Migne Reading Room
PL 2 · cols. 979–1004
Tertullian, Liber de monogamia
Editors' preface
Q. SEPT. FLOR. TERTULLIANI LIBER DE MONOGAMIA.
Q[uintus] Sept[imius] Flor[ens] Tertullian: Book on Monogamy.
ARGUMENTUM.
ARGUMENT.
Montanum hic passim Paracletum nominat, haereticumque negat, quamvis Cataphrygarum sectatorem. Mediam autem se viam ten⟨e⟩re inter eos qui negant nuptias, et alios qui plures repetitas inducunt; adeoque Monogamiam tuetur, docetque novam non esse hanc disciplinam, sed veterem et propriam Christianorum.
Here he everywhere calls Montanus the Paraclete, and denies that he is a heretic, although he is a follower of the Cataphrygians. He says that he himself holds a middle way between those who deny marriage and the others who bring in many repeated marriages; and so he defends Monogamy, and teaches that this discipline is not new, but old and proper to Christians.
CAPUT PRIMUM,
CHAPTER I.
Haeretici nuptias auferunt, Psychici ingerunt. Illi nec semel, isti non semel nubunt. Quid agis. lex Creatoris? Inter alienos spadones et aurigas tuos tandundem quereris de domestico obsequio, quantum de fastidio extraneo; proinde te laedunt qui abutuntur, quemadmodnm qui non utuntur. Verum neque continentia ejusmodi laudanda, quia haeretica est; neque licentia defendenda, quia psychica est. Illa blasphemat, ista luxuriat. Illa destruit nuptiarum Deum, ista confundit. Penes nos autem, quos spirituales merito dici facit agnitio spiritalium cha⟨r⟩ismatum, continentia tam religiosa est, quam licentia verecunda, quandoquidem ambae cum Creatore sunt. Continentia legem nuptiarum honorat, licentia temperat
Heretics take marriage away, the Psychics heap it on. The former marry not even once, the latter more than once. What are you doing, law of the Creator? Between alien eunuchs and your own charioteers you complain just as much of service at home as of disdain from outside; those who abuse you injure you just as much as those who do not use you. But neither is continence of that sort to be praised, because it is heretical, nor is licence to be defended, because it is psychic. The one blasphemes, the other runs riot. The one destroys the God of marriage, the other confounds Him. With us, however, whom the recognition of spiritual gifts rightly causes to be called spiritual, continence is as religious as licence is modest, since both are with the Creator. Continence honours the law of marriage, licence tempers
Editors' notes and page, col. 979
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 494)
(1) ‹anchor: Psychici ingerunt› · call in col 979
Physici Rhen.
"Physici" [for "Psychici"]: Rhenanus.
(printed under page 494)
(2) ‹anchor: aurigas tuos› · call in col 979
Urigas Priorius; origas sive perorigas conjicit Rig.
"Urigas": Priorius; Rigault conjectures "origas" or "perorigas".
(printed under page 494)
(3) ‹anchor: facit agnitio› · call in col 979
Agnitio abest Rhen. Fran.
"Agnitio" is absent in Rhenanus and the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 494)
(1) ‹anchor: the title, DE MONOGAMIA (1), printed across the page› · call in the title band
Aperte hoc libro, atque item sequentibus, Montani dogma tuetur. Credebat autem instare diem Domini, et fideles, volebat esse ad martyria paratissimos. Itaque detrahenda putavit Christianis ommia vitae humanioris retinacula, quae solebant animos ad pericula reddere segniores. Cujusmodi sunt uxores et liberi, et curae ex istis multiplices. Quod consilium, alias fortean excusabile, cum etiam detortis et Dei et Apostoli verbis, unde sibi plerique nimium blandiebantur, aggredi non dubitaverit, jure est ab Ecclesia reprehensum damnatumque. RIG.
In this book, and likewise in those that follow, he openly defends the doctrine of Montanus. He believed that the day of the Lord was at hand, and he wanted the faithful to be fully ready for martyrdom. So he thought Christians should be stripped of all the ties of a more ordinary life, which tended to make their spirits slower to face danger: such are wives and children, and the many cares that come of them. This plan, perhaps excusable in another setting, he did not hesitate to pursue even by twisting the words of both God and the Apostle, words in which a great many flattered themselves too much; and so it was rightly censured and condemned by the Church. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 494)
(2) ‹anchor: Haeretici nuptias auferunt› · call in col 979
Haeretici nuptias auferunt. Marcionitas hic tantum signat, qui conjugium condemnabant. LE PR.
Heretics take marriage away. Here he points only at the Marcionites, who condemned marriage. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 494)
(3) ‹anchor: Psychici ingerunt› · call in col 979
Psychici ingerunt. Mediam viam tenere velle videtur, inter Marcionitas qui nuptias damnabant, et Psychicos qui nuptias repetere concedebant. Non est autem dubium quin per Psychicos, orthodoxos intelligat, quorum e nnmero fuisse testatur lib. adv. Prax. c. 1: » Et nos quidem postea agnitio Paracleti atque defensio dixjunxit a Psychicis. » Psychicos vero, veluti animales dixit, quoniam ex quo Montani factus est assecla, spiritalem se vocavit, animalis vero homo ea non percipit quae sunt Spiritus Dei, ut habet Apostolus I Cor. II, ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος, οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ RIG.
The Psychics press it on us. He seems to want to hold a middle way between the Marcionites, who condemned marriage, and the Psychics, who allowed marriage to be repeated. There is no doubt, however, that by "Psychics" he means the orthodox, of whose number he testifies he had been, in the book Against Praxeas, ch. 1: "And as for us, the recognition and defence of the Paraclete afterwards separated us from the Psychics." He called them Psychics, that is "animal" men, because from the time he became a follower of Montanus he called himself spiritual; and the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, as the Apostle has it, 1 Cor. 2: "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God." RIGAULT.
(printed under page 494)
(4) ‹anchor: inter alienos spadones› · call in col 979
Inter alienos spadones. Hoc est, inter haereticos, qui nuptias auferunt. Haeretici alieni et extranei sunt Catholicis. Spadones vocat osores nuptiarum. RIG.
Among strangers who are eunuchs. That is, among the heretics who take marriage away. Heretics are aliens and strangers to Catholics. He calls the haters of marriage eunuchs. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 494)
(5) ‹anchor: et aurigas tuos› · call in col 979
Et aurigas tuos. Legendum, et perorigas tuos. Varroni, lib. II de re rust. ubi de admissura equarum. Peroriga dicitur quisquis admittit. Itaque acutissime Perorigas, sive praurigas sive prurigas vocat Psychicos, qui, ut ipse ait, nuptias ingerebant, et quasi pruriginem conciliabant. Tuos, dicit, legem compellans; nam alicui ab ea non censebantur etiam Septimio Psychici, qui et Catholici. RIG. — Urigas tuos. Si legas, urigas, quasi ab urendo, hoc est qui pruriginem veluti movebant, quid juvabunt illa commenta Pamelii de aurigis in Circo Rom.? LE PR.
And your charioteers. Read and your perorigae. [So] Varro, On Agriculture book 2, where he treats of the covering of mares: a "peroriga" is whoever brings the stallion to the mare. So he very sharply calls the Psychics "perorigae", or "praurigae", or "prurigae", since, as he says himself, they pressed marriage on people and, as it were, stirred up an itch. He says your, addressing the law; for even to Septimius the Psychics, who are also the Catholics, were not reckoned as strangers to it. RIGAULT. — Your urigae. If you read "urigae", as if from "urere" (to burn), that is, those who as it were stirred up an itch, what use will Pamelius's fancies about charioteers in the Roman Circus be? LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 494)
Page
- running head: 979 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — S[...] (right part of the head lies outside this image)
- marginal letters: A ‹Montanum hic passim Paracletum› (letter in the gutter at the Argumentum's first line); B ‹te 931 laedunt qui abutuntur›; C ‹(in the Commentarius at the foot, beside "paratissimos")›; D (none visible)
- old-edition numerals: 931 after ‹proinde te›
- the variant printed "5 Contraria spiritus" (the fourth variant; call 4 at "spiritui") belongs to col 980 and stands in n980
Illa non cogitur; ista regitur. Illa arbitrium habet, haec modum. Unum matrimonium novimus, sicut unum Deum. Magis honorem refert lex nuptiarum, ubi habet et pudorem. Sed Psychicis non recipientibus spiritum, ea quae sunt spiritus non placent. Ita, dum quae sunt spiritus non placent, ea quae sunt carnis placebunt, ut contraria spiritui. Caro, inquit, adversus spiritum concupiscit, et spiritus adversus carnem (Galat. V, 17). Quid autem concupiscet caro, quam quae magis carnis sunt? Proptcr quod et in primordio extranea spiritus facta est: Non, inquit (Gen. VI, 3), permanebit spiritus meus in istis hominibus in aevum, eo quod caro sint.
The former is not compelled; the latter is regulated. The former has free choice, the latter a measure. We know one marriage, just as we know one God. The law of marriage brings back more honour where it also has modesty. But since the Psychics do not receive the Spirit, the things that are of the Spirit do not please them. Thus, while the things that are of the Spirit do not please, the things that are of the flesh will please, as being contrary to the Spirit. The flesh, it says, lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh (Gal. 5:17). And what will the flesh lust after, if not the things that are more of the flesh? For which reason also in the beginning it was made a stranger to the spirit: My spirit, He says (Gen. 6:3), shall not remain in these men for ever, because they are flesh.
CAPUT II.
Chapter II.
Itaque Monogamiae disciplinam in haeresim exprobrant. Nec ulla magis ex caussa Paracletum negare coguntur, quam dum existimant novae disciplinae institutorem, et quidem durissimae illis, ut jam de hoc primum consistendum sit in generali retractatu. An capiat Paracletum aliquid tale docuisse, quod aut novum deputari possit adversus catholicam traditionem, aut onerosum adversus levem sarcinam Domini? De utroque autem ipse
Accordingly they reproach the discipline of monogamy as a heresy. Nor are they driven to deny the Paraclete for any cause more than this, that they consider Him the founder of a new discipline, and one indeed most harsh to them, so that we must now first take our stand on this point in a general reconsideration: whether it is admissible that the Paraclete taught anything such as could be reckoned either new as against the catholic tradition or burdensome as against the light burden of the Lord. On both points, however, the very
Editors' notes and page, col. 980
Footnotes
(4) ‹anchor: ut contraria spiritui› · call in col 980 (the variant's numeral is printed "5" at the foot)
Contraria spiritus Rhen.
"Contraria spiritus" [for "contraria spiritui"]: Rhenanus.
(printed under page 494)
(5) ‹anchor: in haeresim exprobrant› · call in col 980
Exprobant Rhen.
"Exprobant": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 494)
(6) ‹anchor: et quidem durissimae› · call in col 980
Dirissimae Rhen.
"Dirissimae": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 494)
(7) ‹anchor: illis, ut› · call in col 980
Et Rhen.
"Et" [for "ut"]: Rhenanus.
(printed under page 494)
(8) ‹anchor: sarcinam Domini› · call in col 980
Domini abest. Rhen Par.
"Domini" is absent in Rhenanus and the Paris edition.
(printed under page 494)
Commentarius
(none called in this column; the Commentarius note (1) is called in the title band and stands in n979)
Page
- running head: …M PARS II. — SERIES II, MORALIA. 980
- marginal letters: A ‹rat. Illa non cogitur›; B ‹CAPUT II.›; C ‹sunt Spiritus Dei (in the Commentarius at the page foot)›; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
Dominus pronuntiavit. Dicens enim: Adhuc multa habeo quae loquar ad vos, sed nondum potestis portare ea; cum venerit Spiritus sanctus, ille vos ducet in omnem veritatem (Joan. XVI, 12), satis utique praetendit ea acturum illum quae et nova existimari possint, ut nunquam retro edita, et aliquanto onerosa, ut idcirco non edita. Ergo, inquis, hac argumentatione quidvis novum et onerosum Paracleto adscribi poterit, etsi ad adversario spiritus fuerit. Non utique. Adversarius enim spiritus ex diversitate praedicationis appareret, primo regulam adulterans fidei, et ita ordinem adulterans disciplinae; quia cujus gradus prior est, ejus corruptela antecedit, id est fidei, quae prior est disciplina. Ante quis de Deo haereticus sit necesse est, et tunc de instituto. Paracletus autem multa habens edocere, quae in illum distulit Dominus, secundum praefinitionem, ipsum primo Christum contestabitur, qualem credimus, cum toto ordine Dei Creatoris, et ipsum glorificabit, et de ipso commemorabit; et sic de principali regula agnitus, illa multa quae sunt disciplinarum revelabit fidem, dicente pro eis integritate praedicationis, licet novis, quia nunc revelantur; licet onerosis, quia nec nunc sustinentur; non alterius tamen Christi, quam qui habere se dixit, et alia multa, quae a Paracleto edocerentur; non minus istis onerosa, quam illis a quibus nondum tunc sustinebantur.
Lord pronounced. For in saying: I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot yet bear them; when the Holy Spirit comes, He will lead you into all truth (John 16:12), He indicates plainly enough that He will do things which might be thought both new, as never set forth before, and somewhat burdensome, as for that reason not set forth. Then, you say, by this argument anything new and burdensome could be ascribed to the Paraclete, even if it came from the adversary spirit. Not at all. For the adversary spirit would show itself by the difference of its preaching, first adulterating the rule of faith, and so adulterating the order of discipline; because the corruption of whatever stands first in rank comes first, that is, of faith, which is prior to discipline. One must first be a heretic concerning God, and then concerning practice. But the Paraclete, having many things to teach which the Lord deferred to Him, according to the appointment made beforehand, will first bear witness to Christ Himself, such as we believe Him, together with the whole order of God the Creator, and will glorify Him, and will bring Him to remembrance; and thus, recognized by the principal rule, He will reveal those many things which belong to the disciplines, the integrity of His preaching vouching for them, though they be new, because they are revealed now; though they be burdensome, because even now they are not borne; yet of no other Christ than Him Who said that He had also many other things which would be taught by the Paraclete; no less burdensome to these men than to those by whom they were not yet borne at that time.
CAPUT III.
Chapter III.
Sed an onerosa monogamia, viderit adhuc impudens infirmitas carnis. An autem nova, de hoc interim constet. Illud enim amplius dicimus, etiam si totam et solidam virginitatem sive continentiam Paracletus hodie determinasset, ut ne unis quidem nuptiis fervorem carnis despumare permitteret, sic quoque nihil novi inducere videretur, ipso Domino spadonibus aperiente regna coelorum (Math. XIX, 12), ut et ipso spadone; ad quem spectans et Apostolus, propterea et ipse castratus, continentiam mavult. Sed salvo, inquis, jure nubendi. Plane salvo, et videbimus quousque; nihilominus jam ex ea parte destructo, qua continentiam praefert. Bonum, inquit, homini mulierem non contingere (I Cor. VII, 1). Ergo malum est contingere. Ninil enim bono contrarium, nisi malum. Ideoque superesse, ut et qui habeant uxores sic sint, quasi non habeant; quo magis qui non habent, habere non debeant. Reddit etiam causas cur ita suadeat; quod innupti de
But whether monogamy is burdensome, let the shameless weakness of the flesh still see to that. Whether, however, it is new, let this meanwhile be settled. For we say this further: even if the Paraclete had today prescribed total and unbroken virginity or continence, so as not to permit the heat of the flesh to foam itself off even in a single marriage, even so He would seem to introduce nothing new, since the Lord Himself opens the kingdoms of the heavens to eunuchs (Matt. 19:12), being Himself also a eunuch; looking to Him the Apostle too, himself also castrated for that reason, prefers continence. But, you say, saving the right to marry. Saving it indeed, and we shall see how far; nevertheless already destroyed in that respect in which he prefers continence. It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman (1 Cor. 7:1). Therefore it is evil to touch one. For nothing is contrary to good except evil. And therefore it remains that even those who have wives should be as though they had none; all the more should those who do not have them not have them. He also gives reasons why he so advises: that the unmarried, concerning
Editors' notes and page, col. 981
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 495)
(9) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 981
Apparet Leop.
"Apparet": Leopold.
(printed under page 495)
(10) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 981 or 982
Necessitas Seml.
"Necessitas": Semler.
(printed under page 495)
(6) ‹anchor: ut et ipso spadone› · call in col 981
Ut et ipso spadone. Etsi vox illa qua Christus Dominus significatur, parum conveniat eximiae illius integritati, nullus dubitat eum virginem et ex virgine natum fuisse. Le Pr.
As also by the Eunuch himself. Although that word, by which Christ the Lord is meant, hardly suits his surpassing purity, no one doubts that he was a virgin and born of a virgin. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 495)
(7) ‹anchor: nisi malum› · call in col 981
Nihil enim bono contrarium nisi malum. Paulo latius hic tractat quod praeced. lib. attigit cap. 3, ex quorum utroque infra pene verba transcripsit B. Hieronymus, lib. I adv. Jovin quae quomodo intelligi possunt, non ut damnentur primae nuptiae, ostendit Apolog. ad Pammachium. PAM.
For nothing is contrary to good except evil. Here he treats a little more broadly what he touched on in the preceding book, ch. 3; from both places blessed Jerome below copied out almost the very words, in Against Jovinian book 1; and how they can be understood without condemning first marriages he shows in his Apology to Pammachius. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 495)
Page
- running head: 981 LIBER DE MONOGA[MIA] (cut off at the right edge of the image)
- marginal letters: A beside "Dominus pronuntiavit. Dicens enim"; B beside "de instituto. Paracletus autem"; C beside "CAPUT III."; D beside "parte destructo, qua continentiam"
- old-edition numerals: 982 after habens
Deo cogitent: nupti vero quomodo in matrimonio quis suo placeat (I Cor. VII, 32.) Et possum contendere, non mere bonum esse, quod permittitur. Quod enim mere bonum est, non permittitur, sed ultro licet. Permissio habet causam, aliquando et necessitatis. Denique, in hac specie non est voluntas permittentis nnbere. Aliud enim vult: Volo vos, inquit, omnes sic esse, quomodo et ego (I Cor. VII, 7). Et cum ostendit melius esse, quid utique se velle confirmat, quam quod melius esse praemisit? Et ita, si aliud quam quod voluit permittit, non voluntate, sed neccessitate permittens, non mere bonun ostendit, quod invitus indulsit. Denique cum dicit. Melius est nubere quam uri, quale id bonum intelligendum, est, quod melius est poena? quod non potest videri melius nisi pessimo comparatum? Bonum illud est, quod per se hoc nomen tenet, sine comparatione non dico mali, sed etiam boni alterius; ut si et alii bono comparatum adumbretur, remaneat nihilominus in boni nomine. Caeterum, si per mali collationem cogitur bonum diei, non tam bonum est quam genus mali inferioris, quod ad altiore malo obscuratum, ad nomen boni impellitur. Aufer denique conditionem, ut non dicas, Melius est nubere quam uri; et quaero an dicere audeas, Melius nubere; non adjiciens quo melius sit. Fit ergo jam uon melius; et dum non melius, nec bonum, sublata conditione, quae dum melius illud facit alio, ita bonum haberi cogit. Melius est unum oculum amittere, quam duos: si tamen discedas a comparatione mali utriusque, non erit melius unum oculum habere; quia nec bonum. Quid nunc, si omnem indulgentiam nubendi, de suo, id est, de humano sensu accommodat ex necessitate qua diximus, Quia melius sit nubere quam uri? Denique, conversus ad alteram speciem dicendo. Nuptis autem denuntio, non ego, sed Dominus, ostendit illa quae supra dixerat, non Dominicae auctoritatis fuisse, sed humanae aestimationis. At ubi ad continentiam reflectit animos, Volo autem vos sic esse omnes: puto autem, inquit et ego spiritum Dei habeo; ut si quid indulserat ex necessitate, id Spiritus Sancti auctoritate revocaret. Sed et Joannes monens sic nos incedere debere quemadmodum et Dominus utique etiam secundum sanctatitem carnis admonuit incedere, adeo manifeste. Et omnis, inquit, qui spem istam in illo habet castificat se, sicut et ipse castus est (Joan III, 3). Nam et alibi: Estote sancti, sicut et
God, take thought; but the married, how each may please his own [spouse] in matrimony (1 Cor. 7:32). And I can contend that what is permitted is not purely good. For what is purely good is not permitted, but is lawful of its own accord. Permission has a cause, sometimes even one of necessity. Finally, in this case it is not the will of the one who permits [them] to marry. For he wills something else: I will, he says, that you all be thus, as I also [am] (1 Cor. 7:7). And when he shows that it is better, what indeed does he affirm that he wills, but that which he has first stated to be better? And thus, if he permits something other than what he willed, permitting not by will but by necessity, he does not show as purely good what he granted unwillingly. Finally, when he says, It is better to marry than to burn, what sort of good is that to be understood to be, which is better than a punishment? which cannot seem better except when compared with the worst? That is good which holds this name of itself, without comparison, I do not say with an evil, but even with another good; so that, even if it is overshadowed when compared with another good, it nevertheless remains in the name of good. But if it is compelled to be called good by comparison with an evil, it is not so much a good as a kind of lesser evil, which, obscured by a higher evil, is pushed into the name of good. Take away, then, the condition, so that you do not say, It is better to marry than to burn; and I ask whether you would dare to say, It is better to marry, without adding than what it is better. Therefore it now becomes not better; and while not better, not good either, once the condition is removed which, while it makes it better than something else, thus compels it to be held good. It is better to lose one eye than two; yet if you depart from the comparison of the two evils, it will not be better to have one eye, because it is not even good. What now, if he grants every indulgence of marrying from his own [mind], that is, from human sense, out of the necessity of which we have spoken, Because it is better to marry than to burn? Finally, having turned to the other kind [of subject] by saying, But to the married I give charge, not I, but the Lord, he shows that the things he had said above had not been of the Lord's authority, but of human estimation. But where he turns minds back to continence, But I will that you all be thus: and I think, he says, that I also have the Spirit of God; so that, if he had granted anything out of necessity, he might revoke it by the authority of the Holy Spirit. But John too, warning that we ought so to walk as the Lord also [walked], certainly admonished [us] to walk also according to holiness of the flesh, and that quite plainly. And everyone, he says, who has this hope in Him makes himself chaste, even as He too is chaste (1 John 3:3). For elsewhere too: Be holy, even as also
Editors' notes and page, col. 982
Footnotes
(11) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 982
Esse quid, utique Seml.
"Esse quid, utique": Semler.
(printed under page 495)
(12) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop (near "illud facit alio")› · call in col 982
Alio Seml.
"Alio": Semler.
(printed under page 495)
(13) ‹anchor: a comparatione mali› · call in col 982
Mali omitt. Seml.
"Mali" is omitted by Semler.
Commentarius
(printed under page 495)
(8) ‹anchor: sicut et ipse castus est› · call in col 982
Castificat se, sicut et ipse castus est. Ex Epistola Joan. III, vertit liberius quam par est ἑαυτὸν ἁγνίζει per castificat, et ἁγνὸς castus, purus enim est et mundus. LE PR.
Makes himself chaste, as he himself also is chaste. From John's Epistle, ch. 3; he renders ἑαυτὸν ἁγνίζει ("purifies himself") more freely than is right by castificat, and ἁγνός by castus, for it means pure and clean. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 495)
Page
- running head: [LIB]ER DE MONOGAMIA. 982 (head cut off at left edge of image)
- marginal letters: A Deo cogitent; B videri melius nisi; C illud facit alio; D cessitate, id Spiritus
- old-edition numerals: 983 after Bonum
ille sanctus fuit (Joan. II, 3), scilicet, carne. De spiritu enim non dixisset, quia spiritus ultro sanctus agnoscitui, nec exspectat sanctitatis admonitionem, quae propria natura est ejus. Caro autem docetur sanctitatem quae ct in Christo fuit sancta. Igitur si omnia ista oblitterant licentiam nubendj, et conditione licentiae inspecta, et praelatione continentiae imposita, cur non potuerit post Apostolos idem spiritus superveniens ad deducendam disciplinam in omnem veritatem, per gradus temporum (secundum quod Ecclesiastes. Tenpus omni rei, inquit), supremam jam carni fibulam imponere, jam non oblique a nuptiis avocans, sed exerte cum magis nunc tempus in collecto factum sit, annis circiter 160 exinde productis? Nonne ipse apnd te retractares? Vetus haec disciplina est, praemonstrata jam tunc in carne Domini, et voluntate: dehinc in Apostolorum ejus tam consiliis quam exemplis. Olim sanctitati huic destinabamur. Nihil novi Paracletus inducit. Quod praemonuit, definit: quod sustinuit, exposcit. Et nunc recogitans ista, facile tibi persuadebis multo magis unicas nuptias competisse Paracleto praedicar⟨e⟩, qui potuit et nullas, magisque credendum temperasse illum, quod et abstulisse decuisset, si quae velit Christus intelligas. In hoc quoque Paracletum agnoscere debes advocatum, quod a tota continentia infirmitatem tuam excusat.
He was holy (John 2:3), namely, in the flesh. For He would not have said it of the spirit, since the spirit is recognized as holy of its own accord, and does not wait for an admonition to holiness, which is its own proper nature. But it is the flesh that is taught holiness, the flesh which in Christ too was holy. Therefore, if all these things obliterate the licence of marrying, both with the condition of the licence examined and with the preference for continence imposed, why could not the same Spirit, coming upon [us] after the apostles to lead discipline into all truth by gradations of times (according to what Ecclesiastes says: There is a time for every thing), now impose the final clasp upon the flesh, no longer calling away from marriage obliquely but openly, since now more than ever the time has become contracted, some 160 years having been drawn out since then? Would you not reconsider it yourself within yourself? This is an old discipline, foreshown already then in the flesh of the Lord and in His will, thereafter in both the counsels and the examples of His apostles. Long ago we were destined for this holiness. The Paraclete introduces nothing new. What He forewarned, He defines; what He bore with, He demands. And now, reconsidering these things, you will easily persuade yourself that it much more befitted the Paraclete to preach single marriage, He Who could have preached none, and that it is rather to be believed that He moderated what it would have befitted Him to take away altogether, if you understand what Christ wishes. In this too you ought to recognize the Paraclete as an advocate, that He excuses your weakness from total continence.
CAPUT IV.
Chapter IV.
Secedat nunc mentio Paracleti, ut nostri alicujus auctoris. Evolvamus communia instrumenta Scripturarum pristinarum. Hoc ipsum demonstratur a nobis, neque novam, neque extraneam esse monogamiae disciplinam, imo et antiquam, et propriam Christianorum; ut Paracletum restitutorem potius sentias ejus, quam institutorem. Quod pertineat ad antiquitatem, quae potest antiquior forma proferri, quam ipse sensus generis humani? Unam feminam masculo Deus finxit, una costa ejus decerpta, et utique ex pluribus. Sed et in praefatione ipsius operis: Non est, inquit bonum homini solum eum esse; faciamus adjutorium illi. Adjutores enim dixisset, si pluribus cum uxoribus destinasset. Adjucit et legem de futuro. Siquidem prophetice dictum est: Et erunt duo in carnem unam (Gen. II, 18, 24, non tres neque plures. Caeterum, jam non duo, si plures. Stetit lex. Denique, perseveravit unio conjugii in auctoribus generis ad finem usque; non quia non
Let mention of the Paraclete now withdraw, as of some author of our own. Let us unroll the common instruments of the ancient Scriptures. This very thing is shown by us, that the discipline of monogamy is neither new nor foreign, nay rather both ancient and proper to Christians, so that you may perceive the Paraclete to be its restorer rather than its institutor. As for what pertains to antiquity, what more ancient form can be brought forward than the very sense of the human race? God fashioned one woman for the male, one rib of his being plucked out, and that certainly out of many. But also in the preface of that very work: It is not good, He says, for the man to be alone; let Us make a help for him. For He would have said helpers if He had destined him for several wives. He added also a law concerning the future. For indeed it was said prophetically: And they shall be two in one flesh (Gen. 2:18, 24, not three or more. Moreover, they are no longer two, if more. The law stood. Finally, the union of marriage persevered in the authors of the race right to the end; not because no
Editors' notes and page, col. 983
Commentarius
(printed under page 496)
(9) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 983
Cum magis nunc tempus in collecto factum sit In eum plane sensum beatus Hieronym. epist, ad Gerontiam: « Quid ad nos, in quos fines saeculorum devenerunt? » LE PR.
Since the time has now become all the more drawn in. Blessed Jerome writes in exactly that sense in his letter to Gerontia: "What is it to us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come?" LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 496)
(10) ‹anchor: agnoscere debes advocatum› · call in col 983
Paracletum agnoscere debe advocatum. Alludit ad significationem vocis παράκλητος quae advocatum significat, sed ridicula est applicatio Auctoris. PAM.
You should recognize the Paraclete as an advocate. He alludes to the meaning of the word παράκλητος, which signifies advocate; but the Author's application of it is absurd. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 496)
(11) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 983 or 984
Neque enim refert duas quis uxores singulas habuerit, an pariter singulae duas fecerint. Imo, qui, plurimum refert, edicto praetoris infamia notatur qui bina sponsalia binasve nuptias eodem tempore constitutas habuerit. RIG.
For it makes no difference whether a man has had two wives one at a time, or whether, one each, they have together made two. On the contrary, it makes a great deal of difference: by the praetor's edict a man is branded with infamy who has had two betrothals or two marriages contracted at the same time. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 496)
Page
- running head: 983 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹ille sanctus fuit›; A ‹apnd te retractares› (printed A a second time, where B would be expected); C ‹CAPUT IV.›; D ‹jutorium illi. Adjutores enim›
- old-edition numerals: 934 after ‹voluntate:›
erant feminae aliae, sed quia ideo non erant, ne primitiae generis duplici matrimonio contaminarentur. Alioquin, si Deus voluisset, esse potuissent: certe de filiarum suarum numerositate sumpsisset, non minus ex ossibus et ex carne sua habens Evam, si hoc pie fieret. At ubi primum scelus homicidium, in fratricidio dedicatum, tam dignum secundo loco scelus non fuit, quam duae nuptiae. Neque enim refert duas quis uxores singulas habuerit, an pariter singulae duas fecerint. Idem numerus conjunctorum et separatorum. Semel tamen vim passa institutio Dei per Lamech, constitit postea in finem usque gentis illius. Secundus Lamech nullus existit, quomodo duabus maritatus. Negat Scriptura quod non notat. Aliae diluvium iniquitates provocaverunt, semel defensae qualescunque fuerunt; non tamen septuagies septies, quod duo matrimonia meruerunt. Sed et reformatio secundi generis humani monogamia matre censetur. Iterum duo in unicis nuptiis Etiam in ipsis animalibus monogamia recognoscitur, ne vel bestiae de moechia nascerentur. Ex omnibus, inquit, bestiis, ex omni carne, duo induces in arcam, ut vivant tecum masculus et femina. Erunt de animalibus volatilibus secundum genus et de omnibus serpentibus terrae, secundum gennus ipsorum, duo ex omnibus introibunt ad te masculus et femina. Eadem forma et septena ex binis adlegi mandat ex masculo et femina, uno e⟨t⟩ una. Quod amplius dicam? Immundis quoque alitibus cum binis feminis introire non licuit.
other women existed, but because they did not exist for this very reason, that the first-fruits of the race might not be defiled by a double marriage. Otherwise, if God had willed it, they could have existed: certainly he would have taken [a second wife] from the great number of his own daughters, having Eve no less from his own bones and from his own flesh, if this could have been done piously. But where the first crime was homicide, inaugurated in fratricide, no crime was so worthy of the second place as two marriages. For it makes no difference whether someone has had two wives one at a time, or whether single ones together have made two. The number of those joined and of those separated is the same. Yet the institution of God, having once suffered violence through Lamech, stood firm afterwards right to the end of that race. No second Lamech appears, married as he was to two wives. Scripture denies what it does not note. Other iniquities provoked the flood, once avenged, whatever they were; yet not seventy times seven times, which two marriages deserved. But also the reformation of the second human race is reckoned with monogamy as its mother. Again two in a single marriage Even in the animals themselves monogamy is recognized, lest even beasts should be born of adultery. Of all beasts, He says, of all flesh, you shall bring two into the ark, that they may live with you, male and female. There shall be of the winged animals according to their kind, and of all the creeping things of the earth according to their kind, two of all shall go in to you, male and female. In the same form He commands also that the sevens be chosen out of pairs, of male and female, one and one. What more shall I say? Not even the unclean birds were permitted to go in with two females each.
CAPUT V.
Chapter V.
Haec quantum ad primordiorum testimonium, et originis nostrae patrocinium, et divinae institutionis praejudicium. Quae utique lex est, non monumentum; quoniam, si ita factum est a primordio, invenimus nos ad initium dirigi a Christio: sicut in quaestione repudii, dicens illud propter duritiam ipsorum a Moyse esse permissum, ab initio autem non ita fuisse, sine dubio ad initium revocat matrimonii individuitatem. Ideoque quos Deus ab initio conjunxit in unam carnem duos, hodie homo non separabit (Gen., II, 24) Dicit et Apostolus scribens ad Ephesios: Deum proposuisse in semetipso ad dispensationem adimpletionis temporum, ad caput, id est, ad initium reciprocare universa in Christo, quae sunt super coelos et super terras in ipso (Eph., 1, 9, 10). Sic et duas Graeciae litteras, summam et ultimam, sibi induit Dominus, initii et finis concurrentium in se figuras: uti quemadmodum α ad
So much for the testimony of the beginnings, and the patronage of our origin, and the precedent of the divine institution. And this is certainly a law, not a mere memorial; since, if it was done thus from the beginning, we find that we are directed back to the beginning by Christ: just as in the question of divorce, saying that it was permitted by Moses because of their hardness, but that from the beginning it was not so, He without doubt recalls to the beginning the indivisibility of marriage. And therefore those two whom God from the beginning joined into one flesh, man will not separate today (Gen. 2:24). The Apostle also says, writing to the Ephesians: that God purposed in Himself, for the dispensation of the fulfilment of the times, to bring back to the head, that is, to the beginning, all things in Christ, which are above the heavens and above the earth in Him (Eph. 1:9–10). So also the Lord put upon Himself two letters of Greece, the first and the last, figures of the beginning and the end concurring in Himself: so that just as alpha to
Editors' notes and page, col. 984
Footnotes
(12) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 984
Negat Scriptura quos non notat. Mihi primum haec legenti, quamvis obiter et perfunctorie, duriuscula visa sunt in eo scriptore qui traditionem tantopere defenderat. At ibi orthodoxus, hic vero a vero devius. LE PR.
Scripture denies what it does not record. When I first read this, though in passing and cursorily, it seemed rather harsh in a writer who had defended tradition so strongly. But there he was orthodox; here he has strayed from the truth. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 496)
Page
- running head: M PARS II. — SERIES II, MORALIA. 984 (left part of running head cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A erant feminae aliae; A diluvium iniquitates provocaverunt (second letter printed A, presumably for B); C binis adlegi mandat; D Ephesios : Deum proposuisse
- old-edition numerals: 935 after matre
Editors' notes and page, col. 985
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 497)
(14) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 985 or 986
Revocarentur Rhen.
"Revocarentur": Rhenanus.
Commentarius
(printed under page 497)
(13) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 985
Passivus tibi census, etc. Passivum censum, inquit Rhenanus vocat censum infinitum, vagum, liberum, et licentem sive licentiosum. PAM.
Your descent is passive, etc. By "passive descent", says Rhenanus, he means a descent that is unbounded, wandering, free, and permissive or licentious. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 497)
Page
- gap: the text in this column is not set: output filter, L01 blocked (Output blocked by content filtering policy), column set aside on the volunteer page too (2026-10-19). Marked gap (Ray's ruling); not retried.
Paulus. In Evangelio, inquit, ego vos generavi (I Cor. IV, 16.). Etiam Abrahae et filium exhibe. Non enim passivus tibi census est in illo. Certum tempus est, quo tuus pater est. Si enim ex fide filii deputamur Abrahae, ut Apostolus docet, dicens ad Galatas: Cognoscitis nempe, quia qui ex fide, isti sunt filii Abrahae (Galat. III, 7); quando credidit Abraham Deo, et deputatum est ei in justitiam? Opinor, adhuc in monogamia, quia in circumcisione nondum. Quod si postea in utrumque mutatus est, et in digamiam per ancillae concubinatum, et in circumcisionem per testamenti signaculum, non potes illum patrem agnoscere, nisi tunc, cum Deo credidit; siquidem secundum fidem filius ejus es, non secundum carnem. Aut si posteriorem Abraham patrem sequeris, id est digamum, recipe et circumcisum. Si rejicis circumcisum, ergo recusabis et digamum. Duas dispositiones ejus, binis inter se modis diversas, miscere non poteris. Digamus cum circumcisione esse orsus est, monogamus cum praeputiatione. Recipis digamiam? admitte et circumcisionem. Tueris praeputiationem? teneris et monogamiae. Adeo autem monogami Abrahae filius es, sicut et praeputiati; ut si circumcidaris, jam non sis filius, quia non eris ex fide, sed ex signaculo fidei in praeputiatione justificatae. Habes Apostolum, disce cum Galatis. Proinde etsi digamiam tibi intuleris, non es illius Abrahae filius, cujus fides in monogamia praecessit. Nam etsi postea pater multarum nationum nuncupatur, sed earum quae ex fide digamiam praecedente filii habebant deputari Abrahae. Exinde res viderint. Aliud sunt figurae aliud formae. Aliud imagines, aliud definitiones. Imagines transeunt adimpletae, definitiones permanent adimplendae. Imagines prophetant, definitiones gubernant. Quid digamia illa Abrahae portendat, idem apostolus edocet, interpretator utriusque Testamenti sicut idem semen nostrum in Isaac vocatum determinat. Si ex libera es, ad Isaac pertinens, hic certe unum matrimonium pertulit. Isti itaque sunt, ut opinor, in quibus censeor. Caeteros nescio. Quorum si exempla circumspicis, alicujus David etiam per sanguinem nuptias sibi ingerentis, alicujus Salomonis etiam uxoribus divitis; meliora sectari jussus, habes et Joseph unijugum, et hoc nomine, audeo dicere, patre meliorem; habes Moysen, Dei de proximo arbitrum; habes Aaronem, principalem sacerdotem. Secundus quoque Moyses populi secundi, qui imaginem nostram in promisssionem Dei induxit, in quo primo nomen Domiui dedicatum est, non fuit digamus.
Paul. "In the Gospel," he says, "I have begotten you" (1 Cor. 4:16). Show yourself a son of Abraham too. For your enrolment in him is not indiscriminate. There is a fixed time at which he is your father. For if we are reckoned sons of Abraham by faith, as the Apostle teaches, saying to the Galatians: "You know, surely, that those who are of faith, these are the sons of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7), when did Abraham believe God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness? Still in monogamy, I suppose, since not yet in circumcision. But if afterwards he was changed in both respects, both into digamy through concubinage with the handmaid, and into circumcision through the seal of the covenant, you cannot acknowledge him as father except at the time when he believed God; since you are his son according to faith, not according to the flesh. Or if you follow the later Abraham as father, that is, the twice-married, accept the circumcised one as well. If you reject the circumcised, then you will refuse the twice-married too. His two dispensations, differing from each other in two ways, you will not be able to mix. He began to be twice-married together with circumcision, once-married together with uncircumcision. Do you accept digamy? Admit circumcision too. Do you defend uncircumcision? You are bound to monogamy as well. So truly are you a son of the once-married Abraham, just as of the uncircumcised, that if you are circumcised you are no longer a son, because you will not be of faith, but of the seal of a faith justified in uncircumcision. You have the Apostle; learn with the Galatians. Accordingly, even if you bring digamy upon yourself, you are not a son of that Abraham whose faith came first, in monogamy. For although afterwards he is named father of many nations, yet [he is father] of those who were to be reckoned sons of Abraham from the faith that preceded the digamy. From that point on, let matters see to themselves. Figures are one thing, forms another; images one thing, definitions another. Images pass away once fulfilled; definitions remain to be fulfilled. Images prophesy; definitions govern. What that digamy of Abraham portends, the same apostle teaches, the interpreter of both Testaments, just as the same [apostle] determines that our seed is called in Isaac. If you are of the free woman, belonging to Isaac, he certainly kept to one marriage. These, then, as I think, are those in whom I am enrolled. The others I do not know. If you look round for their examples, of a certain David bringing marriage upon himself even through bloodshed, of a certain Solomon rich even in wives, you, who are commanded to follow the better things, have also Joseph, once-yoked, and on this account, I dare say, better than his father; you have Moses, the arbiter at close quarters with God; you have Aaron, the chief priest. The second Moses also, of the second people, who led our image into the promise of God, in whom the name of the Lord was first dedicated, was not twice-married.
Editors' notes and page, col. 986
Footnotes
(14) ‹anchor: quoque Moyses› · call in col 986
Secundus quoque Moses Jesum Nave significat, de cujus nuptiis nihil Scriptura tradidit. Itaque ex eo neque pro nuptiis, neque adversus nuptias, sive primas, sive secundas, quidquam colligitur. Et tamen Septimium sequitur Hieronymus lib. I, adversus Jovinianum: « Ostende mihi, inquit, Jesum Nave, vel uxorem habuisse, vel filios. » RIG.
The second Moses too means Jesus [Joshua] son of Nave, of whose marriage Scripture has handed down nothing. So nothing is to be inferred from him either for marriage or against it, whether first or second. And yet Jerome follows Septimius in Against Jovinian book 1: "Show me," he says, "that Jesus son of Nave had either a wife or sons." RIGAULT.
(printed under page 497)
Page
- running head: ...ER DE MONOGAMIA. 986 (left part cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A Paulus. In Evangelio; B posteriorem Abraham patrem; C pater multarum nationum; D vitis; meliora sectari
- old-edition numerals: 937 after Imagines
CAPUT VII.
Chapter VII.
Post vetera exempla originalium personarum, aeque ad vetera transeamus instrumenta legalium Scripturarum, ut per ordinem de omni nostra paratura retractemus. Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quae volunt legis arripiunt; plane et nos sic dicimus decessisse legem, et onera quidem ejus; quae secundum sententiam apostolorum nec Patres sustinere voluerunt, concesserint: quae vero ad justitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata ut scilicet redundare possit justitia nostra super Scribarum et Pharisaeorum justitiam. Si justitia, utique et pudicitia. Si ergo, quoniam in lege praecipitur, ut quis fratris sui uxorem sine liberis defuncti in matrimonium adsumat, ad suscitandum fratri suo semen, idque saepius evenire in unam personam potest secundum callidam illam quaestionem Sadducaeorum, ideo et alias putant permissam frequentiam nuptiarum; intelligere debebunt primo rationem ipsius praecepti, et ita scient illam ratiomen jam cessantem ex eis esse quae evacuata sunt legis. Necessario succedendum erat in matrimonium fratris sine liberis defuncti. Primum, quia adhuc vetus illa benedictio decurrere habebat: Crescite et redundate (Gen. I, 28). Dehinc, quoniam patrum delicta etiam de filiis exigebantur. Tertio, quoniam spadones et steriles ignominiosi habebantur. Itaque, ne proinde maledicti judicarentur, qui non naturae reatu, at mortis praeventu orbi decessissent, ideo illis ex suo genere vicaria, et quasi posthuma soboles supparabatur. At ubi et Crescite et redundate evacuavit extremitas temporum inducente Apostolo (I Cor VII, 29: Superest, ut et qui habent uxores, sic sint, ac si non habeant quia tempus in collecto est (Jerem. XXXI, 29): et: Desiit uva acerba, a patribus manducata filiorum dentes obstupefacere: unusquique enim in suo delicto; orietur; et spadones non tantum ignominia caruerunt, verum et gratiam meruerunt, invitati in regna coelorum, sepulta lege succedendi in matrimonium fratris, contrarium ejus obtinuit non succedendi in matrimonium fratris. Et ita, ut praediximus, quod cessavit valere cessante ratione, non potest alii argumentationem accommodare. Ergo non nubet defuncto
After the ancient examples of the original persons, let us pass likewise to the ancient instruments of the legal Scriptures, so that we may go back in order over the whole of our equipment. And since certain people at times say that they have nothing to do with the law, which Christ did not dissolve but fulfilled, and at times seize upon whatever of the law they wish; plainly we too say this, that the law has passed away, and its burdens indeed, which according to the judgement of the apostles not even the fathers were willing to bear, have given way; but the things which pertain to justice not only remain preserved but are even enlarged, so that, namely, our justice may abound beyond the justice of the scribes and Pharisees. If justice, then certainly chastity also. If therefore, because it is commanded in the law that a man should take in marriage the wife of his brother who died without children, to raise up seed for his brother, and this can happen quite often to one person, according to that crafty question of the Sadducees, they therefore think that for others too a frequency of marriages has been permitted; they ought to understand first the reason of the precept itself, and so they will know that that reason, now ceasing, is among those things of the law which have been made void. It was necessary to succeed into the marriage of a brother who died without children: first, because that old blessing still had to run its course: Increase and overflow (Gen. 1:28); next, because the sins of the fathers were exacted even from the sons; thirdly, because eunuchs and the barren were held to be ignominious. And so, lest those should accordingly be judged accursed who had departed the world childless not through the guilt of nature but through the forestalling of death, therefore a substitute and, as it were, posthumous offspring was supplied to them from their own stock. But when the end of the times also made void Increase and overflow, the Apostle bringing this in (1 Cor. 7:29: It remains that those also who have wives be as though they had none, because the time is drawn together (Jer. 31:29): and: The sour grape eaten by the fathers has ceased to set on edge the teeth of the sons: for each one in his own sin; shall arise; and eunuchs not only were free of ignominy but even merited grace, being invited into the kingdoms of the heavens, then, the law of succeeding into a brother's marriage having been buried, its contrary has prevailed, that of not succeeding into a brother's marriage. And so, as we said before, what has ceased to be valid now that its reason has ceased cannot lend itself to another's argument. Therefore she will not marry after the deceased
Editors' notes and page, col. 987
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 498)
(15) ‹anchor: ut praediximus› · call in col 987
Praedicimus Venet.
"Praedicimus": the Venice edition.
(printed under page 498)
(16) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 987 or 988
Morientur Fran. Venet.
"Morientur": the Franeker and Venice editions.
(printed under page 498)
(15) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 987
De omni nostra paratura. Significat utriusque Instrumenti seu Testamenti Scripturas. RIG.
Of all our equipment. He means the Scriptures of both Instruments, or Testaments. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 498)
(16) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 987
Filiam quoque sacerdotis, etc. Clarius beatus Hieronymus: Sacerdotalis vidua in domo jubetur sedere patris sui, nec secundum nosse matrimonium. Sed Auctor sequitur verba Scripturae Levit. XXII. PAM.
The daughter of a priest too, etc. Blessed Jerome puts it more clearly: a priest's widowed daughter is commanded to stay in her father's house and not to know a second marriage. But the Author follows the words of Scripture, Leviticus 22. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 498)
Page
- running head: TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS. II. — (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A Post vetera exempla; B pitur, ut quis fratris; C tur. Itaque, ne proinde; D vit valere cessante ratione
- old-edition numerals: 938 after judicarentur
viro uxor, fratri utique nuptura si nupserit. Omnes enim nos fratres sumus: et illa nuptura in Domino habet nubere, id est, non ethnico sed fratri; quia et vetus lex adimit conjugium allophylorum. Cum autem et in Levitico cantum sit: Quicunque sumpserit fratris uxorem, immunditia est, turpitudo, sine liberis morietur (Levit. XX, 31); sine dubio, dum ille prohibetur denuo nubere, et illa prohibetur, non habens nubere nisi fratri. Quomodo ergo Apostolo conveniet et Legi, quam non in totum impugnat, cum ad epistolam ipsius venerimus, ostendetur. Interim quod pertineat ad Legem, magis nobis competunt argumentationes ejus. Denique prohibet eadem, sacerdotes denuo nubere (Levit. XXXI, 14). Filiam quoque sacerdotis jubet viduam vel ejectam, si semen non fuerit, illi, in domum patris sui regredi, et de pane ejus ali. Ideo, si semen non fuerit, illi, non, ut si fuerit, denuo nubat: quanto magis enim non nubet, si filios habeat! sed ut, si habuerit, a filio potius alatur quam a patre, quo et filius praeceptum Dei exsequatur, Hora patrem et matrem (Levit. XXXI, 13). Nos autem Jesus summus sacerdos et magnus Patris, de suo vestiens (quia [Galat. III, 27] qui in Christo tinguuntur, Christum induerunt), sacerdotes Deo Patri suo fecit secundum Joannem (Apoc. I, 6). Nam et illum adolescentem festinantem ad exsequias patris ideo revocat, ut ostendat sacerdotes nos vocari ab eo, quos lex vetabat parentum sepulturae adesse: Super omnem, inquit, animam defunctam sacerdos non introibit, et super patrem suum et super matrem suam non contaminabitur (Levit. XXII, 13). Ergo et nos hoc interdictum observare debemus? non utique. Vivit enim unicus pater noster Deus, et mater Ecclcsia; et neque ipsi mortui sumus, qui Deo vivimus; neque mortuos sepelimus, quia et illi vivunt in Christo. Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiae debitores ex pristina Dei lcge, quae nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.
husband, the wife, since she would certainly be marrying a brother if she marries. For we are all brothers; and she who is to marry in the Lord must marry, that is, not a heathen but a brother; since the old law too takes away marriage with foreigners. But since it is also laid down in Leviticus: Whoever takes his brother's wife, it is uncleanness, it is a disgrace, he shall die without children (Lev. 20:31); without doubt, while he is forbidden to marry again, she too is forbidden, having no one to marry except a brother. How, then, the Apostle will agree with the Law also, which he does not attack wholesale, will be shown when we come to his epistle. Meanwhile, as far as concerns the Law, its arguments suit us the better. Further, the same Law forbids priests to marry again (Lev. 31:14). It also commands the daughter of a priest, if widowed or put away, if she has had no offspring, to return to her father's house and be fed on his bread. Therefore, if she has had no offspring, [this is] not so that, if she had had any, she might marry again: for how much more will she not marry, if she has sons! but so that, if she has had them, she may be fed by her son rather than by her father, whereby the son also may carry out the commandment of God, Honour father and mother (Lev. 31:13). But us Jesus, the high and great Priest of the Father, clothing us from His own (since those who are dipped in Christ have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27]), has made priests to God His Father, according to John (Rev. 1:6). For He also calls back that young man hastening to his father's funeral precisely to show that we are called by Him as priests, whom the law forbade to be present at the burial of parents: Upon any dead soul, it says, the priest shall not enter, and upon his father and upon his mother he shall not be defiled (Lev. 22:13). Must we therefore observe this prohibition too? Not at all. For our one Father, God, lives, and our mother the Church; and neither are we ourselves dead, who live to God, nor do we bury the dead, since they too live in Christ. Certainly we are priests called by Christ, debtors to monogamy from the original law of God, which then prophesied us in its own priests.
CAPUT VIII.
Chapter VIII.
Nunc ad legem proprie nostram, id est, ad Evangelium, conversi, qualibus excipimur exemplis! Dum ad sententias pervenimus, ecce statim quasi in limine, duae nobis antistites christianae sanctitatis
Now, having turned to the law that is properly ours, that is, to the Gospel, with what examples are we met! As we reach its sayings, behold at once, as it were on the threshold, two presiding figures of Christian sanctity
Editors' notes and page, col. 988
Footnotes
(17) ‹anchor: in limine, duae› · call in col 988
Duo al.
"Duo": others.
Commentarius
(printed under page 498)
(17) ‹anchor: Deo Patri suo fecit› · call in col 988
Sacerdotes nos Deo Patri fecit. De intellectu vero hujus loci et verborum quae sequuntur vide lib. praeced. cap. 7. PAM
He has made us priests to God the Father. On the meaning of this passage and of the words that follow, see the preceding book, ch. 7. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 498)
(18) ‹anchor: animam defunctam› · call in col 988
Super, omnem, inquit, animam defunctam. Comparat etiam in hoc legem Evangelicam cum Moysis lege, quod sepelire patrem suum prohibeatur sacerdos magnus, Levit, XXI, Quare etiam apud Auctorem subintelligi debet, quod paulo prius de Jesu dictum est, summus sacerdos sive magnus, nam alioqui sacerdotibus aliis licebat intrare super animam patris, matris, fratris, et sororis virginis, uti habetur initio ejusdem cap. Hinc etiam B. Hieronymus de magno sacerdote idipsum citat ep. 25, de obitu Blaesillae ad Paulam. PAM.
Over any dead soul, he says. Here too he compares the law of the Gospel with the law of Moses, in that the high priest is forbidden to bury his father, Leviticus 21. So in the Author too we must understand what was said a little before of Jesus, "the chief or high priest"; for otherwise the other priests were allowed to go in to the body of a father, mother, brother, and virgin sister, as is found at the beginning of the same chapter. Hence blessed Jerome too cites this very point about the high priest in letter 25, on the death of Blaesilla, to Paula. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 498)
Page
- running head: (cut off at left) M PARS. II. — SERIES II, MORALIA. 988
- marginal letters: A viro uxor, fratri utique; B vel ejectam, si semen; C inquit, animam defunctam; D Dum ad sententias pervenimus
- old-edition numerals: 939 after hoc
occurrunt, monogamia et continentia: alia pudica, in Zacharia sacerdote; alia integra, in Joanne antecursore; alia placans Deum, alia praedicans Christnm; alia totum praedicans sacerdotem, alia plus praeferens quam propheten, scilicet eum, qui non tantum praedicaverit, aut demonstraverit coram, verum etiam baptizaverit Christum. Quis enim corpus Domini dignius initiaret, quam ejusmodi caro, qualis et concepit illud et peperit. Et Christum quidem virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum, ut uterque titulus sanctitatis in Christi sensu dispuugeretur, per matrem et virginem et univiram. At ubi infans templo exhibetur, quis illum in manus suscipit? quis in spiritu primus agnoscit? Vir justus et cautus, et utique non digamus, vel ne dignius mox Christus a femina praedicaretur vetere vidua et univira, quae et templo dedita satis in semetipsa portendebat, quales spiritali templo, id est Ecclesiae debeant adhaerere. Tales arbitros infans Dominus expertus, non alios habuit et adultus. Petrum solum invenio maritum, per socrum; monogamum praesumo, per Ecclesiam, quae super illum aedificata, omnem gradum ordinis sui de monogamis erat collocatura. Caeteros cum maritos non invenio; aut spadones intelligam necesse est, aut continentes. Nec enim si penes Graecos communi vocabulo censentur mulieres et uxores, pro consuetudinis facilitate (caeterum, est proprium vocabulum uxorum), ideo Paulum sic interpretabimur, quasi demonstret uxores apostolos habuisse. Si de matrimoniis disputaret (quod in sequentibus facit, ubi magis Apostolus aliquod exemplum nominare potuisset), recte videretur dicere: Non enim habemus potestatem uxores circumducendi, sicut caeteri apostoli et Cephas (I Cor. IX)? At ubi ea subjungit, quae de victuaria exhibitione abstinentiam ejus, ostendunt, dicentis: Non enim potestatem habemus manducandi et bibendi? non uxores demonstrat ab apostolis circumductas, quas et qui non habent; potestatem tamen manducandi et bibendi habent; sed simpliciter mulieres, quae illo eodem instituto, quo et Dominium comitantes, ministrabant. Jam vero si Christus reprobat Scribas et Pharisaeos, sedentes in cathedra Moysei, nec facientes quae docerent, quale est ut ipse super
meet us, monogamy and continence: the one modest, in Zacharias the priest; the other unblemished, in John the forerunner; the one appeasing God, the other preaching Christ; the one proclaiming the whole priest, the other displaying more than a prophet, namely him who not only preached or pointed out Christ face to face, but even baptized Him. For who would more worthily initiate the body of the Lord than flesh of such a kind as also conceived it and gave birth to it? And indeed a virgin brought forth Christ, being about to marry once after the birth, so that each title of sanctity might be accounted for in the sense of Christ, through a mother both virgin and once-married. But when the infant is presented in the temple, who takes Him into his hands? who first recognizes Him in the spirit? A man just and cautious, and surely not twice-married, lest Christ should presently be more worthily proclaimed by a woman, an aged widow and once-married, who, devoted also to the temple, sufficiently foreshadowed in herself what kind of persons ought to cleave to the spiritual temple, that is, the Church. Such witnesses the Lord had experienced as an infant, and He had no others as an adult either. Peter alone I find married, by reason of his mother-in-law; I presume him monogamous, by reason of the Church, which, being built upon him, was to appoint every grade of its order from among monogamists. The rest, since I do not find them married, I must of necessity understand to be either eunuchs or continent. For if among the Greeks women and wives are reckoned under a common word, through the convenience of custom (otherwise there is a proper word for wives), we shall not on that account so interpret Paul as though he showed that the apostles had wives. If he were disputing about marriages (which he does in what follows, where the Apostle could rather have named some example), he would rightly seem to say: For have we not the power of leading wives about, as the other apostles and Cephas (1 Cor. 9)? But when he adds those things which show his abstinence in the provision of food, saying: For have we not the power of eating and drinking? he is not pointing to wives led about by the apostles, since even those who do not have them nevertheless have the power of eating and drinking; but simply to women, who by that same practice by which they also accompanied the Lord, ministered. Now indeed if Christ reproves the Scribes and Pharisees, sitting in the chair of Moses and not doing what they taught, what sort of thing is it that He Himself upon
Editors' notes and page, col. 989
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 499)
(18) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989
Prophetans Rhen.
"Prophetans": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 499)
(19) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989
Initiarit Leop. contra omnes edd.
"Initiarit": Leopold, against all the editions.
(printed under page 499)
(20) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989
Uterque alii.
"Uterque": others.
(printed under page 499)
(21) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989
Indignius Fran. Oberth.
"Indignius": the Franeker edition and Oberthür.
(printed under page 499)
(22) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop (near "erat collocatura")› · call in col 989
Collocarat Fran.
"Collocarat": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 499)
(23) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989 or 990
Insinuaret Fran.
"Insinuaret": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 499)
(24) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989 or 990
Tum Lat.
"Tum": Latinius.
Commentarius
(printed under page 499)
(19) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989
Et Christum quidem virgo enixa est, semel nuptura post partum. Hanc Tertulliani sententiam asserenti Helvidio contradixit Hieronymus: « Et de Tertulliano quidem, inquit, nihil amplius dico, quam Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse. » Quibus verbis significat Septimium nonnulla scripsisse Catholicis minime consentanea. RIG.
And a virgin indeed gave birth to Christ, to marry once after the birth. When Helvidius asserted this opinion of Tertullian's, Jerome contradicted him: "And of Tertullian," he says, "I say no more than that he was not a man of the Church." By these words he signifies that Septimius wrote some things not at all in agreement with Catholics. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 499)
(20) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989
Quam unam unus masculus. novit Istud forte Plinii lib. x, c. 34 accepit, sed falsum esse testantur rerum naturalium diligentes historici. LE PR.
Which one male alone knows. He perhaps took this from Pliny, book 10, ch. 34; but careful writers on natural history testify that it is false. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 499)
(21) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 989 or 990
Ut adulterum ostendat numerosum maritum. Istud ad haeresin pertinet Montani; quo fit ut etiam detorqueat verba Christi ad Samaritanam Joanne. IV, ad secundas nuptias, cum tamen ille loquatur de eo qui adhaerebat illi non in nuptiis, sed in fornicatione, sicuti B. August. et Graeci commentarii interpretantur. B. Hieronymus cum simile quid dixisset, lib. I adv. Jovin., postea Apolog. ad Pammach. sic interpretatur, ut non referatur ad secundas, imo et sextas nuptias, sed ad prostitutam. PAM,
To show that a many-times husband is an adulterer. This belongs to the heresy of Montanus; and so he even twists Christ's words to the Samaritan woman, John 4, to second marriages, whereas Christ speaks of the man who was joined to her not in marriage but in fornication, as blessed Augustine and the Greek commentaries interpret it. Blessed Jerome, having said something similar in Against Jovinian book 1, afterwards in his Apology to Pammachius interprets it so that it refers not to second, or even sixth, marriages, but to a prostitute. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 499)
Page
- running head: 989 LIBER DE MONOGA (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A titatis occurrunt, monogamia; B gamus, vel ne dignius; C bimur, quasi demonstret; D cientes quae docerent
- old-edition numerals: 940 after circumducendi,
cathedram suam collocaret, qui sanctitatem carnis praecipere magis, non etiam obire meminissent, quam illis omnibus modis insinuarat et docendam et agendam, in primis de suo exemplo, tunc de caeteris argumentis; cum puerorum dicit esse regnum caelorum (Matth. XVIII, 3; XXIX, 14); cum consortes illis facit alios post nuptias pueros; cum ad simplicitatem columbae (Matth. XXIX, 16) provocat, avis non tantum iunocuae, verum et pudicae, quam unam unus masculus novit; cum Samaritanae maritum negat, ut adulterum ostendat numerosum maritum (Joan. IV, 17); cum in revelatione gloriae suae de tot sanctis et prophetis, Moysen et Helian secum mavult, alterum monogamum, alterum spadonem! Non enim aliud fuit Helias, quam Joannes, qui in virtute et spiritu venit Heliae; cum ille vorator et potator homo, prandiorum et coenarum cum publicanis et peccatoribus frequentator (Matth. X; Luc. XV, 13, 19), semel apud unas nuptias coenat multis utique nubentibus. Totiens enim voluit celebrare eas, quotiens et esse.
His chair should set men who would remember rather to prescribe sanctity of the flesh, not also to undergo it, [the sanctity] which He had instilled into them by every means as something both to be taught and to be practised, first of all by His own example, then by the other arguments; when He says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children (Matt. 18:3; 19:14); when He makes others, children after marriage, partners with them; when He calls them to the simplicity of the dove (Matt. 10:16), a bird not only harmless but also chaste, one female of which one male knows; when He denies that the Samaritan woman has a husband, to show that a many-times husband is an adulterer (John 4:17); when in the revelation of His glory, out of so many saints and prophets, He prefers to have Moses and Elijah with Him, the one a monogamist, the other a eunuch! For Elijah was nothing other than John, who came in the power and spirit of Elijah; when that man, a glutton and a drinker, a frequenter of luncheons and dinners with publicans and sinners (Matt. 10; Luke 15:13, 19), dines at one wedding only, though many were surely marrying. For He wished to celebrate weddings as many times as He wished them also to exist.
CAPUT IX.
Chapter IX.
Sed hae argumentationes potius existimentur de conjecturis coactae, si non et sent⟨e⟩ntiae astiterint, quas Dominus emisit in repudii retractatu, quod permissum aliquando jam prohibet; in primis, quia ab initio non fuit sic, sicut matrimonii numerus; tum quia quos Deus conjunxit homo non separabit, (Matth. XIX, 6, 8); scilicet, ne contra Dominum faciat. Solus enim ille separabit, qui et conjunxit; separabit autem, non per duritiam repudii, quam exprobrat et compescit, sed per debitum mortis. Siquidem unus ex passeribus duobus non cadit in terram sine patris voluntate (Matth. X, 29). Igitur, si quos Deus conjunxit, homo non separabit repudio; aeque consentaneum est, ut quos Deus separavit morte, homo non conjungat matrimonio; proinde contra Dei voluntatem juncturus separationem, atque si separasset conjunctionem. Hoc quantum ad Dei voluntatem non destruendam, et initi formam restruendam. Caeterum, et alio ratio conspirat; imo non alia, sed quae initii formam imposuit, ⟨e⟩t voluntatem Dei movit ad prohibitionem repudii: Quoniam qui dimiserit uxorem suam,
But let these argumentations rather be thought forced out of conjectures, if the sayings too do not stand by them which the Lord uttered in His treatment of divorce, which, once permitted, He now prohibits: first, because from the beginning it was not so, just as [was the case with] the number of marriage; then, because those whom God has joined man shall not separate (Matt. 19:6, 8); that is, lest he act against the Lord. For He alone shall separate who also joined; and He shall separate not through the harshness of divorce, which He reproaches and restrains, but through the debt of death. Indeed, one of two sparrows does not fall to the ground without the will of the Father (Matt. 10:29). Therefore, if those whom God has joined man shall not separate by divorce, it is equally consistent that those whom God has separated by death man should not join by marriage; he would be joining the separation against the will of God just as much as if he had separated the conjunction. So much as regards not destroying the will of God and restoring the form of the beginning. Moreover, another reason too agrees; nay, not another, but the one which imposed the form of the beginning and moved the will of God to the prohibition of divorce: Since whoever dismisses his wife,
Editors' notes and page, col. 990
Variae lectiones
(22) ‹anchor: cathedram suam collocaret› · call in col 990
Collocarat Fran.
"Collocarat": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 499)
(23) ‹anchor: omnibus modis insinuarat› · call in col 990
Insinuaret Fran.
"Insinuaret": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 499)
(24) ‹anchor: de suo exemplo, tunc› · call in col 990
Tum Lat.
"Tum" [for "tunc"]: Latinius.
(printed under page 499)
Commentarius
(20) ‹anchor: quam unam unus masculus novit› · call in col 990
Quam unam unus masculus. novit Istud forte Plinii lib. X, c. 34 accepit, sed falsum esse testantur rerum naturalium diligentes historici. LE PR.
One female of which one male knows. He perhaps took this from Pliny, book 10, ch. 34; but careful historians of natural things testify that it is false. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 499)
(21) ‹anchor: ut adulterum ostendat numerosum maritum› · call in col 990
Ut adulterum ostendat numerosum maritum. Istud ad haeresin pertinet Montani; quo fit ut etiam detorqueat verba Christi ad Samaritanam Joanne. IV, ad secundas nuptias, cum tamen ille loquatur de eo qui adhaerebat illi non in nuptiis, sed in fornicatione, sicuti B. August. et Graeci commentarii interpretantur. B. Hieronymus cum simile quid dixisset, lib. I adv. Jovin., postea Apolog. ad Pammach. sic interpretatur, ut non referatur ad secundas, imo et sextas nuptias, sed ad prostitutam. PAM.
To show that a many-times husband is an adulterer. This belongs to the heresy of Montanus; and so he even twists Christ's words to the Samaritan woman, John 4, to second marriages, although He is speaking of the man who was joined to her not in marriage but in fornication, as St Augustine and the Greek commentaries interpret it. St Jerome, when he had said something similar in book I Against Jovinian, afterwards in the Apology to Pammachius interprets it so that it refers not to second, nay even sixth marriages, but to a prostitute. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 499)
Page
- running head: [LIB]ER DE MONOGAMIA. 990 (left part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A cathedram suam collocaret; B Joannes, qui in virtute; C (Matth. XIX, 6, 8); D nem repudii
- old-edition numerals: 941 after consentaneum
- other: sent⟨e⟩ntiae and ⟨e⟩t (before voluntatem Dei, printed like "ct") have damaged letters; coenarum/coenat are read as oe, which is UNSURE; references Matth. X and Luc. XV, 13, 19 are set as printed and look doubtful (Matt. 11:19, Luke 7:34 intended?); the left column (end of 989, with old numeral 940) is not set; variants 20 and 21 printed under this page are called in col 989
praeterquam ex caussa adulterii, facit eam adulterari; et: qui dimissam a viro duxerit, adulterat utique (Matth. X, 22). Nam et nubere legitime non potest repudiata; et si quid tale commiserit sine matrimonii nomine, non capit elogium adulterii, qua adulterium in matrimonio crimen est? Deus aliter censuit, citra quam homines, ut in totum, sive per nuptias, sive vulgo, alteris viri admissio adulterium pronuntietur Deo. Videamus enim quid sit matrimonium apud Deum, et ita cognoscemus quid sit aeque adulterium. Matrimonium est, cum Deus jungit duos in unam carnem, aut junctos deprehendens in eadem carne, conjunctionem signavit. Adu⟨l⟩terium est, cum, quoquo modo disjunctis duobus, alia caro, imo aliena miscetur de qua dici non possit. Haec est caro ex carne mea, et hoc os ex ossibus meis (Gen. II, 23). Semel enim hoc et factum, et pronuntiatum, sicut ab initio, ita et nunc in aliam carnem non potest convenire. Itaque sine causa dices, Deum vivo marito nolle repudiatam alii viro jungi, quasi mortuo velit; quando si mortuo non tenetur, proinde nec vivo; tam repudio matrimonium dirimente quam morte, non tenebitur ei, cui per quod tenebatur, abruptum est; adeo non interest vivo an mortuo viro nubat. Neque enim in illum delinquit, sed in semetipsam. Omne delictum quod admiserit homo, extra corpus est; qui autem adulteratur, in corpus suum delinquit (I Cor. VI, 18). Adulteratur autem, sicut supra praestruximus, qui aliam carnem sibi immiscet super illam pristinam, quam Deus aut conjunxit in duos, aut conjunctam deprehendit. Ideoque abstulit repudium, quod ab initio non fuit; ut, quod ab initio fuit, muniat duorum in unam carnem perseverantiam ne necessitas vel occasio tertiae concarnationis irrumpat, soli causae permittens repudium, si forte praevenerit, cui praecavetur. Adeo autem repudium a primordio non fuit, ut apud Romanos post annum sexcentesimum Urbis conditae id genus duritiae commissum denotetur. Sed illi etiam non repudiantes adulteria commiscent; nobis, etsi repudiemus, ne nubere quidem licebit.
except for the cause of adultery, makes her commit adultery; and: he who marries a woman dismissed by her husband certainly commits adultery (Matt. 10:22). For a repudiated woman cannot lawfully marry either; and if she commits any such thing without the name of marriage, does she escape the charge of adultery, on the ground that adultery is a crime within marriage? God has judged otherwise than men, so that altogether, whether through nuptials or promiscuously, the admission of another man is pronounced adultery in the sight of God. For let us see what marriage is with God, and so we shall know what adultery equally is. Marriage is when God joins two into one flesh, or, finding them joined in the same flesh, has sealed the union. Adultery is when, the two having been in whatever way disjoined, other flesh, nay rather alien flesh, is mingled in, of which it cannot be said: This is flesh from my flesh, and this bone from my bones (Gen. 2:23). For this, having once been both done and pronounced, as from the beginning, so also now cannot come together with other flesh. Therefore without reason will you say that God does not wish a repudiated woman to be joined to another man while her husband is alive, as though He wishes it when he is dead; whereas if she is not bound to him when dead, then neither when living; since repudiation dissolves marriage as much as death does, she will not be bound to him for whom that by which she was bound has been broken off; so it makes no difference whether she marries while her husband is alive or dead. For she does not sin against him, but against herself. Every sin which a man commits is outside the body; but he who commits adultery sins against his own body (1 Cor. 6:18). Now he commits adultery, as we laid down above, who mingles other flesh with himself over that original flesh which God either joined into two, or found joined. And therefore He took away repudiation, which was not from the beginning, so that what was from the beginning might fortify the perseverance of the two in one flesh, lest the necessity or occasion of a third union of flesh should break in, permitting repudiation for that cause alone, if perchance that which is guarded against should have occurred first. So far, moreover, was repudiation from existing from the beginning, that among the Romans this kind of hardness is recorded as having been committed after the six-hundredth year from the founding of the City. But they, even without repudiating, commit adulteries; to us, even if we repudiate, it will not even be permitted to marry.
Editors' notes and page, col. 991
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 500)
(25) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 991
Non et nubere I. potest Fran. Rig. non abest. Paris.
"Non et nubere I. potest": the Franeker edition and Rigault; "non" is absent in the Paris edition.
(printed under page 500)
(26) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 991
A Deo addit Rhen. Pam. Seml. Leop. Obert. omis. Rig. edit. Venet.
Rhenanus, Pamelius, Semler, Leopold and Oberthür add "a Deo"; Rigault and the Venice edition omit it.
(printed under page 500)
(27) ‹anchor: adeo non interest› · call in col 991
Cui ergo tenebitur? Nihil Deo interest vivo, etc. Seml. Oberth. Rhen. nibil adeo an Leop.
"Cui ergo tenebitur? Nihil Deo interest vivo," etc.: Semler, Oberthür, Rhenanus; "nibil adeo an": Leopold.
(printed under page 500)
(22) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 991
Adulterium est, etc. Fornicationem hic quoque sub adulterii nomine comprehendit, veluti Graeci qui sub μοιχείας nomine id intelligunt. LE PR.
It is adultery, etc. Here too he includes fornication under the name of adultery, as do the Greeks, who understand it under the name μοιχεία. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 500)
(23) ‹anchor: ut apud Romanos› · call in col 991
Ut apud Romanos. Servius Sulpitius, inquit Rhenanus in lib. quem composuit de Dotibus, tum primum cautiones rei uxoriae necessarias esse visas scripsit, cum Sp. Carvilius, cui Ruga cognomentum fuit, vir nobilis, cum uxore divortium fecit, quia liberi, corporis vitio, ex ea non gignerentur. Anno V. C. 523, M. Attilio, P. Valerio oss. PAM.
As among the Romans. Servius Sulpicius, says Rhenanus, wrote in the book he composed On Dowries that guarantees concerning a wife's property first came to be thought necessary when Spurius Carvilius, surnamed Ruga, a nobleman, divorced his wife because, through a bodily defect, no children were born of her. In the year of the City 523, in the consulship of M. Atilius and P. Valerius. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 500)
(24) ‹anchor: ne nubere quidem licebit› · call in col 991
Nobis, etsi repudiemus, ne nubere quidem licebit. Nobis, id est, Paracleticis. Nam apud Psychicos alias nuptias post divortium fuisse permissas innuit principio libri I ad uxorem. RIG.
For us, even if we divorce, it will not be lawful even to marry. "For us", that is, for the followers of the Paraclete. For he hints at the beginning of book 1 To His Wife that among the Psychics other marriages were permitted after divorce. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 500)
(25) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 991 or 992
Habet secum animi licentiam, qui omnia homini quae non habet imaginario fructu repraesentat. Quam praelicenter hoc Septimius! etsi officia intelligantur, qualia describit libro ad Uxorem secundo. RIG.
He has with him the licence of the mind, which presents to a man everything he does not have, with an imaginary enjoyment. How very licentiously Septimius puts this! even if duties are meant, such as he describes in the second book To His Wife. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 500)
Page
- running head: 991 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A praeterquam ex caussa adulterii; B possit. Haec est caro; C vi, 18). Adulteratur autem; D (22) Adulterium est, etc. (in the Commentarius)
- old-edition numerals: 942 after sexcentesimum
CAPUT X.
Chapter X.
Video jam hinc ad Apostolum nos provocari. Ad cujus sensum facilius perspiciendum, tanto instantius praeculcandum est mulierem magis defuncto marito teneri, quominus alium virum admittat. Recogitemus enim repudium, aut discordia fieri, aut discordiam facere; mortem vero ex lege Dei, non ex hominis offensa evenire. Idque omnium esse debitum, etiam non maritorum. Igitur si repudiata quae per discordiam, et iram, et odium, et causas eorum, injuriam vel contumeliam, vel quamlibet querelam, et anima et corpore separata est tenetur inimico, ne dicam marito; quanto magis illa, quae neque suo, neque mariti vitio, sed Dominicae legis eventu, a matrimonio non separata, sed relicta, ejus erit etiam defuncti, cui etiam defuncto concordiam debet! A quo repudium non audiit, non divertit; cui repudium non scripsit, cum ipso est; quem amisisse noluit, retinet. Habet secum animi licentiam, qui omnia homini quae non habet imaginario fructu repraesentat. Ipsam denique interrogo feminam: Dic mihi, soror in pace praemisisti virum tuum? Quid respondebit? An discordia? Ergo hoc magis ei vincta est, cum quo habet apud Deum causam. Non discessit, quae tenetur. Sed in pace. Ergo perseveret in ea cum illo necesse est, quem jam repudiare non poterit, ne sic quidem nuptura si repudiare potuisset. Enim vero et pro anima ejus orat, et refrigerium interim adpostulat ei, et in prima resurrectione consortium, et offert annuis diebus dormitioni sejus. Nam haec nisi fecerit, vere repudiavit, quantum in ipsa est; et quidem hoc iniquius, quanto quo modo potuit, quia non potuit; et hoc indignius, quanto jam indignius, si quia non meruit. Aut numquid nihil erimus post mortem? Secundum aliquem Epicurum, et non secundum Christum. Quod si credimus mortuorum resurrectionem, utique tenebimur, cum quibus resurrecturi sumus, rationem de alterutro reddituri. Si autem in illo aevo neque nubent neque nubentur, sed erunt aequales angelis (Matth XXII, 30); non ideo non tenebimur conjugibus defunctis, quia non
I see that from this point we are being challenged to [appeal to] the Apostle. For the easier perception of his meaning, it must be impressed all the more insistently that a woman is held more strongly when her husband has died, so that she should not admit another man. For let us reflect that divorce either arises from discord or produces discord, whereas death comes about by the law of God, not from a man's offence; and that it is a debt owed by all, even by those who are not husbands. Therefore, if a divorced woman, who through discord and anger and hatred and their causes, injury or insult or any complaint whatever, has been separated both in soul and in body, is held bound to an enemy, not to say a husband, how much more will she, who not by her own fault nor by her husband's, but by the outcome of the Lord's law, has not been separated from marriage but left behind, belong to him even when he is dead, to whom even when dead she owes concord! From him from whom she has heard no divorce she has not departed; with him to whom she has written no divorce she remains; him whom she was unwilling to lose, she retains. She has with her the freedom of the mind, which by an imaginary enjoyment makes present to a person all that he does not have. Finally, I question the woman herself: Tell me, sister, did you send your husband ahead in peace? What will she answer? Or in discord? Then she is all the more bound to him, with whom she has a case before God. She who is held has not departed. But [she answers] in peace. Then it is necessary that she persevere in it with him whom she will now be unable to divorce, she who would not marry even had she been able to divorce. Indeed she both prays for his soul, and asks refreshment for him in the meantime, and fellowship in the first resurrection, and makes offering on the anniversary days of his falling asleep. For unless she does these things, she has truly divorced him, as far as lies in her; and indeed so much the more unjustly, in that [she did it] in the way she could, because she could not [otherwise]; and so much the more unworthily, in that now the more unworthily, if because he did not deserve it. Or shall we be nothing after death? According to some Epicurus, and not according to Christ. But if we believe in the resurrection of the dead, surely we shall be bound to those with whom we are to rise, as men who are to render account of one another. But if in that age they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be equal to angels (Matt. 22:30), we shall not on that account fail to be bound to our deceased spouses, because there will not
Editors' notes and page, col. 992
Footnotes
(28) ‹anchor: adpostulat ei› · call in col 992
Adpostulet offerat Par. adpostulat enim Rhen. Seml.
"Adpostulet offerat": the Paris edition; "adpostulat enim": Rhenanus, Semler.
(printed under page 500)
(29) ‹anchor: si quia non meruit› · call in col 992
Fr. Junius locum hunc corruptum sic emend.: quanto jam iniquius, qua non potuit; et hoc indignius, quanto jam indignius, quia non meruit.
Franciscus Junius emends this corrupt passage thus: "how much the more unjust, in that she could not; and this the more unworthy, how much the more unworthy, because he did not deserve it."
Commentarius
(printed under page 500)
(26) ‹anchor: Sed in pace› · call in col 992
Sed in pace. Hoc respondet illi quod praecessit, An in discordia? RIG.
But in peace. This answers the preceding Or in discord? RIGAULT.
(printed under page 500)
Page
- running head: [cut off at left]M PARS II. — SERIES II, MORALIA.
- marginal letters: A CAPUT X. / Video jam hinc; B ejus erit etiam defuncti; C orat, et refrigerium interim; D (24) Nobis, etsi repudiemus (in the commentary at page foot)
- old-edition numerals: 943 after conjugibus
erit restitutio conjugii. Atquin eo magis tenebimur, quia in meliorem statum destinamur, resurrecturi in spiritale consortium, agnituri tam nosmetipsos, quam et nostros. Caeterum, quomodo gratias Deo in aeternum canemus, si non manebit in nobis sensus et memoria debiti hujus? si substantia, non conscientia reformabimur? Ergo qui cum Deo erimus, simul erimus, dum omnes apud Deum unum (licet merces varia, licet (Joan. XIV, 2) multae mansiones penes Patrem eumdem) uno denario ejusdem mercedis operati, id est vitae aeternae, in qua magis non separabit quos conjunxit Deus, quam in ista minore vita separari vetat. Cum haec ita sint, quomodo alii viro vacabit, quae suo etiam in futurum occupata est? Utrique autem sexui loquimur, etsi ad alterum sermo est; quia una disciplina praeest. Alium habebit in spiritu, alium in carne? Hoc erit adulterium, unius feminae in duos viros conscientia. Si alter a carne disjunctus est, sed in corde remanet, illic (ubi etiam cogitatus sine carnis congressu, et adulterium ante perficit ex concupiscentia, et matrimonium ex voluntate) usque adhuc maritus est, ipsum illud possidens, per quod et factus est, id est animum: in quo si et alius habitabit, hoc erit crimen. Caeterum, non est exclusus, si a viliore commercio carnis decessit. Honoratior maritus est, quando mundior factus est.
be a restoration of the marriage. But we shall be bound all the more for this very reason, that we are destined for a better state, being about to rise again into a spiritual fellowship, about to recognize both ourselves and our own. Otherwise, how shall we sing thanks to God for eternity, if the sense and memory of this debt will not remain in us? if we shall be re-formed in substance, not in consciousness? Therefore we who shall be with God shall be together, since we are all one with God (although the reward is varied, although there are many mansions with the same Father (John 14:2)), having laboured for the one denarius of the same reward, that is, of eternal life, in which He will even less separate those whom God has joined than He forbids them to be separated in this lesser life. Since these things are so, how will she be free for another man, she who is occupied with her own even for the future? Now we speak to both sexes, although the discourse is addressed to one, because one discipline governs both. Will she have one in the spirit and another in the flesh? This will be adultery: the consciousness of one woman towards two men. If the one has been parted from her in the flesh but remains in her heart, there (where even thought, without carnal intercourse, accomplishes both adultery in advance out of lust and marriage out of will) he is still her husband, possessing that very thing through which he was also made [her husband], that is, the soul: and if another also dwells in it, this will be a crime. Moreover, he is not shut out if he has departed from the baser commerce of the flesh. A husband is the more honoured when he has been made purer.
CAPUT XI.
Chapter XI.
Ut igitur in Domino nubas secundum Legem et Apostolum (si tamen vel hoc curas), qualis es id matrimonium postulans, quod eis a quibus postulas, non licet habere; ab episcopo monogamo, a presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti, a viduis, quarum sectam in te recusasti? Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et uxores, quomodo buccellas. Hoc enim est apud illos: Omni petenti te dabis. Et conjungent vos in Ecclesia virgine, unius Christi unica sponsa. Et orabis pro maritis tuis, novo et vetere. Elige cui te adulteram praestes. Puto, ambobus. Quod si sapias, taceas defuncto. Repudium sit illi silentium tuum, alienis jam dotalibus scriptum. Hoc modo novum promereberis maritum,
So that you may marry in the Lord, then, according to the Law and the Apostle (if indeed you care even for this), what sort of woman are you, asking for that marriage which those from whom you ask it are not permitted to have: from a monogamous bishop, from presbyters and deacons of the same sacrament, from widows, whose way of life you have refused for yourself? And they, plainly, will give husbands and wives in the same way as they give morsels. For this is the rule among them: To everyone who asks you, you shall give. And they will join you together in the virgin Church, the one bride of the one Christ. And you will pray for your husbands, the new and the old. Choose to which of them you will show yourself an adulteress. To both, I think. But if you are wise, you will keep silent towards the dead one. Let your silence be his bill of divorce, written on another man's dowry deeds by now. In this way you will earn the new husband,
Editors' notes and page, col. 993
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 501)
(30) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 993
Remanent Fran.
"Remanent": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 501)
(31) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 993
Perficitur Rhen.
"Perficitur": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 501)
(32) ‹anchor: carnis decessit› · call in col 993
Discessit Rhen. Seml.
"Discessit": Rhenanus, Semler.
(printed under page 501)
(33) ‹anchor: in Domino› · call in col 993
Deo Rhen. Seml. Obert.
"Deo" [for "Domino"]: Rhenanus, Semler, Oberthür.
(printed under page 501)
(34) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 993 or 994
Admitt. al.
"Admitt[it]": others.
Commentarius
(printed under page 501)
(27) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 993
Et matrimonium ex voluntate, etc. Istud confirmat communem patrum et Jureconsultorum sententiam, quod etiam sine congressu carnis matrimonium faciat voluntas, sive consensus; quo adeo etiam adprobatur B. Virginis et Joseph matrimonium apud August. lib. I de Nupt. et Concupisc., cap. 11 et disertis verbis etiam illud affirmant B. Chrysost. hom. 32 operis imp. et B. Ambrosius lib. de Instit. virgin., c. 16; verum inde non sequitur quod praemisit Auctor. PAM.
And marriage by will, etc. This confirms the common opinion of the Fathers and the jurists, that the will, or consent, makes a marriage even without carnal union; by which the marriage of the blessed Virgin and Joseph is also upheld, in Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence book 1, ch. 11; and blessed Chrysostom, homily 32 of the Opus imperfectum, and blessed Ambrose, On the Training of a Virgin, ch. 16, also affirm it in express words. But what the Author put forward does not follow from it. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 501)
(28) ‹anchor: id est animum› · call in col 993
Ipsum illud possidens per quod et factus est maritus, id est animum. Etenim, ut aiunt jurisconsulti, nuptias consensus facit, non concubitus. RIG.
Possessing that very thing by which he was made a husband, that is, the mind. For, as the jurists say, consent makes a marriage, not lying together. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 501)
(29) ‹anchor: ejusdem sacramenti› · call in col 993
A presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti, hoc est, monogamis. LE PR.
From presbyters and deacons of the same sacrament, that is, monogamous. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 501)
(30) ‹anchor: quomodo buccellas› · call in col 993
Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et uxores quomodo buccellas. Omnibus scilicet petentibus. Quasi etiam de conjugio sit dictum illud. Omni petenti te dato, quod suum habere titulum ad eleemosynam pertinentem ait libro de Baptismo. Itaque hic verbis honestis nequiorem significatum involvit, quemadmodum in Salomonis Proverbiis legimus: Sic est via mulieris adulterae; comedit et tergit os suum. Le Pr.
And they will plainly give husbands and wives as they give morsels of bread. That is, to all who ask. As if that saying, Give to everyone who asks you, were said of marriage too; yet in the book On Baptism he says it has its own heading, belonging to almsgiving. So here he wraps a baser meaning in decent words, as we read in Solomon's Proverbs: Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 501)
(31) ‹anchor: alienis jam dotalibus› · call in col 993
Alienis jam dotalib. Dotalia Graecis ἐξώπροικα et παράφερνα quae mulier praeter dotem constitutam secum affert. LE PR.
By now in another's dowry deeds. Dowry goods are, to the Greeks, ἐξώπροικα and παράφερνα, which a woman brings with her besides the settled dowry. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 501)
Page
- running head: 993 LIBER DE MONOGA[MIA] (cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A beside "erit restitutio conjugii"; a second letter, printed apparently as A (probably B), beside "bit in spiritu, alium in carne"; C beside "Ut igitur in Domino"
- old-edition numerals: (none)
si veteris obliviscaris. Debes magis illi placere, propter quem Deo placere non maluisti. Haec Psychici volunt Apostolum probasse, aut in totum non recogitasse, cum scriberet: Mulier vincta est in quantum temporis vivit vir ejus; si autem mortuus fuerit, libera est; cui vult, nubat: tantum in Domino (I Cor. VII, 39). Ex hoc enim capitulo defendunt licentiam secundi matrimonii, imo et plurimi, si secundi: quod enim semel esse desiit, omni obnoxium est numero. Quo autem sensu Apostolus scripserit, ita relucebit, si prius constet, non hoc illum sensu scripsisse, quo Psychici utuntur. Constabit autem, si quis ea recordetur, quae huic capitulo diversa sunt et apud doctrinam, et apud voluntatem, et apud propriam ipsius Pauli disciplinam. Si enim secundas nuptias permittit, quae ab initio non fuerunt, quomodo adfirmat omnia ad initium recolligi in Christo? Si vult nos iterare conjugia, quomodo semen nostrum in Isaac semel marito auctore defendit? Quomodo totum ordinem Ecclesiae de monogamis disponit, si non haec disciplina praecedit in laicis, ex quibus Ecclesiae ordo proficit? Quomodo in matrimonio adhuc positos a fructu matrimonii avocat, dicens in collecto esse tempus, si per mortem matrimonio elapsos iterum in matrimonium revocat? Haec si diversa sunt ei capitulo, de quo agitur, constabit, ut diximus, non hoc illum sensu scripsisse, quo Psychici utuntur. Quia facilius est, ut aliquam rationem habeat unum illud capitulum, quae cum caeteris sapiat, quam ut Apostolus diversa inter se docuisse videatur. Eam rationem in ipsa materia poterimus recognoscere. Quae ista materia Apostolo fuit scribendi talia? Tyrocinium novae et cum maxime orientis Ecclesiae, quam lacte scilicet educabat, nondum solido cibo (I Cor. III) validioris doctrinae: adeo ut, prae illa infantia fidei, ignorarent adhuc quid sibi agendum esset circa carnis et sexus necessitatem. Cujus etiam ipsas species ex rescriptis intelligimus, cum dicit: De his autem quae scribitis, bonum est homini mulierem non attingere; propter fornicationes autem, unusquisque uxorem suam habeat (I Cor. VI,): ostendit fuisse qui in matrimonio
if you were to forget the former. You ought rather to please him for whose sake you chose not to please God. These things the Psychics will have it that the Apostle approved, or else did not reconsider at all, when he wrote: A wife is bound for as long a time as her husband lives; but if he has died, she is free; let her marry whom she will: only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39). For from this chapter they defend the licence of a second marriage, nay, even of very many, if of a second: for what has once ceased to be once is liable to any number. But in what sense the Apostle wrote will shine out in this way, if it is first established that he did not write it in the sense in which the Psychics use it. And it will be established if one recalls the things that are at variance with this chapter, both in his teaching, and in his will, and in the proper discipline of Paul himself. For if he permits second marriages, which were not from the beginning, how does he affirm that all things are gathered back to the beginning in Christ? If he wishes us to repeat marriages, how does he maintain that our seed is in Isaac, whose author was a once-married husband? How does he dispose the whole order of the Church on the basis of the once-married, if this discipline does not go before among the laity, from whom the order of the Church is advanced? How does he call those still placed in marriage away from the fruit of marriage, saying that the time is drawn together, if he calls back into marriage those who have slipped out of marriage through death? If these things are at variance with the chapter that is in question, it will be established, as we have said, that he did not write it in the sense in which the Psychics use it. For it is easier that that one chapter should have some rationale which agrees with the rest, than that the Apostle should seem to have taught things at variance with one another. That rationale we shall be able to recognize in the matter itself. What was this matter that led the Apostle to write such things? The novitiate of a Church new and only just then rising, which he was rearing, that is, on milk, not yet on the solid food (1 Cor. 3:2) of stronger doctrine: so much so that, by reason of that infancy of faith, they did not yet know what they ought to do concerning the necessity of the flesh and of sex. Of which we understand even the particular cases from his replies, when he says: But concerning the things of which you write, it is good for a man not to touch a woman; but because of fornications, let each man have his own wife (1 Cor. 7:1–2): he shows that there were those who, in marriage,
Editors' notes and page, col. 994
Footnotes
(34) ‹anchor: secundas nuptias permittit› · call in col 994
Admitt. al.
"Admitt[it]" [for "permittit"]: others.
(printed under page 501; "Ad-" ends the first line of the Variae lectiones, "mitt. al." begins the second)
(32) ‹anchor: propter fornicationes› · call in col 994
Propter fornicationes. Ad verbum transtulit quod Graece est διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας; in quo etiam (continues)
Because of fornications. He translated word for word what in Greek is διὰ δὲ τὰς πορνείας ("but because of fornications"); in which also (continues)
(printed under page 501)
Page
- running head: LIBER DE MONOGAMIA. 994 (left edge of head cut off in the image: "…ER DE MONOGAMIA.")
- marginal letters: A ‹si veteris obliviscaris›; B ‹disciplinam. Si enim secundas› (letter renders like A in the image; position is B); C ‹unum illud capitulum›; D (not visible within this column's text)
- old-edition numerals: 944 after ‹non› (before "maluisti")
a fide deprehensi, verebantur ne non liceret eis matrimonio suo exinde uti, quia in carnem sanctam Christi credidissent. Et tamen secundum veniam concedit, non secundum imperium; id est, indulgens, non praecipiens ita fieri. Caeterum, malebat omnes id esse quod et ipse. Proinde et de repudio rescribens, demonstrat quosdam de isto quoque cogitasse: vel maxime, quia et in ethnicis matrimoniis non putabant post fidem sibi perseverandum. Quaerebant et de virginibus consilium (praeceptum enim Domini non erat), bonum esse homini si sic permaneat; utique quomodo a fide fuerit inventus. Vinctus es uxori, ne quaesieris solutionem Solutus es ab uxore, ne quaesieris uxorem: si autem acceperis uxorem non deliquisti: quia ante fidem soluto ab uxore, non numerabitur post fidem secunda uxor, quae post fidem prima est. A fide enim etiam ipsa vita nostra censetur. Sed hic parcere se dicit illis: alioquin pressuram carnis subsecuturam, prae angustiis temporum impedimenta matrimonii recusantibus; quin potius de Domino sollicitudinem habendam promerendo, quam de marito. Et ita revocat quod permisit. Sic ergo in eodem ipso capitulo, quo definit unumquemque, in qua vocatione vocabitur, in ea permanere debere, adjiciens: Mulier vincta est, quandiu vivit vir ejus: si autem dormierit, libera est; cui volet nubat, tantum in Domino (I Cor. VII, 39); hinc quoque eam
being overtaken by the faith, were afraid that it might not be lawful for them thenceforth to make use of their own marriage, because they had believed in the holy flesh of Christ. And yet he grants it by way of indulgence, not by way of command; that is, permitting, not ordering, that it be so. For the rest, he preferred that all should be what he himself also was. Accordingly also, writing back about divorce, he shows that some had been thinking about this too: most of all because they thought that even in heathen marriages they ought not to persevere after [coming to] the faith. They were asking also for counsel about virgins (for there was no command of the Lord), [and he answers that] it is good for a man if he remains so; that is, just as he was found by the faith. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek release. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you have taken a wife, you have not sinned: because for one released from a wife before the faith, a wife who is the first after the faith will not be counted a second wife after the faith. For from the faith even our very life is reckoned. But here he says that he is sparing them: otherwise affliction of the flesh would follow, since the straits of the times refuse the encumbrances of marriage; nay rather, that care should be had about the Lord, by earning [His favour], than about a husband. And so he recalls what he had permitted. Thus then, in that very same chapter in which he determines that each one ought to remain in the calling in which he shall be called, he adds: A woman is bound as long as her husband lives; but if he has fallen asleep, she is free; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord (1 Cor. 7:39); hence too her
Editors' notes and page, col. 995
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 502)
(35) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995
Enim Rhen. Seml.
"Enim": Rhenanus, Semler.
(printed under page 502)
(36) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995
Promendo Fran.
"Promendo": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 502)
(37) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995
Et abest Fran.
"Et" is absent in the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 502)
(38) ‹anchor: hinc› · call in col 995
Hanc Rhen.
"Hanc" [for "hinc"]: Rhenanus.
(printed under page 502)
(39) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995 or 996
Quia Rig. Ven.
"Quia": Rigault, the Venice edition.
(printed under page 502)
(40) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995 or 996
Ne- abest. Rhen.
"Ne-" is absent in Rhenanus.
(printed under page 502)
(41) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995 or 996
Emersionem Seml.
"Emersionem": Semler.
(printed under page 502)
(42) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995 or 996
Autem inser Rhen. Seml.
Rhenanus and Semler insert "autem".
(printed under page 502)
(33) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995
Sciamus plane non sic esse in Graeco authentico. cum omne et veteris et novae Scripturae instrumentum in Latinum sermonem exinde translatum sit, multo purior manere credenda est fontis unda, quam rivi, ut ait adversus Helvidium Hieronymus, Itaque et libro de Praescript. haereticor. ad ecclesias apostolicas provocat, « apud quas authenticae, inquit, litterae apostolorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, repraesentantes faciem. « Sed Graeci illius authentici editiones haud fuisse omnes accuratissimas jam olim observavit Gregorius Nyssenus, orat. 2, de Resurrectione Dom. Etenim ait, ἐν τοῖς ἀκριβεστέροις ἀντιγράφοις. Evangelium Marci non pergere ultra haec verba, ἀφοβοῦντο γάρ cujusmodi ulla hodie exstare nondum est compertum, nisi quod in biblotheca Regia servatur exemplar litteris descriptum majusculis, ubi post illa, ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ nota finis adpingitur. Mox ab ejusdem librarii manu legitur, in quibusdam libris reperiri, Πάντα δὲ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλον. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς τοῖς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλεν δι' αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰδίου σωτηρίας. Tum altera librarii nota, in nonnulis etiam codicibus, post illa, ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, sequi, Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωΐ, et caetera quae in vulgatis editionibus. RIG. — In Graeco authentico. in Graeca veritate, in Graeca origine. Hironymus praef. in Evang., Augustinus lib. II de Doctrina Christ. cap. 13. Libros autem Novi Testamenti, si quid in Latinis varietatibus titubat, Graecis cedere oportere non dubium est; et maxime, qui apud ecclesias doctiores et diligentiores reperiuntur. Et lib. contra Faustum Manich., II, cap. 6, ubi de Pauli epistolis citat codicem Latinum emendatum, et codicem Graecum etiam emendatum, authenticum dicit, quod est auctoritate dignius, tam in Graecis quam in Latinis. Nec piguit Augustinum plures inspicere codices, ut ipse testatur in psal. LXVII: « Plures autem codices Latini, inquit, et maxime Graeci, ita distinctos versus habent; » et paulo post: « Quae distinctione multorum codicum, et auctoritate digniorum consonanti, sine dubio praeferenda, » etc. Idem ad Psal. eumdem: « Istam repetitionem non omnes codices habent, et eam diligentiores stella apposita praenotant. » RIG.
Let us know plainly that it is not so in the authentic Greek. Since the whole instrument of both the old and the new Scripture was translated from there into the Latin tongue, the water of the spring must be believed to stay much purer than that of the streams, as Jerome says against Helvidius. So in the book On the Prescription of Heretics too he appeals to the apostolic churches, "where," he says, "the authentic letters of the apostles are read aloud, sounding their voice and bringing their face before us." But that the copies of that authentic Greek were not all perfectly accurate Gregory of Nyssa observed long ago, in his second oration On the Resurrection of the Lord. For he says that "in the more accurate copies" the Gospel of Mark does not go beyond these words, "for they were afraid"; no copy of that kind is yet known to survive today, except that in the Royal Library there is kept a copy written in capital letters where, after "for they were afraid", a mark of the end is drawn. Then, by the hand of the same scribe, one reads that in some books is found: "And all that had been commanded they briefly reported to those around Peter. And after this Jesus himself also sent out through them, from the east as far as the west, the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation." Then another note of the scribe: that in some manuscripts too, after "for they were afraid", there follows "Now when he was risen early", and the rest that is in the common editions. RIGAULT. — In the authentic Greek: in the Greek truth, in the Greek original. Jerome, Preface to the Gospels; Augustine, On Christian Doctrine book 2, ch. 13: "But as for the books of the New Testament, if anything wavers among the Latin variants, there is no doubt that it must yield to the Greek, and above all to those found in the more learned and careful churches." And in Against Faustus the Manichee book 2, ch. 6, where, speaking of Paul's epistles, he cites a corrected Latin manuscript, and a Greek manuscript also corrected, he calls "authentic" what is worthier in authority, in the Greek as in the Latin. Nor did Augustine grudge looking into several manuscripts, as he himself testifies on Psalm 67: "But several Latin manuscripts," he says, "and above all the Greek, have the verses divided thus"; and a little after: "Which, agreeing with the division of many manuscripts and those of greater authority, is without doubt to be preferred," etc. The same on the same Psalm: "Not all manuscripts have this repetition, and the more careful mark it beforehand with an asterisk set against it." RIGAULT.
(printed under page 502)
(34) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 995 or 996
Per duar. syllabar. eversionem. In authentico illo suo legisse videtur, ἐὰν κοιμᾷ δὲ, si dormiat, si mortuus sit, maritus scilicet, antequam uxor ad fidem vocaretur. Ut ex illo ἐὰν κοιμᾷ δὲ per eversionem duarum syllabarum factum sit: ἐὰν κοιμηθῇ, si dormierit, si mortuus fuerit. Quod etiam de futuro sonat, inquit Septimius. Quasi Apostoli sensus extendatur etiam ad eum casum, quo virum post fidem ab uxore susceptam mori contigerit quo etiam casu liceat uxori nubere alii viro. Et tamen in membranis illis vetustissimis, quas viri docti jam pridem ex ampliss. Cl. Puteani bibliotheca laudavere, disertissime scriptum legitur, ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς quod ibidem Latine quoque redditur, si vero dormitionem vir ejus acceperit. Quae sane loquendi forma Christianum maritum significare magis videtur, quam ethnicum. RIG.
By the overturning of two syllables. He seems to have read in that authentic text of his ἐὰν κοιμᾷ δέ, "if he sleeps", "if he is dead", namely the husband, before the wife was called to the faith; so that out of that ἐὰν κοιμᾷ δέ there was made, by the overturning of two syllables, ἐὰν κοιμηθῇ, "if he shall have fallen asleep", "if he shall have died", "which sounds of the future too," says Septimius: as though the Apostle's meaning extended also to the case where the husband happens to die after the wife has received the faith, in which case too the wife would be allowed to marry another man. And yet in those very ancient parchments which learned men long ago praised, from the library of the most distinguished Claude Dupuy, one reads, written most plainly, ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, which is rendered there in Latin too, but if her husband has received his falling asleep. This manner of speaking certainly seems to signify a Christian husband rather than a heathen. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 502)
Page
- running head: TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — (cut off at right edge)
- marginal letters: A beside "monio a fide deprehensi"; second letter printed as A (probably B) beside "solutionem Solutus es ab uxore"; C beside "Auctorem imitatus est" (commentary); D beside "γελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον" (commentary)
- old-edition numerals: 945 after "secundum"
demonstrat intelligendam, quae et ipsa sic fuerit inventa soluta a viro, quomodo et vir solutus ab uxore; per mortem utique, non per repudium facta solutione: quia repudiatis non permitteret nubere, adversus pristinum praeceptum. Itaque mulier si nupserit, non delinquet, quia nec hic secundus maritus deputabitur qui est a fide primus, et adeo sic est, ut propterea adjecerit: Tantum in Domino; quia de ea agebatur, quae ethnicum habuerat, et amisso eo crediderat; ne scilicet etiam post fidem ethnico se nubere posse praesumeret; licet nec hoc Psychici curent. Sciamus plane non sic esse in Graeco authentico (quomodo in usum exiit per duarum syllabarum aut callidam aut simplicem eversionem: Si dormierit vir ejus, quasi de futuro sonet, ac per hoc videatur ad eam pertinere, quae jam in fide virum amiserit. Hoc quidem si ita esset, in infinitum emissa licentia, totiens virum dedisset, quotiens amissus esset, sine ullo pudore nubendi, etiam ethnicis congruente. Sed etsi ita esset quasi de futuro: Si cujus maritus mortuus fuerit, tantumdem et futurum ad eam pertineret, cujus ante fidem morietur maritus. Quaevis accipe, dum caetera non evertas. Nam cum et illa sententia cedant, servus vocatus es, ne curaveris: Impraeputiatus vocatus es, ne circumcidaris: circumcisus vocatus es, ne adduxeris; quibus concurrit: Vinctus es uxori, ne quaesieris
he shows to be understood, who herself also has been found loosed from a husband in the same way as the husband [is] loosed from a wife; the loosing having been effected, of course, by death, not by divorce: since he would not permit the divorced to marry, against the former precept. And so the woman, if she marries, will not sin, because this man will not be reckoned a second husband, who is the first since the faith; and so much is this the case that for this reason he added: Only in the Lord; because the matter concerned a woman who had had a heathen husband and, having lost him, had believed; lest, namely, she should presume that even after the faith she could marry a heathen; although the Psychics do not care even about this. Let us know plainly that it is not so in the authentic Greek (as it has passed into use through either a crafty or a simple inversion of two syllables: If her husband shall have fallen asleep, as if it sounded of the future, and on this account seemed to pertain to her who has already lost her husband while in the faith. If this indeed were so, licence being let loose without limit, she would have given [herself to] a husband as often as one had been lost, without any shame in marrying, such as befits even heathens. But even if it were so, as if of the future: If any woman's husband shall have died, it would equally pertain, even as future, to her whose husband will die before the faith. Take it whichever way you please, provided you do not overturn the rest. For since that sentence also gives way, You were called as a slave, do not care: You were called uncircumcised, do not be circumcised: you were called circumcised, do not draw [it] on; with which agrees: You are bound to a wife, do not seek
Editors' notes and page, col. 996
Footnotes
(43) ‹anchor: Quaevis› · call in col 996
Quamvis Seml. Pam.
"Quamvis": Semler, Pamelius.
Commentarius
(printed under page 502)
(35) ‹anchor: Impraeputiatus vocatus es› · call in col 996
Impraeputiatus vocatus es. In praeputiatu, ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ. RIG.
You were called uncircumcised. "In foreskin", ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 502)
(36) ‹anchor: ne adduxeris› · call in col 996
Ne adduxeris. Praeputium scilicet. Praeputia ducere, dixit Juvenalis, sat. 6. RIG.
Do not draw it on. The foreskin, that is. "To draw foreskins", said Juvenal, Satire 6. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 502)
Page
- running head: …M PARS II. — SERIES II, MORALIA. 996 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹demonstrat intelligendam›; A ‹exiit per duarum› (second letter appears as A, perhaps B); C ‹res reperiuntur› (in Commentarius); D ‹tendatur etiam ad eum› (in Commentarius)
- old-edition numerals: 946 after ‹nec›
solutionem : solutus es ab uxore, ne quaesieris uxorem ; satis manifestum est, ad eos haec pertinere, qui in nova et recenti vocatione constituti, de his consulebant, in quibus a fide fuerant deprehensi. Haec erit interpretatio capituli istius ne hoc examinanda, an et tempori, et causae, et tam exemplis et argumentis praecedentibus, quam et sententiis et sensibus subsequentibus; et in primis, an ipsius Apostoli et consilio proprio cungruat et instituto : nihil enim custodiendum est, quam ne diversus sibi quis deprehendatur.
release: You are released from a wife, do not seek a wife; it is plain enough that these things pertain to those who, set in a new and recent calling, were consulting about the states in which they had been found by the faith. This will be the interpretation of that chapter, to be examined on this point: whether it accords with the time and with the occasion, and as much with the preceding examples and arguments as with the following statements and meanings; and above all, whether it agrees with the Apostle's own counsel and practice: for nothing is to be guarded against [more] than that anyone be found at variance with himself.
CAPUT XII.
Chapter XII.
Audi et subtilissimam e contrario argumentationem. Adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, ut solos qui sunt in clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit: quod enim quibusdam praescribit, id non omnibus praescribit. Nunquid ergo et quod omnibus praecipit, solis episcopis non praescribit; si quod episcopis praescribit, non et omnibus praecipit? An ideo omnibus, quia et episcopis? et ideo episcopis, quia et omnibus? Unde enim episcopi et clerus? nonne de omnibus? Si non omnes monogamiae tenentur; unde monogami in clerum? An ordo aliquis seorsum debebit institui monogamorum, de quo adlectio fiat in clerum? Sed cum extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus; tunc omnes sacerdotes; quia sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit (Apoc. I, 6; V. 10): cum ad peraequationem disciplinae sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, et impares sumus : De ecclesiasticis ordinibus agebatur, quales ordinari oporteret. Oportebat igitur omnem communis disciplinae formam sua fronte proponi, edictum quodammodo futurum universis in praeceptione, quo magis sciret plebs eum ordinem sibi observandum, qui faceret praepositos,
Hear also a most subtle argument from the opposite side. So far, they say, did the Apostle permit marriage to be repeated, that he bound only those who are in the clergy to the yoke of monogamy: for what he prescribes for certain people, he does not prescribe for all. Does he then not prescribe for bishops alone even what he commands for all, if what he prescribes for bishops he does not also command for all? Or [does he command it] for all for this reason, that [he does so] also for bishops? and for bishops for this reason, that [he does so] also for all? For whence come bishops and clergy? Is it not from all? If not all are bound to monogamy, whence will monogamists come into the clergy? Or will some separate order of monogamists have to be instituted, from which the choosing into the clergy may be made? But when we are exalted and puffed up against the clergy, then we are all one; then we are all priests, since He has made us priests to God and the Father (Rev. 1:6; 5:10): when we are summoned to equality in priestly discipline, we lay aside the fillets, and are unequal: The matter in hand was the ecclesiastical orders, what sort of men ought to be ordained. It was fitting, therefore, that the whole form of the common discipline should be set forth on its front, as a kind of edict that would apply to all in its precept, so that the people might know the better that that order was to be observed by themselves which would make [men] set over [them],
Editors' notes and page, col. 997
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 503)
(44) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997
Quis abest. Seml.
"Quis" is absent in Semler.
(printed under page 503)
(45) ‹anchor: et impares› · call in col 997
Sic. Rig. e lib. Ursini Rhen. pares al. partes cod. Wouw. impares.
So Rigault, from Ursinus's book. Rhenanus: "pares"; others: "partes"; the Wouwer manuscript: "impares".
(printed under page 503)
(46) ‹anchor: ecclesiasticis ordinibus› · call in col 997
Ordinibus aberat in Cod. Divionensi Rig.
"Ordinibus" was absent in the Dijon manuscript (Rigault).
(printed under page 503)
(47) ‹anchor: in praeceptione› · call in col 997
In praesessione Rig. Ven. impressione Rhen. Seml. Leop. Obert.
"In praesessione": Rigault, the Venice edition; "impressione": Rhenanus, Semler, Leopold, Oberthür.
(printed under page 503)
(48) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997 or 998
Sonor Rigalt.
"Sonor": Rigault.
(printed under page 503)
(49) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997 or 998
B.audiatur Seml. Obert. Cod. Wouw.
"B[l]audiatur" [the l is damaged in print; likely "Blandiatur"]: Semler, Oberthür, the Wouwer manuscript.
(printed under page 503)
(50) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997 or 998
Quod Rig.
"Quod": Rigault.
(printed under page 503)
(51) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997 or 998
Et ex digamia Rhen.
"Et ex digamia": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 503)
(52) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997 or 998
Acceptionem. Rhen.
"Acceptionem": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 503)
(53) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997 or 998
Pugnas Rhen.
"Pugnas": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 503)
(37) ‹anchor: et impares sumus› · call in col 997
Deponimus infulas, et impares sumus. Sic emendavimus ex libro Ursini. Ait igitur: Nos laici, cum ad peraequationem disciplinae sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus personam sacerdotalem; et jam dicimus, alios esse laicos, alios sacerdotes. RIG.
We lay aside the fillets and are unequal. So we have emended from Ursinus's book. He says, then: we lay people, when we are called to an equal footing in priestly discipline, lay aside the priestly character, and now we say that some are lay people and others priests. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 503)
(38) ‹anchor: sua fronte proponi› · call in col 997
Oportebat igitur communis disciplinae formam sua fronte proponi. Eleganter frontem Ecclesiae vocat episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos. Oportebat, inquit, in fronte Ecclesiae Christianae proponi ac pendere formam, hoc est, tabulas totius disciplinae ecclesiasticae; ut sic praecederet edictum quod universi sequerentur. Sic enim legitur in Divionensi codice vetusto: « Edictum quodammodo futurum universis in praeceptione. RIG. — Communis disciplinae formam. Legem communem significat tam laicis quam sacerdotibus dictam, τύπον τοῦ ποιμνίου (Petri V). RIG.
So the form of the common discipline had to be set out on its own front. He elegantly calls the bishops, presbyters and deacons the front of the Church. The form, he says, that is, the tables of the whole of church discipline, had to be set out and hung up on the front of the Christian Church, so that the edict might go first and all follow it. For so it reads in the old Dijon manuscript: "an edict, as it were, to be in force for all by way of precept." RIGAULT. — The form of the common discipline. He means the common law laid down for lay people and priests alike, "an example to the flock" (Peter [1 Pet.] 5). RIGAULT.
(printed under page 503)
(39) ‹anchor: qui faceret praepositos› · call in col 997
Quo magis sciret plebs eum ordinem sibi observandum, qui faceret praepositos. Ordinem monogamorum significat, unde sumuntur praepositi. Itaque omnem plebem volebat esse monogamos. RIG.
So that the people might know all the better that they must keep the order that produced their leaders. He means the order of the once-married, from which leaders are taken. So he wanted the whole people to be once-married. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 503)
(40) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 997 or 998
Vester Uthinensis nec Scantiniam timuit. Uthina oppidum est Africae, colonia Romanorum. Non agnoscebat autem, ut videtur, novam Montani prohetiam Uthinensis Ecclesia. Notat autem episcopum de illicita venere, cum, dicit, nec Scantiniam timuit. P. Scantinius legem tulit qua paederastae gravi supplicio afficerentur. RHEN.
Your man of Uthina did not even fear the Scantinian law. Uthina is a town of Africa, a Roman colony. The church of Uthina, it seems, did not acknowledge Montanus's new prophecy. He brands its bishop for unlawful lust when he says he did not even fear the Scantinian law. P. Scantinius carried a law by which pederasts were to be severely punished. RHENANUS.
(printed under page 503)
Page
- running head: 997 LIBER DE MONOGA[MIA] (cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹solutionem : solutus es› (gutter, right of line); A (probably B, printed/scanned as A) ‹connubium, ut solos qui sunt›; C ‹6; v. 10) : cum ad›; D ‹(37) Deponimus infulas› in the Commentarius
- old-edition numerals: 947 after ‹subsequentibus;›
et ne vel ipse honor aliquid sibi ad licentiam, quasi de privilegio loci blandiretur. Prospiciebat Spiritus sanctus dicturos quosdam. « Omnia licent episcopis ; » sicut ille vester Uthinensis nec Scantiniam timuit. Quot enim et digami praesident apud vos, insultantes utique Apostolo, certe non erubescentes, cum haec sub illis leguntur! Age jam, qui putas exceptionem monogamiae de episcopis factam, recede et a reliquis titulis disciplinae, qui cum monogamia episcopis ascribuntur. Noli esse irreprehensibilis, sobrius, bene moratus, hospitalis, docibilis; quin vero et vino deditus, et manu promptus ad caedendum et pugnax et pecuniae amans, et domum non regens, nec filiorum curans disciplinam, sed nec ab extraneis bonam famam sectans (I Tim. III. 2 seqq.). Si enim suam habent episcopi legem circa monogamiam, etiam caetera quae monogamiae accedere oportebit, episcopis erunt scripta. Laicis vero, queis monogamia non convenit, caetera quoque aliena sunt. Evasisti, Psychice, si velis, vincula disciplinae totius. Praescribe constanter non omnibus praecipi, quae quibusdam sint praecepta: aut si caetera quidem communia sunt, monogamia vero solis episcopis imposita est, nunquid illi soli Christiani pronuntiandi, in quos tota disciplina collata est?
and so that not even the honour itself might coax itself into some licence, as though from the privilege of its position. The Holy Spirit foresaw that certain people would say: "All things are permitted to bishops"; just as that Uthinan of yours did not fear even the Scantinian law. For how many digamists too preside among you, insulting the Apostle indeed, certainly not blushing, when these things are read out beneath them! Come now, you who think that an exception of monogamy was made concerning bishops, withdraw also from the remaining heads of discipline which are ascribed to bishops together with monogamy. Do not be irreproachable, sober, of good conduct, hospitable, apt to teach; nay rather be both given to wine, and ready of hand to strike, and quarrelsome, and a lover of money, and not ruling your house, nor caring for the discipline of your sons, and not even pursuing a good reputation among outsiders (1 Tim. 3:2 ff.). For if bishops have their own law regarding monogamy, the other things too which must accompany monogamy will have been written for bishops. But for laymen, to whom monogamy does not pertain, the other things also are foreign. You have escaped, Psychic, if you like, the bonds of the whole discipline. Maintain consistently that not everything is commanded to all which has been commanded to some: or, if the other things are indeed common, but monogamy has been imposed on bishops alone, are they alone to be declared Christians, upon whom the whole discipline has been conferred?
CAPUT XIII.
Chapter XIII.
Sed et Timotheo scribens, vult juvenculas nubere, filios suscipere, matres familiae agere (I Tim. V, 14). Ad eas dirigit, quales supra denotat, juvenculas viduas, quae in viduitate deprehensae, et aliquandiu adsectatae, postquam in deliciis habuerunt Christum, nubere volunt, habentes judicium quod primam fidem resciderunt: illam videlicet, a qua. in viduitate inventae, et professae eam, non perseverant. Propter quod vult eas nubere, ne primam
But writing also to Timothy, he wants young women to marry, to bear children, to act as mothers of families (1 Tim. 5:14). He directs this to such as he describes above, young widows, who, having been found in widowhood, and having followed [it] for some while, after they have held Christ among their delights, wish to marry, having judgement because they have broken their first faith: that one, namely, in which, having been found in widowhood and having professed it, they do not persevere. On this account he wants them to marry, lest the first
Editors' notes and page, col. 998
Footnotes
(54) ‹anchor: aliquandiu adsectatae› · call in col 998
Affectatae Rhen.
"Affectatae": Rhenanus.
Commentarius
(printed under page 503)
(41) ‹anchor: juvenculas nubere› · call in col 998
Vult juvenculas nubere. Locum hunc Auctor ad institutum suum detorquet; ut vix assequi quis possit quid velit. Varia est etiam veterum expositio, inter quas placet maxime illa Epiphanii contra Montanistas ut priori loco cum dicit; Juniores viduas devita, etc., loquatur de iis quae promisere, et promissis non stant, judicium habentes, eo quod primam fidem irritam fecerint; postea vero illis verbis. Volo ergo juvenculas viduas nubere, de iis, quibus per infirmitatem ad alteras transire nuptias permittit. PAM.
He wants young women to marry. The Author twists this passage to suit his purpose, so that one can hardly follow what he means. The ancients' explanation varies too; among them the one I like best is Epiphanius's against the Montanists: that in the first place, where he says Avoid the younger widows, etc., he speaks of those who have made a promise and do not keep it, having condemnation because they have made void their first faith; but afterwards, in the words I will therefore that the young widows marry, of those whom, because of weakness, he allows to pass to second marriages. PAMELIUS.
(printed under page 503)
Page
- running head: ...ER DE MONOGAMIA. 998 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A sitos (39), et ne vel; A pugnax et pecuniae amans (second A as printed, presumably for B); C bere (41), filios suscipere; D gamorum significat (in the Commentarius, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 918 after exceptionem
fidem suspectae viduitatis postea rescindant, non ut totiens nubant, quotiens in viduitate tentata, imo et in deliciis habita noluerint perseverare. Legimus eum et ad Romanos scribentem: Quae autem sub viro est mulier, viventi viro vincta est; si autem obierit, evacuata est a lege veri. Nempe ergo vivente viro adulterare putabitur, si juncta fuerit alteri viro. Si vero obierit vir, liberata est a lege, quod non sit adultera facta alii viro (Rom. VII. 2, 6). Sed et sequentia recognosce, quo sensus iste, qui tibi blanditur, evadat: Itaque, inquit, fratres mei, mortificamini et vos legi per corpus Christi, ut efficiamini alteri, ei scilicet qui a mortuis resurrexit, uti fructum feramus Deo. Cum enim eramus in carne, passiones delictorum, quae per legem efficiebantur in membris nostris ad fructum ferendum morti: nunc autem evacuati sumus a lege, mortui in quo tenebamur, ad serviendum Deo in novitate spiritus, et non in vetustute litterae. Igitur, si mortificari nos jubet legi per corpus Christi, quod est Ecclesia, quae spiritu novitatis constat, non per litteram vetustatis, id est legis; auferens te a lege, quae non tenet uxorem, marito defuncto, quominus alii viro fiat, ad contrariam te redigit conditionem, ne, amisso viro, nubas; quantumque non deputareris adultera facta alteri viro post mortem mariti, si adhuc in lege agere deberes, tanto ex diversitate conditionis adulterii te praejudicat post mortem mariti alii nubentem: quia jam mortificata es legi, non potest tibi licere, cum recessisti ab ea apud quam tibi licebat.
afterwards rescind the pledge of a widowhood under suspicion, not so that they might marry as often as, tried in widowhood, and indeed kept in pleasures, they have been unwilling to persevere in it. We read him also writing to the Romans: But the woman who is under a husband is bound to the husband while he lives; but if he has died, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then, while the husband lives, she will be reckoned to commit adultery if she has been joined to another man. But if the husband has died, she is freed from the law, so that she is not made an adulteress by another man (Rom. 7:2, 6). But examine also what follows, to see where this sense which flatters you comes out: Therefore, he says, my brethren, you too are made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may become another's, namely His Who rose from the dead, that we may bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were wrought through the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit to death: but now we are discharged from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held, so as to serve God in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Therefore, if he bids us be made dead to the law through the body of Christ, which is the Church, which consists in the spirit of newness, not through the letter of oldness, that is, of the law; in taking you away from the law, which does not hold a wife back, once her husband is dead, from becoming another man's, he brings you to the contrary condition, that, having lost your husband, you should not marry; and as much as you would not be accounted an adulteress if made another man's after your husband's death, were you still bound to live under the law, so much, from the difference of condition, does he prejudge you guilty of adultery if you marry another after your husband's death: for since you have now been made dead to the law, it cannot be lawful for you, now that you have withdrawn from that under which it was lawful for you.
CAPUT XIV.
CHAPTER XIV.
Nunc si et absolute Apostolus permisisset in fide, amisso matrimonio, nubere, proinde fecisset, quemadmodum et caetera, quae adversus formam regulae suae pro conditione temporum gessit, circumcidens Timotheum propter superinductitios falsos fratres, et rasos quosdam inducens in templum propter observationem Judaeorum (Act, XVI, 3; XXI, 24), ille qui Galatas, in Lege volentes agere, castigat. Sed ita res exigebant, ut omnibus omnia fieret, quo omnes lucrifaceret, parturiens illos, donec formaretur Christus in ipsis, et calefaciens tanquam nutrix parvulos fidei (I Cor. IX, 20; Gal. IV, 9); docendo quaedam per veniam, non per imperium, aliud est enim indulgere, aliud jubere: proinde temporalem licentiam permittens denuo nubendi propter infirmitatem carnis, quemadmodum Moyses repudiandi propter duritiam cordis (Deut. XXIV, 1), et hic itaque reddemus supplementum sensus
Now even if the Apostle had absolutely permitted marrying, in the faith, after the loss of a marriage, he would have done so just as he did the other things which he did against the form of his own rule because of the condition of the times, circumcising Timothy on account of false brethren brought in secretly, and bringing certain men, shaven, into the temple on account of the observance of the Jews (Acts 16:3; 21:24), he who rebukes the Galatians for wishing to live under the Law. But circumstances so required, that he should become all things to all men, that he might gain all, travailing with them until Christ should be formed in them, and cherishing, like a nurse, the little ones of the faith (1 Cor. 9:20; Gal. 4:19); teaching certain things by indulgence, not by command, for it is one thing to indulge, another to command: likewise granting a temporary licence to marry again on account of the weakness of the flesh, as Moses granted one of divorcing on account of hardness of heart (Deut. 24:1), here too, then, we shall supply the fuller sense
Editors' notes and page, col. 999
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 504)
(55) ‹anchor: in viduitate tentata› · call in col 999
Tentanda Rhen.
"Tentanda": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 504)
(56) ‹anchor: propter superinductitios› · call in col 999
Superductitios Rhen.
"Superductitios": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 504)
(57) ‹anchor: res exigebant› · call in col 999
Exigebat al.
"Exigebat": others.
(printed under page 504)
(58) ‹anchor: in col 1000 ("sic 58")› · call in col 1000, not in this column (kept here until n1000 is checked; do not set twice)
Nec sic abest Fran.
"Nec sic" is absent in the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 504)
(59) ‹anchor: in col 1000› · call in col 1000, not in this column (kept here until n1000 is checked; do not set twice)
Superdicitur al.
"Superdicitur": others.
(printed under page 504)
(60) ‹anchor: in col 1000› · call in col 1000, not in this column (kept here until n1000 is checked; do not set twice)
Sed Seml. Obert.
"Sed": Semler, Oberthür.
(printed under page 504)
Page
- running head: 999 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — [rest of head in the facing column, not in these images]
- marginal letters: A ‹fidem suspectae viduitatis›; B ‹fructum feramus Deo›; C (printed as A) ‹adulterii te praejudicat›; D ‹Sed ita res exigebant›
- old-edition numerals: 949 after ‹(Rom. VII. 2, 6).›
- the Commentarius note (42) printed under this page is called in col 1000
istius. Si enim Christus abstulit quod Moyses praecepit, quia ab initio non fuit sic (Matth. XIX, 8), nec sic ideo ab alia venisse virtute reputabitur Christus; cur non et Paracletus abstulerit, quod Paulus indulsit? Quia et secundum matrimonium ab initio non fuit, nec ideo suspectus habendus sit, quasi spiritus alienus, tantum ut Deo et Christo dignum sit quod superducitur? Si Deo et Christo dignum fuit duritiam cordis tempore expleto compescere, cur non dignius sit et Deo et Christo infirmitatem carnis tempore jam collectiore discutere? Si justum est matrimonium non separari, utique et non iterari honestum est. Denique, apud saeculum utrumque in bona disciplina deputatur, aliud concordiae nomine, aliud pudicitiae. Regnavit duritia cordis usque ad Christum: regnavit et infirmitas carnis usque ad Paracletum Nova lex abstulit repudium, habuit quod auferret. Nova prophetia, secundum matrimonium, non minus repudium prioris. Sed facilius duritia cordis Christo cessit, quam infirmitas carnis. Plus haec sibi Paulum defendit, quam illa Moysen; tamen defendit cum indulgentem eum captat, praescribentem recusat, quae potiores sententias et perpetuas voluntates ejus eludit; quae non sinit nos hoc Apostolo praestare, quod mavult. Et quosque infirmitas ista impudentissima in expugnando meliora perseverabit? Tempus ejus donec Paracletus operaretur fuit, in quem dilata sunt a Domino, quae tunc sustineri non poterant, quae jam nemini competit portare non posse; quia per quem datur portare posse, non deest. Quandiu causabimur carnem, quia dixit Dominus, Caro infirma (Matth. XXV, I)? Sed praemisit et Spiritus promptus; ut vincat spiritus carnem, ut cedat quod infirmum est fortiori. Nam et: Qui potest capere, capiat (Matth. XIX, 12), inquit; id est, qui non potest, discedat. Discessit et ille dives, qui non ceperat substantiae dividendae egenis praeceptum, et dimissus est sentehtiae suae a Domino (Matth. XIX. 16-22). Nec ideo duritia imputabitur Christo de arbitrii cujuscunque liberi vitio. Ecce, inquit posui ante te bonum et malum (Deut. XXX, 15; Eccli. XV. 18;) elige quod bonum est; si non potes, quia non vis (posse enim te, si velis, ostendit, quia tuo arbitrio utrumque proposuit) discedas oportet ab eo, cujus non facis voluntatem.
of that one. For if Christ abolished what Moses commanded, because from the beginning it was not so (Matt. 19:8), and yet Christ will not on that account be reckoned to have come from another power, why should not the Paraclete too have abolished what Paul permitted? Because second marriage also was not from the beginning, is He on that account to be held suspect, as if an alien spirit, provided only that what is brought in is worthy of God and Christ? If it was worthy of God and Christ to restrain hardness of heart when the time was fulfilled, why should it not be more worthy of both God and Christ to shake off weakness of the flesh, now that the time is more drawn in? If it is just that marriage should not be separated, surely it is also honourable that it should not be repeated. In short, even in the world each is counted as part of good discipline, the one under the name of concord, the other under that of chastity. Hardness of heart reigned until Christ: weakness of the flesh too reigned until the Paraclete. The new law abolished divorce; it had something to abolish. The new prophecy [abolishes] second marriage, no less a divorce of the first. But hardness of heart yielded to Christ more easily than weakness of the flesh. This latter claims Paul for itself more than the former claimed Moses; yet it claims him while it seizes upon him when he is indulgent and refuses him when he prescribes, it which evades his weightier opinions and lasting wishes, which does not allow us to render to the Apostle what he prefers. And how long will this most shameless weakness persevere in assaulting better things? Its time lasted until the Paraclete should be at work, to Whom were deferred by the Lord the things which could not then be borne, things which it now befits no one to be unable to bear, because He through Whom it is granted to be able to bear is not lacking. How long shall we plead the flesh, because the Lord said, The flesh is weak (Matt. 25:1 [i.e. 26:41])? But He said before it also, The spirit is ready, so that the spirit may conquer the flesh, so that what is weak may yield to the stronger. For He also says: He who can take it, let him take it (Matt. 19:12); that is, he who cannot, let him depart. That rich man too departed, who had not taken in the precept of dividing his substance among the needy, and he was dismissed by the Lord to his own opinion (Matt. 19:16–22). Nor will hardness on that account be imputed to Christ because of the fault of anyone's free will. Behold, He says, I have set before you good and evil (Deut. 30:15; Ecclus. 15:18); choose what is good; if you cannot, because you will not (for He has shown that you can, if you will, since He set each before your own choice), you must depart from Him Whose will you do not do.
CAPUT XV.
Chapter XV.
Quae igitur hic duritia nostra, si non facientibus voluntatem Dei reuuntiamus? Quae haeresis, si secundas
What hardness then is ours here, if we renounce those who do not do the will of God? What heresy, if second
Editors' notes and page, col. 1000
Footnotes
(61) ‹anchor: in quem dilata› · call in col 1000
Dilatata Rhen.
"Dilatata": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 504)
(62) ‹anchor: quae tunc sustineri› · call in col 1000
Sustinere Fran.
"Sustinere": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 504)
(63) ‹anchor: liberi vitio› · call in col 1000
Servitio Rhen.
"Servitio": Rhenanus.
Commentarius
(printed under page 504)
(42) ‹anchor: si velis, ostendit› · call in col 1000
Posse enim te, si velis, si ostendit. Pugnat hic locus pro continentia, adeo ut in nostra potestate sita videatur, modo ad Deum recurramus. S. Augustinus, lib. de Adult. conjug. II, c. 29: « Levis erit continentiae sarcina, si Christi erit; Christi erit, si fides aderit, quae impetrat a jubente Deo quae jusserit. LE PR.
For he shows that you can, if you will. This passage fights for continence, so that it seems to lie in our power, provided we have recourse to God. St Augustine, On Adulterous Marriages book 2, ch. 29: "The burden of continence will be light if it is Christ's; it will be Christ's if faith is there, which obtains from God who commands it what he has commanded." LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 504)
Page
- running head: [...]UM PARS II. — SERIES II, MORALIA. 1000 (left edge cut off)
- marginal letters: A istius. Si enim Christus; B utrumque in bona disciplina; A (printed for C) bit? Tempus ejus donec; D putabitur Christo de arbitrii
- old-edition numerals: 950 after dignius sit
nuptias, ut illicitas, juxta adulterium judicamus? Quid est enim adulterium, quam matrimonium illicitum? Notat Apostolus eos, qui in totum nubere prohibebant, qui et de cibis interdicebant, quos Deus condidit (I Tim. IV, 3.) Nos vero non magis nuptias auferimus, si secundas recusamus, quam cibos reprobamus, si saepius jejunamus. Aliud est auferre, aliud temperare, aliud est legem non nubendi ponere, aliud modum nubendi statuere. Plane qui exprobrant nobis duritiam vel haeresim in hac causa, si in tantum fovent carnis infirmitatem, ut in nubendo frequenter sustinendam putent: cur illam in alia causa neque sustinent, neque venia fovent, cum tormentis expugnata est in negationem? Utique enim illam magis excusari capit, quae in praelio cecidit, quam quae in cubiculo; quae in equuleo succubuit, quam quae in lectulo; quae credulitati cessit, quam quae libidini; quae gemens devicta est, quam quae subans. Sed illam quidem a communicatione depellunt, quia non sustinuit in finem; hanc vero suscipiunt, quasi et haec sustinuerit in finem. Propone quid utraque non sustinuerit in finem, et invenies ejus caussam honestiorem, quae saevitiam, quam quae pudicitiam sustinere non potuit. Et tamen nec cruentam defectionem infirmitas carnis excusat, nedum impudicam.
marriages, as unlawful, we judge next to adultery? For what is adultery but unlawful matrimony? The Apostle censures those who forbade marrying altogether, who also prohibited foods, which God created (1 Tim. 4:3). But we no more abolish marriage if we refuse second marriages than we reject foods if we fast more often. It is one thing to abolish, another to moderate; one thing to lay down a law of not marrying, another to fix a measure of marrying. Plainly, those who reproach us with harshness or heresy in this matter, if they indulge the weakness of the flesh so far as to think it must be tolerated in marrying frequently: why in another matter do they neither tolerate it nor indulge it with pardon, when it has been overcome by tortures into denial? For assuredly that weakness is more fit to be excused which fell in battle than that which fell in the bedchamber; which gave way on the rack than that which gave way on the couch; which yielded to credulity than that which yielded to lust; which was overcome groaning than that which was overcome in heat. Yet that one they drive from communion, because it did not endure to the end; but this one they receive, as if this one too had endured to the end. Set out what each did not endure to the end, and you will find the cause more honourable of that which could not endure cruelty than of that which could not endure chastity. And yet the weakness of the flesh does not excuse even a bloody defection, much less an unchaste one.
CAPUT XVI.
Chapter XVI.
Rideo autem, cum infirmitas carnis opponitur, quae summa fortitudo dicenda est. Iterum nubere, est res virium; resurgere in opera carnis de continentiae otio, substantia est laterum. Talis infirmitas, et tertio, et quarto, et usque septimo forsitan matrimonio sufficit; ut quae totiens fortior, quotiens fuerit infirmior, habitura jam non Apostolum auctorem, sed Hermogenem aliquem, plures solitum mulieres ducere quam pingere, materia enim in illo abundat, unde et animam esse praesumens, multo magis spiritum a Deo non habet, jam nec psychicus, quia
But I laugh when the weakness of the flesh is put forward, which ought rather to be called the highest strength. To marry again is a matter of powers; to rise again to the works of the flesh from the leisure of continence is a matter of the substance of the loins. Such weakness suffices for a third, and a fourth, and perhaps even up to a seventh marriage; so that she who is so many times the stronger as she has been the weaker will have as her authority no longer the Apostle, but some Hermogenes, accustomed to marry more women than he paints, for matter abounds in him, whence also, presuming that the soul is [from it], much more does he not have the spirit from God, being no longer even psychic, because
Editors' notes and page, col. 1001
Variae lectiones
(printed under page 505)
(64) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 1001
Est repetit. Rhen.
Rhenanus repeats "est".
(printed under page 505)
(65) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 1001
Aestimant add. alii.
Others add "aestimant".
(printed under page 505)
(66) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 1001
Ostendit Rhen.
"Ostendit": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 505)
(67) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 1001 or 1002
Jam Rhen.
"Jam": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 505)
(68) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 1001 or 1002
Aestimant Rhen.
"Aestimant": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 505)
(43) ‹anchor: not visible on the crop› · call in col 1001
Si et apud Christum legibus Juliis agi credunt. Non dubium quin respexerit ad leges Julias, quae caelibatus et orbitatis poenas continebant. Quas auxit Augustus, teste Dione lib. LV, unde lex Julia dicta est lex caducaria; nam cum caelibes nihil caperent ex testamentis nisi ex proxime junctis, orbi vero dimidium tantum, legatum quod erat caelibi, caducum dicebatur, nisi intra dies centum pareret. Sozomenus id diligenter notat lib. I Eccl. Hist.: Νόμος ἦν Ῥωμαίοις παλαιὸς, ἀπὸ εἴκοσι καὶ πέντε ἐτῶν τῶν ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι, κωλύων τοῖς ἀγάμοις, Lex erat antiqua apud Romanos, qua caelibes ultra viginti quinque annos legatis frustrabantur. Respicit autem ad poenas illas Plutarchus De amore liber.: Ῥωμαίων πολλοὶ γαμοῦσι, γεννῶσιν, καὶ οὐχ ἵνα κληρονόμους ἔχωσιν, ἀλλ' ἵνα κληρονομεῖν δύνωνται. Plerique Romanorum uxores ducunt liberosque suscipiunt, non ut haeredes habeant, sed ut haeredes fieri ipsi possint. Unde Juvenalis adulterum inducit, qui haec marito oggannit: . . . . Propter me scriberis haeres, / Legatum omne capis, necnon et dulce caducum. Solidum enim capere de quo hic agitur est ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι quod idem est ac haeredem fieri ex asse, et omnem illam haereditatem adire; quod, ut dixi, in caelibes non fiebat; nam legata fiebant caduca, ibantque in fiscum, lib. VI, de Vulg. et pupill. substit. Propter Christianos tamen ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι παρθενίαν καὶ ἀπαιδίαν διὰ Θεὸν ἀσκοῦντας, Constantinus deinde coelibatus poenas sustulit Euseb. de Vita Const., et Sozom. lib. I. LE PR.
If they believe that among Christ's people too things are governed by the Julian laws. There is no doubt that he had in view the Julian laws, which laid down penalties for celibacy and childlessness. Augustus increased them, as Dio testifies, book 55, whence the Julian law was called the "lex caducaria"; for since the unmarried received nothing from wills except from their nearest kin, and the childless only half, a legacy left to an unmarried person was called "caducum" (lapsed), unless he obeyed within a hundred days. Sozomen notes this carefully in Church History book 1: "There was an old law among the Romans forbidding the unmarried, from twenty-five years of age, to be granted equal rights," There was an ancient law among the Romans by which the unmarried over twenty-five years were cheated of legacies. And Plutarch has those penalties in view, On the Love of Offspring: "Many Romans marry and beget children not in order to have heirs, but in order to be able to inherit." Most Romans take wives and raise children not to have heirs but so that they themselves can become heirs. Hence Juvenal brings on an adulterer who snarls at the husband: ". . . Because of me you are written in as heir, you take every legacy, and the sweet lapsed share as well." For "to take the whole", which is at issue here, is ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι, which is the same as to become sole heir and enter on the whole inheritance; which, as I said, did not happen for the unmarried, for their legacies lapsed and went to the treasury, book 6, On ordinary and pupillary substitution. Yet for the sake of the Christians, that those who practise virginity and childlessness for God's sake might be granted equal rights, Constantine afterwards abolished the penalties for celibacy: Eusebius, Life of Constantine, and Sozomen book 1. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 505)
Page
- running head: 1001 LIBER DE MONOGAM (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A cundas nuptias, ut illicitas; B capit, quae in praelio cecidit; C Rideo autem, cum infirmitas carnis; D (43) Si et apud Christum legibus Juliis (commentary, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 951 after infirmitatem,
non de afflatu Dei psychicus. Quid, si inopiam quis causetur, ut carnem suam aperte prostitutam profiteatur, exhibitionis caussa nubentem, oblitus (Matth. VI, 25) de victu et vestitu non esse cogitandum? Habet Deum etiam corvorum educatorem, etiam florum excultorem. Quid si solitudinem domus obtendat? Quasi una mulier frequentiam praestet homini ad fugam proximo: habet viduam utique, quam adsumat licebit. Non unam generis hujus uxorem, sed etiam plures habere concessum est. Quid, si de posteritate quis cogitet iisdem animis, quibus oculis uxor Loth, ut ideo quis repetat matrimonium, quia de priore liberos non habuit? haeredes scilicet Christianus quaeret, saeculi totius exhaeres? Habet fratres, habet Ecclesiam matrem. Aliud est, si et apud Christum legibus Juliis agi credunt, et existimant caelibes et orbos ex testamento Dei solidum non posse capere. Nubant igitur hujusmodi in finem usque, ut in ista confusione carnis; sicut Sodoma et Gomorrha, et diluvii dies, ab illo ultimo exitu saeculi deprehendantur. Adjiciant tertium dictum (I Cor. XV, 32): Manducemus, et bibamus, et nubamus: cras enim moriemur; non recogitantes Vae illud praegnantibus et lactantibus, multo gravius et amarius eventurum in concussione totius mundi, quam evenit in vastatione unius particulae Judaeae. Satis opportunos novissimis temporibus fructus iteratis matrimoniis colligant, ubera fluitantia, et uteros nauseantes, et infantes pipiantes. Parent Antichristo in quae libidinosius saeviat. Adducet illis carnifices obstetrices.
he is not psychic from the breath of God. What if someone pleads poverty, so as openly to profess that his flesh is prostituted, marrying for the sake of maintenance, forgetting that one must not take thought for food and clothing (Matt. 6:25)? He has God, Who is also the feeder of ravens, also the adorner of flowers. What if he puts forward the loneliness of his house? As if one woman would furnish company to a man close to flight: he has, at any rate, a widow whom he may take to himself. It is permitted to have not one wife of this kind but even several. What if someone thinks of posterity with the same mind with which Lot's wife [looked back] with her eyes, so that a man repeats marriage for this reason, that he had no children from the former one? A Christian, forsooth, will seek heirs, he who is disinherited from the whole world? He has brothers, he has the Church as mother. It is another matter if they believe that even before Christ things are conducted under the Julian laws, and think that the unmarried and the childless cannot receive the whole under the testament of God. Let such people, then, marry right up to the end, so that, in that confusion of the flesh, like Sodom and Gomorrah and the days of the flood, they may be overtaken by that final exit of the world. Let them add a third saying (1 Cor. 15:32): Let us eat, and drink, and marry, for tomorrow we shall die; not recalling that Woe to those who are with child and those who give suck, which will come about far more heavily and bitterly in the shaking of the whole world than it came about in the devastation of one small part, Judaea. Fruits quite suited to the last times let them gather from repeated marriages: flowing breasts, and nauseous wombs, and squalling infants. Let them make ready for Antichrist [those] on whom he may rage the more lustfully. He will bring them executioners as midwives.
CAPUT XVII.
Chapter XVII.
Habebunt plane Christo quod allegent, speciosum privilegium, carnis usquequaque imbecillitatem. Sed hanc judicabunt jam non Isaac monogamus pater noster, nec Joannes aliqui Christi spado, nec Judith filia Merari, nec tot alia exempla sanctorum. Solent ethnici judices destinari. Exsurget regina
They will plainly have something to plead before Christ, a fine-sounding privilege: the weakness of the flesh in every respect. But this will be judged now not by Isaac the monogamist, our father, nor by John, a eunuch of Christ, nor by Judith the daughter of Merari, nor by so many other examples of the saints. Gentile judges are customarily appointed. There will rise up the queen
Editors' notes and page, col. 1002
Footnotes
(66) ‹anchor: domus obtendat› · call in col 1002
Ostendit Rhen.
"Ostendit": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 505)
(67) ‹anchor: sed etiam› · call in col 1002
Jam Rhen.
"Jam": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 505)
(68) ‹anchor: et existimant› · call in col 1002
Aestimant Rhen.
"Aestimant": Rhenanus.
(printed under page 505)
(69) ‹anchor: infantes pipiantes› · call in col 1002
Pipantes Fran. Jun.
"Pipantes": the Franeker edition, Junius.
(printed under page 505)
(70) ‹anchor: in quae› · call in col 1002
In quo Rhen. Seml.
"In quo": Rhenanus, Semler.
(printed under page 505)
(71) ‹anchor: judicabunt jam› · call in col 1002
Tam Rhen. tum Jun.
"Tam": Rhenanus; "tum": Junius.
(printed under page 505)
Commentarius
(printed under page 505)
(43) ‹anchor: legibus Juliis agi credunt› · call in col 1002
Si et apud Christum legibus Juliis agi credunt. Non dubium quin respexerit ad leges Julias, quae caelibatus et orbitatis poenas continebant. Quas auxit Augustus, teste Dione lib. LV, unde lex Julia dicta est lex caducaria; nam cum caelibes nihil caperent ex testamentis nisi ex proxime junctis, orbi vero dimidium tantum, legatum quod erat caelibi, caducum dicebatur, nisi intra dies centum pareret. Sozomenus id diligenter notat lib. I Eccl. Hist.: Νόμος ἦν Ῥωμαίοις παλαιὸς, ἀπὸ εἴκοσι καὶ πέντε ἐτῶν τῶν ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι, κωλύων τοῖς ἀγάμοις, Lex erat antiqua apud Romanos, qua caelibes ultra viginti quinque annos legatis frustrabantur. Respicit autem ad poenas illas Plutarchus De amore liber.: Ῥωμαίων πολλοὶ γαμοῦσι, γεννῶσιν, καὶ οὐχ ἵνα κληρονόμους ἔχωσιν, ἀλλ' ἵνα κληρονομεῖν δύνωνται. Plerique Romanorum uxores ducunt liberosque suscipiunt, non ut haeredes habeant, sed ut haeredes fieri ipsi possint. Unde Juvenalis adulterum inducit, qui haec marito oggannit: . . . . Propter me scriberis haeres, / Legatum omne capis, necnon et dulce caducum. Solidum enim capere de quo hic agitur est ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι quod idem est ac haeredem fieri ex asse, et omnem illam haereditatem adire; quod, ut dixi, in caelibes non fiebat; nam legata fiebant caduca, ibantque in fiscum, lib. VI, de Vulg. et pupill. substit. Propter Christianos tamen ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι παρθενίαν καὶ ἀπαιδίαν διὰ Θεὸν ἀσκοῦντας, Constantinus deinde coelibatus poenas sustulit Euseb. de Vita Const., et Sozom. lib. I. LE PR.
If they believe that among Christ's people too things are governed by the Julian laws. There is no doubt that he had in view the Julian laws, which laid down penalties for celibacy and childlessness. Augustus increased them, as Dio testifies, book 55, whence the Julian law was called the "lex caducaria"; for since the unmarried received nothing from wills except from their nearest kin, and the childless only half, a legacy left to an unmarried person was called "caducum" (lapsed), unless he obeyed within a hundred days. Sozomen notes this carefully in Church History book 1: "There was an old law among the Romans forbidding the unmarried, from twenty-five years of age, to be granted equal rights," There was an ancient law among the Romans by which the unmarried over twenty-five years were cheated of legacies. And Plutarch has those penalties in view, On the Love of Offspring: "Many Romans marry and beget children not in order to have heirs, but in order to be able to inherit." Most Romans take wives and raise children not to have heirs but so that they themselves can become heirs. Hence Juvenal brings on an adulterer who snarls at the husband: ". . . Because of me you are written in as heir, you take every legacy, and the sweet lapsed share as well." For "to take the whole", which is at issue here, is ἴσων ἀξιοῦσθαι, which is the same as to become sole heir and enter on the whole inheritance; which, as I said, did not happen for the unmarried, for their legacies lapsed and went to the treasury, book 6, On ordinary and pupillary substitution. Yet for the sake of the Christians, that those who practise virginity and childlessness for God's sake might be granted equal rights, Constantine afterwards abolished the penalties for celibacy: Eusebius, Life of Constantine, and Sozomen book 1. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 505)
(44) ‹anchor: infantes pipiantes› · call in col 1002
Infantes pipiantes. Pipiare Oscorum lingua est vagire: ab eo fit pipilare, quo Catultus de passeris garritu utitur. LE PR.
Infants peeping. "Pipiare" in the tongue of the Oscans is to wail; from it comes "pipilare", which Catullus uses of a sparrow's chirping. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 505)
(45) ‹anchor: judices destinari› · call in col 1002
Solent ethnici judices destinari. Alludit ad (continues)
Gentile judges are usually appointed. He alludes to (continues)
(printed under page 505)
Page
- running head: [LIB]ER DE MONOGAMIA. 1002
- marginal letters: A non de afflatu Dei psychicus; B siam matrem. Aliud est; C colligant, ubera fluitantia; D ipsi possint. Unde Juvenalis (Commentarius, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 952 after ut
- other: column ends with "re", broken at the column break with no hyphen printed; the top of col 1003 prints "gina". QA Q1b: set whole as "regina" at the end of this column (English "the queen"), so col 1003 opens at "Carthaginis". "suam" printed with a damaged first letter-form; stray mark after "carnis" ignored; no full-width line seen
- QA Q1b: the calls of Variae lectiones 66 (obtendat), 67 (etiam), 68 (existimant) and of Commentarius (43) (credunt) are printed in THIS column; those four notes were set in n1001 marked "call in col 1001" and are now set here with their anchors. Remove them from n1001 when that file is next written, so they are not printed twice. In (43) the page prints "ἀσκοῦ τας" (letter dropped); set as ἀσκοῦντας. The end of (45) is set in n1003 (printed under page 506).
Carthaginis, et decernet in Christianas, quae profuga, et in alieno solo, et tantae civitatis cum maxime formatrix, cum regis nuptias ultro optasse debuisset, ne tamen secundas eas experiretur, maluit e contrario uri quam nubere. Assidebit et illi matrona Romana, quae, etsi per vim nocturnam, nihilominus experta alium virum, maculam carnis suo sanguine abluit, ut monogamiam in semetipsam vindicaret. Fuerunt et quae pro viris mori mallent, quam post viros nubere. Idolis certe et monogamia et viduitas apparent. Fortunae muliebri coronam non imponit, nisi univira; sicut nec matri Matutae. Pontifex Maximus et Flaminica nubent semel. Cereris sacerdotes, viventibus etiam viris et consentientibus, amica separatione viduantur. Sunt et quae de tota continentia judicent nos virgines Vestae et Junonis Achaicae, et Dianae, Scythicae, et Apollinis Pythii. Etiam bovis illius Aegyptii antistites de continentia infirmitatem Christianorum judicabunt. Erubesce, caro, quae Christum induisti. Sufficiat tibi semel nubere, in quod a primordio facta es, in quod a fine revocaris. Redi in Adam vel priorem, si in novissimum non potes. Semel gustavit ille de arbore, semel concupiit, semel pudenda protexit, semel Deo erubuit, semel ruborem suum abscondit, semel de paradiso san⟨c⟩titatis exsulavit, semel exinde nupsit. Si in illo fui⟨s⟩ti habes tuam formam; si in Christum transisti, melior esse debebis. Exhibe tertium Adam, et hunc digamum, et tunc poteris esse, quod inter duos non potes.
of Carthage, and she will give judgement against Christian women, she who, a fugitive, and on foreign soil, and at the very time when she was founding so great a city, when she ought to have wished of her own accord for marriage with a king, yet, so as not to undergo a second marriage, preferred on the contrary to burn rather than to marry. Beside her too will sit the Roman matron who, though it was by violence in the night, having nonetheless known another man, washed out the stain of her flesh with her own blood, that she might maintain monogamy in her own person. There have also been women who would rather die for their husbands than marry after their husbands. Certainly for idols both monogamy and widowhood are on display. None but a once-married woman sets the crown on Womanly Fortune; nor on Mother Matuta either. The Pontifex Maximus and the Flaminica marry once. The priestesses of Ceres, even while their husbands are living and consenting, are widowed by an amicable separation. There are also those who, on the ground of entire continence, may judge us: the virgins of Vesta and of Achaean Juno, and of Scythian Diana, and of Pythian Apollo. Even the priests of that Egyptian ox will judge the weakness of Christians in the matter of continence. Blush, flesh, you who have put on Christ. Let it suffice you to marry once, the state for which you were made from the beginning, the state to which you are recalled at the end. Return into Adam, at least the former, if you cannot into the last. Once did he taste of the tree, once did he lust, once did he cover his shameful parts, once did he blush before God, once did he hide his blushing, once was he exiled from the paradise of holiness, once thereafter did he marry. If you were in him, you have your pattern; if you have passed over into Christ, you ought to be better. Produce a third Adam, and him a digamist, and then you will be able to be what you cannot be between the two.
<!-- note: reading order per the unit BOUNDARY: the upper part of col 1003 (to "de tota continentia"), then the upper part of col 1004 (from "judicent nos virgines" to "inter duos non potes."), both above the title band of De jejuniis, set here under col 1003's rail. The work ends here. -->
<!-- note: "regina" (re | gina at the 1002/1003 break, no hyphen printed) is set whole at the end of col 1002. -->
Editors' notes and page, col. 1003
De monogamia — Variae lectiones
(printed under page 506)
(72) ‹anchor: in semetipsam› · call in col 1003
Semetipsa Fran.
"Semetipsa": the Franeker edition.
(printed under page 506)
(73) ‹anchor: Sunt et quae› · call in col 1003
Qui Rhen. Jun.
"Qui": Rhenanus, Junius.
(printed under page 506)
(74) ‹anchor: in quod a fine› · call in col 1004 (text set under col 1003's rail)
In quod et fine Rhen. Jun.
"In quod et fine": Rhenanus, Junius.
(printed under page 506)
(75) ‹anchor: Exhibe› · call in col 1004 (text set under col 1003's rail)
Te addit Rhen. tu Jun.
Rhenanus adds "te"; Junius has "tu".
(printed under page 506)
De monogamia — Commentarius (end)
(printed under page 506)
(45) (end) ‹anchor: judices destinari› · call in col 1002
judicia, quae de Christianis apud ethnicorum tribunalia peragebantur. Non erit novum, inquit, Christianos sisti pro tribunalibus ethnicorum. Itaque et monogamiam suam evincere conatur etiam ethnicorum judicio, hoc est exemplis illis toties inculcatis; credo, quod aevi sui partem fidelium majorem talibus capi sentiebat. Ea vero sunt Lucretiae, Flaminicae, Vestalium, et id genus aliorum exempla. RIG.
the trials that were held over Christians before the tribunals of the heathen. It will be nothing new, he says, for Christians to be set before the tribunals of the heathen. And so he tries to make good his case for monogamy even by the judgement of the heathen, that is, by those examples so often pressed home; I suppose because he perceived that the greater part of the faithful of his age were caught by such things. These are the examples of Lucretia, the Flaminica, the Vestals, and others of that kind. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 506)
(46) ‹anchor: matri Matutae› · call in col 1003
Matri Matutae. Ino est alio nomine, inter deas marinas adscripta. Ovid. Fast. VI: / Leucothoe gratis Matuta vocabere nostris. / Variis quippe nominibus insignitur. LE PR.
Mother Matuta. She is Ino by another name, enrolled among the sea goddesses. Ovid, Fasti VI: "Leucothoe gratis [i.e. Leucothea to the Greeks], you will be called Matuta by ours." For she is marked out by various names. LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 506)
(47) ‹anchor: Pontifex Maximus et Flaminica› · call in col 1003
Pontifex maximus et Flaminica. Lib. de Exhort. cast. dixit Flaminem et Flaminicam. LE PR.
The supreme pontiff and the Flaminica. In the book On the Exhortation to Chastity he said "the Flamen and the Flaminica". LE PRIEUR.
(printed under page 506)
De jejuniis — Variae lectiones
<!-- NOT this unit: the notes below are called in the text of De jejuniis (below the title band) and belong to corpus/PL002/de_jejuniis, which has no notes files yet. Kept here only so the work is not lost; move them there and do not print them with De monogamia. --> (printed under page 506)
(1) ‹anchor: DE JEJUNIIS (title)› · call in col 1003–1004 (title across both columns)
De Jejunio adv. Psychicos hic liber inscriptus est in edd. Gelen. Seml. al.
In Gelenius's and Semler's editions and others this book is entitled "On Fasting, against the Psychics".
(printed under page 506)
(2) ‹anchor: Mirarer Psychicos› · call in col 1003
Additur istos Fran.
The Franeker edition adds "istos".
(printed under page 506)
(3) ‹anchor: luxuria tenderentur› · call in col 1003
Tenerentur Rhen. Leop.
"Tenerentur": Rhenanus, Leopold.
(printed under page 506)
(4) ‹anchor: ingluvie lacerarentur› · call in col 1003
Ducerentur Seml. Leop. laxarentur cod. Ursini.
"Ducerentur": Semler, Leopold; "laxarentur": Ursinus's manuscript.
(printed under page 506)
(1) ‹anchor: Mirarer Psychicos› · call in col 1003
Psychicos. Id est, Catholicos, Montani adversarios; quos Psychicos seu animales vocat, abutendo verbis Apostoli (I Cor. II, 14). EDD.
Psychics. That is, the Catholics, Montanus's opponents, whom he calls Psychics, or "animal" men, misusing the Apostle's words (1 Cor. 2:14). EDITORS.
(printed under page 506)
(2) ‹anchor: ingluvie lacerarentur› · call in col 1003
Ingluvie lacerarentur. Rumperentur. RIG.
Were torn by gluttony. That is, were burst. RIGAULT.
(printed under page 506)
Page
- running head: 1003 TERTULLIANI OPERUM PARS II. — [rest of head in the facing column, not in these images]
- marginal letters: A ‹gina Carthaginis, et decernet›; B ‹tione viduantur. Sunt et quae›; C, D stand beside De jejunio below the title band (not this unit)
- old-edition numerals: 953 after ‹nisi›
- other: stray mark after "Christianas" ignored. QA Q1b: the De monogamia notes at the head of this page's foot (72–75, end of (45), (46)) were read from the column images, which show them; the foot crops begin lower. In (45) the first letter of "judicia" is at the image edge. In (46) the page prints "inter-" / "deas" across the line (set "inter deas") and Ovid's line as "Leucothoe gratis" (Ovid: Leucothea Grais), kept as printed.
<!-- note: rail-only part in this unit (BOUNDARY). The upper part of col 1004, above the De jejuniis title band (judicent nos virgines … inter duos non potes.), is set under col 1003's rail in reading order. The text below the band (rent. Specta corpus … Quomodo) belongs to De jejuniis and stands in corpus/PL002/de_jejuniis/parts/c1004_a.md. -->
Editors' notes and page, col. 1004
Footnotes
<!-- De monogamia: the calls 74 and 75 printed in the upper part of this column (above the De jejuniis title band) are set in n1003, since that text stands under col 1003's rail in this unit. -->
De jejuniis — Variae lectiones
<!-- NOT this unit: the notes below are called in the text of De jejuniis (below the title band) and belong to corpus/PL002/de_jejuniis, which has no notes files yet. Kept here only so the work is not lost; move them there and do not print them with De monogamia. -->
(5) ‹anchor: agnosco igitur animalem› · call in col 1004
Ψυχικήν.
[Greek] ψυχικήν ("psychic", "animal").
(printed under page 506)
(6) ‹anchor: frenos induentem› · call in col 1004
Imbuentem Seml.
"Imbuentem": Semler.
(printed under page 506)
(7) ‹anchor: Piget› · call in col 1004
Pudet al.
"Pudet": others.
(printed under page 506)
(8) ‹anchor: jam cum› · call in col 1004
Cum rejicit Seml.
Semler rejects "cum".
(printed under page 506)
(9) ‹anchor: pudet et› · call in col 1004
Et abest Rhen. Leop.
"Et" is absent in Rhenanus and Leopold.
De jejuniis — Commentarius
(printed under page 506)
(3) ‹anchor: ordo vitiorum› · call in col 1004
Pro dispositione membrorum, ordo vitiorum. Hinc illud Hieronymi, ad Amasidum epist. 147: Pro membrorum ordine ordo vitiorum est. RIG.
As the members are arranged, so is the order of the vices. Hence Jerome's saying, in letter 147 to Amasius [i.e. Sabinianus]: "As the order of the members, so is the order of the vices." RIGAULT.
(printed under page 506)
(4) ‹anchor: animalem fidem› · call in col 1004
Animalem fidem. Psychicam RIG. (V. supra.) EDD.
An animal faith. That is, "psychic", Rigault. (See above.) EDITORS.
(printed under page 506)
Page
- running head: …RUM PARS II. — SERIES II, MORALIA. 1004 (cut off at left edge)
- marginal letters: A judicent nos virgines; B blank line after esse, quod inter duos non potes.; C rent. Specta corpus; D Hinc illud Hieronymi (commentary)
- old-edition numerals: 954 after fine (QA Q1b: was recorded as 934; the bold numeral reads 954 and follows 951–953 in cols 1001–1003)
- other: in this unit col 1004 is rail-only; its upper text is set under col 1003's rail. Full-width title of De Jejuniis (…OR. TERTULLIANI LIBER … JEJUNIIS) belongs to the De jejuniis unit; "san:titatis" and "fui:ti" have damaged letters, supplied c and s; for the De jejuniis text below the band: "cum ⁸ a-libus" UNSURE, t apparently lost before alibus; "pudet ct" taken as damaged e, set ⟨e⟩t, UNSURE (could be a misprint c); first word "rent." is a fragment from the column before