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 410)
(37) ‹anchor: provocavimus› · call in col 811
Ad Evangelium ipsius provocavimus. Utitur aliquando Tertullianus evangelio Marcionis adv. eumdem : retorquet nimirum, ut quavis sponsione ipsum premat. B. Lucae Evangelium, rejectis aliis tribus, in multis recusabat, et quintum suae fatuitati congruens et couforme [so printed, for conforme] commentus est. De hoc agitur. LE PR.
"We have appealed to his own Gospel." Tertullian sometimes uses Marcion's gospel against him: he turns it back on him, that is, so as to press him with any wager whatever. Having rejected the other three, he refused the Gospel of blessed Luke in many places, and devised a fifth, fitted and conformed to his own folly. This is what is meant. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 410)
(38) ‹anchor: extra Scripturam› · call in col 811
Non recipio quod extra Scripturam. Inter articulos quadraginta ab haereticis superiori saeculo exaratos, unus est, quo se nihil credere aut docere profitentur, nisi in sacris codicibus reperiatur, ut scilicet traditiones Ecclesiae amandarent. LE PR. — Ne forte quis istud detorqueat contra traditiones ecclesiasticas, meminerit Auctorem docuisse, I. de Cor. milit. c. 3, etiam traditionem non scriptam debere recipi. PAM.
"I do not accept what is outside Scripture." Among the forty articles drawn up by the heretics in the last century there is one by which they profess to believe or teach nothing unless it is found in the sacred books, so as, of course, to banish the traditions of the Church. LE PRIEUR. — Lest anyone should perhaps twist this against the traditions of the Church, let him remember that the Author taught, in On the Soldier's Crown, chapter 3, that even unwritten tradition must be received. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 410)
Page
- running head: 811 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (remainder of the running head stands over column 812)
- marginal letters: A ‹esui populo fuisse›; B ‹mus (37), considerandam›; C ‹runt ad eum Pharisaei›; D ‹(36) Quid jam responsum›
- old-edition numerals: 766 after ‹eam›
esset, an non; si enim hoc negavit responsio ejus, hoc captavit nuntiatio tentatoris. Sed nulla tentatio tendens ad agnitionem ejus, de quo dubitando tentat, ita subito procedit, ut non ante praecedat quaestio quae, dubitationem inferens, cogat tentationem. Porro, si nusquam de nativitate Christi volutatum est, quid tu argumentaris, voluisse illos per tentationem sciscitari quod nunquam produxerunt in quaestionem? Eo adjicimus : etiamsi tentandus esset de nativitate, non utique hoc modo tentaretur, earum personarum adnuntiatione, quae poterant, etiam nato Christo, non fuisse. Omnes nascimur, et tamen non omnes aut fratres habemus aut matrem. Adhuc potest et patrem magis habere quam matrem, et avunculos magis quam fratres. Adeo non competit tentatio nativitatis, quam licebat et sine matris, et sine fratrum nominatione constare. Facilius plane est, ut, certi illum et matrem et fratres habere, divinitatem potius tentaverint ejus, quam nativitatem : an intus agens, sciret quid foris esset, mendacio petitus praesentia eorum qui in praesenti non erant : nisi quod, etsi vacuisset tentationis ingenium, poterat evenire, ut quos illi nuntiabant foris stare, ille eos sciret absentes esse vel valetudinis vel negotii, vel peregrinationis nota jam necessitate. Nemo tentat eo modo, quo posse se sciat ruborem tentationis referre. Nulla igitur materia tentationis competente, liberatur simplicitas nuntiatoris, quod vere mater et fratres ejus supervenissent. Sed, quae ratio responsi, matrem et fratres ad praesens negantis, discat etiam Apelles. Fratres Domini non crediderant in illum, sicut et in Evangelio ante Marcionem edito continetur. Mater aeque non demonstratur adhaesisse illi, cum Martha et Maria alia in commercio ejus frequententur. Hoc
or not; for if His answer denied this, this is what the tester's announcement was trying to catch. But no testing that aims at the knowledge of that about which it tests by doubting comes forward so suddenly that a question does not go before, which, by introducing doubt, forces the test. Further, if nowhere has the nativity of Christ been turned over in discussion, why do you argue that they wished to find out through testing what they never brought into question? To this we add: even if He were to be tested about His nativity, He would surely not be tested in this way, by the announcement of persons who, even if Christ was born, might not have existed. We are all born, and yet not all of us have either brothers or a mother. Again, one may have a father rather than a mother, and uncles rather than brothers. So little does a test of His nativity fit here, which could stand even without the naming of a mother and without the naming of brothers. It is plainly easier that, being sure that He had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity: whether, being within, He would know what was outside, being assailed with a lie about the presence of those who were not present: except that, even if the cunning of a test had been wanting, it could happen that He knew those whom they were announcing as standing outside to be absent, through a necessity already known, whether of health, or of business, or of travel. No one tests in a way by which he knows he may reap the shame of the test. Since, then, no ground for testing fits the case, the plain honesty of the announcer is cleared, in that His mother and brothers had truly arrived. But what was the reason for the answer that denied His mother and brothers for the present, let Apelles too learn. The Lord's brothers had not believed in Him, as is also contained in the Gospel published before Marcion. His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to Him, while Martha and the other Mary are frequently in His company. In this
Editors' notes and page, col. 812
Footnotes
(39) ‹anchor: absentes esse› · call in col 812
Ille eos sciret absentes esse. De matre et consanguineis Christi est quaestio, quos aut sprevisse, aut neglexisse dicebant illi vitilitigatores. Probat vero hic ex B. Luca Tertullianus contumeliosum in parentes numquam fuisse, sed semper morigerum et subditum. LE PR.
"He would know that they were absent." The question concerns the mother and kinsfolk of Christ, whom those cavillers said He had either despised or neglected. But here Tertullian proves from blessed Luke that He was never insulting towards His parents, but always obliging and subject to them. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 410)
(40) ‹anchor: adhaesisse illi› · call in col 812
Mater aeque non demonstratur adhaesisse illi. Illud potest intelligi de adhaesione perpetua in Christi concionibus, quas frequentabant Martha et Maria. Deinde id quod sequitur, incredulitas eorum, ad fratres Domini, non ad Mariam, referri debet. PAM. — Vel dicendum est hic, ut quandoque alias, dormitasse bonum Tertullianum. Annon enimvero Christo filio adhaerebat, quae usque ad crucem compatiens prosequebatur, et postquam ascenderat (continues)
"Nor is His mother shown to have clung to Him." This can be understood of constant attendance at Christ's preachings, which Martha and Mary frequented. Then what follows, "their unbelief", must be referred to the Lord's brothers, not to Mary. PAMELIUS. — Or one must say that here, as sometimes elsewhere, good Tertullian nodded. For did she not cling to Christ her Son, she who followed Him, suffering with Him, even to the cross, and after He had ascended (continues)
(printed under page 410)
Page
- running head: TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 812
- marginal letters: A ‹tusne esset, an non›; B ‹non competit tentatio›; C ‹discat etiam Apelles›; D ‹periatur, ut scilicet›
- old-edition numerals: 767 after ‹quaestio›
denique in loco apparet incredulitas eorum: cum is doceret viam vitae, cum Dei regnum praedicaret, cum languoribus et vitiis medendis operaretur, extraneis defixis in illum, tam proximi aberant. Denique superveniunt, et foris subsistunt, nec introeunt, non computantes scilicet quid intus ageretur: nec sustinent saltem, quasi necessarius aliquid afferrent eo quod ille tum maxime agebat; sed amplius interpellant, et a tanto opere revocatum volunt. Oro te, Apelles, vel tu, Marcion, si forte tabula ludens, vel de histrionibus aut aurigis contendens, tali nuntio avocareris, nonne dixisses: Quae mihi mater, aut qui fratres? Deum praedicans et probans Christus, legem et prophetas adimplens, tanti retro aevi caliginem dispargens, indigne usus est hoc dicto ad percutiendam incredulitatem foris stantium, vel ad excutiendam importunitatem ab opere revocantium? Caeterum, ad negandam nativitatem, alius necessarius fuisset et locus, et tempus, et ordo sermonis, non ejus qui posset pronuntiari etiam ab eo, cui et mater esset et fratres, cum indignatio parentes non neget, sed objurget. Denique, potiores fecit alios, et meritum praelationis ostendens, audientiam scilicet verbi, demonstrat qua conditione negaverit matrem et fratres. Qua enim alios sibi adoptavit, qui ei adhaerebant, ea abnegavit illos, qui ab eo absistebant. Solet etiam id implere Christns, quod alios docet. Quale ergo erat, si docens non tanti facere matrem aut fratres, quanti
very place, finally, their unbelief shows itself: while He was teaching the way of life, while He was preaching the kingdom of God, while He was at work healing sicknesses and infirmities, with strangers intent upon Him, those so near to Him were absent. At length they arrive, and stand outside, and do not go in, not reckoning, evidently, what was being done within; nor do they even wait, as though they were bringing something more necessary than what He was then chiefly doing; but they go further and interrupt, and want Him called away from so great a work. I ask you, Apelles, or you, Marcion, if perhaps while playing at the gaming board, or disputing about actors or charioteers, you were called away by such a message, would you not have said: Who is my mother, or who are my brothers? Did Christ, preaching and proving God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, dispersing the darkness of so long an age gone by, use this saying unworthily to strike at the unbelief of those standing outside, or to shake off the importunity of those calling Him away from His work? For the rest, to deny the nativity, another place would have been needed, and another time, and another order of discourse, not that of a saying which could be uttered even by one who had both a mother and brothers, since indignation does not deny parents but rebukes them. Finally, He made others preferable, and, by showing the merit of the preference, namely the hearing of the word, He demonstrates on what condition He denied mother and brothers. For on the same ground on which He adopted others to Himself, those who clung to Him, He disowned those who stood apart from Him. Christ is also accustomed to fulfil Himself what He teaches others. What sort of thing then would it have been, if, while teaching not to value mother or brothers as much as
Editors' notes and page, col. 813
Footnotes
(41) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Quasi necessarius aliquid, etc. Necessarius dixit, magis necessarium. RHEN.
"As if something more necessary," etc. He said "necessarius" for "more necessary". RHENANUS.
(printed under page 411)
(42) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Si forte tabula ludens. Tabulam lusoriam intelligit, seu latruncularium, in qua tesseris et calculis ludebatur. Qui tabulam fritillum explicant, forte minus bene. Nam fritillum est alveolus in quem tesserae seu cubi conjiciuntur agitanturque, a forma oblonga pyrgus dicitur, πύργος. Sic Horatio mittere in pyrgum talos. Martialis alveolum hunc turriculam vocat. LE PR.
"If perhaps playing at the board." He means a gaming board, or a draughts board, on which play was with dice and counters. Those who explain the board as a dice-box are perhaps less right. For the fritillus is the little box into which the dice or cubes are thrown and shaken; from its oblong shape it is called a pyrgus, "tower". So in Horace, "to throw the knucklebones into the pyrgus". Martial calls this little box a "turricula", "little tower". LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 411)
(43) ‹anchor: audientiam scilicet verbi› · call in col 813
Audientiam scilicet verbi, Audientia vox Latina est qua et usus Tulius de Senect. « Facitque persaepe ipsa sibi audientiam, » etc. LE PR.
"That is, the hearing of the word." "Audientia" is a Latin word, which Tully too used in On Old Age: "And very often it wins a hearing for itself," etc. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 411)
Page
- running head: 813 LIBER DE CARNE C[...] (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹denique in loco apparet›; B ‹indigne usus est hoc dicto›; C ‹cens non tanti facere›; D (none seen)
- old-edition numerals: 768 after ‹operaretur,›
Dei verbum, ipse Dei verbum, nuntiata matre et fraternitate, desereret? Negavit itaque parentes, quomodo docuit negandos pro Dei opere. Sed alias figura est synagogae in matre abjuncta, et Judaeorum in fratribus incredulis. Foris erat in illis Israel; discipuli autem novi intus audientes, et credentes, et cohaerentes Christo, Ecclesiam deliniabant, quam potiorem matrem, et digniorem fraternitatem, recusato carnali genere, nuncupavit Eodem sensu denique et illi exclamationi respondit, non matris uterum et ubera negans, sed feliciores designans, qui verbum Dei audiunt.
the word of God, He Himself the Word of God, at the announcement of His mother and brotherhood, abandon? So He denied His parents in the way He taught that they are to be denied for the work of God. But in another sense, there is a figure of the Synagogue in the mother who stood apart, and of the Jews in the unbelieving brothers. In them Israel was outside; but the new disciples, hearing within, and believing, and cleaving to Christ, were sketching the Church, which He named a better mother and a worthier brotherhood, the fleshly kindred being refused. In the same sense, finally, He answered that exclamation too, not denying His mother's womb and breasts, but designating as happier those who hear the word of God.
CAPUT VIII.
CHAPTER VIII.
Solis istis capitulis, quibus maxime instructi sibi videntur Marcion et Apelles, secundum veritatem integri et incorrupti Evangelii interpretatis, satis esse debuerat ad probationem carnis humanae in Christo per defensionem nativitatis. Sed quoniam et isti Apelleciani carnis ignominiam praetendunt maxime, quam volunt ab igneo illo praeside mali sollicitatis animabus astructam, et idcirco indignam Christo, et idcirco de sideribus illi substantiam competisse, debeo illos de sua paratura repercutere. Angelum quemdam inclitum nominant, qui mundum hunc instituerit, et instituto eo poenitentiam admiscuerit. Et hoc suo loco tractavimus; nam est nobis adversus illos ⟨l⟩ibellus, an qui spiritum et voluntatem et virtutem Christi habuerit ad ea opera, dignum aliquid
These passages alone, with which Marcion and Apelles think themselves best equipped, once interpreted according to the truth of the whole and uncorrupted Gospel, ought to have been enough for proving the human flesh in Christ through the defence of His nativity. But since these Apelleians too put forward above all the shamefulness of the flesh, which they will have to have been built up for souls enticed by that fiery president of evil, and therefore unworthy of Christ, and therefore that a substance from the stars befitted Him, I must strike them back with their own equipment. They name a certain renowned angel who founded this world and, once it was founded, mixed repentance into it. This too we have treated in its place; for we have a little book against them, whether he who had the spirit and will and power of Christ for those works did anything worthy
Editors' notes and page, col. 814
Footnotes
(43) [so printed; the call in the text is (44)] ‹anchor: de sua paratura› · call in col 814
Paratura. Paraturam vocat id quod praestat materiam. RHENAN.
"Paratura." By "paratura" he means that which supplies the material. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 411)
(45) ‹anchor: adversus illos libellus› · call in col 814
Libellus scilicet adversus Apellatianos, qui liber hodie non exstat. SEML. — An liber iste Adversus APELLEM an adversus Apelletianos inscribi debeat, aliquandiu me dubitare fecit, quod inter caeteros haereticos, adversus quos scripsit Tertullianus, enumeret Vincentius Lirinensis Apellem; ex quo etiam haesitavimus num plures essent libelli ab Auctore adversus ipsum et discipulos ejus conscripti. Verum cum, toties facta Apellis mentione atque nullius alterius, nullam tamen libri cujuspiam adversus eumdem mentionem praeterquam hoc loco faciat, fit mihi credibile, et unicum esse ab eo conscriptum, et adversus Apelletianos inscriptum : maxime, cum etiam Apelletianos B. Cyprianus nuncupet Apellis discipulos, ep. 73, ab Jubaian. Atqui obscuriora quidem sunt verba Tertulliani; sed hoc sibi vult, argumentum libri adversus Apelletianos potissimum fuisse, an « angelus ille igneus mali praeses, qui et nundum [so printed, for mundum] hunc (juxta illos) instituerat, et sollicitatis animabus carnem astruxerat, ad quod tamen spiritum, et voluntatem, et virtutem Christi habuerit, dignum aliquid poenitentia fecerit. » Utpote qui dicerent, sicuti legitur lib. de Praescript. adv. haeret. c. 31, « illum mundo inferiori permiscuisse poenitentiam, quia non illum tam perfecte fecisset, quam superior mundus institutus fuisset. » Quod ipsum interim pulchre contra illos retorquet, illic ubi loquitur, de sua paratura repercutiens.... De sollicitatis autem animabus ab igneo illo deo, angelo juxta Apellem, vide lib. de (continues)
"A little book," that is, against the Apelletians, a book that does not survive today. SEMLER. — Whether that book should be entitled Against Apelles or Against the Apelletians long made me hesitate, because Vincent of Lérins lists Apelles among the other heretics against whom Tertullian wrote; from which we also wondered whether the Author had written several little books against him and his disciples. But since, though he mentions Apelles so often and no other, he nevertheless makes no mention of any book against him except in this place, it becomes credible to me both that he wrote only one, and that it was entitled Against the Apelletians: especially since blessed Cyprian too calls the disciples of Apelles "Apelletians", letter 73, to Jubaianus. Tertullian's words are indeed rather obscure; but this is what they mean: that the chief argument of the book Against the Apelletians was whether "that fiery angel, ruler of evil, who (according to them) both established this world and built flesh for the souls he had enticed, did anything worthy of repentance, though he had for it the spirit, will and power of Christ." For they said, as is read in On the Prescription of Heretics, chapter 31, "that he mixed repentance into the lower world, because he had not made it as perfectly as the higher world had been established." This very thing he meanwhile turns neatly back against them, there where he speaks of "striking them back with their own material".... On the souls enticed by that fiery god, the angel according to Apelles, see the book On (continues)
(printed under page 411)
Page
- running head: [LIBE]R DE CARNE CHRISTI. 814 (opening letters of the head stand over column 813)
- marginal letters: A ‹Dei verbum, ipse Dei verbum›; B ‹sibi videntur Marcion›; C ‹tutem Christi habuerit›; D (not visible in these images)
- old-edition numerals: 769 after ‹Eodem›
poenitentia fecerit, cum angelum etiam de figura erraticae ovis interpretentur. Teste igitur poenitentia institutoris sui, delictum erit mundus; siquidem omnis poenitentia confessio est delicti, quia locum non habet nisi in delicto. Si mundus delictum est quia corpus et membra, delictum erit proinde et coelum, et coelestia cum coelo. Si coelestia, et quidquid inde conceptum prolatumque est, mala arbor malos fructus edat necesse est (Matth. VIII). Caro igitur Christi de coelestibus structa, de peccati constitit elementis, peccatrix de peccatorio censu, et par jam erit ejus substantiae, id est nostrae, quam peccatricem Christo dedignantur inducere. Ita si nihil de ignominia interest, aut aliam purioris notae materiam excogitent Christo, quibus displicet nostra, aut eamdem agnoscant, qua etiam coelestis melior esse non potuit. Legimus plane (I Cor. XV): Primus homo de terrae limo; secundus homo de coelo. Non tamen ad materiae differentiam spectat, sed tantum terrenae retro substantiae carnis primi hominis, id est Adae, coelestem de spiritu substantiam opponit secundi hominis, id est Christi. Et adeo ad spiritum, non ad carnem, coelestem hominem refert: ut quos sic comparat, constet in hac carne terrena coelestes fieri, spiritu scilicet. Quod si secundum carnem quoque coelestis Christus, non compararentur illi non secundum carnem coelestes. Si ergo qui fiunt coelestes, qualis et Christus, terrenam carnis substantiam gestant; hinc quoque confirmatur, ipsum
of repentance, since they interpret even the figure of the stray sheep as referring to the angel. By the witness, therefore, of the repentance of its founder, the world will be a fault; since indeed every repentance is a confession of a fault, because it has no place except in a fault. If the world is a fault, as being body and members, then heaven too will likewise be a fault, and the heavenly things together with heaven. If the heavenly things are, then so is whatever has been conceived and brought forth from them: a bad tree must yield bad fruits (Matt. 8). The flesh of Christ, therefore, built out of the heavenly things, has consisted of the elements of sin, sinful from a sinful stock, and will now be equal to that substance, that is, ours, which they disdain to put upon Christ as being sinful. So, if it makes no difference as regards disgrace, either let those who are displeased with ours devise for Christ some other material of purer quality, or let them acknowledge the same, than which even the heavenly could not be better. We plainly read (1 Cor. 15): The first man is from the slime of the earth; the second man is from heaven. Yet this does not look to a difference of material, but merely sets against the earthly substance of the flesh of the earlier first man, that is, Adam, the heavenly substance from the spirit of the second man, that is, Christ. And so far does he refer the heavenly man to the spirit, not to the flesh, that it is evident that those whom he thus compares become heavenly in this earthly flesh, namely by the spirit. But if Christ were heavenly according to the flesh as well, they would not be compared with Him who are not heavenly according to the flesh. If, then, those who become heavenly, as Christ also is, bear an earthly substance of flesh, from this too it is confirmed that the very
Editors' notes and page, col. 815
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁸⁹ ‹anchor: delictum est quia› · call in col 815 Quam Rig. Seml. Ven.
"Quam" ("than"): Rigault, Semler, Venice edition.
⁹⁰ ‹anchor: erit proinde› · call in col 815 Perinde Rig. Ven.
"Perinde" ("just so"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁹¹ ‹anchor: Si coelestia, et quidquid› · call in col 815 Cum coelo. Si coelestia non habet cod. Agob. Ligalt. Ven.
The Agobardinus codex, Rigault [printed "Ligalt."] and the Venice edition do not have "cum coelo. Si coelestia" ("with heaven. If heavenly things").
⁹² ‹anchor: constitit elementis› · call in col 815 Constat Rig. Ven.
"Constat" ("it is agreed"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁹³ ‹anchor: peccatorio censu› · call in col 815 Sensu Par. Lugdun.
"Sensu" ("in sense"): the Paris and Lyons editions.
⁹⁴ ‹anchor: et par› · call in col 815 Pars Rig. Ven.
"Pars" ("part"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁹⁵ ‹anchor: par jam erit› · call in col 815 Jam. omitt. Rhen. Pam.
Rhenanus and Pamelius omit "jam" ("now").
⁹⁶ ‹anchor: dedignantur inducere› · call in col 815 Christus dedignatur induere Pam. Rhen.
"Christus dedignatur induere" ("Christ disdains to put on"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁹⁷ ‹anchor: eamdem agnoscant› · call in col 815 Eam cognoscant Pam. Rhen.
"Eam cognoscant" ("let them recognize it"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁹⁸ ‹anchor: ut quos sic› · call in col 815 Ei Rig. Ven.
"Ei" ("to him"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁹⁹ ‹anchor: non compararentur› · call in col 815 Comparentur Rig. Ven.
"Comparentur" ("be compared"): Rigault, Venice edition.
¹ ‹anchor: illi non› · call in col 815 Non abest a Rig. Ven.
"Non" ("not") is absent from Rigault and the Venice edition.
² ‹anchor: Si ergo qui› · call in col 815 Qui abest a Rhen. Fran.
"Qui" ("who") is absent from Rhenanus and the Franeker edition.
³ ‹anchor: qualis et› · call in col 815 Est Pam. Rhen.
"Est" ("is"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁴ ‹anchor: hinc› · call in col 815 Hic Rhen. Seml.
"Hic" ("here"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ii add. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition add "ii" ("they").
⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Aliud omitt. Seml. in totum praemitt. Pam. Rhen.
Semler omits "aliud" ("other"); Pamelius and Rhenanus put "in totum" ("wholly") before it.
⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Est Rhen, Pam. Jun.
"Est" ("is"): Rhenanus, Pamelius, Junius.
⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quia suggerat Jun. ut suggerat Seml. cui non suggerat Rhen. Pam.
"Quia suggerat" ("because it supplies"): Junius; "ut suggerat" ("so that it supplies"): Semler; "cui non suggerat" ("to which it does not supply"): Rhenanus, Pamelius.
⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Hoc add. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler add "hoc" ("this").
¹⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Est add. Seml.
Semler adds "est" ("is").
¹¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ut jam Lat.
"Ut jam" ("as now"): Latinius.
¹² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Utriusque originem elementi Rig. Ven. Seml.
"Utriusque originem elementi" ("the origin of each element"): Rigault, Venice edition, Semler.
¹³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Terram Rig. Ven. Pam. Rhen. Seml.
"Terram" ("earth"): Rigault, Venice edition, Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler.
¹⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Sic cod. Ursin. Wouw. Aquam Rig. Ven. aquanam Pam. Rhen. Seml.
So the codex of Ursinus and Wouwer; "aquam" ("water"): Rigault, Venice edition; "aquanam": Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler.
¹⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Nam omitt. Rhen. Pam. Seml.
Rhenanus, Pamelius and Semler omit "nam" ("for").
¹⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quo Jun.
"Quo" ("whither"): Junius.
¹⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Terra in figura sua alii.
"Terra in figura sua" ("earth in its own form"): others.
¹⁸ ‹anchor: haec› · call in col 816 Et Rig. Ven.
"Et" ("and"): Rigault, Venice edition.
¹⁹ ‹anchor: ex humani› · call in col 816 Exstantem humana Rig. Ven. ex humana cod. Pithaei.
"Exstantem humana": Rigault, Venice edition; "ex humana": Pithou's codex.
²⁰ ‹anchor: Vergiliis› · call in col 816 Virgiliis Seml.
"Virgiliis": Semler.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(continued) (45) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 814
Anima, c. 23. De mundo ab illo instituto lib. de Praescript. c. 34 et 51. De carne hominis proinde ab eodem exstructa, insuper lib. de Resurr. carn., c. 5. De Christi denique carne, non ab illo angelo creata, sed ex coelestibus sideribus structa, contra Apellem late disputavit Auctor hujus libri, et 6, et lib. II. adv. Marcionem. Consentit in his omnibus Epiphanius, praeterquam quod inferiorem deum nuncupet, quem Auctor angelum igneum : quem interim agnoscunt B. Augustin. haer, 23, Isidorus lib. adv. Marc., Rabanus noster, B. Honorius et Gratianus in Catalogo haeretic. Hoc peculiare Auctori, quod de poenitentia angeli creatoris jam dictum est; sicuti et illud, quod figuram erraticae ovis (Luc. XV) de illo interpretati sint, quasi gaudium fuerit in coelo apud angelos Dei de illo uno peccatore ad poenitentiam converso, quam contra maluit Auctor interpretari de homine lapso, et per christum requisito, sicuti etiam alii veteres omnes. PAM.
the Soul, chapter 23. On the world established by him, the book On Prescription, chapters 34 and 51. On the flesh of man likewise built by the same, see further the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter 5. Finally, on the flesh of Christ, not created by that angel but built of the heavenly stars, the Author argued at length against Apelles in this book, chapter 6, and in Book II against Marcion. Epiphanius agrees in all these things, except that he calls "a lower god" the one the Author calls "the fiery angel"; he is acknowledged meanwhile by blessed Augustine, Heresy 23, Isidore in the book against Marcion, our Rabanus, blessed Honorius and Gratian in the Catalogue of Heretics. Peculiar to the Author is what has already been said about the repentance of the creator angel; as also this, that they interpreted the figure of the stray sheep (Luke 15) of him, as if there were joy in heaven among the angels of God over that one sinner converted to repentance, whereas the Author preferred to interpret it of fallen man, sought out again through Christ, as did all the other ancients too. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 412)
(46) ‹anchor: confessio est delicti› · call in col 815
Omnis poenitentia confessio est delicti. Non ergo sufficit Lutheranorum definitio : Poenitentia, nova vita. PAM.
"All repentance is a confession of a fault." The Lutherans' definition, therefore, "Repentance is new life", does not suffice. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 412)
(47) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Ad fabulas nationum. Promethei fabulam. Innuit Japeti filium, qui homines primum e luto formavit. De hoc Satyra 13 Juvenalis. Ovid. lib. I Metam. Horat. lib. I Carm. LE PR.
"To the fables of the nations." The fable of Prometheus. He alludes to the son of Iapetus, who first formed men out of clay. On him see Juvenal's thirteenth Satire, Ovid's Metamorphoses Book I, Horace's Odes Book I. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 412)
(48) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Musculos ut glebas. Optime musculos comparat glebis; nam sicut hae non sunt adeo solidae, ut lapides, nec adeo fluxae, ut terra pulverea; ita musculi medium est inter ligamentum, quod durum, et nervum, qui mollior, ut expendit Galenus lib. I de usu part. et Vesalius lib. II de Corporis humani Fabrica; nam aliter musculi, qui organa voluntarii motus, commode ciere humana nequissent LAC.
"Muscles like clods." He compares muscles to clods excellently; for as clods are neither as solid as stones nor as loose as powdery earth, so the muscle is midway between the ligament, which is hard, and the nerve, which is softer, as Galen weighs it in On the Use of the Parts, Book I, and Vesalius in On the Fabric of the Human Body, Book II; for otherwise the muscles, which are the organs of voluntary movement, could not conveniently move human things. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 412)
(49) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Etiam circum papillas calculos quosdam. Attrectata papilla, Septimius grumulis glandularum duriusculis impleri sibi manum senserat. Sic lib. II ad Nationes dixit, Ubera lapilliscere. RIG.
"Even certain little stones about the nipples." On touching a nipple, Septimius had felt his hand filled with rather hard little lumps of glands. So in Book II To the Nations he said that breasts "turn to pebbles". RIGAULT.
(printed under page 412)
(50) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Nervorum tenaces connexus. Syndesmata seu ligamenta solidissima humani corporis notat, qui ab aliquibus nervi vocantur, sed non stricte, de quibus Galen. lib. XXXI de locis affect. LAC.
"The tenacious bindings of the sinews." He denotes the syndesmata, or most solid ligaments of the human body, which some call sinews, but not strictly; on which see Galen, On the Affected Parts, Book XXXI. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 412)
Page
- running head: 815 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
- marginal letters: A poenitentia fecerit, cum angelum etiam de figura; B Christo, quibus displicet nostra, aut eamdem agno-; C stantiam gestant; hinc quoque confirmatur, ipsum; D Anima, c. 23. De mundo ab illo instituto (in the Commentarius at the page foot)
- old-edition numerals: 770 after malos
etiam Christum in carne terrena fuisse coelestem, sicut sunt qui ei adaequantur.
Christ too was heavenly in earthly flesh, just as those are who are made equal to Him.
CAPUT IX.
Chapter IX.
Praetendimus adhuc, nihil quod ex alio acceptum sit, ut aliud sit quam id de quo sit acceptum, ita aliud esse, ut non suggerat unde sit acceptum. Omnis materia sine testimonio originis suae non est, etsi demutetur in novam proprietatem. Ipsum certe corpus nostrum, quod de limo figulatum etiam ad fabulas nationum veritas transmisit, utrumque originis elementum confitetur; carne terrenum; sanguine, aquenum. Nam, licet alia sit species qualitatis, hoc est, quod ex alio aliud fit, caeterum, quid est sanguis, quam rubeus humor? quid caro quam terra conversa in figuras suas? Considera singulas qualitates, musculos ut glebas, ossa ut saxa, etiam circum papillas calculos quosdam; aspice nervorum tenaces connexus, ut traduces radicum, et venarum ramosos discursus, ut ambages rivorum, et lanugines ut muscos, et comam ut cepitem, et ipsos medullarum in abdito thesauros, nt metalla carnis. Haec omnia terrenae originis signa et in Christo fuerunt: haec sunt quae illum Dei Filium celavere, non alias tantummodo hominem existimatum, qam ex humani substantia corpori. Aut edite ali⟨q⟩uid in illo coeleste de Septemtrionibus, et Vergiliis et Suculis emendicatum. Nam quae enumeravimus, adeo terrenae
We further maintain that nothing which has been received from another, even if it becomes other than that from which it has been received, is so other as not to suggest whence it has been received. No material is without the testimony of its origin, even if it be changed into a new property. Certainly our very body, which, as moulded of clay, the truth has passed on even into the fables of the nations, confesses each element of its origin: earthy in its flesh, watery in its blood. For although the appearance of the quality is different (that is, because one thing comes to be out of another), yet what is blood but a red fluid? What is flesh but earth converted into its own shapes? Consider the qualities one by one: the muscles as clods, the bones as rocks, even certain pebbles around the nipples; look at the tenacious connections of the sinews as the runners of roots, and the branching courses of the veins as the windings of streams, and the down as moss, and the hair as turf, and the very treasures of the marrow in its hiding place as the metals of the flesh. All these signs of an earthly origin were in Christ also: these are what hid Him as the Son of God, Who was thought to be merely a man on no other ground than from the human substance of His body. Or else produce something heavenly in Him, begged from the Septentriones, and the Vergiliae and the Suculae. For the things we have enumerated, of a flesh so earthly,
Editors' notes and page, col. 816
Footnotes
(51) ‹anchor: et Suculis› · call in col 816
De Septemtrionibus, et Vergiliis, et Suculis. Stellas illas dicit, quae prope Ursam minorem plaustri figuram referunt, quae Septemtriones sive a forma boum junctorum qui triones, quasi teriones, sive a septem trionibus, quoniam tria trigona re- (continues)
"From the Seven Plough-oxen, the Pleiades and the Hyades." He means those stars near the Lesser Bear which present the figure of a wagon, called the Septentriones either from the shape of yoked oxen, which are called "triones", as if "teriones", or from seven "triones", since three triangles (continues)
(printed under page 412)
Page
- running head: …I PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 816 (start of head cut off at left edge)
- marginal letters: A etiam Christum in carne terrena fuisse coelestem; B guis, quam rubeus humor?; C emendicatum. Nam quae enumeravimus; D Innuit Japeti filium (in the Commentarius)
- old-edition numerals: 771 after ita; 772 after et (before Vergiliis)
- other: q of ali⟨q⟩uid damaged; s of testimonio faint but read; word ter- split at column break; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (editors' notes 47-51) at page foot not set; fragments of the left column (col. 815) visible at left edge, not set
testimonia carnis sunt, ut et nostrae. Sed nihil novum, nihil peregrinum deprehendo. Denique, verbis tantummodo et factis, doctrina et virtute sola Christi, homines obstupescebant. Notaretur etiam carnis in illo novitas miraculo habita. Sed carnis terrenae non mira conditio: ipsa erat, quae caetera ejus miranda faciebat. Cum dicerent: Unde huic doctrina et signa ista? etiam despicientium formam ejus haec erat vox. Adeo nec humanae honestatis corpus fuit, nedum coelestis claritatis. Tacentibus apud nos quoque prophetis de ignobili aspectu ejus, ipsae passiones, ipsaeque contumeliae loquuntur: passiones quidem humanam carnem, contumeliae vero inhonestam probavere. An ausus esset aliquis ungue summo perstringere corpus novum, sputaminibus contaminare faciem, nisi merentem? Quid dicis coelestem carnem, quam unde coelestem intelligas, non habes? Quid terrenam negas, quam unde terrenam agnoscas, habes? Esuriit sub diabolo, sitiit sub Samaritide, lacrymatus est super Lazarum, trepidavit ad mortem. Caro enim, inquit, infirma. Sanguinem fudit postremo Haec sunt, opinor, signa coelestia. Sed quomodo, inquam, contemni et pati posset, sicut et dixi, si quid in illa carne de coelesti generositate radiasset? Ex hoc ergo convincimus nihil in illa de coelis fuisse, propterea ut contemni et pati posset.
are the evidences, as of ours also. But I detect nothing new, nothing foreign. Indeed, it was at the words and deeds alone, at the teaching and power alone of Christ, that men were astonished. A novelty of flesh in Him would also have been remarked upon, being regarded as a miracle. But it was the unremarkable condition of earthly flesh that made His other qualities remarkable. When they said, Whence has this man this teaching and these signs? this was the voice even of those who despised His form. So far was His body from being even of human comeliness, let alone of heavenly splendour. Even if the prophets among us too were silent about His ignoble appearance, His very sufferings and His very insults speak: the sufferings proved His flesh human, the insults proved it uncomely. Would anyone have dared to graze a new body with the tip of a fingernail, to defile His face with spittle, unless it deserved it? Why do you call the flesh heavenly, when you have no grounds for understanding it as heavenly? Why do you deny it is earthly, when you have grounds for recognizing it as earthly? He hungered under the devil, He thirsted with the Samaritan woman, He wept over Lazarus, He trembled at death. For the flesh, He says, is weak. Lastly He shed His blood These, I suppose, are heavenly signs. But how, I ask, could He have been despised and have suffered, as I have also said, if anything of heavenly nobility had shone out in that flesh? From this, therefore, we prove that there was nothing in it from the heavens, precisely so that He could be despised and suffer.
CAPUT X.
Chapter X.
Convertor ad alios aeque sibi prudentes, qui carnem Christi animalem affirmant, quod anima caro
I turn to others, equally wise in their own eyes, who affirm that the flesh of Christ is soulish, on the ground that the soul
Editors' notes and page, col. 817
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
²¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Christum hominem Rig. Ven.
"Christum hominem" ("Christ a man"): Rigault, Venice edition.
²² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Autem add. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition add "autem" ("but").
²³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Vos Rhen. Seml.
"Vos" ("you"): Rhenanus, Semler.
²⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Probavere omitt. Rig. Ven.
Rigault and the Venice edition omit "probavere" ("they proved").
²⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Illam add. Jun. ullam Rhen.
Junius adds "illam" ("that"); "ullam" ("any"): Rhenanus.
²⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Terrenam aberat a cod. Agob.
"Terrenam" ("earthly") was absent from the Agobardinus codex.
²⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Lacrymatur s. L. trepidat Rhen. Pam.
"Lacrymatur s[ive] l[ege] trepidat" ("he weeps, or read: he trembles"): Rhenanus, Pamelius.
²⁸ ‹anchor: Sanguinem fudit postremo› · call in col 817 Postremo fudit cod. Agod.
"Postremo fudit" ("at last he shed"): the Agobardinus codex [printed "Agod."].
²⁹ ‹anchor: Sed quomodo, inquam› · call in col 817 Inquitis cod. Agob.
"Inquitis" ("you say"): the Agobardinus codex.
³⁰ ‹anchor: in illa carne de› · call in col 817 De omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "de".
³¹ ‹anchor: Convertor ad alios› · call in col 817 Mos cod. Agob. Rhen. Seml. Oberth.
"Mos" ("custom"): the Agobardinus codex, Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
³² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› In Rhen. Seml. Oberth.
"In": Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
³³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Praesumat Rhen. Seml. Oberth.
"Praesumat" ("presumes"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
³⁴ ‹anchor: quia carnaem liberavit› · call in col 818 Quia carneam liberavit absunt a Rhen.
"Quia carneam liberavit" ("because he freed a fleshly one") are absent from Rhenanus.
³⁵ ‹anchor: nihil ad nos› · call in col 818 Carnea non est, add. Rhen.
Rhenanus adds "carnea non est" ("it is not fleshly").
³⁶ ‹anchor: si ea› · call in col 818 Non inser alii.
Others insert "non" ("not").
³⁷ ‹anchor: quoniam› · call in col 818 Quomodo alii.
"Quomodo" ("how"): others.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(continued) (51) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 816
praesentant. Vergiliae, quae et Pleiades dicuntur, septem sunt stellae ante Tauri genua, una tamen occultatur; eae ineunte vere apparent, unde Vergiliae dicuntur. Suculae quae Hyades, eodem tempore oriuntur, suntque etiam septem in fronte Tauri. LE PR.
they present. The Vergiliae, also called the Pleiades, are seven stars before the knees of the Bull, though one is hidden; they appear at the beginning of spring (ver), whence they are called Vergiliae. The Suculae, which are the Hyades, rise at the same time, and are also seven, on the Bull's forehead. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 413)
(52) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Adeo nec humanae honestatis corpus fuit. Sic libro adversus Judaeos : ne aspectu quidem honestus. Quae verba confirmant quod supra notavimus, numisma visum Romae penes Laelium Pasqualinum, dein penes Card. Altempsium, ad lib. De Patientia. Gregorius Baeticus, sive quis alius auctor lib. De fide, Isaiae verba sic reddit : Non est species ei, neque honor formae : et vidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem, sed species ejus sine honore. RIG.
"So far was his body from even human comeliness." So in the book Against the Jews: "not comely even in appearance." These words confirm what we noted above, on the book On Patience, about the coin seen at Rome in the possession of Laelius Pasqualinus, then of Cardinal Altemps. Gregory of Baetica, or whoever else is the author of the book On the Faith, renders the words of Isaiah thus: "He has no form, nor honour of shape: and we saw him, and he had no form nor comeliness, but his form was without honour." RIGAULT.
(printed under page 413)
(53) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Contumelia vero inhonestam. Rigaltius ad cap. 5 hujus libri deformem Christum putat, et item nonnulli alii hoc loco abutuntur. Quibus passionis Dominicae memoria os obturare posset, si hoc a Tertulliano dici animadverterent de tempore dolorum. Nam formosum fuisse plurima argumenta convincunt. Mitto picturas a B. Luca exaratas. Sanctus Hieronymus epist. 140 ad Principiam : « Nisi enim habuisset et in vultu quiddam oculisque sidereum, nunquam eum statim secuti fuissent apostoli; nec qui ad comprehendendum eum venerant corruissent. » A. Chrysostomus hom. 28 in Matth. : « Nam ut faciendis signis erat mirabilis, sic visu gratiosissimus fuisse traditur. » Bonaventura, in Spec., citat Augustini verba in hunc sensum. Deformitatem quam inter patiendum contraxit, optime explicat B. Bernardus, tract. de Pass. LE PR.
"But disfigured by insult." Rigault, on chapter 5 of this book, thinks Christ was ugly, and some others likewise misuse this passage. The memory of the Lord's Passion could stop their mouths, if they noticed that Tertullian says this of the time of his sufferings. For very many arguments prove that he was beautiful. I pass over the pictures painted by blessed Luke. St Jerome, letter 140 to Principia: "For unless he had had something starlike in his face and eyes, the apostles would never have followed him at once, nor would those who had come to seize him have fallen down." A. Chrysostom, Homily 28 on Matthew: "For as he was wonderful in working signs, so he is said to have been most gracious to look upon." Bonaventure, in the Speculum, cites words of Augustine to this effect. The disfigurement he incurred in his suffering is explained excellently by blessed Bernard, Treatise on the Passion. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 413)
(54) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
An ausus esset aliquis ungue summo perstringere corpus novum? Corpus inusitatae alicujus pulchritudinis, aut coelestis claritatis. Augustinus in Psal. CXXVII : « Et nisi foedum putarent, non insilirent, non flagellis caederent, non spinis coronarent, non sputis inhonestarent. Mirabilis forma exarmasset tortores, atque etiam sine voce remissionem impetrasset. »
"Would anyone have dared to graze a new body with the tip of a fingernail?" A body of some unaccustomed beauty, or of heavenly brightness. Augustine on Psalm 127: "And unless they had thought him foul, they would not have leapt upon him, would not have beaten him with scourges, would not have crowned him with thorns, would not have defiled him with spittle. A wonderful beauty would have disarmed the torturers, and would even, without a word, have won his release."
(printed under page 413)
(55) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Sputaminibus contaminare faciem, nisi merentem? Quis non exhorreat audaciam dicti? faciem Christi merentem conspui! dignam quae sputaminum jaculis contaminaretur! Da veniam, Christe. Hoc deforme tuum deosculamur supplices. Et prosit nobis dixisse nostrum esse quod debita nostra fecere. RIG.
"To defile with spittle a face, unless it deserved it?" Who would not shudder at the boldness of the saying? The face of Christ deserving to be spat upon! worthy to be defiled by volleys of spittle! Forgive us, Christ. We kiss this disfigurement of yours as suppliants. And may it profit us to have said that it is ours, which our debts brought about. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 413)
(56) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Non carnis, sed animae nostrae. Hactenus exemplar Agobardi. Itaque res deinceps agetur tantum cum codicibus Ursini et Pithoei. RIG.
"Not of the flesh, but of our soul." Agobard's copy goes this far. And so from here on the matter will be handled with the codices of Ursinus and Pithou only. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 413)
Page
- running head: LIBER DE CARNE C (cut off at the image edge; presumably LIBER DE CARNE CHRISTI)
- marginal letters: A renae testimonia carnis sunt; B corpus novum, sputaminibus contaminare; C carnem Christi animalem affirmant; D cap. 5 hujus libri deformem Christum putat (in the commentary, not the author's text)
- old-edition numerals: 773 after mortem
sit facta, ergo et caro anima, et sicut caro animalis, ita et anima carnalis. Et hic itaque causas requiro. Si, ut animam salvam faceret, in semetipso suscepit animam Christus, quia salva non esset nisi per ipsu⟨m⟩, dum in ipso; non video cur eam carnem fecerit animalem, induendo carnem, quasi aliter animam salvam facere non posset, nisi carneam factam. Cum enim nostras animas non tantum non carneas, sed etiam a carne disjunctas salvas praestet; quanto magis illam, quam ipse suscepit, etiam non carneam redigere potuit in salutem! Item cum praesumant non carnis, sed animae nostrae solius liberandae causa processisse Christum; primo, quam absurdum est, ut animam solam liberaturus, id genus eorporis eam fecerit, quod non erat liberaturus! Deinde, si anima nostras per illam, quam gestavit, liberare susceperat, illam quoque, quam gestavit, nostram gestasse debuerat, id est, nostrae formae, cujuscumque formae est in occulto anima nostra, non tamen carneae Caeterum, non nostram animam liberavit, si carneam habuit; nostra enim carnea non est. Porro si non nostram liberavit, quia carnaem liberavit, nihil ad nos, quia nostram liberavit. Sed nec liberanda erat, quae non erat nostra, ut scil⟨i⟩cet carnea: non enim periclitabatur, si non erat nostra, id est, non carnea. Sed liberatam constat illam. Ergo non fuit carnea; et fuit nostra, si ea fuit quae liberaretur, quoniam periclitabatur. Jam ergo, si anima non fuit carnalis in Christo, nec caro potest animalis fuisse.
has been made flesh, then the flesh too is soul, and just as the flesh is soul-endowed, so also the soul is fleshly. And here too, therefore, I ask for the reasons. If Christ took up a soul in Himself in order to make the soul safe, because it would not be safe except through Him, while in Him, I do not see why He made that flesh soul-endowed by putting on flesh, as though He could not otherwise make the soul safe except as made fleshy. For since He renders our souls safe, not only not fleshy but even separated from the flesh, how much more could He have brought into salvation that which He Himself took up, even when not fleshy! Again, since they presume that Christ came forth for the sake of freeing not the flesh but our soul alone: first, how absurd it is that, intending to free the soul alone, He should have made it that kind of body which He was not intending to free! Next, if He had undertaken to free our souls through that which He bore, He ought also to have borne that which He bore as ours, that is, of our form, of whatever form our soul is in secret, yet not fleshy. Moreover, He did not free our soul if He had a fleshy one; for ours is not fleshy. Further, if He did not free ours, because He freed a fleshy one, it is nothing to us, because He freed ours. But neither was that to be freed which was not ours, namely as being fleshy: for it was not in danger if it was not ours, that is, not fleshy. But it is established that it was freed. Therefore it was not fleshy; and it was ours, if it was the one that was to be freed, since it was in danger. Now therefore, if the soul in Christ was not fleshly, neither can the flesh have been soul-endowed.
Editors' notes and page, col. 818
Page
- running head: R DE CARNE CHRISTI. 818 (left part of running head cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A sit facta, ergo et caro anima; B quod non erat liberaturus!; C animalis fuisse.; D rentem? Quis non exhorreat (in Commentarius)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
CAPUT XI.
Chapter XI.
Sed aliam argumentationem eorum convenimus, exigentes, cur animalem carnem subeundo Christus animam carnalem videatur habuisse. Deum enim, inquiunt, gestivit animam visibilem hominibus exhibere, faciendo eam corpus, quae retro invisibiliis exstiterit, natura nihil, nec semetipsam videns, prae impedimento carnis hujus, ut etiam discept⟨a⟩retur, nata anima an non, mortalisne sit, an non. Itaque animam corpus effectam in Christo, ut eam et nascentem et morientem, et, quod sit amplius, resurgentem videremus. Et hoc autem quale erat, ut per carnem demonstraretur anima sibi aut nobis, quae per carnem non poterat agnosci: ut sic ostenderetur, dum id fit, cui latebat, id est caro? tenebras videlicet accepit, ut lucere posset. Denique, adhuc prius retractemus, an isto modo ostendenda fuerit anima, an in totum invisibilem eam retro allegent; utrum quasi incorporalem, an etiam habentem aliquod genus corporis proprii. Et tamen cum invisibilem dicant, corporalem eam constituunt, habentem quod invisibile sit Nihil enim habens invisibile, quomodo potest invisibilis dici? Sed ne esse quidem potest, nisi habens per quod sit. Cum autem sit, habeat necesse est aliquid, per quod est. Si habet aliquid per quod est, hoc erit corpus ejus. Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis; nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est. Habente igitur anima invisibile corpus, qui visibilem eam facere susceperat, utique dignius id ejus visibile fecisset, quod invisibile habebatur, quia nec hic mendacium aut infirmitas Deo competit: mendacium, si aliud animam, quam quod erat, demonstravit; infirmitas, si id quod erat demonstrare non valuit. Nemo ostendere volens hominem, cassidem aut personam ei inducit. Hoc autem factum est animae, si in carne conversa alienam induit superficiem. Sed et si incorporalis anima deputetur, ut aliqua vi rationis occulta, sit quidem anima, corpus tamen non sit, quidquid est anima; proinde impossibile Deo non erat, et proposito
But we meet another argument of theirs, as they demand why Christ, in taking on animal flesh, should appear to have had a fleshly soul. For God, they say, desired to display the soul as visible to men by making it a body, the soul which previously had been invisible, by nature nothing, not even seeing itself, owing to the hindrance of this flesh, so that it was even disputed whether the soul is born or not, whether it is mortal or not. Therefore [they say] the soul was made body in Christ, so that we might see it being born and dying and, what is more, rising again. And yet of what sort was this, that the soul should be demonstrated to itself or to us by means of the flesh, when through the flesh it could not be known: that thus it should be shown, while this is done, [by that] from which it lay hidden, that is, the flesh? It took on darkness, evidently, in order to be able to shine. Further, let us first examine whether the soul had to be shown in this way, and whether they allege that it was previously wholly invisible; whether as incorporeal, or as having some kind of body of its own. And yet, while they call it invisible, they establish it as corporeal, as having something that is invisible. For if it has nothing invisible, how can it be called invisible? But it cannot even exist unless it has that through which it exists. And since it exists, it must have something through which it exists. If it has something through which it exists, this will be its body. Everything that exists is a body of its own kind; nothing is incorporeal except what does not exist. Since the soul, then, has an invisible body, He Who had undertaken to make it visible would surely more fittingly have made visible that of it which was held to be invisible, because here too neither falsehood nor weakness befits God: falsehood, if He displayed the soul as something other than what it was; weakness, if He was not able to display what it was. No one who wishes to show a man puts a helmet or a mask on him. But this is what was done to the soul, if, converted into flesh, it put on an alien surface. But even if the soul is reckoned incorporeal, so that by some hidden power of reason the soul indeed exists, yet whatever the soul is, it is not a body; accordingly it was not impossible for God, and to the purpose
Editors' notes and page, col. 819
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
³⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Inquit Rhen.
"Inquit" ("he says"): Rhenanus.
³⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Gestavit Rig.
"Gestavit" ("he bore"): Rigault.
⁴⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Est add. Rhen.
Rhenanus adds "est" ("is").
⁴¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Mortalis ne sit annon absunt a Vatic. codd. et ed. 1. Rhen. abjicit etiam Jun.
"Mortalis ne sit annon" ("whether it is mortal or not") are absent from the Vatican codices and Rhenanus's first edition; Junius too rejects them.
⁴² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ex Rhen. Par. Pam.
"Ex" ("from"): Rhenanus, Paris edition, Pamelius.
⁴³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Erit Rhen. Pam. Seml.
"Erit" ("will be"): Rhenanus, Pamelius, Semler.
⁴⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Possit Pam. Rhen. Seml.
"Possit" ("could"): Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler.
⁴⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ad hoc Rhen. Seml. Oberth.
"Ad hoc" ("for this"): Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
⁴⁶ ‹anchor: nisi› · call in col 819 Nihil alii.
"Nihil" ("nothing"): others.
⁴⁷ ‹anchor: Si habet› · call in col 819 Habet abest a Rhen. Seml.
"Habet" ("has") is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
⁴⁸ ‹anchor: si in carne› · call in col 819 Carnem alii.
"Carnem" ("into flesh"): others.
⁴⁹ ‹anchor: conversa› · call in col 819 Conversam Pam. Rhen. Smel.
"Conversam" ("turned", accusative): Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler [printed "Smel."].
⁵⁰ ‹anchor: alienam induit› · call in col 819 Induis Pam.
"Induis" ("you put on"): Pamelius.
⁵¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› In illam. aberat a cod. Pithaei.
"In illam" ("into it") was absent from Pithou's codex.
⁵² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quomodo Rhen. Seml.
"Quomodo" ("how"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁵³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ita Seml.
"Ita" ("so"): Semler.
⁵⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Hic abest a Rhen. Seml.
"Hic" ("here") is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
⁵⁵ ‹anchor: ut nota quoquo› · call in col 820 Quomodo Rhen. Seml.
"Quomodo" ("how"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁵⁶ ‹anchor: Et ut impressius› · call in col 820 Pressius Rhen.
"Pressius" ("more closely"): Rhenanus.
⁵⁷ ‹anchor: qualitates (61), qui› · call in col 820 Cui Pam. Fran.
"Cui" ("to whom"): Pamelius, Franeker edition.
⁵⁷ [so printed; the call in the text is 58] ‹anchor: ex naturalium› · call in col 820 Naturali Pam. Fran. Par.
"Naturali" ("by natural"): Pamelius, Franeker edition, Paris edition.
⁵⁹ ‹anchor: nulla anima se› · call in col 820 A se Fran. Par. Pam.
"A se" ("by itself"): Franeker edition, Paris edition, Pamelius.
⁶⁰ ‹anchor: quae illum facit› · call in col 820 Faciat Rhen. Seml.
"Faciat" ("may make"): Rhenanus, Semler.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 414)
(57) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Alterius. Alterius dixit, pro alius, id est diversae RHENAN.
"Alterius." He said "alterius" for "alius", that is, of a different kind. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 414)
(58) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Incognitam sibi et nobis. Rationem insinuat, cur dicerent Valentiniani ostendendam animam, quasi esset incognita, perinde est incognita atque ostendenda. LAC.
"Unknown to itself and to us." He hints at the reason why the Valentinians said that the soul had to be shown: as being unknown, it is by the same token both unknown and in need of being shown. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 414)
(59) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Cum totum quod sumus anima sit. Fuit Platonicorum et Pythagoreorum placitum animam solam esse hominem. Ita Plato in Alcibiade, ubi probat corpus non esse hominem, sed homini; externa vero non esse hominis, sed fortunae. Adversus quem hanc quaestionem agitat Joannes Crispus, lib. IX, De ethnicis philos. Praeterea illud refutat Adrianus Sasbout Delphius hom. 3 super Genesim, juxta Platonis sententiam. LAC.
"Since all that we are is soul." It was a tenet of the Platonists and Pythagoreans that the soul alone is the man. So Plato in the Alcibiades, where he proves that the body is not the man but the man's; and that external things belong not to the man but to fortune. Against him John Crispus treats this question, Book IX, On the Pagan Philosophers. Adrianus Sasbout of Delft also refutes it, Homily 3 on Genesis, on Plato's view. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 414)
(60) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Si ergo ignoramus animam, ipsa se ignorat. Verum hoc est, nam vis intellectiva in anima est, nec aliter quam intellectu percipi potest anima; materialis enim sensus non attingit rem spiritalem. Unde si animam non cognoscimus, neque anima se cognoscit. LAC.
"If then we do not know the soul, it does not know itself." This is true, for the intellective power is in the soul, and the soul can be perceived no otherwise than by the intellect; for material sense does not reach a spiritual thing. Hence, if we do not know the soul, neither does the soul know itself. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 414)
Page
- running head: 819 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S[...] (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹CAPUT XI.›; B ‹est caro? tenebras videlicet›; C ‹dignius id ejus visibile›; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 774 after ‹invisibiliis›
ejus congruentius competebat, nova aliqua corporis specie eam demonstrare, quam ista communi omnium, alterius jam notitiae: ne sine causa visibilem ex invisibili facere gestisset animam, istis scilicet quaestionibus opportunam, per carnis in illam humanae defensionem. Sed non poterat Christus inter homines nisi homo videri. Redde igitur Christo fidem suam; ut qui homo voluerit incedere, animam quoque humanae conditionis ostenderit, non faciens eam carneam, sed induens eam carne.
of Him it was more fittingly suited to display it in some new form of body rather than in this one common to all, already known from elsewhere: lest He should without cause have been eager to make the soul visible from invisible, namely laying it open to these questions, through the claim of human flesh for it. But Christ could not be seen among men except as a man. Give back, therefore, to Christ His good faith: that He Who willed to walk as a man showed also a soul of human condition, not making it fleshly, but clothing it with flesh.
CAPUT XII.
Chapter XII.
Ostensa sit nunc anima per carnem, si constiterit illam ostendendam quoquo modo fuisse, id est incognitam sibi et nobis. Quanquam in hoc vana distinctio est; quasi non se orsum ab anima simus, cum totum, quod sumus, anima sit. Denique sine anima nihil sumus, ne hominis quidem, sed cadaveris nomen. Si ergo ignoramus animam, ipsa se ignorat. Itaque superest hoc solummodo inspicere, an se anima hic ignorarit, ut nota quoquo modo fieret. Opinor, sensualis est animae natura. Adeo, nihil animale sine sensu; nihil sensuale sine anima. Et ut impressius dixerim, animae anima sensus est. Igitur cum omnibus anima sentire praestet, et ipsa sentiat omnium etiam sensus, nedum qualitates, qui verisimile est, ut ipsa sensum sui ab initio sortita non sit? Unde illi, scire quod interdum sibi sit necessarium, ex naturalium necessitate, si non scit suam qualitatem, cui quid necessarium est? Hoc quidem in omni anima recognoscere est; notitiam sui dico; sine qua notitia sui nulla anima se ministrare potuisset. Puto autem magis hominem, animal solum rationale, compotem et animam esse sortitum, quae illum facit animal rationale, ipsa in primis rationalis. Porro, quomodo rationalis, quae efficit hominem rationale animal, si ipsa rationem suam nescit, ignorans semetipsam? Sed adeo non ignorat, ut auctorem, et arbitrum et statum suum
Let the soul now be shown through the flesh, if it is established that it had to be shown in some way, that is, as unknown to itself and to us. Yet in this the distinction is empty, as though we were apart from the soul, when the whole of what we are is soul. In short, without the soul we are nothing, not even the name of a man, but of a corpse. If, therefore, we do not know the soul, it does not know itself. So it remains only to examine this: whether the soul here did not know itself, so that it should become known in some way. I believe that the nature of the soul is sentient. So much so that nothing animate is without sensation, and nothing sentient is without soul. And, to put it more forcibly, sensation is the soul of the soul. Therefore, since the soul grants perception to all, and itself perceives even the senses of all, not to mention their qualities, how is it likely that it was not itself allotted a perception of itself from the beginning? Whence would it have the knowledge of what is at times necessary to it, from the necessity of natural things, if it does not know its own quality, to which something is necessary? This indeed may be recognized in every soul: knowledge of itself, I mean, without which knowledge of itself no soul could have managed itself. But I think rather that man, the only rational animal, being endowed [with reason], has also been allotted a soul which makes him a rational animal, being itself rational first of all. Further, how is that rational which makes man a rational animal, if it does not itself know its own reason, being ignorant of itself? But so far is it from not knowing, that its author, and judge, and its own state
Editors' notes and page, col. 820
Footnotes
(61) ‹anchor: nedum qualitates› · call in col 820
Nedum qualitates. Qualitates vocat, non quod rigide philosophi mere accidentia, sed proprietates licet essentiales rerum, nempe qualiter et quae sint, ut postea ait de anima : Si non scit suam qualitatem. LAC.
"Much less its qualities." He calls "qualities" not what the philosophers strictly call mere accidents, but properties of things, even essential ones: namely, of what kind and what they are, as he says later of the soul: "If it does not know its own quality." LA CERDA.
(printed under page 414)
Page
- running head: [cut off at left] PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 820
- marginal letters: A posito ejus congruentius; B incognitam sibi et nobis; C sarium, ex naturalium; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 775 after carne. (before CAPUT XII.)
- other: column begins with fragment "posito", the rest of a word broken from the previous column (probably pro-posito); "se orsum" printed as two words (= seorsum), set as printed; column ends mid-sentence after "suum"; variae lectiones and Commentarius notes at page foot not set; left-column fragments in images not set
norit. Nihil adhuc de Deo discens, Deum nominat : nihil adhuc de judicio ejus admittens, Deo commendare se dicit. Nihil magis audiens, quam spem nullam esse post mortem, et bene et male defuncto cuique imprecatur. Plenius haec prosequitur libellus quem scripsimus de Testimonio animae. Alioquin, si anima semetipsam ignorans erat ab initio, nihil a Christo cognovisse debuerat, nisi qualis esset. Nunc autem non effigiem suam discit a Christo, sed salutem. Propterea Filius Dei descendit, et animam subiit; non ut ipsa se anima cognosceret in Christo, sed ut Christum in semetipsa ; non enim se ignorando de salute periclitatur, sed Dei Verbum. Vita, inquit (I Joan. I, 2), manifestata est ; non anima, etc. : Veni, inquit (Luc. IX, 56), animam salvam facere : non dixit, ostendere. Ignorabamus nimirum animam, licet invisibilem, nasci et mori, nisi corporaliter exhiberetur. Ignoravimus plane resurrecturam cum carne. Hoc erit quod Christus manifestavit. Sed et hoc non aliter in se, quam in Lazaro aliquo, cujus caro non erat animalis, ita nec anima carnalis. Quid ergo amplius innotuit nobis de animae ignoratae retro dispositione? Quid invisibile ejus fuit, quod visibilitatem per carnem desideraret?
it knows. Learning nothing as yet about God, it names God; admitting nothing as yet about His judgement, it says that it commends itself to God. Hearing nothing more than that there is no hope after death, it calls down both good and ill upon each one who has died. The little book which we wrote On the Testimony of the Soul pursues these things more fully. Otherwise, if the soul was ignorant of itself from the beginning, it ought to have learnt nothing from Christ except what sort of thing it was. But as it is, it learns from Christ not its own likeness, but its salvation. For this reason the Son of God came down and took on a soul: not that the soul might know itself in Christ, but that it might know Christ in itself; for it is not by being ignorant of itself that it is in peril concerning salvation, but by being ignorant of the Word of God. "The Life," he says (1 John 1:2), "was made manifest"; not the soul, etc.: "I came," He says (Luke 9:56), "to make the soul safe": He did not say, to show it. We were ignorant, no doubt, that the soul, although invisible, is born and dies, unless it were displayed bodily! We were plainly ignorant that it would rise again with the flesh. This will be what Christ made manifest. But even this He made manifest no otherwise in Himself than in some Lazarus, whose flesh was not soul-like, just as his soul was not fleshly. What more, then, became known to us about the formerly unknown constitution of the soul? What was there invisible in it that would desire visibility through the flesh?
CAPUT XIII.
Chapter XIII.
Caro facta est anima, ut anima ostenderetur. Nunquid ergo et caro anima facta est, ut caro manifestaretur? Si caro anima est, jam non anima est, sed caro. Si anima caro est, jam non caro est, sed anima. Ubi ergo caro, et ubi anima est, alterutrum facta est. Imo si neutrum sunt, dum alterutrum alterum fiunt, certe perversissimum, ut carnem nominantes, animam intelligamus, et animam significantes, carnem interpretemur. Omnia periclitabuntur aliter accipi quam sunt, et amittere quod sunt, dum aliter accipiuntur, si aliter quam sunt, cognominantur. Fides nominum salus est proprietatum. Etiam cum demutantur qualitates, accipiunt vocabulorum possessiones. Verbi gratia, argilla excocta testae vocabulum suscipit; nec communicat cum vocabulo pristini generis, quia nec
The soul was made flesh, that the soul might be shown. Was flesh then also made soul, that flesh might be made manifest? If flesh is soul, it is no longer soul but flesh. If soul is flesh, it is no longer flesh but soul. Where, then, there is flesh, and where there is soul, each has been made the other. Nay rather, if they are neither, while each becomes the other, it is certainly most perverse that in naming flesh we should understand soul, and in signifying soul we should interpret it as flesh. All things will be in danger of being taken otherwise than they are, and of losing what they are, while they are taken otherwise, if they are called by names other than what they are. Fidelity of names is the safeguard of properties. Even when qualities are changed, they take possession of names. For example, clay when baked takes on the name of earthenware; nor does it share in the name of its former kind, since it does not [share] even
Editors' notes and page, col. 821
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁶¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Didicit Rhen. Seml. dicit. Ven.
"Didicit" ("learned"): Rhenanus, Semler; "dicit" ("says"): Venice edition.
⁶² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Didicit Rhen. Seml.
"Didicit" ("learned"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁶³ ‹anchor: nec communicat cum› · call in col 821 Cum abest a Pam. Rig.
"Cum" ("with") is absent from Pamelius and Rigault.
⁶⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Testa add. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus add "testa" ("earthenware").
⁶⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Non est et non adhaeret, et anima Pam. Rhen.
"Non est et non adhaeret, et anima" ("is not and does not cling, and the soul"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁶⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Sed Pam. Rhen.
"Sed" ("but"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁶⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Tuta Pam. Rhen.
"Tuta" ("safe"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁶⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Pronuntiata sub Pam. Rhen.
"Pronuntiata sub" ("pronounced under"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁶⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ubique codd. Wouw.
"Ubique" ("everywhere"): Wouwer's codices.
⁷⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et add. Lat.
Latinius adds "et" ("and").
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 415)
(62) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Et bene et male defuncto cuique imprecatur. Crudelitatis et immanitatis fuit mortuos conviciis afficere, unde notum illud pietatis erga mortuos signum S. T. T. L. Terram gravem enim optare imprecatio quaedam erat. LE PR.
"And they wish both good and ill on each of the dead." It was a mark of cruelty and savagery to heap abuse on the dead; hence that well-known sign of piety towards the dead, S. T. T. L. [sit tibi terra levis, "may the earth lie light on you"]. For to wish the earth heavy on someone was a kind of curse. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 415)
(63) ‹anchor: Ubi ergo caro› · call in col 821
Ubi ergo caro, etc. Tertullianus nihil habet propositi aliud, quam ut ostendat in Christo carnem et animam diversae fuisse substantiae. LE PR.
"Where then the flesh," etc. Tertullian has no other purpose than to show that in Christ flesh and soul were of different substance. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 415)
(64) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Animam animam, et carnem carnem. Simplicitatem hic affectat, ut amphibologiam vitet. LE PR.
"The soul a soul, and the flesh flesh." Here he aims at plainness, so as to avoid ambiguity. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 415)
(65) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi. Frivola est quorumdam objectio, qui effusum sanguinem dicunt ἀντὶ πλείστων, non ἀντὶ πάντων, si hic locus spectetur. Vertit autem : pro salute mundi, cum deberet dicere : pro mundi vita. LE PR.
"The bread that I shall give for the salvation of the world." The objection of certain people, who say that the blood was shed "for very many", not "for all", is frivolous if this passage is looked at. He renders it, however, "for the salvation of the world", when he should have said "for the life of the world". LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 415)
(66) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Ut angelum gestaret, nihil tale de causa est. Id est : non fuit causa, cur angelum gestaret. Observandum unionem hypostaticam, ad restaurandam aliquam naturam, oportere fieri in eadem natura. Rationem innuit Irenaeus, lib. III, cap. 20. LAC.
"That he should bear an angel, there is no such reason." That is, there was no reason why he should bear an angel. It is to be observed that the hypostatic union, to restore any nature, must be made in that same nature. Irenaeus hints at the reason, Book III, chapter 20. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 415)
Page
- running head: 821 LIBER DE CARNE CH (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A norit. Nihil adhuc de Deo discens; B 56), animam salvam facere; C nifestaretur? Si caro anima est; D municat cum vocabulo pristini generis
- old-edition numerals: 776 after Propterea
cum ipso genere. Proinde et anima Christi, caro facta, non potest non id esse quod facta est, et id non esse quod fuerit, aliud scilicet facta. Et quoniam proximum adhibuimus exemplum, plenius eo utemur. Certe enim testa ex argilla unum est corpus, unumque vocabulum, unius scilicet corporis. Nec potest dici et argilla, quia quod fuit, non est; quod autem non est, omnino non adhaeret. Ergo et anima caro facta, uniformis, solidata: scilicet singularitas tota est, et indiscreta substantia. In Christo vero invenimus animam et carnem simplicibus et nudis vocabulis editas, id est animam animam, et carnen carnen; nusquam animam carnem, aut carnem animam: quando ita nominari debuissent: si ista fuissent: sed etiam sibi quamque substantiam divise pronuntiatas ab ipso, utique pro duarum qualitatum distinctione, seorsum animam, et seorsum carnem. Quid anxia est, inquit (Matth. XXVI, 38), anima mea usque ad mortem? et (Joan. VI): Panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea est. Porro, si anima caro fuisset, unum esset in Christo carnea anima, aut caro animalis. At cum dividit species, carnem et animam, duo ostendit: si duo, jam non unum; si non unum, jam nec anima carnalis, nec caro animalis; unum enim est anima caro, aut caro anima. Nisi et seorsum aliam gestabat animam, praeter eam quae caro erat, et aliam circumferebat carnem, praeter illam quae anima erat. Quod si una caro, et una anima; illa tristis usque ad mortem, et illa panis pro mundo salute; salvus, est numerus duarum substantiarum, in suo genere distantium, excludens carneae animae unicam speciem.
with the kind itself. Accordingly the soul of Christ also, having been made flesh, cannot but be that which it has been made, and cannot be that which it had been, having namely been made something else. And since we have applied the nearest example, we shall use it more fully. For certainly a pot made from clay is one body, and one name, namely of one body. Nor can it also be called clay, because what it was, it is not; and what is not, does not adhere at all. Therefore the soul too, made flesh, is uniform, solidified: namely, it is a whole singularity, and an undivided substance. But in Christ we find soul and flesh set forth in simple and bare terms, that is, soul as soul, and flesh as flesh; nowhere soul as flesh, or flesh as soul, when they ought to have been so named if they had been such; but even each substance pronounced by Him separately on its own, surely in accordance with the distinction of two qualities, the soul separately, and the flesh separately. What? 'Anxious,' He says (Matt. 26:38), 'is My soul even to death'? and (John 6): 'The bread which I shall give for the salvation of the world is My flesh.' Moreover, if the soul had been flesh, there would be in Christ one thing, a fleshly soul, or an ensouled flesh. But when He divides the species, flesh and soul, He shows two: if two, then not one; if not one, then neither a fleshly soul nor an ensouled flesh; for that which is one is soul-flesh or flesh-soul. Unless He both carried apart another soul, besides that which was flesh, and carried about another flesh, besides that which was soul. But if there is one flesh and one soul, the one sorrowful even to death, and the other bread for the salvation of the world, the number of two substances is preserved, differing in their own kind, excluding a single species of fleshly soul.
CAPUT XIV.
Chapter XIV.
Sed angelum, aiunt, gestavit Christus. Qua ratione? Qua et hominem. Eadem ergo est et causa, ut hominem gestaret Christus: salus hominis fuit causa; scilicet, ad restituendum quod perierat. Homo perierat; hominem restitui oportuerat. Ut angelum gestaret Christus, nihil tale de causa est. Nam etsi angelis perditio reputatur, in ignem praeparatum
But Christ, they say, bore an angel. On what ground? On the same ground on which He also bore man. The cause, then, is also the same, so that Christ should bear man: the salvation of man was the cause; namely, to restore what had perished. Man had perished; it was necessary for man to be restored. That Christ should bear an angel, there is no such thing by way of cause. For even if perdition is reckoned to the angels, into the fire prepared
Editors' notes and page, col. 822
Page
- running head: DE CARNE CHRISTI. 822
- marginal letters: A ‹cum ipso genere›; B ‹sibi quamque substantiam›; C ‹si una caro, et una›; D ‹Nam etsi angelis›
- old-edition numerals: 777 after ‹argilla,›
- misprints kept as printed: ‹carnen carnen› (for carnem carnem; the Commentarius (64) prints carnem carnem)
diabolo et angelis ejus, nunquam tamen illis restitutio repromissa est. Nullum mandatum de salute angelorum suscepit Christus a Patre. Quod Pater neque repromisit, neque mandavit, Christus administrare non potuit. Cui igitur rei angelum quoque gestavit, nisi ut satellitem fortem, cum quo salutem hominis operaretur? Idoneus enim non erat Dei Filius, qui solus hominem liberaret, a solo et singulari serpente dejectum? Ergo jam non unus Deus, nec unus salutificator, si duo salutis artifices, et utique alter altero indigens. An vero, ut per angelum liberaret hominem? Cur ergo descendit ad id quod per angelum erat expediturus? Si per angelum, quid et ipse? Si per se, quid et angelus? Dictus est quidem magni consilii angelus, id est nuntius; officii, non naturae vocabulo. Magnum enim cogitatum Patris, super hominis scilicet restitutione, annuntiaturus saeculo erat. Non ideo tamen sic angelus intelligendus ut aliqui Gabriel aut Michael. Nam et filius a domino vineae mittitur ad cultores, sicut et famuli, de fructibus petitum. Sed non propterea unus ex famulis deputabitur filius, quia famulorum successit officio. Facilius ergo dicam, si forte, ipsum Filium angelum, id est nuntium Patris, quam angelum in Filio. Sed cum de Filio ipso sit pronuntiatum (Psal. VIII) : Minuisti eum modicum quid citra angelos, quomodo videbitur angelum induisse, sic infra angelos diminutus, dum homo fit, qua caro et anima et filius hominis? qua autem Spiritus Dei et virtus Altissimi (Luc. I) non potest infra angelos haberi, Deus scilicet et Dei Filius. Quanto ergo, dum hominem gestat, minor angelis factus est, tanto non, dum angelum gestat. Poterit haec opinio Ebioni convenire, qui nudum hominem, et tantum ex semine David, id est, non et Dei filium, constituit Jesum, plane prophetis aliquo gloriosiorem, ut ita in illo angelus fuisse dicatur; quemadmodum
for the devil and his angels, yet restoration was never promised to them. Christ received from the Father no commission concerning the salvation of angels. What the Father neither promised nor commissioned, Christ could not administer. For what purpose, then, did He bear an angel as well, unless as a strong attendant with whom to work out the salvation of man? For was the Son of God not fit to set free by Himself alone man, who had been cast down by a lone and single serpent? Then there is no longer one God, nor one Saviour, if there are two craftsmen of salvation, and the one, moreover, in need of the other. Or was it rather so that He might set man free through an angel? Why, then, did He come down to do what He was going to accomplish through an angel? If through an angel, why He Himself as well? If through Himself, why the angel as well? He is indeed called the angel of great counsel, that is, the messenger: a name of office, not of nature. For He was to announce to the world the great design of the Father, namely concerning the restoration of man. Yet He is not on that account to be understood as an angel in the way that some Gabriel or Michael is. For the son too is sent by the lord of the vineyard to the husbandmen, as the servants also were, to ask for the fruits. But the son will not for that reason be reckoned one of the servants because he succeeded to the servants' office. I would more readily say, then, if at all, that the Son Himself is an angel, that is, the messenger of the Father, than that there is an angel in the Son. But since it has been declared of the Son Himself (Ps. 8): Thou hast made Him somewhat less than the angels, how will He be seen to have put on an angel, being thus lessened below the angels while He becomes man, inasmuch as He is flesh and soul and son of man? But inasmuch as He is the Spirit of God and the power of the Most High (Luke 1), He cannot be held to be below the angels, being, that is, God and the Son of God. As far, then, as He was made less than the angels while He bears man, so far He was not so while He bears an angel. This opinion could suit Ebion, who made Jesus a mere man, and of the seed of David only, that is, not also the Son of God, plainly more glorious than the prophets in some respect, so that an angel might thus be said to have been in Him; just as
Editors' notes and page, col. 823
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁷¹ ‹anchor: ut aliqui› · call in col 823 Aliqui abest a Par.
"Aliqui" ("some") is absent from the Paris edition.
⁷² ‹anchor: Minuisti eum modicum› · call in col 823 Modico Rhen. Seml.
"Modico" ("by a little"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁷³ ‹anchor: dum homo fit› · call in col 823 Sit Rig. Ven.
"Sit" ("is"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁷⁴ ‹anchor: hominis? qua› · call in col 823 Quia Rhen. Seml.
"Quia" ("because"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁷⁵ ‹anchor: tanto non, dum› · call in col 823 Nondum Pam. Seml.
"Nondum" ("not yet"): Pamelius, Semler.
⁷⁶ ‹anchor: id est, non› · call in col 823 Natum, non item Pam. Fran. non idem Seml.
"Natum, non item" ("born, not likewise"): Pamelius, Franeker edition; "non idem" ("not the same"): Semler.
⁷⁵ [so printed; the call in the text is 77] ‹anchor: prophetis aliquo› · call in col 823 Modo add. Lat.
Latinius adds "modo" ("in a way").
⁷⁵ [so printed; the call in the text is 78] ‹anchor: ut ita in illo› · call in col 823 Nonnullis add. Fran. Pam.
The Franeker edition and Pamelius add "nonnullis" ("by some").
⁷⁹ ‹anchor: angelus› · call in col 823 Angelum Rhen. Seml.
"Angelum" ("an angel", accusative): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁸⁰ ‹anchor: fuisse dicatur› · call in col 823 Edicat Rhen. Seml.
"Edicat" ("declares"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁸¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› A omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "a".
⁸² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et Pam. Fran.
"Et" ("and"): Pamelius, Franeker edition.
⁸³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ipse abest a Par.
"Ipse" ("himself") is absent from the Paris edition.
⁸⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Se abest a Rhen. Seml.
"Se" ("himself") is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
⁸⁵ ‹anchor: quis cognoscet› · call in col 824 Cognovit Rhen. Seml.
"Cognovit" ("knew"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁸⁶ ‹anchor: ex Valentini factione› · call in col 824 Natione Rig. Ven. ratione Rhen.
"Natione" ("nation"): Rigault, Venice edition; "ratione" ("reasoning"): Rhenanus.
⁸⁷ ‹anchor: terrenam et humanam› · call in col 824 Et humanam omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "et humanam" ("and human").
⁸⁸ ‹anchor: carnis exstiterunt› · call in col 824 Exstiterint Rhen.
"Exstiterint" (subjunctive, "were"): Rhenanus.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 416)
(67) ‹anchor: repromissa est› · call in col 823
Nunquam tamen illis restitutio repromissa est. Praevertit hic Origenistas et daemoniacos recentiores, qui restitutionem daemonibus aliquando pollicentur, et pro daemonibus passum Christum dixerunt. Unde licet praecedentibus verbis, in illis ignem deficiat aeternum, hic supplet, quoniam nunquam illis restitutio repromissa est. Causas cur angeli non restituendi, appingit Damasc. lib. II, de Fide orthod. cap. 3 et 4; D. Thomas I p. quaest. 63, art. 2. Causa scilicet theologica est : nam quod hominibus mors est, angelis est casus; et sicut hominibus omnis spes resipiscendi sublata est post mortem, ita angelis post casum. Inde Lactantius, lib. VII, cap. 26. LAC.
"Yet restoration was never promised them." Here he forestalls the Origenists and the more recent demon-favouring men who promise restoration to the demons one day, and have said that Christ suffered for the demons. Hence, although in the preceding words "eternal" is lacking from "fire", he supplies it here, since restoration was never promised them. The reasons why the angels are not to be restored are set out by Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Book II, chapters 3 and 4, and by St Thomas, Part I, question 63, article 2. The reason, namely, is theological: for what death is to men, the fall is to angels; and as all hope of coming to their senses is taken from men after death, so from angels after the fall. Hence Lactantius, Book VII, chapter 26. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 416)
(68) ‹anchor: non potuit› · call in col 823
Quod pater neque repromisit, neque mandavit, Christus administrare non potuit. Quasi dicat : Debuit administrare quae Pater promisit et mandavit, ut videas commendatam obedientiam Christi. Ad rem Clemens Alex. lib. I Paedag. cap. 12, ait mandata esse veluti characteres divinos, quibus potentia velut infunditur ad perficiendum aliquid : Χαρακτηρίζεται τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτὰς τελεῖν δύνασθαι· Mandata ut characteres insinuat Deus, ut ipsa perficere possimus. LAC.
"What the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not carry out." As if he said: He had to carry out what the Father promised and commanded, so that you may see Christ's obedience commended. To the point, Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, Book I, chapter 12, says that the commandments are as it were divine characters, by which power is, as it were, poured in to accomplish something: "He stamps the commandments so that we may be able to fulfil them." God impresses the commandments like characters, so that we may be able to fulfil them. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 416)
Page
- running head: 823 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — [rest of head beyond the image's right edge]
- marginal letters: A paratum diabolo et angelis ejus; B lus, id est nuntius; C hominis? qua autem Spiritus Dei; D (67) Nunquam tamen illis restitutio
- old-edition numerals: 778 after non
in aliquo Zacharia. Nisi quod a Christo nunquam est dictum (Zach. I): Et ait mihi angelus qui in me loquebatur; sed nec quotidianum illud omnium prophetarum: Haec dicit Dominus. Ipse enim erat Dominus coram, ex sua auctoritate pronuntians (Isa. I): Ego autem dico vobis. Quid ultra? adhuc Isaiam exclamantem audi (Isa. LXIII): Non angelus neque legatus, sed ipse Dominus salvos eos fecit.
in some Zechariah. Except that it was never said by Christ (Zech. 1): And the angel who spoke in me said to me; nor even that daily [formula] of all the prophets: Thus says the Lord. For He was Himself the Lord present, pronouncing on His own authority (Isa. 1): But I say to you. What more? Hear Isaiah still exclaiming (Isa. 63): Not an angel nor an envoy, but the Lord Himself saved them.
CAPUT XV.
Chapter XV.
Licuit et Valentino, ex privilegio haeretico, carnem Christi spiritalem comminisci. Quidvis eam fingere potuit, quisquis humanam credere noluit: quando (quod ad omnes dictum est) si humana non fuit, nec ex homine, non video ex qua substantia ipse se, Christus hominem et filium hominis pronuntiarit (Joan. VIII, 40): Nunc autem vultis occidere hominem veritatem ad vos locutum; et (Luc. VI, 5): Dominus est sabbati Filius hominis. De ipso enim Isaias (Isa. LIII, 3): Homo in plaga, et sciens ferre imbecillitatem; et Jeremias (Jerem. XVII): Et homo est, et quis cognoscet illum? et Daniel (Dan. VII): Et super nubes tanquam filius hominis. Etiam Paulus apostolus (I Tim. II): Mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus. Item Petrus in Actis apostolorum (Act. I): Jesum Nazarenum, virum vobis a Deo destinatum, utique hominem. Haec sola sufficere vice praescriptionis debuerunt ad testimonium carnis humanae, et ex homine sumptae, et non spiritalis; sicut nec animalis, nec sidereae, nec imaginariae; si sine studio et artificio contentionis haereses esse potuissent. Nam, ut penes quemdam ex Valentini factione legi, primo non putat terrenam et humanam Christo substantiam informatam, ne deterior angelis Dominus deprehendatur, qui non terrenae carnis exstiterunt; dehinc, quod oporteret similem nostri carnem similiter
Valentinus too was permitted, by heretical privilege, to devise a spiritual flesh of Christ. Anyone who refused to believe it human could fashion it into whatever he pleased: since (as has been said to them all) if it was not human, nor from man, I do not see from what substance Christ Himself pronounced Himself man and son of man (John 8:40): But now you wish to kill a man who has spoken the truth to you; and (Luke 6:5): The Son of man is Lord of the sabbath. For of Him Isaiah [says] (Isa. 53:3): A man under the stroke, and knowing how to bear weakness; and Jeremiah (Jer. 17): And He is a man, and who will know Him? and Daniel (Dan. 7): And upon the clouds as it were a son of man. Paul the apostle too (1 Tim. 2): Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Likewise Peter in the Acts of the apostles (Acts 1): Jesus the Nazarene, a man appointed for you by God, that is, a man. These things alone ought to have sufficed, by way of prescription, as testimony to a flesh that is human, and taken from man, and not spiritual; just as it is neither animal, nor sidereal, nor imaginary; had heresies been able to exist without zeal and artifice of contention. For, as I have read in one of the faction of Valentinus, he first thinks that no earthly and human substance was formed for Christ, lest the Lord be found inferior to the angels, who were not of earthly flesh; next, that it was fitting that flesh like ours similarly
Editors' notes and page, col. 824
Footnotes
(69) ‹anchor: a Deo destinatum› · call in col 824
Virum nobis a Deo destinatum. Vulgata : approbatum. Ortum discrimen ab exemplaribus Graecis : nam aliqua habent ἀποδεδεγμένον, quod vulgatus approbatum vertit, quaedam vero ἀποδεδειγμένον [start of the word cut at the crop edge], quod est declaratum, exhibitum, demonstratum, sive, ut reddit Tertullianus, destinatum. LAC.
"A man appointed for us by God." The Vulgate has "approved". The difference arose from the Greek copies: for some have "apodedegmenon", which the Vulgate translator renders "approved", but some "apodedeigmenon", which means declared, shown, demonstrated, or, as Tertullian renders it, "appointed". LA CERDA.
(printed under page 416)
Page
- running head: UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 824 (cut off at left edge of image)
- marginal letters: A in aliquo Zacharia; B quando (quod ad omnes dictum est); C stimonium carnis humanae; D buit administrare quae Pater (beside editors' Commentarius, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 779 after dico
nasci, non de spiritu, nec de Deo, sed ex viri voluntate. Et cur non de corruptela, sed de incorruptela? Et quare non, sicut et illa resurrexit, et in coelo resumpta est, ita et nostra, par ejus, statim assumitur? aut cur illa, par nostrae, non aeque in terram dissoluta est? Talia et ethnici volutabunt: Ergo Dei filius in tantum humilitatis exhaustus? Et, si resurrexit in exemplum spei nostrae, cur nihil tale de nobis probatum est? Merito ethnici talia, sed merito et haeretici. Nunquid enim inter illos distat, nisi quod ethnici non credendo credunt, at haeretici credendo non credunt? Legunt denique (Psal. VIII): Minorasti eum modico citra angelos, et negant inferiorem substantiam Christi, nec hominem se, sed vermem pronuntiantis (Psal. XXI); qui (Isa. LIII) nec formam habuit, nec speciem; sed forma ejus ignobilis, despecta citra omnes homines; homo in plaga, et sciens ferre imbecillitatem. Agnoscunt hominem Deo mistum, et negant hominem. Mortuum credunt, et quod est mortuum, ex incorruptela natum esse contendunt: quasi corruptela aliud sit a morte, « Sed et nostra caro statim resurgere debebat. » Exspecta: nondum inimicos suos Christus oppressit, ut cum amicis de inimicis triumphet.
be born, not of the spirit, nor of God, but of the will of a man. And why not of corruption, but of incorruption? And why is ours, its equal, not taken up at once, just as that [flesh] both rose again and was taken back up into heaven? Or why was that [flesh], the equal of ours, not likewise dissolved into the earth? Such things the heathen too will turn over in their minds: So the Son of God was emptied out to such a degree of lowliness? And, if He rose again as a pattern of our hope, why has nothing of the kind been shown in our case? The heathen [say] such things with reason, but with reason the heretics too. For what difference is there between them, except that the heathen believe by not believing, but the heretics by believing do not believe? They read, after all (Ps. 8): Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels, and they deny the inferior substance of Christ, Who declared Himself not a man but a worm (Ps. 21); Who (Isa. 53) had neither form nor comeliness; but His form was ignoble, despised beyond all men; a man under the stroke, and knowing how to bear weakness. They acknowledge a man mingled with God, and deny the man. They believe Him dead, and contend that what is dead was born of incorruption: as if corruption were something other than death. "But our flesh too ought to have risen at once." Wait: Christ has not yet crushed His enemies, so that He may triumph with His friends over His enemies.
CAPUT XVI.
Chapter XVI.
Insuper, argumentandi libidine, ex forma ingenii haeretici, locum sibi fecit Alexander ille, quasi nos affirmemus, idcirco Christum terreni census induisse carnem, ut evacuaret in semetipso carnem peccati. Quod etsi diceremus, quacunque ratione muniremus sententiam nostram, dum ne tanta amentia, qua putavit, tanquam ipsam carnem Christi opinemur, ut peccatricem, evacuatam in ipso: cum illam et ad dexteram Patris in coelis presidere meminerimus, et venturam inde, suggestu paternae claritatis, praedicemus. Adeo, ut evacuatam non possumus dicere, ita nec peccatricem; nec evacuatam,
Moreover, out of a lust for arguing, after the fashion of the heretical cast of mind, that Alexander has made room for himself, as though we affirmed that Christ put on flesh of earthly origin for this reason, that He might make void in Himself the flesh of sin. Even if we said this, we would fortify our opinion by whatever reasoning, provided [it were] not with such madness as he supposed, as though we thought that the very flesh of Christ, as sinful, was made void in Him: since we remember that it sits at the right hand of the Father in the heavens, and we proclaim that it will come thence, upon the eminence of the Father's glory. So, just as we cannot call it made void, so neither [can we call it] sinful; nor made void,
Editors' notes and page, col. 825
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁸⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "et" ("and").
⁹⁸ [so printed; 90 is meant] ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Volutabant Pam. Rhen.
"Volutabant" ("they were turning over"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁹¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Defecta Fran. Pam.
"Defecta" ("failed"): Franeker edition, Pamelius.
⁹² ‹anchor: evacuatam non possumus› · call in col 825 Possimus Jun.
"Possimus" (subjunctive, "we could"): Junius.
⁹³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Nexum Jun.
"Nexum" ("bound"): Junius.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 417)
(70) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Et cur non de corruptela. Haec sunt argutiae Valentinianorum, quae Alexander ille conscripserat. Quaestio haec postea renovata in Oriente : utrum scilicet Christi caro corruptibilis vel incorruptibilis fuerit, ut monuit Reginus comes, epist. ad Fulgent. cujus meminit Ferrandus Diaconus in Paraenetico. LAC.
"And why not from corruption?" These are the subtleties of the Valentinians, which that Alexander had written up. This question was later revived in the East: namely, whether the flesh of Christ was corruptible or incorruptible, as Count Reginus noted in his letter to Fulgentius, which the deacon Ferrandus mentions in his Paraeneticus. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 417)
(71) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Defendimus autem. Integrum hoc caput apologia est pro Christianis contra calumnias Alexandri, qui imponebat illis existimare peccatricem carnem Christum habuisse. Miror Baronium, an. Christi 209, hoc caput non intellexisse; tribuit enim Alexandro huic diversissimam haeresim ab ea quam habuit. Ita enim Alexandrum exprobrans exclamat : « Carnem Christi, sui ortu, proh scelus! impie dicebat infectam fuisse peccato. » Non enim id dicebat Alexander, sed dicebat nos Catholicos id dicere, in quo egregie mentiebatur. Ac propterea ipse carnem Christi, ne diceret infectam fuisse peccato, spiritualem fingebat. Id colligi ex Tertulliano potest, non aliud. Ac propterea duo agit in hoc capite : primum purgat Catholicos ab hac impostura; alterum, explicat quomodo, licet caro Christi fuerit ac nostra, tamen non peccatrix fuerit. Quamobrem titulus capitis (in vet. edit.), qui obscurus est, potuit decipere Baronium; erit itaque hic clarior : « Responsio pro Catholicis, quod caro vera Christi peccatrix non fuerit. » LAC., adnotantibus EDD.
"But we maintain." This whole chapter is an apology for the Christians against the slanders of Alexander, who imputed to them the opinion that Christ had sinful flesh. I wonder that Baronius, at the year of Christ 209, did not understand this chapter; for he attributes to this Alexander a heresy utterly different from the one he held. For, reproaching Alexander, he exclaims: "The flesh of Christ, at his birth, oh the crime! he impiously said was infected with sin." Alexander did not say this, but said that we Catholics said it, in which he lied outrageously. And for that reason he himself feigned that the flesh of Christ was spiritual, so as not to say it had been infected with sin. This, and nothing else, can be gathered from Tertullian. And so he does two things in this chapter: first, he clears the Catholics of this imputation; second, he explains how, although the flesh of Christ was like ours, it was nevertheless not sinful. The chapter's title (in the old edition), which is obscure, may therefore have misled Baronius; so it will here be clearer: "Answer on behalf of the Catholics, that the true flesh of Christ was not sinful." LA CERDA, with notes by the EDITORS.
(printed under page 417)
Page
- running head: 825 LIBER DE CARNE CH[RISTI] (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A ter nasci, non de spiritu; B xxi); qui (Isa. LIII) nec formam; C carnem, ut evacuaret in semetipso; D fuerit, ut monuit Reginus comes (in the commentary)
- old-edition numerals: 780 after probatum est?
in qua dolus non fuit. Defendimus autem, non carnem peccati evacuatam esse in Christo, sed peccatum carnis; non materiam, sed naturam; nec substantiam, sed culpam, secundum Apostoli auctoritatem dicentis (Rom. VIII, 3) : Evacuavit peccatum in carne. Nam et alibi (ibid.), in similitudine, inquit, carnis peccati fuisse Christum. Non quod similitudinem carnis acceperit, quasi imaginem corporis, et non veritatem; sed similitudinem peccatricis carnis vult intelligi; quod ipsa non peccatrix caro Christi, ejus fuit par, cujus erat peccatum; genere, non vitio Adae : quando hinc etiam confirmamus eam fuisse carnem in Christo, cujus natura est in homine peccatrix; et sic in illa peccatum evacuatum, quod in Christo sine peccato habeatur, quae in homine sine peccato non habebatur. Nam neque ad propositum Christi faceret evacuantis peccatum carnis, non in ea carne evacuare illud, in qua erat natura peccati, neque ad gloriam. Quid enim magnum, si in carne meliore, et alterius, id est non peccatricis naturae, naevum redemit? Ergo, inquis, si nostram induit, peccatrix fuit caro Christi. Noli constringere explicabilem sensum. Nostram enim induens, suam fecit; suam faciens, non peccatricem eam fecit. Caeterum (quod ad omnes dictum sit, qui ideo non putant carnem nostram in Christo fuisse, quia non fuit ex viri semine) recordentur Adam ipsum in hanc carnem, non ex semine viri factum. Sicut terra conversa est in hanc carnem sine viri semine, ita et Dei Verbum potuit sine coagulo in ejusdem carnis transire materiam.
in which there was no guile. But we maintain that it was not the flesh of sin that was made void in Christ, but the sin of the flesh; not the material, but the nature; not the substance, but the guilt, according to the authority of the Apostle, who says (Rom. 8:3): He made void sin in the flesh. For elsewhere too (ibid.) he says that Christ was in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Not that He received a likeness of flesh, as it were an image of a body and not its reality; but he wishes the likeness of sinful flesh to be understood: that the very flesh of Christ, not sinful, was equal to that [flesh] to which sin belonged; equal in kind, not in the fault of Adam: since from this too we confirm that the flesh in Christ was that whose nature in man is sinful; and that thus sin was made void in it, because in Christ it is possessed without sin, which in man was not possessed without sin. For it would not suit the purpose of Christ, who made void the sin of the flesh, not to make it void in that flesh in which the nature of sin was, nor would it suit His glory. For what great thing [would it be] if He redeemed the blemish in a better flesh, and one of another, that is, of a non-sinful nature? Then, you say, if He put on ours, the flesh of Christ was sinful. Do not constrict a sense that admits of explanation. For in putting on ours He made it His own; in making it His own He made it not sinful. Moreover (let this be said to all who do not think that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it was not from the seed of a man), let them remember that Adam himself was made into this flesh, not from the seed of a man. Just as earth was converted into this flesh without the seed of a man, so also the Word of God could pass without coagulation into the material of the same flesh.
CAPUT XVII.
Chapter XVII.
Sed remisso Alexandro cum suis syllogismis, quos in argumentationibus torquet, etiam cum psalmis Valentini, quos magna impudentia quasi idonei alicujus auctoris interserit, ad unam
But dismissing Alexander with his syllogisms, which he twists in his argumentations, and also with the psalms of Valentinus, which with great impudence he inserts as though they were the work of some competent author,
Editors' notes and page, col. 826
Footnotes
(72) ‹anchor: psalmis Valentini› · call in col 826
Cum Psalmis Valentini. Eorumdem infra fit mentio cap. 20 : « Nobis quoque ad hanc speciem Psalmi patrocinabuntur; non quidem apostatae, et haeretici, et Platonici Valentini, » etc. Videtur autem ex posteriori loco Valentinus una cum Nicolaitis et Gnosticis (quibus eum errorem ascribit Philastrius) non agnovisse Psalmos David. Quos postea imitatus Paulus Samosatenus, teste Euseb. Histor. Eccl. lib. VII, cap. 24, Psalmos qui in Dominum Jesum dicebantur, cessare fecit, velut neotericos et nuper inventos; a se vero compositos, diebus Paschae, in medio ecclesiae, mulieres canere jussit; ita ut horresceret si quis audiret. Quae verba ideo in (continues)
"With the psalms of Valentinus." They are mentioned below, chapter 20: "The Psalms too will plead for us on this point; not, indeed, those of the apostate, heretic and Platonist Valentinus," etc. From the later passage, however, Valentinus seems, together with the Nicolaitans and Gnostics (to whom Philastrius ascribes this error), not to have acknowledged the Psalms of David. Imitating them afterwards, Paul of Samosata, as Eusebius witnesses, Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, chapter 24, stopped the psalms that were sung to the Lord Jesus, as being modern and newly invented, and ordered women to sing psalms composed by himself in the middle of the church on the days of Easter, so that anyone who heard would shudder. These words therefore (continues)
(printed under page 417)
Page
- running head: DE CARNE CHRISTI. 826
- marginal letters: A cuatam, in qua dolus non fuit; B peccato habeatur, quae in homine; C conversa est in hanc carnem; D scurus est, potuit decipere Baronium (in the Commentarius)
- old-edition numerals: 781 after erat
jam lineam congressionem dirigamus, an carnem Christus ex virgine acceperit, ut hoc praecipue modo humanam eam constet, si ex humana matrice substantiam traxit. Quanquam liquit jam et de nomine hominis, et de statu qualitatis, et de sensu tractationis, et de exitu passionis humanam constitisse. Ante omnia autem commendanda erit ratio quae praefuit, ut Dei Filius de virgine nasceretur. Nove nasci debebat novae nativitatis dedicator, de qua signum daturus Dominus ab Isaia praedicabatur. Quod est istud signum? Ecce virgo concipiet in utero, et pariet filium (Isa. VII). Concepit igitur virgo et peperit Emmanuelem, Nobiscum Deum. Haec est nativitas nova, dum homo nascitur in Deo; in quo homine Deus natus est, carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sina semine antiquo, ut illam novo semine, id est spiritaliter reformaret exclusis antiquitatis sordibus, expiatam. Sed tota novitas ista, sicut et in omnibus, de veteri figura est, rationali per virginem dispositione Domino nascente. Virgo erat adhuc terra nondum opere compressa, nondum sementi subacta: ex ea hominem faetum accepimus a Deo in animam vivam. Igitur si primus Adam de terra traditur, merito sequens, vel novissimus Adam, ut Apostolus dixit, proinde de terra, id est, carne nondum generationi resignata, in spiritum vivificantem a Deo est prolatus. Et tamen, ne mihi vacet incursus nominis Adae, unde Christus Adam ab Apostolo dictus est, si terreni non fuit census homo ejus? Sed et hic ratio defendit, quod Deus imaginem et similitudinem suam, a diabolo captam, aemula operatione recuperavit. In virginem enim adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum aedificatorium mortis; in virginem
let us now direct the contest to one line: whether Christ received flesh from the virgin, so that it may be established as human chiefly in this way, if He drew its substance from a human womb. Although it is already clear, both from the name of man, and from the state of its quality, and from the sense of its handling, and from the outcome of its passion, that it was human. But before all, the reason which went before must be set forth, why the Son of God was to be born of a virgin. The dedicator of a new nativity had to be born in a new way, and of it the Lord, who was to give a sign, was foretold by Isaiah. What is that sign? Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a son (Isa. 7). A virgin therefore conceived and bore Emmanuel, God with us. This is the new nativity, in that man is born in God; in which man God was born, the flesh of the ancient seed being taken up without the ancient seed, so that He might reform it with a new seed, that is, spiritually, expiated, the defilements of antiquity having been shut out. But this whole novelty, as also in all things, comes from an old figure, the Lord being born through a virgin by a reasoned dispensation. The earth was still a virgin, not yet pressed by labour, not yet subdued by sowing: from it, we have received, man was made by God into a living soul. Therefore if the first Adam is related to be from the earth, rightly the next, or the last Adam, as the Apostle said, was likewise brought forth by God from the earth, that is, from flesh not yet unsealed for generation, into a life-giving spirit. And yet, lest the occurrence of the name of Adam be wasted on me: why is Christ called Adam by the Apostle, if His manhood was not of earthly origin? But here too reason defends it: that God recovered His image and likeness, captured by the devil, by a rival operation. For into Eve, still a virgin, had crept the word that built up death; into a virgin
Editors' notes and page, col. 827
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁹⁴ ‹anchor: Quanquam liquit› · call in col 827 Licuit Rhen. Seml.
"Licuit" ("it was permitted"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁹⁵ ‹anchor: hominis, et de statu› · call in col 827 Et omitt. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler omit "et" ("and").
⁹⁶ ‹anchor: Quod est istud signum› · call in col 827 Quid Rig.
"Quid" ("what"): Rigault.
⁹⁷ ‹anchor: dispositione Domino› · call in col 827 Homine add. Fran. Par. Pam.
The Franeker edition, the Paris edition and Pamelius add "homine" ("man").
⁹⁸ ‹anchor: faetum accepimus› · call in col 827 Accipimus Rhen. Pam. Seml.
"Accipimus" (present, "we receive"): Rhenanus, Pamelius, Semler.
⁹⁹ ‹anchor: Adam de terra› · call in col 827 Ita inser. Par.
The Paris edition inserts "ita" ("so").
¹ ‹anchor: carne nondum› · call in col 827 Non Rhen. Seml.
"Non" ("not"): Rhenanus, Semler.
² ‹anchor: Et tamen, ne› · call in col 827 Nae Fran. Pam. utrumvis omitt. Lat.
"Nae" ("truly"): Franeker edition, Pamelius; Latinius omits either.
³ ‹anchor: unde Christus› · call in col 827 Ad eumdem Christus Rhen. Seml. in Christum pro Adae unde Christus Pam.
"Ad eumdem Christus" ("Christ to the same"): Rhenanus, Semler; "in Christum" for "Adae unde Christus": Pamelius.
⁴ ‹anchor: ab Apostolo› · call in col 827 Apostolis Lat.
"Apostolis" ("by the apostles"): Latinius.
⁵ ‹anchor: quod Deus› · call in col 827 Dei Rhen. Seml.
"Dei" ("of God"): Rhenanus, Semler.
6 ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Abierit Fran. Rig. Ven.
"Abierit" ("went away"): Franeker edition, Rigault, Venice edition.
⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et add. Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler add "et" ("and").
⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Redderet Rhen.
"Redderet" ("would render"): Rhenanus.
⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Nisi Rhen.
"Nisi" ("unless"): Rhenanus.
¹⁰ ‹anchor: ut esset et› · call in col 828 Et omitt. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus omit "et".
¹¹ ‹anchor: caro ei sola› · call in col 828 Ea sola quae Rhen. Seml.
"Ea sola quae" ("that alone which"): Rhenanus, Semler.
¹ [so printed; 12 is meant] ‹anchor: viri semen› · call in col 828 Semen viri Rhen. Seml.
"Semen viri" (the same words in the other order): Rhenanus, Semler.
¹³ ‹anchor: sine homine matre› · call in col 828 Matre omitt. Rhen.
Rhenanus omits "matre" ("mother").
¹⁴ ‹anchor: habere hominem› · call in col 828 Hominem omitt. Rhen.
Rhenanus omits "hominem" ("a human being").
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(continued) (72) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 826
medium adducta, ut agnoscant quos auctores imitentur nostri moderni Maroticorum potius, quam Christi psalmorum cantores et cantatrices, idque tali cum boatu, ut animus audientium perhorrescat. PAM.
are brought forward so that our modern singers, men and women, of Marot's psalms rather than Christ's may recognize which authors they are imitating, and with such bellowing that the hearers' minds shudder. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 418)
(73) ‹anchor: sina semine antiquo› · call in col 827
Carne antiqui seminis suscepta, sine semine antiquo. Licet enim Christus carnem assumpserit peccati macula deformem, non tamen deformitatem illam induit, peccatum non assumpsit. Assumptione quippe illa antiquis sordibus expiatam accepit. LE PR.
"Flesh of the ancient seed taken up, without the ancient seed." For although Christ assumed flesh disfigured by the stain of sin, He did not put on that disfigurement; He did not assume sin. For by that very assumption He received it cleansed of its ancient filth. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 418)
(74) ‹anchor: nominis Adae› · call in col 827
Ne mihi vacet incursus nominis Adae. Hoc est, ne elabi sinam occasionem argumentandi ex nomine Adam. Incursum dicit argumentationis impetum. RIG.
"Lest the attack from the name of Adam lie idle for me." That is, lest I let slip the chance of arguing from the name Adam. By "incursus" he means the thrust of an argument. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 418)
(75) ‹anchor: adhuc Evam› · call in col 827
In virginem enim adhuc Evam, etc. Confertur hic Eva cum beatissima Virgine. Antitheses vero illae non insolentes sunt Patribus : Evam in Mariam transfusam dixit S. Bernardus. Sergius Hierapolita de natali Virginis dixit illam esse ἀνάκλησιν τῆς Εὔας. reparationem Evae. Cesso in ro satis communi. LE PR.
"For into Eve, while still a virgin," etc. Here Eve is compared with the most blessed Virgin. Such antitheses are not unusual in the Fathers: St Bernard said that Eve was poured over into Mary. Sergius of Hierapolis, on the Virgin's nativity, said that she was "the recall of Eve", the restoration of Eve. I stop, on a matter common enough. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 418)
(76) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Nihilque haberet amplius Salomone. Haeresim Hebionis, quod Christus non esset Dei Filius, ex XII Matth. artificiose confutat : Ecce plusquam Jonas hic; et ecce plus quam Salomon hic. Invertit ordinem, ut etiam Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 29 : « Si enim Joseph filius esset, quemadmodum plus poterat quam Salomon, aut plus quam Jonas habere? » LAC.
"And He would have nothing more than Solomon." He skilfully refutes, from Matthew 12, the heresy of Ebion that Christ was not the Son of God: "Behold, a greater than Jonah is here; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here." He inverts the order, as Irenaeus also does, Book III, chapter 29: "For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He have more than Solomon, or more than Jonah?" LA CERDA.
(printed under page 418)
Page
- running head: 827 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. —
- marginal letters: A ‹jam lineam congressionem dirigamus›; B ‹antiqui seminis suscepta, sina semine›; C ‹est, si terreni non fuit census›; D ‹scat. PAM.›
- old-edition numerals: 782 after ‹in Deo;›
- misprints kept as printed: ‹sina› (for sine); ‹faetum› (for factum); in Commentarius (75) ‹in ro› (for in re; set back as printed by QA Q4a, 2026-10-18)
- the Commentarius printed under col 827 ((72) continued, (73)–(75)) stands in this notes file only; it was removed from layer 1 (parts/c827_a.md) by QA Q1b, 2026-10-18
aeque introducendum erat Dei Verbum exstructorium vitae: ut quod per ejusmodi sexum abierat in perditionem, per eumdem sexum redigeretur in salutem. Crediderat Eva serpenti: credidit Maria Gabrieli. Quod illa credendo deliquit, haec credendo delevit. » Sed Eva nihil tunc concepit in utero ex diaboli verbo. » Imo concepit. Nam exinde ut abjecta pareret, et in doloribus pareret, verbum diaboli semen illi fuit. Enixa est denique diabolum fratricidam. Contra, Maria eum edidit, qui carnalem fratrem Israel, interemptorem suum, salvum quandoque praestaret. In vulvam ergo Deus Verbum suum detulit, bonum fratrem, ut memoriam mali fratris eraderet. Inde prodeundum fuit Christo ad salutem hominis, quo homo jam damnatus intraverat.
likewise the Word of God, the builder of life, had to be introduced, so that what had gone off into perdition through that sex might be brought back to salvation through the same sex. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. The sin the one committed by believing, the other by believing blotted out. ” But Eve at that time conceived nothing in her womb from the devil's word. ” On the contrary, she did conceive. For from then on, so that she should give birth as an outcast, and give birth in pains, the devil's word was seed to her. In the end she brought forth a devil, a fratricide. Mary, on the contrary, bore Him who would one day make Israel, His brother in the flesh and His murderer, safe. Into the womb, therefore, God carried down His Word, the good brother, so that He might erase the memory of the evil brother. From there Christ had to come forth for the salvation of man, where man, already condemned, had entered.
CAPUT XVIII.
Chapter XVIII.
Nunc, ut simplicius respondeamus, non competebat ex semine humano Dei Filium nasci, ne si totus esset filius hominis, non esset et Dei filius, nihilque haberet amplius Salomone, et amplius Jona; et de Ebionis opinione credendus erat, Ergo, jam Dei Filius ex Patris Dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius, caro ei sola erat ex hominis carne sumenda, sine viri semine. Vacabat enim viri semen, apud habentem Dei semen. Itaque, sicut nondum natus ex virgine, patrem Deum habere potuit sine homine matre; aeque, cum de virgine nasceretur, potuit matrem habere hominem sine homine patre. Sic denique homo cum Deo, dum caro hominis cum spiritu Dei. Caro sine semine, ex homine; spiritus cum semine, ex Deo. Igitur si fuit dispositio rationis
Now, to answer more simply, it was not fitting that the Son of God should be born of human seed, lest, if He were wholly son of man, He should not also be Son of God, and should have nothing more than Solomon, and more than Jonah; and He would have had to be believed in according to the opinion of Ebion. Therefore, being already Son of God from the seed of God the Father, that is, from spirit, in order to be also son of man, He had only flesh to take from the flesh of man, without the seed of a man. For the seed of a man was superfluous in One who had the seed of God. And so, just as, when not yet born of the virgin, He could have God as Father without a human mother, likewise, when He was being born of the virgin, He could have a human being as mother without a human father. Thus, in short, man with God, while the flesh of man with the spirit of God: flesh without seed, from man; spirit with seed, from God. Therefore if there was a disposition of reason
Editors' notes and page, col. 828
Footnotes
(76) ‹anchor: amplius Salomone› · call in col 828
Nihilque haberet amplius Salomone. Haeresim Hebionis, quod Christus non esset Dei Filius, ex XII Matth. artificiose confutat: Ecce plusquam Jonas hic; et ecce plus quam Salomon hic. Invertit ordinem, ut etiam Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 29 : « Si enim Joseph filius esset, quemadmodum plus poterat quam Salomon, aut plus quam Jonas habere? » LAC.
"And should have nothing more than Solomon." He skilfully refutes the heresy of Ebion, that Christ was not the Son of God, from Matthew 12: "Behold, a greater than Jonah is here; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here." He inverts the order, as Irenaeus also does, Book III, chapter 29: "For if He were the son of Joseph, how could He have more than Solomon, or more than Jonah?" LA CERDA.
(printed under page 418)
(77) ‹anchor: ex Patris Dei semine› · call in col 828
Dei semine. Libenter amplectuntur theologi verbum istud, ut rationem suam fulciant, cur sancti Spiritus processio filiatio non sit, uti et Verbi processio. Nempe dicunt, quia Verbum ex semine Dei processit, non Spiritus sanctus. Quodnam hoc Dei semen? Respondent, speciem intelligibilem, seu notitiam sui. Sed hoc scholae viderint. Tertullianus id non sigillatim explicuit, sed generalius dixit : Id est, spiritu Dei. LAC.
"From the seed of God." The theologians gladly embrace this word to prop up their reasoning why the procession of the Holy Spirit is not a sonship, as the procession of the Word is. They say, namely, that the Word proceeded from the seed of God, not the Holy Spirit. What is this seed of God? They answer: the intelligible species, or His knowledge of Himself. But let the schools see to that. Tertullian did not explain it in detail, but said more generally: "That is, by the Spirit of God." LA CERDA.
(printed under page 418)
(78) ‹anchor: dispositio rationis› · call in col 828
Igitur si fuit dispositio rationis, etc. Hoc ait, quia Valentiniani dicebant, Christum Dominum per Virginem prolatum et proditum in mundum, nec tamen quidquam ex ea accepisse : quos item refutant Origenes dial. II de Christo homine; Ire- (continues)
"If, then, there was a disposition of reason," etc. He says this because the Valentinians said that Christ the Lord was brought forth and put forth into the world through the Virgin, and yet took nothing from her: they are likewise refuted by Origen, Dialogue II On Christ as Man; Ire- (continues)
(printed under page 418)
Page
- running head: [...]M PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 828 (start cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹nem aeque introducendum›; B ‹verat.›; C ‹aeque, cum de virgine›; D ‹nem, ut etiam Irenaeus› (in the Commentarius, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 783 after ‹competebat›
super Filium Dei ex virgine proferendum, cur non ex virgine acceperit corpus, quod de virgine protulit? Quia aliud est quod a Deo sumpsit. Quoniam, inquiunt, Verbum (Joan. I) caro factum est. Vox ista quid caro factum sit contestatur; nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit factum caro, et non Verbum. Si ex carne factum est Verbum caro, aut si ex semine ipso factum est, Scriptura dicat. Cum Scriptura non dicat, nisi quod sit factum, non et unde sit factum; ergo ex alio, non ex semine ipso suggerit factum. Si non ex semine ipso, sed ex alio, jam hinc trata, ex quo magis credere congruat, carnem factum Verbum, nisi ex carne, in qua et factum est, vel quia ipse Dominus sententialiter et definitive pronuntiavit (Joan. IV): Quod in carne natum est, caro est, quia ex carne natum est. Sed si de homine tantummodo dixit, non et de semetipso, plane nega hominem Christum, et ita defende non et in ipsum competisse. Atquin subjicit (ibid.): Et quod de spiritu natum est, spiritus est. Quia Deus spiritus est, et de Deo natus est. Hoc utique vel eo magis in ipsum tendit, si et in credentes ejus. Si ergo et hoc ad ipsum, cur non et illud supra? Neque enim dividere potes hoc ad ipsum, illud supra ad caeteros homines, qui utramque substantiam Christi, et carnis et spiritus, non negas. Caeterum, si tam carnem habuit, quam spiritum, cum de duarum substantiarum conditione pronuntiat, quas et ipse gestat, non potest videri de spiritu quidem suo, de carne vero non sua determinasse. Ita, cum ipse sit de spiritu Dei, et spiritus Deus est, et Deus ex Deo natus ipse est, et ex carne hominis, homo ⟨i⟩n carne generatus.
about the Son of God, who was to be brought forth from a virgin, why did He not receive from the virgin a body, since He brought it forth from the virgin? Because what He took from God is something else. Since, they say, the Word (John 1) was made flesh. This utterance testifies to what was made flesh; yet it does not run the risk of meaning that something other than the Word was at once made flesh. Whether the Word was made flesh out of flesh, or whether it was made out of the seed itself, let Scripture say. Since Scripture says nothing except what was made, and not also whence it was made, it therefore suggests that it was made from something else, not from the seed itself. If not from the seed itself, but from something else, consider now from this point from what it is more fitting to believe that the Word was made flesh, if not from flesh, in which it was also made, or because the Lord Himself declared by sentence and definitively (John 4): What is born in the flesh is flesh, because it is born of flesh. But if He said this only of man, and not also of Himself, then plainly deny that Christ is man, and so maintain that it did not apply to Him as well. But He adds (ibid.): And what is born of the spirit is spirit. Because God is spirit, and He was born of God. This surely applies to Him all the more, if it applies also to those who believe in Him. If therefore this applies to Him, why not also that saying above? For you cannot divide them, this one to Him, that one above to the rest of men, you who do not deny either substance of Christ, both of flesh and of spirit. Moreover, if He had flesh as truly as spirit, when He pronounces on the condition of the two substances which He Himself also bears, He cannot be seen to have made His determination about the spirit as His own, but about the flesh as not His own. Thus, since He Himself is of the Spirit of God, and the Spirit is God, and He Himself is God born of God, He is also man generated in the flesh from the flesh of man.
CAPUT XIX.
Chapter XIX.
Quid est ergo, non ex sanguine, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt? Hoc quidem capitulo ego potius utar, cum adulteratores ejus obduxero. Sic enim scriptum esse contendunt: Non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis voluntate, nec ex viri, sed ex Deo natus est, quasi supra dictos credentes in nomine ejus designet, ut ostendat esse semen illud arcanum electorum et spiritalium, quod sibi imbuunt. Quomodo autem ita erit, cum omnes qui
What then is the meaning of: Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God were they born? This passage I shall rather make use of when I have refuted its falsifiers. For they contend that it was written thus: Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, but of God was He born, as though it designated those mentioned above who believe in His name, so as to show that this is that secret seed of the elect and spiritual, with which they imbue themselves. But how will it be so, when all who
Editors' notes and page, col. 829
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
¹⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Semetipso Pam. Rig.
"Semetipso" ("himself"): Pamelius, Rigault.
¹⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Semetipso Par. Rig. Ven.
"Semetipso" ("himself"): Paris edition, Rigault, Venice edition.
¹⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Semetipso Par Rig. Ven.
"Semetipso" ("himself"): Paris edition, Rigault, Venice edition.
¹⁸ ‹anchor: et Deus› · call in col 829 Et Deus abest a Rhen. Par. Fran. Pam.
"Et Deus" ("and God") is absent from Rhenanus, the Paris edition, the Franeker edition and Pamelius.
¹⁹ ‹anchor: ex Deo nati sunt› · call in col 829 Natus est Pam. Rhen.
"Natus est" ("he was born"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
²⁰ ‹anchor: semen illud› · call in col 829 Illius Rhen. Seml.
"Illius" ("of him"): Rhenanus, Semler.
²¹ ‹anchor: et spiritalium› · call in col 829 Spiritualium Par. Fran. Pam.
"Spiritualium" (spelling): Paris edition, Franeker edition, Pamelius.
²² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Negatio Pam. Rhen. Seml.
"Negatio" ("denial"): Pamelius, Rhenanus, Semler.
²³ ‹anchor: Dei spiritus› · call in col 830 Filius Fran. Par. Pam. Rhen.
"Filius" ("Son"): Franeker edition, Paris edition, Pamelius, Rhenanus.
²⁴ ‹anchor: fieret extra vulvam› · call in col 830 Extra vulvam abest Fran. Pam.
"Extra vulvam" ("outside the womb") is absent from the Franeker edition and Pamelius.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(continued) (78) ‹anchor: on the previous page› · call in col 828
naeus, lib. III, contra Valent.; Euthymius, 2 p. Panopl., et alii apud Canisium, lib. III de Deipara, cap. 16, LAC.
naeus, Book III, against the Valentinians; Euthymius, Panoplia, Part 2; and others cited by Canisius, On the Mother of God, Book III, chapter 16. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 419)
(79) ‹anchor: adulteratores ejus obduxero› · call in col 829
Cum adulteratores ejus obduxero, etc. Adulteratores sunt κάπηλοι seu καπηλεύοντες λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Seu vocat haereticos Scripturae adulteratores, quia eam pessimis interpretationibus corrumpebant. LE PR. Obduxero, etc. Profligavero, delevero, ut usus est cap. 46, Apolog., et lib. de Resurrect. carnis : saepe vocat adulteratores, qui locum Joannis usurpabant pessime, ut Valentinianum somnium fulcirent; non quia vitiarent lectionem ipsam. LAC.
"When I have put down its corrupters," etc. The corrupters are the "hucksters", or those who "peddle the word of God". Or he calls the heretics corrupters of Scripture because they corrupted it with the worst interpretations. LE PRIEUR. "Obduxero," etc.: I shall have routed, wiped out, as he uses it in the Apology, chapter 46, and in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh. He often calls "corrupters" those who made the worst use of the passage of John to prop up the Valentinian dream; not because they corrupted the reading itself. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 419)
(80) ‹anchor: illud arcanum› · call in col 829
Semen illud arcanum. Somnium illud perstringit de semine animali et spirituali Valentinianorum, quae electis inducuntur a Demiurgo et Achamoth, ut cap. 25 adversum Valentin. narrat ipse, volebant illud ex Deo hoc semen notare. Caeterum, alii legunt semen illius. LAC.
"That secret seed." He touches on that dream of the Valentinians about the animal and spiritual seed, which are introduced into the elect by the Demiurge and Achamoth, as he himself relates in chapter 25 against the Valentinians; by "from God" they wanted to denote this seed. Others, however, read "his seed". LA CERDA.
(printed under page 419)
Page
- running head: 829 LIBER DE CARNE C[...] (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A super Filium Dei ex virgine proferendum; B caro est, quia ex carne natum est; C et ipse gestat, non potest videri; D designet, ut ostendat esse semen illud arca-
- old-edition numerals: 784 after tendit
credunt in nomine Domini, communi lege generis humani, ex sanguine, et ex carnis, et ex viri voluntate nascantur, etiam Valentinus ipse? Adeo singulariter, ut de Domino scriptum est: Et ex Deo natus est. Merito, quia Verbum Dei, et cum Verbo Dei spiritus et in spiritu Dei virtus, et quidquid Dei est Christus. Qua caro autem, non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis et viri voluntate: quia ex Dei voluntate Verbum caro factum est. Ad carnem enim, non ad Verbum pertinet negotiatio formalis nostrae nativitatis, quia caro sic habebat nasci, non Verbum. Negans autem ex carnis quoque voluntate natum, cur non negavit etiam ex substantia carnis? Neque enim, quia ex sanguine negavit, substantiam carnis renuit, sed materiam seminis, quam constat sanguinis esse calorem, ut despumatione mutatum in coagulum sanguinis feminae. Nam ex coagulo in caseo vis est substantiae, quam medicando constringit, id est lactis. Intelligimus ergo, ex concubitu nativitatem Domini negatam, quod sapit voluntas viri et carnis, non ex vulvae participatione. Et quid utique tam exaggeranter inculcavit, non ex sanguine, nec ex carnis voluntate, aut viri, natum, nisi quia ea erat caro, quam ex concubitu natam nemo dubitaret? Negans porro ex concubitu, non negavit ex carne; imo confirmavit ex carne, quia non proinde negavit ex carne, sicut ex concubitu negavit. Oro vos, si Dei spiritus non de vulva carnem participaturus descendit in vulvam, cur descendit in vulvam? potuit enim extra eam fieri caro spiritalis simplicius multo, quam intra vulvam fieret extra vulvam Sine causa eo se intullit, unde nihil extullit. Sed non sine causa descendit in vulvam: ergo ex illa accepit. Quia si non ex illa accepit, sine causa in illam descendit, maxime ejus qualitatis caro futurus, quae non erat vulvae, id est spiritalis.
believe in the name of the Lord are born, by the common law of the human race, of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of the will of a man, Valentinus himself included? So much is it in the singular, as it was written of the Lord: And He was born of God. Rightly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word of God the Spirit, and in the Spirit the power of God, and whatever is of God. But as flesh, [He was born] not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh and of a man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh. For the transaction of our formal birth pertains to the flesh, not to the Word, since it was the flesh that had to be born thus, not the Word. Now, in denying that He was born also of the will of the flesh, why did he not deny also [that He was born] of the substance of the flesh? For in denying [birth] of blood he did not reject the substance of the flesh, but the matter of the seed, which, it is agreed, is the heat of the blood, changed by frothing into a curdling agent of the woman's blood. For in cheese the rennet has power over the substance which it binds by its treatment, that is, the milk. We understand, therefore, that what was denied was the Lord's birth from intercourse, which is what the will of a man and of the flesh signifies, not [His birth] from participation in the womb. And why indeed did he so emphatically insist that He was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, or of a man, unless because it was such flesh as no one would doubt had been born of intercourse? Moreover, in denying [birth] from intercourse, he did not deny [birth] from flesh; nay rather, he confirmed [birth] from flesh, because he did not deny [it] from flesh in the same way as he denied [it] from intercourse. I ask you, if the Spirit of God descended into the womb not intending to partake of flesh from the womb, why did He descend into the womb? For He could have become spiritual flesh outside it much more simply than become, within the womb, [flesh that was] from outside the womb Without cause did He bring Himself thither, whence He brought nothing out. But not without cause did He descend into the womb: therefore He received from it. For if He did not receive from it, He descended into it without cause, especially since He was going to be flesh of that quality which was not the womb's, that is, spiritual.
CAPUT XX.
Chapter XX.
Qualis est autem tortuositas vestra, ut ipsam ex syllabam, praepositionis officio ascriptam, auferre quaeratis, et alia magis uti, quae in hac specie non invenitur penes Scripturas sanctas? Per virginem dicitis natum, non ex virgine; et in vulva, non ex vulva. Quia et angelus in somnis ad Joseph: Nam
But what is this crookedness of yours, that you seek to take away the very syllable ex, assigned the function of a preposition, and to use another instead, which in this connection is not found in the holy Scriptures? You say He was born through a virgin, not of a virgin; and in a womb, not of a womb. Because the angel too, in sleep, to Joseph: For
Editors' notes and page, col. 830
Page
- running head: DE CARNE CHRISTI. 830
- marginal letters: A credunt in nomine Domini; B seminis, quam constat; C Dei spiritus non de vulva; D invenitur penes Scripturas
- old-edition numerals: 785 after esse
quodin ea natum est, inquit (Matth. I) de Spiritu sancto est; non dixit ex ea Nempe tamen, etsi ex ea dixisset, in ea dixerat; in ea enim erat, quod ex ea erat. Tantumdem ergo, et cum dicit, in ea, et ex ea consonat; quia ex ea erat, quod in ea erat. Sed bene, quod idem dicit Matthaeus, originem Domini decurrens ab Abraham usque ad Mariam: Jacob, inquit, generavit Joseph, virum Mariae, ex qua nascitur Christus. Sed et Paulus grammaticis istis silentium imponit: Misit, inquit (Galat. IV, 4), Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere. Nunquid per mulierem, aut in muliere? Hoc quidem impressius, quod factum potius dicit, quam natum: simplicius enim enuntiasset natum. Factum autem dicendo, et Verbum caro factum est consignavit, et carnis veritatem ex virgine factae asseveravit. Nobis quoque ad hanc speciem Psalmi patrocinabuntur, non quidem apostatae, et haeretici, et Platonici Valentini, sed sanctissimi et receptissimi prophetae David. Ille apud nos canit Christum, per quem se cecinit ipse Christus. Accipe Christum, et audi Dominum Patri Deo colloquentem (Psal. XXI): Quia tu es qui avulsisti me ex utero matris meae; ecce unum. Et spes mea ab uberibus matris meae; super te sum projectus ex vulva; ecce aliud. Et ab utero matris meae Deus meus es tu; ecce aliud. Nun⟨c⟩ ad sensus ipsos decertemus. Avulsisti me, inquit, ex utero. Quid avellitur, nisi quod inhaeret, quod infixum, innexum est ei, a quo, ut auferatur, avellitur? Si nou adhaesit utero, quomodo avulsus est? Si ad haesit qui avulsus est, quomodo adhaesisset,
that which is born in her, he says (Matt. 1), is of the Holy Spirit; he did not say "from her". Yet surely, even if he had said "from her", he had [thereby] said "in her"; for that which was from her was in her. Just as much, then, when he says "in her", "from her" also accords with it; because that which was in her was from her. But it is well that the same Matthew, running through the Lord's descent from Abraham down to Mary, says: Jacob, he says, begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Christ is born. But Paul too imposes silence on these grammarians: God sent, he says (Gal. 4:4), His Son, made from a woman. Is it "through a woman", or "in a woman"? This indeed is more emphatic, that he says "made" rather than "born": for he would have expressed it more simply as "born". But by saying "made" he both set his seal on The Word was made flesh and affirmed the reality of flesh made from a virgin. The Psalms too will be our advocates on this point, not indeed those of the apostate, heretic and Platonist Valentinus, but those of the most holy and most accepted prophet David. He sings among us of Christ, through whom Christ Himself sang of Himself. Receive Christ, and hear the Lord conversing with God the Father (Ps. 21): For Thou art He Who tore me out of my mother's womb; here is one. And my hope from my mother's breasts; upon Thee I was cast out of the womb; here is another. And from my mother's womb Thou art my God; here is another. Now let us contend over the meanings themselves. Thou tore me, He says, out of the womb. What is torn away, except what clings, what is fixed in and bound up with that from which, in order to be removed, it is torn away? If He did not cling to the womb, how was He torn away? If He who was torn away clung, how would He have clung,
Editors' notes and page, col. 831
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
²⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Mulierem Pam. Rhen.
"Mulierem" ("woman"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁵⁶ [so printed; 26 is meant] ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Potius omitt. Seml.
Semler omits "potius" ("rather").
²⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Fac tam Pam. Ven.
"Fac tam" ("suppose so"): Pamelius, Venice edition.
²⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Et abest a Par.
"Et" ("and") is absent from the Paris edition.
²⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Accipe et David Domino Rhen. accipe Christum et David Domino Jun.
"Accipe et David Domino" ("take David too, to the Lord"): Rhenanus; "accipe Christum et David Domino" ("take Christ and David to the Lord"): Junius.
³⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Eloquentem Rhen. Seml.
"Eloquentem" ("speaking"): Rhenanus, Semler.
³¹ ‹anchor: ecce aliud› · call in col 831 Aliter Rhen. Seml.
"Aliter" ("otherwise"): Rhenanus, Semler.
³² ‹anchor: Avulsisti me› · call in col 831 Me omitt. Rhen. Pam.
Rhenanus and Pamelius omit "me".
³³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Adnexam Rhen.
"Adnexam" ("attached", feminine): Rhenanus.
³⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Traducis Fran. Par. traducem Pam. producem Rhen. Seml.
"Traducis": Franeker edition, Paris edition; "traducem" ("conduit"): Pamelius; "producem": Rhenanus, Semler.
³⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Pandentibus Lat. pendentibus Pam. Rhen.
"Pandentibus" ("opening"): Latinius; "pendentibus" ("hanging"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
³⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Infernis cod. Wouw. interni Pam. Fran. Par.
"Infernis" ("lower"): Wouwer's codex; "interni" ("inner"): Pamelius, Franeker edition, Paris edition.
³⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› In mamillam add. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus add "in mamillam" ("to the breast").
³⁸ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Latiorem Rhen. Seml.
"Latiorem" ("wider"): Rhenanus, Semler.
³⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Nihilo juncta Rhen. Seml.
"Nihilo juncta" ("joined to nothing"): Rhenanus, Semler.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 420)
(81) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Dum ex utero est. Hoc est, dum ad uterum pertinet, quasi pars et portio uteri. RIG.
"While it is of the womb." That is, while it belongs to the womb, as a part and portion of the womb. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 420)
(82) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Per illum nervum umbilicarem. Nervum umbilicarem dicit venarum et arteriarum compaginem quatenus collatis in umbilicum fibris coeunt. RIG. — Nervus umbilicaris est vena illa quae dependet in uterum. et contingit illum; nervus ille tradux vocatur etiam, quoniam per eum traducitur cibus ad foetum. LE PR.
"Through that umbilical cord." By "umbilical cord" he means the joining of veins and arteries, in so far as they unite with their fibres brought together at the navel. RIGAULT. — The umbilical cord is that vessel which hangs down into the womb and touches it; that cord is also called a "conduit", because through it food is conducted to the foetus. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 420)
(83) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Quasi folliculi sui traducem. Folliculum vocat, quam Hippocrates sive Polybius ὑμένα, τὸν περιέχοντα τὴν γονήν. His autem verbis χόριον describi ait Galenus involucrum fetus, Hesychio, Κάλυμμα τὸ συγγενόμενον ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας : Latini dixere Secundas. In iis autem sunt venae, quibus tanquam traducibus traducitur sanguis ad fetus umbilicum, ideoque Septimius nervum quem appellat umbilicarem, folliculi traducem esse ait. Folliculum dici vulvam notat Servius III Georg. Genitali arvo, inquit, pro muliebri folliculo, quem scilicet vulvam vocant, ut etiam Plinius docet. Nam folliculus ante dicebatur. RIG.
"As the conduit of its sac." He calls "sac" what Hippocrates, or Polybius, calls "the membrane enclosing the seed". Galen says that by these words the chorion is described, the covering of the foetus; in Hesychius, "the covering born with it from the belly": the Latins called it the Secundae (afterbirth). In it are the veins through which, as through conduits, the blood is conducted to the foetus's navel; and therefore Septimius says that the cord he calls umbilical is the conduit of the sac. Servius, on Georgics III, notes that the womb is called a sac: "In the genital field," he says, "for the woman's sac, which they call the womb," as Pliny also teaches. For it was formerly called folliculus. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 420)
(84) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Adnexus origini vulvae. Reddo veterum exemplarium scripturam, annexum origini vulvae. Foetus, inquit, portio viscerum matris dicitur, et ex utero esse intelligitur per illum nervum umbilicarem annexum origini vulvae. Etenim venae et arteriae per quas a matre sanguis et spiritus ad fetum fertur, originem ducunt ab venis et arteriis uteri seu vulvae, quarum extrema in interiorem vulvae regionem dehiscunt. Neque aliter fetui cum matre intercedit communicatio. Galeni verba sunt, libro de Fetus formatione : Ἡ δὲ ἀρχὴ τῆς γενέσεως τῶν ἀγγείων τούτων ἐστὶν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τὰς μήτρας ἀρτηριῶν καὶ φλεβῶν. Ὧν εἰς τὴν ἐντὸς χώραν τῆς μήτρας ἀναστόμωται τὰ πέρατα. Καὶ διὰ τούτων μόνων ἡ κοινωνία τοῖς κυομένοις ἐστὶν πρὸς τὰς κυούσας. RIG. — Origini vulvae. Non vulvae originem dicit, sed originem quam de vulva sumit nervus umbilicaris. RIG.
"Attached to the origin of the womb." I restore the reading of the old copies, "annexum origini vulvae". The foetus, he says, is called a portion of the mother's inward parts, and is understood to be of the womb through that umbilical cord attached to the origin of the womb. For the veins and arteries through which blood and breath are carried from the mother to the foetus take their origin from the veins and arteries of the uterus or womb, whose ends open into the inner region of the womb. Nor is there any other communication between the foetus and the mother. These are Galen's words, in the book On the Formation of the Foetus: "The beginning of the generation of these vessels is from the arteries and veins of the womb, whose ends open into the inner space of the womb. And through these alone is there communication between the unborn and those who carry them." RIGAULT. — "To the origin of the womb." He does not mean the origin of the womb, but the origin that the umbilical cord takes from the womb. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 420)
(85) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Quasi sequelam quamdam abruptae unitatis. Bene hoc Septimius, cum quid extraneum extraneo agglutinatur. Nam quod ad fetum spectat, negant medici sic pertinere ad matrem aut ad vulvam, ut ambo aliqua sui parte in unitatem coalescant. Ψαύει δὲ μήτρας, ἄνευ συμφύσεως, inquit Galenus de fetu. RIG.
"As a kind of consequence of a broken-off unity." Septimius says this well, when something foreign is glued to something foreign. For as regards the foetus, physicians deny that it belongs to the mother or to the womb in such a way that both grow together into a unity by some part of themselves. "It touches the womb, without growing into it," says Galen, on the foetus. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 420)
(86) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Et producis mutui coitus. Sic legitur in codice Pithoei. Producem dicit quemadmodum supra traducem. Igitur unitatem mutuo coitu productam dicit esse producem mutui coitus. RIG.
"And the offshoot of a mutual union." So it is read in Pithou's codex. He says "producem" just as above "traducem". So he calls the unity produced by mutual union the offshoot of a mutual union. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 420)
Page
- running head: 831 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. - (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A quodin ea natum est, inquit; B carnis veritatem ex virgine factae; C est? Si ad haesit qui avulsus est; D foetum. Le Pr. (in the Commentarius, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 786 after ab
nisi dum ex utero est per illum nervum umbilicarem, quasi folliculi sui traducem ad nexus origini vulvae? Etiam cum quid extraneum extraneo agglutinatur, ita concarnatur et convisceratur cum eo cui agglutinatur, ut cum avellitur, rapiat secum ex corpore aliquid a quo avellitur, quasi sequelam quamdam ⟨a⟩bruptae unitatis, et producis mutui coitus. Caeterum quae ubera matris suae nominat? Sine dubio, quae hausit. Respondeant obstetrices, medici et physici, de uberum natura, an aliter manare soleant, sine vulvae genitali passione, suspendentibus exinde venis sentinam illam inferni sanguinis, et ipsa translatione decoquentibus in materiam lactis laetiorem. Inde adeo fit, ut uberum tempore, menses sanguinum vacent. Quod si Verbum caro ex se factum est, non ex vulvae communicatione, nihil operata vulva, nihil functa, nihil passa; quomodo fontem suum transfudit in ubera, quae, nisi habendo, non mutat? Habere autem sanguinem non potuit lacti subministrando, si non baberet causas sanguinis ipsius, avulsionem scilicet suae carnis. Quid fuerit novitatis in Christo ex virgine nascendi, palam est: scilicet, solummodo hoc, quod ex virgine, secundum rationem quam edidim⟨u⟩s; et uti virgo esset regeneratio nostra, spiritaliter ab omnibus inquinamentis sanctificata per Christum, virginem et ipsum, etiam carnaliter, ut ex virginis carne,
except while He is from the womb through that umbilical cord, as the shoot of His own sac, joined to the origin of the womb? Even when something foreign is glued to something foreign, it becomes so united in flesh and in vitals with that to which it is glued that, when it is torn away, it carries off with it from the body from which it is torn something, as a kind of trailing remnant of the severed unity and of the offshoot of the mutual union. Moreover, what breasts of His mother does He name? Without doubt, those which He sucked. Let midwives, physicians and natural philosophers answer concerning the nature of the breasts, whether they are wont to flow otherwise, without the generative experience of the womb, when the veins thereupon draw up that bilge of the lower blood, and by the very transfer concoct it into the richer substance of milk. Hence indeed it comes about that in the time of the breasts the monthly courses of blood cease. But if the Word was made flesh out of Himself, not from communion with the womb, the womb having wrought nothing, performed nothing, suffered nothing, how did it pour over its fountain into the breasts, which it does not change except by having it? But it could not have blood for supplying milk if it did not have the causes of that blood itself, namely the tearing away of its own flesh. What novelty there was in Christ's being born of a virgin is plain: namely this alone, that it was of a virgin, according to the reasoning which we have set forth; and that our regeneration might be virgin, spiritually sanctified from all defilements through Christ, Himself also a virgin, even in the flesh, as being from a virgin's flesh,
CAPUT XXI.
Chapter XXI.
Si ergo contendunt hoc competisse novitati, ut
If therefore they contend that this befitted the novelty, that
Editors' notes and page, col. 832
Page
- running head: …RUM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA. 832 (left part cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹nisi dum ex utero est›; B ‹menses sanguinum vacent›; C ‹Si ergo contendunt hoc›; D ‹ἐστὶν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ (in the Commentarius)›
- old-edition numerals: 787 after ‹obstetrices,›
- other: "abruptae" initial a damaged in type; "edidimus" u damaged; column ends mid-sentence at "ut"; Variae lectiones and Commentarius (Rigaltius' notes 85-86, with Galen quotations) at page foot not set; left column cut off at image edge
quemadmodum non ex viri semine, ita nec ex virginis carne caro fieret Dei Verbum: quare non hoc sit tota novitas, ut caro non semine nata, carne processerit? Accedant adhuc cominus ad congressum, Ecce, inquit, virgo concipiet in utero. Quidnam? Utique Dei Verbum, non viri semen: certe ut pareret filium. Nam, Et pariet, inquit, filium. Ergo, ut ipsius fuit concepisse, ita ipsius est quod peperit; licet non ipsius fuerit quod concepit. Contra si Verbum ex se caro factum est, jam ipsum se concepit et peperit, et vacat prophetia. Non enim virgo concepit, neque peperit, si non quidquid peperit ex verbi concepto, caro ipsius est. Sola haec autem prophetae vox evacuabitur? an et angeli, conceptum et partum virginis annuntiantis? an et omnis jam Scriptura, quaecunque matrem pronuntiat Christi? Quomodo enim mater, nisi quia in utero ejus fuit? Sed nihil ex utero ejus accepit, quod matrem eam faceret, in cujus utero fuit. Hoc nomen non debet caro extranea. Matris uterum non appellat, nisi filia uteri, caro. Filia uteri porro non est, si sibi nata est. Tacebit igitur et Elisabeth prophetam portans jam Domini sui conscium infantem, et insuper Spiritu sancto adimpleta. Sine caussa enim dicit (Luc. I): Et unde mihi, ut mater Domini mei ad me veniat? si Maria non filium, sed hospitem in utero gestabat Jesum. Quomodo dicit: Benedictus fructus uteri tui? Quis hic fructus uteri, qui non ex utero germinavit; qui non in utero radicem egit; qui non ejus est, cujus est uterus? Et qui utique fructus uteri? Christus. An quia ipse est flos de virga profecta ex radice Jesse; radix autem Jesse, genus David; virga ex radice, Maria ex David? Flos ex virga, filius Mariae, qui dicitur Jesus Christus, ipse erit et fructus. Flos enim fructus: quia per florem et ex flore omnis fructus eruditur in fructum. Quid ergo? negant et fructui suum florem, et flori suam virgam, et virgae suam radicem,
just as not from a man's seed, so neither from the virgin's flesh should the Word of God become flesh: why should not this be the whole novelty, that flesh not born of seed proceeded from flesh? Let them come still closer to the encounter. Behold, he says, a virgin shall conceive in the womb. What, then? Surely the Word of God, not the seed of a man: certainly so that she might bring forth a son. For, And she shall bring forth, he says, a son. Therefore, as the conceiving was hers, so what she brought forth is hers, although what she conceived was not hers. On the contrary, if the Word became flesh from Himself, then He Himself conceived and brought forth Himself, and the prophecy is void. For a virgin did not conceive, nor bring forth, if whatever she brought forth from the conception of the Word is not her own flesh. Will this voice of the prophet alone then be made void? or that of the angel too, announcing the conception and the birth of the virgin? or indeed the whole of Scripture, whatever proclaims the mother of Christ? For how [is she] a mother, unless because He was in her womb? But He received nothing from her womb which would make her a mother, she in whose womb He was. Foreign flesh does not owe this name. The flesh does not call the womb a mother's unless it is a daughter of the womb. And it is not the daughter of the womb if it was born of itself. Elizabeth too, then, will be silent, carrying the prophet, an infant already aware of his Lord, and filled besides with the Holy Spirit. For without cause does she say (Luke 1): And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? if Mary was carrying Jesus in her womb not as a son but as a guest. How does she say: Blessed is the fruit of your womb? What is this fruit of the womb, which did not sprout from the womb, which did not put down root in the womb, which is not hers whose womb it is? And who indeed is the fruit of the womb? Christ. Is it because He is the flower from the rod that went forth from the root of Jesse; and the root of Jesse is the race of David; the rod from the root, Mary from David? The flower from the rod, the son of Mary, who is called Jesus Christ, He will also be the fruit. For the flower is the fruit: because through the flower and from the flower every fruit is brought on into fruit. What then? They deny both to the fruit its flower, and to the flower its rod, and to the rod its root,
Editors' notes and page, col. 833
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁴⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ex inser. Pam. Rhen.
Pamelius and Rhenanus insert "ex" ("from").
⁴¹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Nata delet Lat.
Latinius deletes "nata" ("born").
⁴² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Accedam Rig. Ven.
"Accedam" ("I shall approach"): Rigault, Venice edition.
⁴³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Communius Rhen. cod. Pithae.
"Communius" ("more commonly"): Rhenanus, Pithou's codex.
⁴⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Semine Rhen.
"Semine" ("seed"): Rhenanus.
⁴⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Quod cod. Pithaei.
"Quod" ("which"): Pithou's codex.
⁴⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Extraneae Lat.
"Extraneae" ("foreign"): Latinius.
⁴⁷ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Tacebat Rhen. Seml.
"Tacebat" ("was silent"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁴⁸ ‹anchor: […]tans› · call in col 833 Praedicans Rhen.
"Praedicans" ("proclaiming"): Rhenanus.
⁴⁹ ‹anchor: ad me veniat› · call in col 833 Veniat ad me Rhen. Seml.
"Veniat ad me" (the same words in another order): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁵⁰ ‹anchor: Benedictus› · call in col 833 Beatus Rhen. Seml.
"Beatus" ("blessed"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁵¹ ‹anchor: de virga profecta› · call in col 833 Projecta Rhen. Rig. Seml. Ven.
"Projecta" ("thrust forth"): Rhenanus, Rigault, Semler, Venice edition.
⁵² ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Suam abest a Rhen.
"Suam" ("its") is absent from Rhenanus.
⁵³ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Adhaerere Deo Paris.
"Adhaerere Deo" ("to cling to God"): Paris edition.
⁵⁴ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Ad inser. cod. Pithaei.
Pithou's codex inserts "ad" ("to").
⁵⁵ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Potuerunt Rhen. Seml.
"Potuerunt" ("they could"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁵⁶ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› A Christi nativitate Rhen.
"A Christi nativitate" ("from the birth of Christ"): Rhenanus.
⁵⁷ ‹anchor: Christus proditur› · call in col 834 Producitur Pam. Fran. Paris.
"Producitur" ("is brought forth"): Pamelius, Franeker edition, Paris edition.
⁵⁸ ‹anchor: et testis, qua› · call in col 834 Quia alii.
"Quia" ("because"): others.
⁵⁹ ‹anchor: ejusdem ipsius› · call in col 834 Ipsius abest a Rhen. Seml.
"Ipsius" ("himself") is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 421)
(87) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Ex lumbis Mariae. Hic lumbos pro utero accipit; nam quod Psal. CXXXI dicitur, De fructu ventris tui ponam super thronum tuum, Act. II, interpretatus Petrus, dicit, de fructu lumbi ejus. Ubi est τῆς ὀσφύος, quod illic τῆς κοιλίας. Quamvis illud de fructu ventris non careat mysterio, et opponatur lumbis, ut acute considerat Irenaeus lib. III, cap. 27. LAC.
"From the loins of Mary." Here he takes "loins" for the womb; for what is said in Psalm 131, "Of the fruit of your belly I will set upon your throne", Peter, interpreting it in Acts 2, renders "of the fruit of his loins". Where there is "of the loins", there it was "of the belly". Although "of the fruit of the belly" is not without its mystery, and is set against "loins", as Irenaeus shrewdly considers, Book III, chapter 27. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 421)
(88) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Testimonia daemonum. Quae sint haec testimonia daemonum, dubitat Pamelius; nam in Evangelio, daemones clamarunt Filium Dei, vel Jesum Nazarenum, nunquam Filium David. Quid si caecorum? sed nihil muto. Ut exitum inveniret Pamelius quaestioni, Tertullianum arguit oblivionis, quod verba Chananaeae Math. XV, Miserere mei, fili David, filiae ejus daemoniacae assumpserit. Ego non multum laboro de hac re : cum revera daemonia clamarint Filium Dei, potuit Tertullianus mutare Filium Dei in filium David. Tamen, ut ineptus ego, non refero ad testimonia, quae sunt in Scriptura, sed ad ea, quae alibi multa sunt, quale est illud Augustini, lib. I de Consensu Evangel., cap. 15 : « Quid? quod isti vani laudatores, et Christianae religionis obliqui obtrectatores, propterea non audent blasphemare Christum, quia quidam philosophi eorum sicut in libris suis Porphyrius Siculus prodidit, consuluerunt deos suos, quid de Christo responderent, illi autem oraculis suis Christum laudare compulsi sunt. Nec mirum, cum in Evangelio legamus eum daemones fuisse confessos. » Hi enim dii gentilium verissimi erant daemones, et laudabant Christum. Eamdem etiam confessionem Cyprianus indicat, de Idol. vanit. Et si velis dolare multis hanc paginam, adi Plutarchum. Cur oracula siluerint. LAC.
"The testimonies of the demons." Pamelius doubts what these testimonies of the demons are; for in the Gospel the demons cried out "Son of God" or "Jesus of Nazareth", never "Son of David". What if it means those of the blind? But I change nothing. To find a way out of the question, Pamelius charges Tertullian with forgetfulness, for having taken the words of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15, "Have mercy on me, Son of David", as those of her possessed daughter. I do not labour much over this matter: since the demons did in fact cry out "Son of God", Tertullian could change "Son of God" into "Son of David". Yet, foolish as I am, I refer it not to the testimonies in Scripture but to those that are found in plenty elsewhere, such as that of Augustine, On the Agreement of the Evangelists, Book I, chapter 15: "What of the fact that these vain praisers, and sidelong detractors of the Christian religion, do not dare to blaspheme Christ for this reason, that certain of their philosophers, as Porphyry the Sicilian recorded in his books, consulted their gods as to what they would answer about Christ, and they were compelled by their own oracles to praise Christ? Nor is it any wonder, since we read in the Gospel that the demons confessed him." For these gods of the Gentiles were most truly demons, and they praised Christ. Cyprian too points to the same confession, On the Vanity of Idols. And if you would hew this page out at length, go to Plutarch, Why the Oracles Fell Silent. LA CERDA.
(printed under page 421)
Page
- running head: LIBER DE CARNE CH (cut off at the image edge; column number 833 at left)
- marginal letters: A ‹quemadmodum non ex viri semine›; B ‹tum virginis annuntiantis? an et omnis jam Scrip-›; C ‹tus fructus uteri tui? Quis hic fructus uteri›; D ‹(87) Ex lumbis Mariae. Hic lumbos pro utero ac-› (in the editors' commentary)
- old-edition numerals: 788 after ‹Scriptura,›
quo minus suam radix sibi vindicet per virgam proprietatem ejus quod ex virga est, floris et fructus. Siquidem omnis gradus generis ab ultimo ad principalem recensetur, ut jam nunc carnem Christi, non tantum Mariae, sed et David per Mariam, et Jesse per David, sciant adhaerere. Ideo hunc fructum ex lumbis David, id est, ex posteritate carnis ejus jurat illi Deus concessurum in thorono ipsius. Si ex lumbis David, quanto magis ex lumbis Mariae, ob quam in lumbis David!
so that the root may not claim for itself as its own, through the rod, the property of that which is from the rod, of flower and fruit. For every degree of a lineage is reckoned from the last back to the first, so that they may now know that the flesh of Christ is attached not only to Mary, but also to David through Mary, and to Jesse through David. Therefore God swears to him that He will set this fruit from the loins of David, that is, from the posterity of his flesh, upon his throne. If from the loins of David, how much more from the loins of Mary, on whose account it was in the loins of David!
CAPUT XXII.
Chapter XXII.
Deleant igitur et testimonia daemonum filium David proclamantia Jesum: sed testimonia apostolorum delere non poterunt, si daemonum indigna sunt. Ipse imprimis Matthaeus, fidelissimus Evangelii commentator, ut comes Domini, non aliam ob causam, quam ut nos originis Christi carnalis compotes faceret, ita exorsus est: Liber geniturae Jesu Christi, filii David, filii Abraham. His originis fontibus genere manante, cum gradatim ordo deducitur ad Christi nativitatem, quid aliud quam caro ipsa Abrahae et David, per singulos traducem sui faciens, in virginem usque describitur inferens Christum, imo ipse Christus proditur de virgine? Sed et Paulus, utpote ejusdem Evangelii et discipulus et magister, et testis, qua ejusdem ipsius Christi apostolus, confirmat Christum ex semine David secundum carnem, utique ipsius. Ergo ex semine David caro Christi. Sed secundum Mariae carnem, ex semine David: ergo ex Mariae carne est, dum ex semine est David. Quocunque detorseris dictum, aut ex carne est Mariae, quod ex semine est David; aut ex David semine est, quod ex carne est Mariae. Totam hanc controversiam dirimit idem Apostolus, ipsum definiens esse Abrahae semen. Cum Abraham, utique multo magis David, quasi recentioris. Retexens enim promissionem benedictionis nationum in nomine Abraham; Et in semine tuo
Let them therefore also delete the testimonies of the demons proclaiming Jesus the son of David; but the testimonies of the apostles they will not be able to delete, if those of the demons are unworthy. Matthew himself first of all, the most faithful commentator of the Gospel, as the Lord's companion, began thus for no other reason than to make us acquainted with Christ's fleshly origin: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. With the lineage flowing from these springs of origin, when the order is traced down step by step to the nativity of Christ, what else is described than the very flesh of Abraham and David, propagating itself through each one, carrying Christ down right into the virgin, nay rather, Christ Himself is brought forth from the virgin? And Paul too, being both disciple and master of the same Gospel, and a witness, inasmuch as he is apostle of that same Christ, confirms that Christ is from the seed of David according to the flesh, assuredly His own. Therefore the flesh of Christ is from the seed of David. But it is from the seed of David according to the flesh of Mary: therefore it is from the flesh of Mary, since it is from the seed of David. Whichever way you twist the saying, either it is from the flesh of Mary because it is from the seed of David, or it is from the seed of David because it is from the flesh of Mary. The same Apostle settles this whole controversy, defining Him to be the seed of Abraham. Since of Abraham, assuredly much more of David, as being more recent. For, rehearsing the promise of the blessing of the nations in the name of Abraham: And in your seed
Editors' notes and page, col. 834
Page
- running head: DE CARNE CHRISTI. 834
- marginal letters: A ‹quo minus suam radix›; B ‹stolorum delere non poterunt›; C ‹David secundum carnem, utique ipsius›; D ‹filium David. Tamen, ut ineptus ego (in the Commentarius)›
- old-edition numerals: 789 after ‹indigna›
benedicentur omnes nationes: « Non, inquit, dixit, seminibus, tanquam de pluribus; sed semine, tanquam de uno, quod est Christus. » Qui haec legimus et credimus, quam debemus et possumus agnoscere in Christo carnis qualitatem? Utique non aliam, quam Abraham; siquidem semen Abraham Christus: nec aliam, quam Jesse, siquidem ex radice Jesse flos Christus: nec aliam, quam David, siquidem fructus ex lumbis David Christus: nec aliam quam ex Maria, siquidem ex Mariae utero Christus. Et adhuc superius: nec aliam quam Adam, siquidem secundus Adam, Christus. Consequens ergo est, ut aut illos spiritalem carnem habuisse contendant, quo eadem conditio substantiae deducatur in Christo: aut concedant carnem Chrtsti spiritalem non fuisse, quae non de spiritali stirpe censetnr.
shall all nations be blessed: "He did not say," he says, "'seeds', as of many, but 'seed', as of one, which is Christ." We who read and believe these things, what quality of flesh ought we and are we able to recognize in Christ? Surely none other than Abraham's, since Christ is the seed of Abraham; nor other than Jesse's, since Christ is the flower from the root of Jesse; nor other than David's, since Christ is the fruit from the loins of David; nor other than that from Mary, since Christ is from Mary's womb. And further back still: nor other than Adam's, since Christ is the second Adam. It follows, therefore, that either they must contend that those men had spiritual flesh, so that the same condition of substance may be carried down into Christ, or they must concede that the flesh of Christ was not spiritual, since it is not reckoned from a spiritual stock.
CAPUT XXIII.
Chapter XXIII.
Sed agnoscimus adimpleri propheticam vocem Simeonis, super adhuc recentem infantem Dominum pronuntiatam (Luc. II): Ecce hic positus est in ruinam et suscitationem multorum in Israel, et in signum quod contradicetur. Signum enim nativitatis Christi, secundum Isaiam: Propterea dabit vobis Dominus ipse signum; ecce virgo concipiet in utero, et pariet filium. Agnoscimus ergo signum contradicibile, conceptum et partum virginis Mariae; de quo Academici isti, Peperit, et non peperit; virgo, et non virgo: quasi non, etsi ita dicendum esset, a nobis magis dici conveniret. Peperit enim, quae ex sua carne: et non peperit, quae non ex viri semine. Et virgo, quantum a viro; non virgo, quantum a partu. Non tamen ut ideo, peperit, et non peperit; ideo, virgo, quae non virgo, quia non de visceribus suis mater. Sed apud nos nihil dubium, nec retortum in ancipitem defensionem. Lux, lux; et tenebrae, tenebrae; et Est, est; et, Non, non. Quod amplius, hoc a malo est. Peperit, quae peperit. Et si virgo concepit, in partu suo nupsit ipsa patefacti corporis lege, in quo nihil interfuit, de vi masculi admissi, an emissi, idem illud sexus resignaverit. Haec denique vulva est propter quam et de aliis scriptum est: Omne masculinum adaperiens
But we recognize that the prophetic utterance of Simeon is fulfilled, pronounced over the Lord when He was still a newborn infant (Luke 2): Behold, this one is set for the fall and the raising up of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against. For the sign of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah, [is]: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and shall bear a son. We recognize, therefore, the sign that is spoken against, the conception and childbearing of the virgin Mary, about which these Academics [say]: She bore and did not bear; a virgin and not a virgin; as if, even had it to be said so, it would not be more fitting for it to be said by us. For she bore, inasmuch as [she bore] from her own flesh; and she did not bear, inasmuch as [she bore] not from the seed of a man. And a virgin, as far as a man is concerned; not a virgin, as far as childbirth is concerned. Yet not in such a way that therefore "she bore and did not bear"; therefore "a virgin who is not a virgin", because she was not a mother from her own womb. But with us nothing is doubtful, nor twisted back into an ambiguous defence. Light is light, and darkness darkness; and Yes is yes, and No is no. Whatever is more than this is from evil. She bore who bore. And if as a virgin she conceived, in her childbearing she was wedded, by the very law of the opened body, in which it made no difference whether it was by the force of the male admitted or emitted that that same [part] of her sex was unsealed. This, in short, is the womb on account of which it is written of others too: Every male opening
Editors' notes and page, col. 835
Footnotes
Variae lectiones.
Variant readings.
⁶⁰ ‹anchor: sed semine› · call in col 835 Semini Fran. Pam.
"Semini" ("to the seed"): Franeker edition, Pamelius.
⁶¹ ‹anchor: signum quod› · call in col 835 Cui Pam. Fran.
"Cui" ("to whom"): Pamelius, Franeker edition.
⁶² ‹anchor: non ex viri› · call in col 835 Virili Rhen. Seml.
"Virili" ("of a man", adjective): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁶³ ‹anchor: peperit, et› · call in col 835 Ideo Par. Rhen. non tamen et ideo peperit, quia non ex carne sua peperit, et Pithae.
"Ideo" ("therefore"): Paris edition, Rhenanus; "non tamen et ideo peperit, quia non ex carne sua peperit, et" ("yet not that she therefore bore, because she did not bear from her own flesh, and"): Pithou.
⁶⁴ ‹anchor: non peperit;› · call in col 835 Non peperit et delet Pithae.
Pithou deletes "non peperit et" ("did not bear, and").
⁶⁵ ‹anchor: a malo est› · call in col 835 Est abest a Rhen Seml.
"Est" ("is") is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
⁶⁶ ‹anchor: in partu suo nupsit› · call in col 835 Non nupsit add. Par. cod. Ursin.
The Paris edition and Ursinus's codex add "non nupsit" ("did not marry").
⁶⁷ ‹anchor: an emissi, idem› · call in col 835 Id est Rhen. Pam.
"Id est" ("that is"): Rhenanus, Pamelius.
⁶⁸ ‹anchor: resignaverit› · call in col 835 Resignavit Pam. Rhen.
"Resignavit" (indicative, "unsealed"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁶⁹ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Sancti alii.
"Sancti" ("holy"): others.
⁷⁰ ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› Nos jam nunc Rhen. Seml.
"Nos jam nunc" ("we even now"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁷¹ ‹anchor: quam quae videtur› · call in col 836 Alia sit qua videtur Pam.
"Alia sit qua videtur" ("be other than it seems"): Pamelius.
⁷² ‹anchor: Et cum in› · call in col 836 In abest a Rhen. Seml.
"In" is absent from Rhenanus and Semler.
⁷³ ‹anchor: in alio› · call in col 836 Cum alias Fran. Pam.
"Cum alias" ("when elsewhere"): Franeker edition, Pamelius.
⁷⁴ ‹anchor: de coelo› · call in col 836 Coelis Rhen. Seml.
"Coelis" ("the heavens"): Rhenanus, Semler.
⁷⁵ ‹anchor: Philumenes filum› · call in col 836 Filium Pam. Rhen.
"Filium" ("son"): Pamelius, Rhenanus.
⁷⁶ ‹anchor: multiformis› · call in col 836 Multiformes Fran.
"Multiformes" ("many-formed", plural): Franeker edition.
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(printed under page 422)
(89) ‹anchor: quantum a partu› · call in col 835
Non virgo quantum a partu. Error hic gravissimus est. Tertullianus quippe falso dixit non virginem fuisse, quantum a partu, ut hic docet fuse. Can. 3 Concilii Lateranensis sub Martino I decrevit beatissimam Virginem incorruptibiliter enixam. LE PR.
"Not a virgin, as regards the birth." This is a most grave error. For Tertullian falsely said that she was not a virgin as regards the birth, as he teaches at length here. Canon 3 of the Lateran Council under Martin I decreed that the most blessed Virgin gave birth incorruptibly. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 422)
(90) ‹anchor: patefacti corporis lege› · call in col 835
Ipsa patefacti corporis lege. Legem mox recitat. Omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam, etc. RIG.
"By the very law of the opened body." He quotes the law shortly: "Every male that opens the womb," etc. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 422)
(91) ‹anchor: illud sexus› · call in col 835
Idem illuc sexus. Vulvam significat. Sic autem legitur in Ursini libro. RIG.
"That same [part] of the sex." He means the womb. So it is read in Ursinus's book. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 422)
(92) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call not visible
Apud Ezechielem, etc. Cum in Ezechiele propheta nusquam mentio fiat illarum vocum : Vacca peperit, et non peperit, merito dubitant interpretes quae sit hujus loci explicatio. Pamelius et alii putant id esse quod habetur Jobi XXI : Vacca peperit, et non est privata fetu suo. Etsi haec non habeantur in prophetia Ezechielis, ea perire potuerunt, licet Tertulliani temporibus adhuc exstarent. Vel potuit esse Ezechiel Judaeorum quidam tragoedus, et non ille cujus habemus vaticinium. LE PR.
"In Ezekiel," etc. Since the prophet Ezekiel nowhere mentions the words "The cow has calved, and has not calved", the interpreters rightly wonder what the explanation of this passage is. Pamelius and others think it is what is found in Job 21: "The cow has calved, and is not deprived of her young." Even if these words are not found in Ezekiel's prophecy, they could have been lost, though they still existed in Tertullian's day. Or Ezekiel could have been a certain tragic poet of the Jews, and not the one whose prophecy we have. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 422)
Page
- running head: 835 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A benedicentur omnes nationes; B non fuisse, quae non de spiritali stirpe; C esset, a nobis magis dici conveniret; D verit. Haec denique vulva est
- old-edition numerals: 790 after Simeonis
vuleam, sanctum vocabitur Domino. Quis vere sanctus, quam Dei Filius? Quis proprie vulvam adaperuit, quam qui clausam patefecit? Caeterum, omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt. Itaque magis patefacta est, quia magis erat clausa. Utique magis non virgo dicenda est, quam virgo, saltu quodam mater ante, quam nupta. Et quid ultra de hoc retractandum est, cum hac ratione Apostolus, non ex virgine, sed ex muliere editum Filium Dei pronuntiavit, agnovit adapertae vulvae nuptialem passionem? Legimus quidem apud Ezechielem de vacca illa quae peperit, et non peperit. Sed videte, ne vos jam tunc providens Spiritus sanctus notarit hac voce. disceptaturos super uterum Mariae. Caeterum, non contra illam suam simplicitatem, pronuntiasset dubitative, Isaia dicente (Isa. VI): Concipiet, et pariet.
womb, shall be called holy to the Lord. Who is truly holy, if not the Son of God? Who in the proper sense opened the womb, if not He Who opened it when it was closed? For the rest, marriage opens it for all. Therefore it was the more opened, because it was the more closed. Indeed she is rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, having become a mother, by a kind of leap, before being a wife. And what more need be reconsidered on this matter, when on this account the Apostle declared the Son of God born not of a virgin but of a woman, [and so] acknowledged the nuptial experience of the opened womb? We read indeed in Ezekiel of that cow which gave birth and did not give birth. But see whether the Holy Spirit, foreseeing you even then, did not mark you by this saying, you who would dispute about the womb of Mary. Otherwise He would not, against that simplicity of His, have spoken in doubtful terms, when Isaiah says (Isa. 6): She shall conceive, and bear.
CAPUT XXIV.
Chapter XXIV.
Quod enim Isaias jaculatur insuggillatione haereticorum ipsorum, et imprimis (Isa. V): Vae qui faciunt dulce amarum, et tenebras lucem; istos scilicet notat, qui nec vocabula ista in luce proprietatum suarum conservant; ut anima non alia sit, quam quae vocatur, et caro non alia quam quae videtur, et Deus non alius, quam qui praedicatur. Ideo etiam Marcionem prospiciens: Ego sum, inquit (Isa XLV), Deus, et alius absque me non est. Et cum in alio idipsum eodem modo dicit: Ante me Deus non fuit, nescio quas illas Valentinianorum Aeonum genealogias pulsat. Et, Non ex sanguine, neque ex carnis et viri voluntate, sed ex Deo (Joan. I) natus est, Ebioni respondit. Aeque, Etiamsi angelus de coelo aliter evangelizaverit vobis quam nos, anathema sit (Galat. I); ad energema Apelleiacae virginis Philumenes filum dirigit. Certe, qui negat Christum in carne venisse, hic antichristus est (I Joan. IV). Nudam et absolutam et simplici nomine naturae suae pronuntians carnem, omnes disceptatores ejus ferit. Sicut et definiens ipsum quoque Christum unum, multiformis Christi argumentatores quatit, qui alium faciunt Christum, alium Jesum; alium elapsum de mediis turbis, alium detentum; alium in secessu montis, in ambitu nubis sub tribus arbitris clarum; alium caeteris passivum, ignobilem;
For what Isaiah hurls in rebuke of the heretics themselves, and first of all (Isa. 5): Woe to those who make sweet bitter, and darkness light, he aims, namely, at those who do not even keep these words in the light of their proper meanings: so that the soul is no other than what is so called, and the flesh no other than what is seen, and God no other than He Who is preached. Therefore also, foreseeing Marcion, He says (Isa. 45): I am God, and there is no other besides Me. And when in another [place] He says the same thing in the same manner: Before Me there was no God, He strikes at those genealogies of the Aeons of the Valentinians, whatever they may be. And, Born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh and of man, but of God (John 1), answered Ebion. Likewise, Even if an angel from heaven should preach the gospel to you otherwise than we have, let him be anathema (Gal. 1), directs its thread against the energema of Philumene, the virgin of Apelles. Certainly, he who denies that Christ has come in the flesh, this one is antichrist (1 John 4). By declaring the flesh bare and absolute, and under the simple name of its own nature, he strikes all who dispute about it. Just as also, by defining Christ Himself as one, he shakes the arguers for a multiform Christ, who make Christ one and Jesus another; one who slipped away from the midst of the crowds, another who was held; one glorious in the retreat of the mountain, within the circuit of the cloud, before three witnesses, another passible to all the rest, without glory;
Editors' notes and page, col. 836
Page
- running head: ...UM PARS II. — SERIES I, POLEMICA.
- marginal letters: A ‹vuleam, sanctum vocabitur Domino›; B ‹Isaia dicente (Isa. VI)›; C ‹Aeonum genealogias pulsat›; D ‹in secessu montis, in ambitu›
- old-edition numerals: 791 after ‹haereticorum›
- other: first word read as "vuleam" (italic, slightly unclear; may be a blurred "vulvam"); "hac voce. disceptaturos" full stop as printed; "Isa XLV" lacks full stop as printed; "Deo" in Joan. I quotation shows a stray mark over the e, set as Deo; "(Isa. VI)" printed for the Concipiet quotation, kept as printed; overlapping lines between images set once; full-width "Variae lectiones" and "Commentarius" (Le Pr. note on Ezekiel and the cow) at page foot not set
alium magnanimum, alium vero trepidantem; novissime, alium passum, alium resuscitatum: per quod suam quoque in alia carne resurrectionem asseverant. Sed bene, quod idem veniet de caelis, qui est passus; idem omnibus apparebit, qui est resuscitatus. Et videbunt et agnoscent, qui eum confixerunt (Zach. XI; Joan, XIX): utique ipsam carnem, in quam saevierunt; sine qua, nec ipse esse poterit, nec agnosci. Ut et illi erubescant, qui affirmant carnem in coelis vacuam sensu ut vaginam exempto Christo sedere: aut qui carnem et animam tantumdem, aut tantummodo animam, carnem vero non jam.
one [Christ] magnanimous, but another trembling; lastly, one having suffered, another raised again: by which they assert that their own resurrection too is in another flesh. But it is well that He Who suffered is the same Who will come from the heavens; the same Who was raised again will appear to all. And they will see and will recognize Him Whom they pierced (Zech. 12; John 19): that is, that very flesh against which they raged; without which He Himself will be able neither to exist nor to be recognized. So that those too may blush who affirm that the flesh sits in the heavens void of sense, like a sheath with Christ drawn out of it; or who [say that] flesh and soul alike [sit there], or the soul only, but the flesh no longer.
Editors' notes and page, col. 837
Page
- running head: 837 LIBER DE CARNE CHRISTI. 838 (spans the page; right half beyond the scan crop)
- marginal letters: A alium magnanimum, alium vero trepidantem; no-; B (93) Ut autem clausulam de praefatione communi (foot Commentarius); C ARGUMENTUM. (next unit); D Cap. VII. Quod jam limus in carnem reformatus (next unit)
- old-edition numerals: 792 after novissime,
- other: This unit's text in col 837 is only the lines above the foot notes (end of De carne Christi, cap. XXV); in reading order it continues at the top of col 838 ("Sed ..."), where the unit ends above the title band. Below the band in col 837 stand the title Q. SEPT. FLOR. TERTULLIANI LIBER DE RESURRECTIONE CARNIS and the editors' ARGUMENTUM (Cap. I–VIII), editors' matter belonging to the NEXT unit: not set here. Foot apparatus (Variae lectiones 77–81, Commentarius 93) left to pass 2. Reference "Zach. XI" printed as such (the verse is Zech 12:10); kept as printed. "tantumdem" printed (for tantundem); kept. The column has no word split at its end.
CAPUT XXV.
Chapter XXV.
Sed hactenus de materia presenti satis. Jam enim arbitror instructam esse carnis in Christo, et ex virgine natae, et humanae probationem. Quod et solum discussum sufficere potuisset, citra singularum ex diverso opinionum congressionem; quam et argumentationibus earum, et scripturis quibus utuntur, provocavimus ex abundanti, uti eo, quod probavimus, quid et unde fuerit Christi caro, quid non fuerit, adversus omnes praejudicaverimus. Ut autem clausulam de praefatione communi faciat resurrectio carnis nostrae, alio libello defendenda, hic habebit praestructionem; manifesto jam, quale fuerit quod in Christo resurrexit.
But enough so far about the present matter. For I think that the proof of the flesh in Christ, both born of a virgin and human, has now been set out. This alone, once discussed, could have sufficed, without an engagement with the particular opinions from the opposing side; an engagement which we have nevertheless provoked, both with their arguments and with the scriptures which they use, out of abundance, so that by what we have proved (what the flesh of Christ was and whence it came, and what it was not) we might have prejudged [the case] against all. But so that the resurrection of our flesh, which is to be defended in another book, may make the close out of a common preface, it will have its groundwork here; since it is now manifest of what kind that was which rose again in Christ.
Editors' notes and page, col. 838
Footnotes
Commentarius.
Commentary.
(94) ‹anchor: manifesto jam› · call in col 838
Manifesto jam, Subauditur, existente, ut Graece δήλου ὄντος. RHEN.
"Now manifest." "Existente" ("being") is understood, as in the Greek δήλου ὄντος. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 423)
Page
- running head: DE CARNE CHRISTI.
- marginal letters: A ‹CAPUT XXV.›; B ‹inquietare, merito Christi (in footnotes, not set)›; C ‹Cap. IX. Quod Christus›; D ‹aut gratiae communicare mercedem›
- old-edition numerals: 793 after ‹dilexerit.›
- other: the column continues with Cap. IX. (another unit); not set here
- misprints kept as printed: ‹presenti› (for praesenti), Cap. XXV, line 1
- QA Q1b, 2026-10-18: Variae lectiones 77–81 (all called in col 838: citra, praejudicaverimus, clausulam, nostrae, resurrexit) and Commentarius (93) (lemma "Ut autem clausulam de praefatione communi", ending "quaestionibus distrahunt. » RIG." under col 838) are printed at the foot of page 423, but the page-foot crops p423_footL/R show the title band and ARGUMENTUM instead, and the column crops cut off their start: UNSET, to be set from a correct foot crop. Only (94) is set above.
- QA Q5, 2026-10-18: confirmed — p423_footL/R again show the title band and the De resurrectione ARGUMENTUM, not the foot apparatus; Variae lectiones 77–81 and Commentarius (93) remain UNSET pending a correct foot crop.