Novatianus presbyter Romanus, De Trinitate liber

(11) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 911

Maran. loc. cit.

Maran, in the place cited.

(printed under page 507)

(12) ‹anchor: tres deos efficeret› · call in col 912

Maran. Divinit. D. N. J. C. lib. cit. p. 521.

Maran, On the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, book cited, p. 521.

(printed under page 507)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 508)

(1) ‹suspenderit› · call in col 913

Cœlum alta sublimitate suspenderit. Hunc Novatiani locum imitatus fuisse videtur Minucius in Octavio, cap. 4, ubi hæc leguntur: Cœlum licet sua materia suspenderit, licet terram fundaverint pondera, et mare licet influxerit e liquore. His gemina item videas apud Lactantium Divin. Instit., lib. II, cap. 9, sub init. Neque omittas velim Theophilum ad Autolycum lib. I, cap 4.

"He hung the heaven with lofty height." Minucius in the Octavius, ch. 4, seems to have imitated this passage of Novatian; there we read: "Though the heaven be hung by its own matter, though weights have founded the earth, and though the sea has flowed in from liquid." You may see twin passages in Lactantius, Divine Institutes, book II, ch. 9, near the beginning. Nor, please, overlook Theophilus, To Autolycus, book I, ch. 4.

(printed under page 508)

(2) ‹mensurnis› · call in col 913

Mensurnis. Sic legimus ex ms. cod. Angl. pro menstruis; quod ea vox B. Cypriano etiam Afro usitata sit Epist. XXVIII, num. 11, et Epist. XXXIV, num. 23. Certe etiam sic legebat antea Gagnæus, PAMEL. — Neque aliter Whistonus, Welchmanus et Jacksonus.

"Mensurnis" (monthly). So we read from the English manuscript codex instead of "menstruis", because that word was in use also with the African, blessed Cyprian, Letter 28, no. 11, and Letter 34, no. 23. Certainly Gagnæus too read so before. PAMELIUS. — Nor otherwise Whiston, Welchman and Jackson.

(printed under page 508)

(3) ‹legitimis› · call in col 913

Legitimis. Scilicet, per legem divinam institis. Eadem phrasi utitur Eusebius Præp. Evang. lib. VII, cap. 10. JACKSON.

"Lawful", that is, appointed by divine law. Eusebius uses the same phrase, Preparation for the Gospel, book VII, ch. 10. JACKSON.

(printed under page 508)

(4) ‹procurasset› · call in col 913

Ne non etiam ipsis quoque deliciis procurasset. Est quidem hæc phrasis Tertullianica, quales infra aliæ quoque: ut denotatur, edici ac viritior cap. 2; qua pater cap. 12; confibularet cap. 18. Verum inde non sequi hunc librum Tertulliani esse vel ex eo patet, quod Afri scriptores omnes, etiam hoc posteriores, utpote B. Cyprianus, Minucius Felix, B. Pacianus et Arnobius similibus uti solent. PAMEL. — Aliter Gagnæus, apud quem sic legimus: Postea ut ipsis quoque delicias procuraret oculis. Sed lectio Pameliana cum editis ex codice Anglicano cohæret. Ventri procuratum est, habet Noster infra, de Cib. Judaic. cap. 6, eadem constructione. JACKSON.

"Lest He should not have provided also for delights themselves." This phrase is indeed Tertullianic, as are others below: such as "denotatur", "edici" and "viritior" in ch. 2; "qua pater" in ch. 12; "confibularet" in ch. 18. But that it does not follow from this that this book is Tertullian's is plain from the fact that all the African writers, even those later than him, such as blessed Cyprian, Minucius Felix, blessed Pacian and Arnobius, are wont to use similar expressions. PAMELIUS. — Gagnæus has it otherwise; in him we read: "Afterwards, that He might provide delights for the eyes themselves." But Pamelius's reading agrees with the editions from the English codex. Our author has "it was provided for the belly" below, On Jewish Foods, ch. 6, with the same construction. JACKSON.

(printed under page 508)

(5) ‹—› · call in col 914 (before "tur (7)"; footnote printed under page 508, kept here)

Cujus. Cui legendum conjicit Welchmanus.

"Cujus" (of which). Welchman conjectures that "cui" (to which) should be read.

(printed under page 508)

(6) ‹—› · call in col 914 (before "tur (7)"; footnote printed under page 508, kept here)

Quem. Sic rescripsimus cum Jackseno, ut ad hominem referatur. Al. quæ.

"Quem" (whom). So we have rewritten it with Jackson, so that it refers to man. Others: "quæ".

(printed under page 508)

(7) ‹—tur› · call in col 914 (seen at "tur (7)"; footnote printed under page 508, kept here)

Doceretur. Ita reposui ex Lat. Latinio, quod meliorem fundit sensum quam edit. Pamelii diceretur. JACKSON.

"Doceretur" (he was taught). I have restored this from Latinus Latinius, since it yields a better sense than Pamelius's edition's "diceretur" (he was said). JACKSON.

(printed under page 508)

(8) ‹ut et› · call in col 914

Ut et. Sic Pamelius cum cæteris editis. Jacksonus tamen mallet et ut.

"Ut et". So Pamelius with the other editions. Jackson, however, would prefer "et ut".

(printed under page 508)

(9) ‹ex quo mortalitas› · call in col 914

Mortalitas. Cum Jacksono Pamelium sequimur ita legentem. Al. mortalitatis invidia, locum istum minus recte assecuti.

"Mortality". With Jackson we follow Pamelius, who reads so. Others have "the envy of mortality", grasping this passage less rightly.

(printed under page 508)

(10) ‹indulgenter temperavit› · call in col 914

Temperavit. Addendam vocem Deus contextus postulare videtur, omissam fortasse a librario propter sequentis similitudinem Dum: quæ est conjectura Welchmani et Jacksoni. Mox vero sive legas cum Gagnæo super terram, sive cum Gelenio aliisque super terra, non refert.

"Tempered". The context seems to require that the word "Deus" (God) be added, omitted perhaps by the copyist because of its likeness to the following "Dum": this is the conjecture of Welchman and Jackson. Just after, whether you read "super terram" with Gagnæus or "super terra" with Gelenius and others makes no difference.

(printed under page 508)

(11) ‹et inventionis› · call in col 914

Inventionis. Vox importuna Jacksono, qui rescribendum censet resurrectionis vel revelationis, ex Rom. VIII, 20 21, quo respexisse Novatianum existimat. Minus quidem apposite. Melius Welchmanus, redemptionis. Sed nihil mutandum videtur. Alluserit fortasse auctor ad illud Luc. XIX, 10: Venit enim Filius hominis quærere et salvum facere quod perierat.

"Of finding". An unsuitable word to Jackson, who thinks "resurrectionis" (of resurrection) or "revelationis" (of revelation) should be written, from Rom. 8:20–21, to which he thinks Novatian was looking. Not very aptly. Better Welchman: "redemptionis" (of redemption). But nothing seems to need changing. The author may have been alluding to Luke 19:10: "For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost."

(printed under page 508)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 509)

(12) ‹—› · call not in crop

Donasset. Maluissem condonasset, nisi vidissem Novatianum vocabulo donavi eodem sensu quo hic, usum esse in Epistola Romani cleri nomine scripta ad Cyprianum. Sic enim vertit Matth. XVIII, 32, Donavi tibi omne debitum. JACKSON.

"Donasset" (had given). I would have preferred "condonasset" (had forgiven), had I not seen that Novatian used the word "donavi" in the same sense as here in the Letter to Cyprian written in the name of the Roman clergy. For so he renders Matt. 18:32: "I forgave you all that debt." JACKSON.

(printed under page 509)

(13) ‹—› · call not in crop

Angelos prius instituerit. Fuit non modo Novatiani hæc sententia, sed etiam B. Hieronymi in cap. I. Epist. ad Tit., tum Græcorum omnium, quod Angeli prius (id est, ante omnem creaturam) instituti fuerint. Sed B Augustinus, lib. XI de Civ. Dei, cap. 5, 6 et 7, et lib. XII, cap. 15, et alibi magis amplectendam censet eam sententiam quod juxta Eccli. XVIII, I, craverit omnia simul Deus. Quam etiam sequitur Magister Sententiarum, et post eum doctores scholastici: quæ præterea definita est in concilio Lateran. sub Innocentio III, et in Decretales recepta. cap. Firmiter credimus, tom. de summa Trinit. et Fide cathol. PAMEL.

"That he established the angels first." This was the view not only of Novatian but also of blessed Jerome on ch. 1 of the Letter to Titus, and of all the Greeks: that the angels were established first (that is, before every creature). But blessed Augustine, City of God book XI, chs. 5, 6 and 7, and book XII, ch. 15, and elsewhere, judges rather to be embraced the view that, according to Ecclus. 18:1, God created all things together. The Master of the Sentences follows this too, and after him the scholastic doctors; it was moreover defined in the Lateran Council under Innocent III and received into the Decretals, chapter "Firmiter credimus", title "On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith". PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 509)

(14) ‹—› · call not in crop

Namque... ipsa sunt. Ita edidit Pamelius ex conjectura Latinii. Al.: Nam neque quæ infra terram jacent, ipsa sunt. Sed duobus editoribus Anglicanis, deleto nam, legendum videtur: Neque quæ infra terram jacent ipsa sunt, etc.

"For ... are themselves." So Pamelius edited it from Latinius's conjecture. Others: "For neither are the things that lie beneath the earth themselves." But to the two English editors it seems it should be read, with "nam" deleted: "Neither are the things that lie beneath the earth themselves", etc.

(printed under page 509)

(15) ‹—› · call not in crop

Locus enim est. In eamdem sententiam cum Novatiano, plerique Patrum, sive Græcorum sive Latinorum. Consulatur præ cæteris Hippolytus adversus Græcos, tom. II nostræ Biblioth, pag. 451 q. (continues)

"For it is place." Most of the Fathers, whether Greek or Latin, are of the same view as Novatian. Consult above all Hippolytus Against the Greeks, vol. II of our Bibliotheca, p. 451 f. (continues)

(printed under page 509)

(16) ‹—› · call not in crop

Infra. Sic ex ms. Woweri correxi vocem intra, quam habent omnes editi. JACKSON.

"Infra" (below). So I have corrected, from Wower's manuscript, the word "intra" (within), which all the editions have. JACKSON.

(printed under page 509)

(17) ‹ut quidam putant› · call in col 915

Ut quidam putant. Valentiniani scilicet, qui supra Demiurgum, id est opificem, Deum, constituebant Deum superiorem Bythum, cum tricenario Æonum numero. PAMEL.

"As some think." The Valentinians, that is, who above the Demiurge, that is the craftsman God, set a higher God, Bythus, with the thirtyfold number of Aeons. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 509)

(18) ‹—› · call not in crop

Infra. Hanc item vocem ex ms. Wowerii restituit Jacksonus, ubi vulgati habent intra. Atque ita legendum conjiciebat quoque Welchmanus.

"Infra" (below). Jackson likewise restored this word from Wower's manuscript, where the printed editions have "intra" (within). And Welchman too conjectured that it should be read so.

(printed under page 509)

(19) ‹—› · call not in crop

Modum temporis excludit, dum, etc. Sic Pamelius, quem sequitur Jacksonus. Placuit tamen Welchmano voculam dum ante modum transferre.

"He shuts out the measure of time, while", etc. So Pamelius, whom Jackson follows. Welchman, however, chose to move the little word "dum" before "modum".

(printed under page 509)

(20) ‹si potuerit cogitari› · call in col 916

Ne si potuerit cogitari, etc. Ita Pamelius et utraque Frobeniana editio. At Gagnæus et Barrensis: Quia si poterit cogitari mente humana minor sit oportet.

"Lest, if he could be thought", etc. So Pamelius and both Froben editions. But Gagnæus and the Barre edition: "Because if he can be thought, he must be less than the human mind."

(printed under page 509)

(21) ‹nec edici› · call in col 916

Edici. Vox Novatiano usitata: propterea jure a Pamelio et Jackson retenta. Al. dici. Integrum autem locum Gagnæus et Barrensis ita efferunt: Nec dici possit: quia si potuerit edici, humano sermone minor sit oportet quo cum edicitur, circumiri et colligi posset.

"Edici" (be uttered). A word customary with Novatian, and therefore rightly kept by Pamelius and Jackson. Others: "dici" (be said). Gagnæus and the Barre edition give the whole passage thus: "Nor could he be said: because if he could be uttered, he must be less than human speech, by which, when he is uttered, he could be encompassed and gathered up."

(printed under page 509)

(22) ‹illum dixeris Lucem› · call in col 916

Sive enim illum dixeris LUCEM, etc. Novatianus hic Theophilum Antiochenum exscripsisse videtur, qui lib. I, cap. 3, ad Autolyc. hæc habet: Εἰ γὰρ φῶς αὐτὸν εἴπω, ποίημα αὐτοῦ εἴπω, κ. (continues)

"For whether you call him Light", etc. Novatian seems here to have copied Theophilus of Antioch, who, To Autolycus book I, ch. 3, has this: "For if I call him light, I name his handiwork", et(c.) (continues)

(printed under page 509)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 510)

(22) (continued) · call on previous page

τ. λ. « Si lucem eum dicam, opus ejus dico, etc. » Locum inspicias velim et conferas.

(continued) (κ.)τ.λ. "If I call him light, I name his work", etc. Please look up the passage and compare.

(printed under page 510)

(23) ‹omni virtute viritior› · call in col 917

Viritior. Vox ignota: quam tamen exhibent omnes editi. Legendum omnino puto virosior, quod habet Tertullianus de Anima, cap. 19. Atque errat Pamelius, dum ait Tertullianum usum esse voce viritior. Vid. sup., not. 4, ad cap. 1. JACKSON.

"Viritior" (more manly). An unknown word, which all the editions nevertheless show. I think "virosior" should by all means be read, which Tertullian has in On the Soul, ch. 19. And Pamelius errs when he says that Tertullian used the word "viritior". See above, note 4, on ch. 1. JACKSON.

(printed under page 510)

(24) ‹necesse est omnium› · call in col 917

Omnium. Mallet omnia. Welchmanus, ejusque conjectura probatur et Jacksono.

"Omnium" (of all). Welchman would prefer "omnia" (all), and his conjecture is approved by Jackson too.

(printed under page 510)

(25) ‹id Deus esse› · call in col 917

Id Deus esse Ita Pamelius, Gagnæus et Barrensis ms. Wow. Id est Deus, quod ejusmodi est, etc. Welchmanus vero conjicit legendum Deum At lectio vulgata ferri potest, si Deus accipiatur τεχνικῶς, sive pro nomine proprio. JACKSON.

"That God is that." So Pamelius, Gagnæus and the Barre edition. Wower's manuscript: "That is God which is of such a kind", etc. Welchman, however, conjectures that "Deum" should be read. But the common reading can stand if "Deus" is taken technically, that is, as a proper name. JACKSON.

(printed under page 510)

(26) ‹—› · call not in crop

Et parentem. Cum Pamelio voculam et retinui quam editi plerique omittunt.

"And parent." With Pamelius I have kept the little word "et" (and), which most editions omit.

(printed under page 510)

(27) ‹—› · call not in crop

Expendit Hunc locum citat infra Novatianus cap. 30, ubi habet suspendit: eamque lectionem inde huc transtulit Jacksonus.

"Expendit" (he weighed out). Novatian cites this passage below, ch. 30, where he has "suspendit" (he hung); and Jackson carried that reading over from there to here.

(printed under page 510)

(28) ‹—› · call not in crop

Qui ingenio hæretici fictus sit. Tertullianum imitatur auctor, qui, ut observat Pamelius, lib de Præscript. in catalogo hæreticorum eos recenset, qui alium Deum sibi hæretico fingebant ingento.

"Who was feigned by heretical wit." The author imitates Tertullian, who, as Pamelius observes, in the book On Prescription, in the catalogue of heretics, lists those who "feigned for themselves another God by heretical wit".

(printed under page 510)

(29) ‹quem mundus› · call in col 918

Quem. Ita restitui ex Junio et Latino pro vulg. edit quum. JACKSON.

"Quem" (whom). So I have restored it from Junius and Latinus, instead of "quum" (when) in the common editions. JACKSON.

(printed under page 510)

(30) ‹nescio quam› · call in col 918

Non naturam nescio quam. Auctor Recognitionum lib. VIII, c. 34: Qui naturam pro Deo nominant, (continues)

"Not some nature or other." The author of the Recognitions, book VIII, ch. 34: "Who name nature in place of God, (continues)

(printed under page 510)

(31) ‹putaremus› · call in col 918

Putaremus. Hanc vocem in textum retuli ex mss. Woweri, pro edit. putemus, quod non tam bene convenit sequenti agnosceremus. JACKS.

"Putaremus" (we should think). I have brought this word into the text from Wower's manuscripts, in place of the editions' "putemus" (let us think), which does not suit the following "agnosceremus" (we should acknowledge) so well. JACKSON.

(printed under page 510)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 511)

(30) (continued) · call on previous page

minant, et per naturam facta esse cuncta testantur, latet eos appellationis suæ error. Si enim naturam irrationabilem putant, stultissimum est, rationabilem creaturam ab irrationabili factore progredi. Si vero ratio est, id est logos, per quam facta constat universa; superfluo nomen immutant, ubi de Conditoris ratione profitentur. Hac de re item disputat idem auctor paulo superius, cap. 20.

(continued) "and bear witness that all things were made by nature, the error of their naming escapes them. For if they think nature irrational, it is most foolish that a rational creature should proceed from an irrational maker. But if it is reason, that is the Logos, through which the universe is established as made, they change the name to no purpose, when they are professing about the Creator's reason." The same author argues on this matter a little above as well, ch. 20.

(printed under page 511)

(32) ‹bono Deo recessisset› · call in col 919

Recessisset. Latinius eleganter legit recessisse. Et vera videtur lectio, Græce loquendi formula. JACKS.

"Recessisset" (had withdrawn). Latinius elegantly reads "recessisse". And it seems the true reading, a Greek turn of phrase. JACKSON.

(printed under page 511)

(33) ‹—› · call not in crop

Potest. Malim legi esse potest: et sic habet auctor ipse statim in hoc capite. ID.

"Potest" (can). I would rather read "esse potest" (can be): and so the author himself has it just after in this chapter. THE SAME.

(printed under page 511)

(34) ‹dum parem non habet› · call in col 920

Habet. Ex Frobenio Welchmanus legit habeat; et locum ita distinguit; Dum parem non habeat; Deus, quidem enim esse, etc. Quod quidem magis probatur Jacksono.

"Habet" (has). From Froben Welchman reads "habeat" (may have), and punctuates the passage thus: "While he may not have an equal; God, for to be indeed", etc. Which Jackson rather approves.

(printed under page 511)

(55) ‹si non omne› · call in col 920

Si non omne. etc. Theophilum Antiochenum expressit hic Novatianus, lib. II. ad Autolyc., c. 3.

"If not the whole", etc. Novatian has here reproduced Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus book II, ch. 3. [The call is printed "(55)" in text and note; the sequence requires 35.]

(printed under page 511)

(36) ‹Deus esse desierit› · call in col 920

Desierit. Ita editi plerique: quæ quidem lectio apprime congruit cum sequentibus, fuerit, cœperit. At Gagnæus et Barrensis, quos sequitur Welchmanus, desinet: minus recte, ut videtur.

"Desierit" (will have ceased). So most editions: and this reading agrees exactly with what follows, "fuerit", "cœperit". But Gagnæus and the Barre edition, followed by Welchman, have "desinet" (will cease): less rightly, as it seems.

(printed under page 511)

(37) ‹et ideo quod› · call in col 920

Ideo quod. Welchmanus conjicit legendum id quod. Neque abnuit Jacksonus.

"Ideo quod" (therefore that which). Welchman conjectures that "id quod" (that which) should be read. Nor does Jackson object.

(printed under page 511)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 512)

(38) ‹—› · call not in crop

Et præfert. Ms. Vowerí aut præfert. JACKSON.

"Et præfert" (and displays). Wower's manuscript: "aut præfert" (or displays). JACKSON.

(printed under page 512)

(39) ‹—› · call not in crop

Perplexo... producto. Editi perplexa producta, contra leges grammaticas. Editiones Anglicanas secuti sumus.

"Perplexo ... producto." The editions have "perplexa producta", against the rules of grammar. We have followed the English editions.

(printed under page 512)

(40) ‹iracundias legimus› · call in col 921

Legimus. Sic edit. Welchm. et Jackson, pro vulgata lectione legitimas.

"Legimus" (we read). So the editions of Welchman and Jackson, instead of the common reading "legitimas" (lawful).

(printed under page 512)

(41) ‹—› · call not in crop

Quandoquidem. Cod Anglicus ms. vetustiss. legit quoniam quidem. JACKSON.

"Quandoquidem" (since). The very old English manuscript codex reads "quoniam quidem". JACKSON.

(printed under page 512)

(42) ‹et audi: nos› · call in col 922

Nos. Al Sed nos. Illud sed prætermisimus cum editoribus Anglicanis, ex verborum auctoris tenore.

"Nos" (we). Others: "Sed nos" (but we). We have left out that "sed" with the English editors, following the drift of the author's words.

(printed under page 512)

(43) ‹tabernaculum clausus› · call in col 922 (printed "(45)" in the text)

Clusus. Deest apud Welchmanum hæc vox quam reliqui præ se ferunt.

"Clusus" (shut). This word, which the others display, is missing in Welchman.

(printed under page 512)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 513)

(44) ‹—› · call not in crop

Adorant. Welch. adorant, eum, juxta et Gr. Valg. Al. omittunt. Et forte omisit ipse Novatianus.

"They adore." Welchman: "they adore him", in agreement with the Greek and the Vulgate. Others omit it. And perhaps Novatian himself left it out.

(printed under page 513)

(45) ‹—› · call not in crop

Omnia. Ita Pamelius aliique. Gelenius tamen quem sequitur Welchmanus, omnes.

"Omnia" (all things). So Pamelius and others. Gelenius, however, whom Welchman follows, has "omnes" (all).

(printed under page 513)

(46) ‹tacitas novit voluntates› · call in col 923

Nec auribus... voluntates. Excidit hæc pericope ab edito Welchamaniono. Ubi et paulo post legitur, non tantum aliqua molitione, dempta præpositione sine, quam alii exhibent.

"Nor ... with ears ... wills." This passage has dropped out of Welchman's edition. There too, a little after, one reads "not only with some effort", with the preposition "sine" (without), which the others show, taken away.

(printed under page 513)

(47) ‹—› · call not in crop

Sed hæc. Ita vulg. Welchmanus mallet, quam hæc. Jacksonus vero sed hanc, ut referatur ad diversitatem membrorum. Videtur tamen auctor hæc tum ad diversitatem membrorum, tum ad dissolutionem retulisse.

"Sed hæc" (but these). So the common editions. Welchman would prefer "quam hæc"; Jackson, however, "sed hanc", so that it refers to "diversity of members". Yet the author seems to have referred "hæc" both to the diversity of members and to the dissolution.

(printed under page 513)

(48) ‹—› · call not in crop

Puto. Cod. Anglic ms. putem, quod malim. JACKSON.

"Puto" (I think). The English manuscript codex has "putem", which I would prefer. JACKSON.

(printed under page 513)

(49) ‹—› · call not in crop

Faciens, Ita Welchmanus, cui adhæret Jacksonus, pro edit. facientibus. Quam quidem germanam esse lectionem, inquit pasterior editor Anglicanus, attendenti facile patebit. Christus enim erat, qui in Evangelio suo hominibus intelligendi incrementa faciebat.

"Faciens" (making). So Welchman, with whom Jackson agrees, instead of the editions' "facientibus". That this is the genuine reading, says the later English editor, will easily be plain to one who attends. For it was Christ who in his Gospel gave men increase of understanding.

(printed under page 513)

(50) ‹—› · call not in crop

Ipse sic. Ita Pamelius, Voculan sic omiserunt editores Anglicani, immerito, ut videtur; eam enim sequens quomodo postulare perhibetur.

"Ipse sic" (he himself thus). So Pamelius. The English editors left out the little word "sic", wrongly, as it seems; for the following "quomodo" (how) is held to require it.

(printed under page 513)

(51) ‹creatura est› · call in col 924

Omnis enim spiritus creatura est. Levissima sunt quæ Pamelius hic reprehendit, et Rufino similiter displicuisse putat. Hæc enim verba, Omnis spiritus creatura est, minime Spiritum sanctum attingunt. Demonstrat Novatianus Deum ab hominibus nulla voce designari posse, quæ non plurimum aberret ab infinita illa majestate. Quamobrem sive lux, sive spiritus, sive ignis dicatur, nihil horum apto de Deo et commode pronuntiari; propterea quod et spiritus et ignis creaturæ sint. « Hæc, inquit, figurantur potius, quam ita sunt. Nam et in Veteri Testamento Deus Ignis dicitur; ut peccatori populo metus incutiatur. dum judcex ostenditur: et in Novo Testamento Spiritus esse profertur, ut refector et creator in dilictis suis mortuorum, per hanc bonitatem collatæ credentibus indulgentiæ, comprobetur. « Ubi vides ignis et spiritus appellationes Novatiano a rebus materialibus translatas videri; nec eum de Spiritu sancto dictum vo- (continues)

"For every spirit is a creature." What Pamelius here finds fault with, and thinks likewise displeased Rufinus, is very slight. For these words, "every spirit is a creature", in no way touch the Holy Spirit. Novatian is showing that God can be designated by men with no word that does not stray very far from that infinite majesty. Therefore, whether he is called light, or spirit, or fire, none of these is said of God aptly and fittingly, because both spirit and fire are creatures. "These things," he says, "are figures rather than what is so. For in the Old Testament too God is called Fire, that fear may be struck into a sinful people while he is shown as judge; and in the New Testament he is set forth as Spirit, that he may be proved the restorer and creator of those who were dead in their sins, through this goodness of the pardon granted to believers." Here you see that the names fire and spirit appear to be transferred by Novatian from material things; nor that he (meant) it to be said of the Holy Spirit (continues)

(printed under page 513)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 514)

(51) (continued) · call on previous page

luisse, quod omnem spiritum creaturam esse. MARAN. Divin. D. N. J. C. lib. IV, cap. 10, § 3, p. 520. — Præiverat in eamdem sententiam Welchmanus: quem tamen locum, notatu sane dignissimum, transilit Jacksonus; qui alia cæteroquin vulgatissima fuse persequitur.

(continued) (nor that he) wished it to be said of the Holy Spirit, that every spirit is a creature. MARAN, On the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, book IV, ch. 10, §3, p. 520. — Welchman had gone before him in the same view; yet Jackson passes over this place, truly most worthy of note, while he pursues at length other matters that are otherwise very commonplace.

(printed under page 514)

(52) ‹et creator› · call in col 925

Refector et creator. Sic Pamelius. Gelenius refertor, vitiose procul dubio: quam tamen lectionem in textu retinuit Welchmanus, alteram refector in notis subjiciens. Mox idem Welchm. recreator legendum putat: quod mallet quoque Jacksonus.

"Restorer and creator." So Pamelius. Gelenius has "refertor", corruptly no doubt; yet Welchman kept that reading in the text, putting the other, "refector", in the notes. Just after, the same Welchman thinks "recreator" (re-creator) should be read, which Jackson too would prefer.

(printed under page 514)

(53) ‹inferna quaeque› · call in col 925

Quæque. Quoque omnino legendum existimat Jacksonus, utpote magis emphaticum.

"Quæque" (each). Jackson thinks "quoque" (also) should by all means be read, as more emphatic.

(printed under page 514)

(54) ‹omnia commoventur› · call in col 925

Commoventur. Ita editi. Unus Welchmanus, continentur.

"Commoventur" (are moved). So the editions. Welchman alone: "continentur" (are held together).

(printed under page 514)

(55) ‹se spoponderat› · call in col 925

Spoponderat. Sic editores Anglicani. Pamelius, sponderat.

"Spoponderat" (he had promised). So the English editors. Pamelius: "sponderat".

(printed under page 514)

(56) ‹captiva sarabara› · call in col 926

Ipsorum.... captiva sarabara, ita editi, præter Welchmanum, in quo absque mss. aut exemplarium auctoritate, reponere placuit editori, ipsa captivorum sarabala.

"Ipsorum ... captiva sarabara" (their captive garments), so the editions, except Welchman, in whom the editor chose, without the authority of manuscripts or copies, to put "ipsa captivorum sarabala" (the very garments of the captives).

(printed under page 514)

(57) ‹crystallo contegente› · call in col 926

Contegente. Apud Pamelium mendose, ut videtur, contingente.

"Contegente" (covering). In Pamelius, faultily as it seems, "contingente" (touching).

(printed under page 514)

(58) ‹omnes artus› · call in col 926

Artus. Sic recte, mea quidem sententia, emendavit Welchmanus præcedentes editiones, quæ habent ortus. Vox enim restituta refertur ad animalia quæ proxime præcedunt.

"Artus" (limbs). So, rightly in my view at least, Welchman corrected the preceding editions, which have "ortus" (risings). For the restored word refers to the living creatures that come just before.

(printed under page 514)

(57) ‹sed vigent› · call in col 926 (printed "(59)" in the text)

Vigent. Latinus lucent. Welchmanus luce (continues)

"Vigent" (they are vigorous). Latinus: "lucent" (they shine). Welchman: "luce" (continues)

(printed under page 514)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 515)

(57) (continued) · call on previous page (printed "(59)" in the text)

vigent legendum existimat. At, judice Jacksono, melius editi vigent. Nimirum innuere voluit fortasse auctor, quod Dei opera interiorem igneum vigorem seu spiritum habeant.

(continued) thinks "luce vigent" (are vigorous with light) should be read. But in Jackson's judgement the editions' "vigent" is better. The author, that is, perhaps meant to hint that God's works have an inner fiery vigour or spirit.

(printed under page 515)

(60) ‹—› · call not in crop

Monstraret. Mallet Welchmanus ministraret: quod valde probatur Jacksono.

"Monstraret" (should show). Welchman would prefer "ministraret" (should supply), which Jackson strongly approves.

(printed under page 515)

(61) ‹—› · call not in crop

Innumerus.... immensus. Minus recte, ut videtur Gagnæus: numerus infinitus et immensus.

"Innumerable ... immeasurable." Less rightly, as it seems, Gagnæus: "an infinite and immeasurable number".

(printed under page 515)

(62) ‹veritatem tenentibus› · call in col 928

Omnibus hæreticis, sed et ipsis veritatem tenentibus. Recte conjecisse videtur Welchmanus, dum legendum autumat ipsis hæreticis, sed et omnibus veritatem tenentibus. Ac rectius fortasse, omnibus veritatem tenentibus, sed et ipsis hæreticis. Ejusmodi trajectiones librarii haud insuetæ.

"To all heretics, but also to those who hold the truth." Welchman seems to have conjectured rightly when he holds that "to the heretics themselves, but also to all who hold the truth" should be read. And more rightly perhaps: "to all who hold the truth, but also to the heretics themselves". Transpositions of this kind are not unusual with copyists.

(printed under page 515)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 516)

(65) ‹—› · call not in crop (number as printed; the sequence requires 63)

Non habere. Forte legendum cum Welchmano te non habere.

"Not to have." Perhaps, with Welchman, "te non habere" (that you do not have) should be read.

(printed under page 516)

(64) ‹aliter venire debueras› · call in col 929

Aliter venire debueras. Recte aliter, non alter, ut conjicit Welchmanus. Sensum explicat Tertullianus adv. Marc., l. III, cap. 10: Cur enim non in aliqua alia digniore substantia venit, et in primis sua, ne et indigna et aliena videretur eguisse? JACKSON.

"You ought to have come otherwise." Rightly "aliter" (otherwise), not "alter" (another), as Welchman conjectures. Tertullian explains the sense, Against Marcion, book III, ch. 10: "For why did he not come in some other, worthier substance, and above all his own, lest he should seem to have needed one both unworthy and alien?" JACKSON.

(65. ‹nihil enim verum› · call in col 929 Nihil enim verum. Conjunctionem enim restitui ex ms. Wowerí.

"For nothing true." I have restored the conjunction "enim" (for) from Wower's manuscript.

(printed under page 516)

(66) ‹ne non nobis› · call in col 929

Ne non nobis. Pro ne non legit neque Latinius; Jacksonus vero mallet neque enim.

"Lest not to us." Instead of "ne non" Latinius reads "neque" (nor); Jackson, however, would prefer "neque enim" (for neither).

(6 ) ‹illo nostro› · call in col 929 (printed "(67)" in the text) Nostro. Sic editi. Nostram reposuit Welchmanus. Nostræ rescribebat Jacksonus; scil. carni, de qua sermonem habet auctor: quod minus placet.

"Nostro" (our). So the editions. Welchman put "nostram". Jackson wrote "nostræ", that is, (agreeing with) "carni" (flesh), of which the author is speaking: which pleases less.

(printed under page 516)

(68) ‹hæreticorum› · call in col 929

Hæreticorum.... corpus fabularum. Alii legunt, notate Franc. Junio, hæreticarum, ut referatur ad fabularum. Sed hoc male. Legendum potius suspicatur idem Junius fabularium, σῶμα μυθῶδες: dicitur enim fabularis et fabularius, ut ollaris et ollarius. Hinc hæreticorum vox non est sollicitanda: quod probo. JAKSON. Welchmanus autem conjiciebat rescribendum fabulare.

"Of the heretics ... body of fables." Others read, as Francis Junius notes, "hæreticarum", so that it refers to "fabularum" (heretical fables). But this is wrong. The same Junius rather suspects that "fabularium" should be read, a fabulous body: for one says "fabularis" and "fabularius", as "ollaris" and "ollarius". Hence the word "hæreticorum" is not to be disturbed: which I approve. JACKSON. Welchman, however, conjectured that "fabulare" should be written.

(printed under page 516)

(69) ‹—› · call not in crop

Qui. Welchmanus quia, non male. JACKSON.

"Qui" (who). Welchman: "quia" (because), not badly. JACKSON.

(printed under page 516)

(70) ‹loquendi› · call in col 930

Loquendi. Obloquendi suspicatur legendum esse Welchmanus: sed idem, opinor, hic valet loquendi, ac disputandi. ID.

"Of speaking." Welchman suspects that "obloquendi" (of speaking against) should be read: but here, I think, "loquendi" means the same as "disputandi" (of disputing). THE SAME.

(printed under page 516)

(71) ‹solum tantum› · call in col 930

Solum tantum. Forte solum et tantum, ut paulo superius. ID.

"Solum tantum" (only merely). Perhaps "solum et tantum", as a little above. THE SAME.

(printed under page 516)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 517)

(72) ‹—› · call not in crop

Suscepta. Editorum lectionem suscepta ita castigavit Welchmanus, eumque sequitur Jacksonus.

"Suscepta" (taken up). Welchman corrected the editors' reading thus to "suscepta", and Jackson follows him.

(printed under page 517)

(73) ‹in alterutro› · call in col 931

Et sic in alterutro. Ita cum Gagnæo et Barrensi edidit Welchmanus. Al. omittunt sic.

"And thus in either." So Welchman edited it, with Gagnæus and the Barre edition. Others omit "sic" (thus).

(printed under page 517)

(74) ‹filium hominem› · call in col 931

Hominis filium hominem C. J. Proponit Walchmanus legendum, hominem et hominis filium; quod probo; et analogia sequentium, Deum et Dei Filium videtur confirmari. JACKSON.

"The son of man, a man, C(hrist) J(esus)." Welchman proposes the reading "a man and the son of man"; which I approve; and it seems confirmed by the analogy of what follows, "God and the Son of God". JACKSON.

(printed under page 517)

(75) ‹nam quomodo› · call in col 931

Quomodo. Mallem divisim legi quo modo; et sic in sequentibus. ID.

"Quomodo" (as). I would rather read it divided, "quo modo" (in what manner); and so in what follows. THE SAME.

(printed under page 517)

(76) ‹—› · call not in crop

Sic item. Hæc est lectio Welchmaniana, pro sic ita editt. Jacksonus temen, post Fr. Junium, edidit sic etiam, eo quod eadem ratione paulo ante loquatur Novatianus.

"Sic item" (so likewise). This is Welchman's reading, instead of the editions' "sic ita". Jackson, however, following Fr. Junius, edited "sic etiam" (so also), because Novatian speaks in the same way a little before.

(printed under page 517)

(77) ‹in quo se› · call in col 932

In quo se. Ita editi. Sed se expunxit Jacksonus, ut nihil habens quod agat.

"In whom ... himself." So the editions. But Jackson struck out "se" (himself), as having nothing to do.

(printed under page 517)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 518)

(78) ‹—› · call not in crop

Quam. Sic Pamelius aliique. Uterque Frob. cum Welchm. quoniam. Nec displicet Jacksono.

"Quam." So Pamelius and others. Both Froben editions, with Welchman: "quoniam" (since). Nor does it displease Jackson.

(printed under page 518)

(78) ‹—› · call not in crop (number as printed; the sequence requires 79)

Deus ergo. Ita constanter editi. Primus Welchmanus existimavit hic legendum Christus; arridetque Jacksono ejusmodi conjectura: quam tamen haud admittendam censeo; sublata enim dictinctione post ergo, vis orationis elucet.

"God therefore." So the editions consistently. Welchman first thought "Christus" (Christ) should be read here, and such a conjecture appeals to Jackson: yet I judge it not to be admitted; for when the punctuation after "ergo" is removed, the force of the sentence shines out.

(printed under page 518)

(86) ‹illum esse confiteantur› · call in col 933 (printed "(80)" in the text)

Confiteantur. Sic uterque editor Anglic. pro confitebuntur editt. Restitutionem rite factam suadet præcedens agnoscant.

"Confiteantur" (let them confess). So both English editors, instead of the editions' "confitebuntur" (they will confess). The preceding "agnoscant" shows that the restoration was properly made.

(printed under page 518)

(81) ‹de veritate› · call in col 933

Veritate, Gagnæus et Barrensis veritatis, quos importune secutus est Welchmanus.

"Veritate" (concerning the truth). Gagnæus and the Barre edition: "veritatis" (of the truth), whom Welchman followed unsuitably.

(printed under page 518)

(82) ‹et Deum› · call in col 933

Et Deum. Sic omnes editt. Unus Welchmanus mutavit et in esse, nulla codicum auctoritate ductus; neque hujusce mutationis lectorem suum admonuit.

"And God." So all the editions. Welchman alone changed "et" to "esse", led by no authority of the codices; nor did he warn his reader of this change.

(printed under page 518)

(83) ‹loco cluditur› · call in col 933

Cluditur. Verbum cludo Afris scriptoribus frequenter usurpatum. Tertulliano in primis et Cypriano: eoque haud semel utitur et Novatianus, supra cap, 6, hic et infra cap. 17, etc.

"Cluditur" (is shut in). The verb "cludo" is often used by African writers, Tertullian above all and Cyprian; and Novatian too uses it more than once, above ch. 6, here, and below ch. 17, etc.

(printed under page 518)

(84) ‹ac sic› · call in col 934

Ac sic. Pamelius ac si.

"Ac sic" (and so). Pamelius: "ac si" (as if).

(printed under page 518)

(85) ‹plenum› · call in col 934

Plenum. Ita Welchmanus post Gagnæum. Quæ est Vulgata lectio. Al. plenus.

"Plenum" (full). So Welchman, after Gagnæus. Which is the Vulgate reading. Others: "plenus".

(printed under page 518)

(86) ‹quia caro factum› · call in col 934

Quia caro... quia Verbum. Qua utrobique legit Latinius.

"Because flesh ... because the Word." Latinius reads "qua" (as) in both places.

(printed under page 518)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 519)

(87) ‹comprobetur› · call in col 935

Comprobetur. Suspicatur Welchmanus legendum comprobatur.

"Comprobetur" (may be proved). Welchman suspects that "comprobatur" (is proved) should be read.

(printed under page 519)

(88) ‹quorum, inquit› · call in col 935

Inquit. Hanc vocem redundare puto: et forte inserta erat studio librarii aut dictantis, non attendentis et sequens verbum scribit. JACKSON.

"Inquit" (he says). I think this word is redundant; and perhaps it was inserted by the zeal of a copyist or of one dictating, who did not notice the following verb "scribit" (he writes) as well. JACKSON.

(printed under page 519)

(89) ‹—› · call not in crop

Deus. Hanc vocem quam præ se ferunt omnes editi, unus Jaksonus immerito expungendam censuit.

"Deus" (God). This word, which all the editions display, Jackson alone wrongly judged should be struck out.

(printed under page 519)

(90) ‹—› · call not in crop

Nec non vox aptior est, et, ni fallor, vera. JACKSON.

"Nec non" (and also) is the apter word and, unless I am mistaken, the true one. JACKSON.

(printed under page 519)

(91) ‹animadverti› · call in col 936

Animadvertit. Gagnæus legit animadverterit, quod tamen perinde est.

"Animadvertit" (has observed). Gagnæus reads "animadverterit", which, however, comes to the same.

(printed under page 519)

(92) ‹vidit et audiit› · call in col 936

Audiit. Ita exstare in uno cod. Pamelii, ascrit Jaksonus: quam proinde lectionem restituimus, pro audit editt.

"Audiit" (he heard). Jackson asserts that this stands in one codex of Pamelius: we have therefore restored this reading, instead of the editions' "audit" (he hears).

(printed under page 519)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 520)

(93) ‹—› · call not in crop

Negari. Forte negare: sed nihil mutandum. JACKSON.

"Negari" (to be denied). Perhaps "negare" (to deny): but nothing should be changed. JACKSON.

(printed under page 520)

(94) ‹—› · call not in crop

Quod si de cœlo, etc. In omnibus editis, post verba ubi prius fuit, continuo sequuntur: Ex quo manus ponere, figuram et formam futuram passionis ostendens. Nemo igitur Christum sicut Angelum non dubitat dicere, etc. Ut primum hæc legerim, obstupui. Quorsum enim hæc, Ex quo manus ponere, etc., et quid nobis hic loci cum Angelo Christo, de quo hactenus altum silentium? Quid actum est de omnibus exemplis, de quibus mox loquitur? At cum caput 23, edit. Pemelii attigeram, argumentum de Christo Deo simul et homine intempestive hic intermissum, intempestivius illic instauratum reperi. Ulterius porro pergenti, varia de Christo Angelo exempla occurrerunt usque ad finem capitis 27, ubi de Jacobo transversas manus Manassi et Ephraimo imponenti agitur; et caput demum clauditur sententia, ad quam hæc verba, Ex quo manus ponere, etc., maxime spectant: capitis vero initium 28 nequaquam. At vero hæc aliaque quæ recensere nimis longum esset, observarim, haud mediocriter gavisus, sum, quod istam libri partem quam quasi penitus amissam deploraveram, integram sane, et loco solum alieno positam, tandem invenerim. De causa autem tantæ hujus confusionis dein cogitanti, nulla mihi tam probabilis visa est, quam bibliopegi incuria: qui codicis istius ex quo omnia quæ nunc habemus exemplaria manarunt, unum alterumve quaternionem extra ordinem suum conjecerit. Atque hæc eo probabilior visa est, quod paginarum versuumque in utraque parte sic male collocata, par fere sit numerus. Uctunque vero id sit, schedarum ordinem turbatum esse satis constat; et, exinde difficilis et obscura facta est Disputatio, facilis alias et aperta, uti nunc iterum reddita est, schedis ad propria loca reductis. WELCHMAN. — In eamdem sententiam post Welchmanum abit Jacksonus. Ante utrumque vero ejusmodi confusionem in Novatiano probe noverat Cotelerius in Monum Eccl. Gr., tom III, pag. 634, ubi et auctoris opus permistum in ordinem redigere studuit. Porro ut clarius pateat mutationis ratio novique ordinis restitutio, tabellam subjicimus, qua editio nostra collata cum Pameliana exhibetur. Edit. nov. / Edit Pamelii. CAPUT XV. . . est . . . XXIII. | XVI. . . . XXIV. | XVII. . . . XXV. | XVIII. . . . XXVI. | XIX. . . . XXVII. | XX. . . . XV. | XXI. . . . XVI. | XXII. . . . XVII. | XXIII. . . . XVIII. | XXIV. . . . XIX | XXV. . . . XX. | XXVI. . . . XXI. | XXVII. . . . XXII. Cætera eodem procedunt ordine in utraque editione.

"But if from heaven", etc. In all the editions, after the words "where he was before", there follows straight on: "Whence to lay on hands, showing the figure and form of the passion to come. No one therefore doubts to call Christ as an Angel", etc. When I first read this I was astounded. For what is the point of "Whence to lay on hands", etc., and what business have we here with Christ as Angel, of whom there has been deep silence till now? What has become of all the examples of which he speaks shortly after? But when I had reached ch. 23 of Pamelius's edition, I found the argument about Christ as God and man together, broken off here out of season, resumed there more out of season still. Going on further, various examples of Christ as Angel met me up to the end of ch. 27, where it treats of Jacob laying his crossed hands on Manasseh and Ephraim; and the chapter at last closes with a sentence to which these words, "Whence to lay on hands", etc., most belong, but not at all the beginning of ch. 28. Having observed these and other things which it would take too long to review, I was not a little glad that I had at last found this part of the book, which I had lamented as almost wholly lost, wholly intact indeed and only set in the wrong place. Then, thinking about the cause of so great a confusion, none seemed to me so probable as the carelessness of a bookbinder, who threw one or two quires of that codex, from which all the copies we now have flowed, out of their order. And this seemed the more probable because the number of pages and lines on either side, so misplaced, is nearly equal. However that may be, it is quite certain that the order of the leaves was disturbed; and thence the Disputation became difficult and obscure, though otherwise easy and open, as it has now been made again, with the leaves brought back to their proper places. WELCHMAN. — Jackson, after Welchman, comes round to the same view. But before either of them Cotelier had well known of such a confusion in Novatian, in his Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, vol. III, p. 634, where he too tried to bring the author's jumbled work into order. Further, so that the reason for the change and the restoration of the new order may appear more clearly, we add a small table in which our edition is shown compared with Pamelius's.

(printed under page 520)

(95) ‹—› · call not in crop

Sic. Nescio quid vult hic vox sic. Degendum puto, scilicet JACKSON.

"Sic" (thus). I do not know what the word "sic" means here. I think "scilicet" (namely) should be read. JACKSON.

(printed under page 520)

(96) ‹aut quo eam› · call in col 938 (printed "99)" in the text)

Vos ignoratis unde venerim, aut quo eam. Aliis deest hoc membrum textus [habet tamen Pamelius); sed incuria scribæ, ut ego puto, propter ὁμοιοτέλευτον. Qua etiam de causa deest in edit. Welchm., nisi ille omittendum judicarit. Certe habuit noster in codice, ut ex sequentibus manifestum est, ID.

"You do not know whence I came or whither I go." This member of the text is missing in others (though Pamelius has it); but through a scribe's carelessness, as I think, because of the like ending. For the same reason too it is missing in Welchman's edition, unless he judged it should be left out. Our author certainly had it in his codex, as is plain from what follows. THE SAME.

(printed under page 520)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 521)

(97) ‹—› · call not in crop

Solam. Sic Pamelius aliique. Welchmanus solum.

"Solam" (alone, feminine). So Pamelius and others. Welchman: "solum".

(printed under page 521)

(98) ‹—› · call not in crop

Est. Gagnæus, Frobenius et Barrensis omittunt est.

"Est" (is). Gagnæus, Froben and the Barre edition omit "est".

(printed under page 521)

(99) ‹—› · call not in crop

Deus est. Argumentum auctoris addenda requirit hæc verba, Deus est; aliter deficit sensus: et propter sequens Deus, festinante tachygrapho videntur prætermissa. Sed ea uncis includenda putavi, ut nihil sine auctoritate exemplarium mutarem. JACKSON. — Hunc ipsum locum eadem ratione haud multo post restituit pluribusque defendit contra personatum Artemonium, Wesselingius Probat., cap. 26, pan 518 seqq. neque tamen V. C. editionem Jacksonianam inspexisse videtur.

"Is God." The author's argument requires these words, "is God", to be added; otherwise the sense fails: and because of the following "Deus" they seem to have been passed over by a hurrying shorthand writer. But I thought they should be enclosed in brackets, so as to change nothing without the authority of the copies. JACKSON. — Not long after, Wesseling restored this very place on the same reasoning and defended it at length against the masked Artemonius, Probabilia, ch. 26, p. 518 ff.; yet that distinguished man does not seem to have looked at Jackson's edition.

(printed under page 521)

(1) ‹præstat immortalitatem› · call in col 940

Per immortalitatem præstat divinitatem, Hujus looi vim non assecutus Welchmanus, contra fidem omnium præcedentium editionum et absque ullius ms. codicis auctoritate, verba hæc et sequentia sic invertit: per divinitatem præstat immortalitatem — præstando autem immortalitatem per divinitatem — immortalitatem porrigendo, etc. Quis porro non videat, ut cætera omittamus, hæc verborum transpositione ταυτολογίαν in textum auctoris induci? Etenim, si hunc editorem Anglum audias, ita scripsisse Novatianus perhibetur: Ergo verbum Christi præstat immortalitatem, et per divinitatem præstat immortalitatem.

"Through immortality he bestows divinity." Welchman, not grasping the force of this passage, against the testimony of all preceding editions and without the authority of any manuscript codex, inverted these words and the following thus: "through divinity he bestows immortality — but by bestowing immortality through divinity — by holding out immortality", etc. Who, moreover, does not see, to pass over the rest, that by this transposition of words a tautology is brought into the author's text? For, if you listen to this English editor, Novatian is held to have written thus: "Therefore the word of Christ bestows immortality, and through divinity bestows immortality."

(printed under page 521)

(2) ‹ut quisquam› · call in col 940

Quisquam. Ita cum Jacksono rescripsimus pro quidquam editt. propter illum quod sequitur. Mox R. D. de la Barre editionem expressimus, qui legit ipse pro ipsam Pamelii. Al. ipsum. Utramque sane restitutionem contextus ratio suadere videtur.

"Quisquam" (anyone). So we have rewritten it, with Jackson, instead of the editions' "quidquam" (anything), because of the "illum" (him) that follows. Just after, we have followed the edition of R. D. de la Barre, who reads "ipse" instead of Pamelius's "ipsam". Others: "ipsum". The drift of the context indeed seems to recommend both restorations.

(printed under page 521)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 522)

(3) ‹—› · call not in crop

Agnosco. Ex ms. Wowerí reposui agnosco pro edit. agnoscam: quod nec Græco textui convenit, nec Vulgatæ ubi est cognosco. JACKSON.

"Agnosco" (I acknowledge). From Wower's manuscript I have put back "agnosco" instead of the editions' "agnoscam" (I shall acknowledge), which suits neither the Greek text nor the Vulgate, where it is "cognosco" (I know). JACKSON.

(printed under page 522)

(4) ‹—› · call not in crop

Dum. Et dum scripsisse videtur auctor. ID.

"Dum" (while). The author seems to have written "et dum" (and while). THE SAME.

(printed under page 522)

(5) ‹—› · call not in crop

Christum. Forte Christus. Nimirum, se ostenderat. — Christus esse Deum. ID.

"Christum." Perhaps "Christus". That is: "he had shown himself — Christ — to be God." THE SAME.

(printed under page 522)

(6) ‹quos Dei› · call in col 941

Dei vocem Dei omittit Pamelius. Illam tamen tum textus tum sensus auctoris requirunt; adeoque Novatiano restituimus, utrumque Anglicanum editorem secuti.

"Of God": Pamelius omits the word "Dei". Yet both the text and the author's sense require it; and so we have restored it to Novatian, following both English editors.

(printed under page 522)

(7) ‹dispositione› · call in col 941

Dispositione. Hanc vocem non intelligens Welchmanus depositione rescripsit.. At Novatianus respicit οἰκονομίαν; apud veteres notabilem: quam Tertullianus et interpres Irenæi passim, dispositionem verterunt. JACKSON.

"Dispositione" (by the disposition). Not understanding this word, Welchman wrote "depositione" instead. But Novatian is looking to the "economy", a notable term among the ancients, which Tertullian and the translator of Irenaeus everywhere rendered "dispositio". JACKSON.

(printed under page 522)

(8) ‹vellet› · call in col 941

Vellet. Welchm. conjicit legendum se velit. Jackson vero se vellet.

"Vellet" (he would wish). Welchman conjectures that "se velit" should be read; Jackson, however, "se vellet".

(printed under page 522)

(9) ‹—› · call not in crop

Spectet. Ita editi. Forte legendum spectat: quod sine exemplarium testimonio ultro edidit Welchmanus. JACKSON.

"Spectet" (may look). So the editions. Perhaps "spectat" (looks) should be read, which Welchman printed of his own accord without the witness of the copies. JACKSON.

(printed under page 522)

(10) ‹—› · call not in crop

Vivit. Hanc vocem cum Latinio ad textum reduxi, pro editt. videt, quod nec Græcis nec Latinis congruit: sed est Joan. VI, 40, atque inde memoriæ lapsu potuit exscribere Novatianus. ID.

"Vivit" (lives). With Latinius I have brought this word back into the text, instead of the editions' "videt" (sees), which agrees with neither the Greek nor the Latin: but it is John 6:40, and Novatian could have copied it from there by a slip of memory. THE SAME.

(printed under page 522)

(11) ‹—› · call not in crop

Non homo. Non est homo edidit ex Gagnæo Welchmartus. ID.

"Not man." Welchman printed "non est homo" (is not man) from Gagnæus. THE SAME.

(printed under page 522)

(12) ‹a Christo accepit› · call in col 942

Sed si a Christo accepit, etc. Reprehendit Pamelius, et caute legendum monet, quod hic habet Novatianus de Spiritu sancto. Verum ex Novatiani principiis, qui Filium, quatenus a Patre genitus est, Patri æqualem negat, aptum erat omnino et consequens, ut Spiritum sanctum qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, utroque minorem esse statueret. Nec magis de Spiritus sancti divinitate detrahit, quum eum hoc sensu æqualem Filio negat, quam de Filii, quum eum Patri subjicit, ut originis principio, a quo totam divinitatis auctoritatem accepit. Quin etiam divinitas Spiritus sancti non leviter commendatur hoc loco. Nam si Spiritus sanctus creatura esset, id non majus esset argumentum divinitatis Christi, quam quod cæteræ res creatæ ab eodem accipere dicuntur, deinde vero quod addit Novatianus, Christum a Spiritu sancto accepturum fuisse, si homo tantum esset aut Angelus (Angelum enim esse fatebantur hæretici): nonne argumento est, res omnes creatas, si modo ratione utantur, ex (continues)

"But if he received from Christ", etc. Pamelius finds fault with what Novatian here says of the Holy Spirit, and warns that it be read with caution. But on the principles of Novatian, who denies that the Son, in so far as he is begotten of the Father, is equal to the Father, it was entirely fitting and consistent that he should hold the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, to be less than both. Nor does he detract more from the divinity of the Holy Spirit when he denies him equal to the Son in this sense, than from the Son's when he places him under the Father as the principle of his origin, from whom he received the whole authority of divinity. Indeed, the divinity of the Holy Spirit is commended in no slight way in this place. For if the Holy Spirit were a creature, this would be no greater argument for the divinity of Christ than that the other created things are said to receive from him. Then again, what Novatian adds, that Christ would have had to receive from the Holy Spirit if he were only a man or an Angel (for the heretics admitted that he was an Angel): is it not proof that all created things, if only they use reason, (receive) from (continues)

(printed under page 522)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 523)

(12) (continued) · call on previous page

Spiritu sancto ut auctore sanctitatis pendere? MARAN., Divin. D. N. J. C. lib. IV, cap. 19, § 3, pag. 520 seq.

(continued) depend on the Holy Spirit as the author of holiness? MARAN, On the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, book IV, ch. 19, §3, p. 520 f.

(printed under page 523)

(13) ‹—› · call not in crop

Voluit. Se voluit edidit auctoritate sua Welchmanus; et forsan recte, sed nihil muto sine exemplarium suffragio. JACKSON.

"Voluit" (he willed). Welchman printed "se voluit" on his own authority; and perhaps rightly, but I change nothing without the support of the copies. JACKSON.

(printed under page 523)

(14) ‹—› · call not in crop

Deo junxit. Uterque editor Anglicanus, forte se Deo junxit. Mox Welchmanus, intelligi se vellet arbitrio suo excusit.

"Joined to God." Both English editors: perhaps "se Deo junxit" (joined himself to God). Just after, Welchman struck out "intelligi se vellet" at his own discretion.

(printed under page 523)

(15) ‹intelligi vellet› · call in col 943

Vellet. Hic iterum se vellet Welchmanus edidit; neque uspiam ejusmodi additionum lectorem suum admonuit.

"Vellet" (he would wish). Here again Welchman printed "se vellet"; nor did he anywhere warn his reader of additions of this kind.

(printed under page 523)

(16) ‹ab eo› · call in col 943

Ab eo. Se ab eo existimat legendum Welchmanus: et paulo post se junxisset. Sed nihil mutandum cum Jacksono.

"From him." Welchman thinks "se ab eo" (himself from him) should be read, and a little after "se junxisset". But with Jackson nothing is to be changed.

(printed under page 523)

(17) ‹hominem illum› · call in col 943

Illum. Illum esse mallet Jacksonus. At nihil opus.

"Illum" (him). Jackson would prefer "illum esse" (him to be). But there is no need.

(printed under page 523)

(18) ‹Christus habet› · call in col 943

Habet, Sic editi. Welchmanus restituit habuit, recte, ut videtur: etsi habet stare potest. JACKSON.

"Habet" (has). So the editions. Welchman restored "habuit" (had), rightly as it seems, though "habet" can stand. JACKSON.

(printed under page 523)

(19) ‹—› · call not in crop

Intelligetur. Sic Pamelius ex ms. Anglic. Al. intelligitur, quos secutus est Welchmanus. Male. Paulo ante legendum volo, Minor etiam. ID.

"Intelligetur" (will be understood). So Pamelius from the English manuscript. Others "intelligitur" (is understood), whom Welchman followed. Wrongly. A little before, I would have "minor etiam" (lesser even) read. THE SAME.

(printed under page 523)

(20) ‹in gloriam› · call in col 944

In gloriam. Ita paulo superius Novatianus. Atque hanc lectionem secutus est Jacksonus, quæ et probatur Welchmano. Editi. in gloria.

"In gloriam" (unto glory). So Novatian a little above. And Jackson followed this reading, which Welchman too approves. The editions: "in gloria" (in glory).

(printed under page 523)

(21) ‹deprehenditur› · call in col 944

Deprehenditur. Legerim cum Jacksono deprehendetur.

"Deprehenditur" (is found). With Jackson I would read "deprehendetur" (will be found).

(printed under page 523)

(22) ‹auferatur› · call in col 944

Auferatur. Editi non auferatur, sensu contrario argumento auctoris. JACKSON. et WELCHM.

"Auferatur" (be taken away). The editions have "non auferatur" (be not taken away), a sense contrary to the author's argument. JACKSON and WELCHMAN.

(printed under page 523)

(23) ‹tolli non possunt› · call in col 944

Si hæc tolli non possunt. Si hæc in prædestinatione tantum dici non possunt, legit Gagnæus ut et Frobenius, quos secutus est Welchmanus. Sed edita Pamelii ut aptiora Novatiano retinui: altera enim lectio videtur intrudi ex interpretatione verborum tolli non possunt. JACKSON.

"If these things cannot be taken away." "If these things cannot be said in predestination only" is the reading of Gagnæus, as of Froben too, whom Welchman followed. But I have kept Pamelius's printed text as fitter for Novatian: for the other reading seems to have been thrust in from an explanation of the words "cannot be taken away". JACKSON.

(printed under page 523)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 524)

(24) ‹—› · call not in crop

Provocetur Forte provocetur. WELCHM.

"Provocetur" (be called forth). Perhaps "provocetur". WELCHMAN. [The note prints the same word twice as here.]

(printed under page 524)

(25) ‹—› · call not in crop

Omnia Conjunctio et videtur deesse ante omnia. JACKSON.

"Omnia" (all things). The conjunction "et" (and) seems to be missing before "omnia". JACKSON.

(printed under page 524)

(26) ‹—› · call not in crop

Considerate. Existimat Welchmanus legendum considerate: idque pro indubitato habet Jacksonus.

"Considerate." Welchman thinks "considerate" should be read; and Jackson takes it as beyond doubt. [The lemma and the proposed reading are printed alike.]

(printed under page 524)

(27) ‹hic erit› · call in col 946

Erit. Forte erat, quod notavit Welchmanus: erit tamen congruet sequenti pronuntiabitur. JACKSON.

"Erit" (will be). Perhaps "erat" (was), as Welchman noted: yet "erit" will agree with the following "pronuntiabitur" (will be declared). JACKSON.

(printed under page 524)

(28) ‹videre possit› · call in col 946

Possit. Ita cum Jacksono emendavimus editt. posset. Tempore namque præsenti semel iterumque in eamdem sententiam paulo post utitur auctor: possit, ut est, videre — intercipi possit — videre non possit.

"Possit" (may be able). So, with Jackson, we have corrected the editions' "posset" (might be able). For a little later the author uses the present tense once and again in the same sense: "may be able to see, as it is — may be intercepted — may not be able to see".

(printed under page 524)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

Letters in ⟨angle brackets⟩ are lost at the right edge of the scan in col 948's notes and are supplied. (printed under page 525)

(29) ‹nam nec› · call in col 947 (printed "(39)" in the text)

Nam nec, etc. Hæc verba parenthesis forma posui cum Franc. Junio, et periodum desivi verbo tractent, aliter ac editi, sensu tamen suffragante, ut integram perpendenti periodum quæ incipit a verbis Ac si et Agar, patebit. JACKSON.

"For neither", etc. I have set these words in the form of a parenthesis, with Francis Junius, and ended the sentence at the word "tractent" (they treat), otherwise than the editions, yet with the sense in support, as will be plain to one who weighs the whole sentence beginning with the words "Ac si et Agar". JACKSON.

(printed under page 525)

(30) ‹quia› · call in col 947

Quia. Suspicatur Welchmanus legendum qua et hoc videtur aptius. ID.

"Quia" (because). Welchman suspects that "qua" should be read, and this seems apter. THE SAME.

(printed under page 525)

(31) ‹subditus et› · call in col 947 (printed "[31]" in the text)

Quoniam Patri subditus et. Sensus requirit legi vel et quoniam, vel quoniam autem, aut quid simile. Tres vero voces sequentes, Patri subditus et, exhibet editio Pamelii, argumento auctoris in id consentiente. Quod autem aliis absunt eædem vocas. omittendi ansam arripuit Welchmanus. ID.

"Since subject to the Father and." The sense requires that either "et quoniam" (and since) or "quoniam autem" (but since), or something similar, be read. The three following words, "subject to the Father and", Pamelius's edition shows, the author's argument agreeing with it. But because the same words are absent from others, Welchman seized the handle for omitting them. THE SAME.

(printed under page 525)

(32) ‹si hic locus› · call in col 947

Si hic locus. Ita Pamelius. In aliis codd. si locus, omisso hic, quos secutus est Welchmanus. Sed male: nam vocula illa demonstrativa apte indicat prædictum Scripturæ locum, quem auctor edisserit. ID.

"If this place." So Pamelius. In other copies "si locus", with "hic" (this) left out, whom Welchman followed. But wrongly: for that little demonstrative word aptly points to the aforesaid place of Scripture which the author is expounding. THE SAME.

(printed under page 525)

(33) ‹—› · call not in crop

Ipsius. Conjicit Jacksonus legendum ips⟨…⟩. Sed obstare videtur conjunctio præcedens.

"Ipsius" (of him himself). Jackson conjectures that "ips…" [ending lost at the edge] should be read. But the preceding conjunction seems to stand in the way.

(printed under page 525)

(34) ‹credetur› · call in col 948

Credetur. Ita editi ad unum omnes, exce⟨pto⟩ Welchmaniano, ubi excusum studiose credatur.

"Credetur" (will be believed). So the editions, every one, except Welchman's, where "credatur" (may be believed) is printed on purpose.

(printed under page 525)

(35) ‹sicut subvertit Dominus› · call in col 948

Dominus. Sic Pamelius, eamque lection⟨em⟩ ad mentem Novatiani qui eamdem paulo post ⟨re⟩petit, tuetur Jacksonus. Al. Deus.

"Dominus" (the Lord). So Pamelius, and Jackson defends that reading as according with the mind of Novatian, who repeats it a little after. Others: "Deus" (God).

(printed under page 525)

(36) ‹quia invisibilis› · call in col 948

Quia. Ita recte emendavit Welchman⟨us⟩ pro editt. qua. JACKSON.

"Quia" (because). So Welchman rightly corrected it, instead of the editions' "qua". JACKSON.

(printed under page 525)

(37) ‹et hospitio› · call in col 948

Hospitio. Hanc etiam vocem recte restitu⟨it⟩ idem Welchmanus, pro impress. hospitibus. S⟨ed⟩ male omisit verba et acceptus, quæ retinent omne⟨s⟩ editi. ID.

"Hospitio" (in hospitality). The same Welchman also rightly restored this word, instead of the printed "hospitibus" (by the hosts). But he wrongly left out the words "et acceptus" (and received), which all the editions keep. THE SAME.

(printed under page 525)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

(printed under page 526)

(38) ‹—› · call not in crop

Qui solitus est. Ante hæc verba videtur deesse Filius, vel Dei Filius. JACKSON.

"Who was wont." Before these words "Filius" (the Son), or "Dei Filius" (the Son of God), seems to be missing. JACKSON.

(printed under page 526)

(39) ‹—› · call not in crop

Visus. Aptior erit sensus si legerimus Filius pro visus quam germanam esse lectionem vix dubito. ID.

"Visus" (seen). The sense will be apter if we read "Filius" (the Son) instead of "visus", which I hardly doubt is the genuine reading. THE SAME.

(printed under page 526)

(40) ‹—› · call not in crop

Deus Sermo. Ita editores Anglicani. Vox Deus deest apud Pamelium.

"God the Word." So the English editors. The word "Deus" is missing in Pamelius.

(printed under page 526)

(41) ‹—› · call not in crop

Et audivit. Forte exaudivit: quam quidem vocem paucis interjectis repetit Novatianus. Mox mss. Woweri apud Jacksonum vocem audisset infantis.

"And he heard." Perhaps "exaudivit" (he heard and answered), a word Novatian indeed repeats a few words later. Just after, Wower's manuscripts in Jackson: "had heard the voice of the infant".

(printed under page 526)

(42) ‹confirmatur esse› · call in col 949

Deus confirmatur esse. Ita Welchm. et Jackson. Al. Deus confirmatur Deus esse: minus recte, ut videtur.

"God is confirmed to be." So Welchman and Jackson. Others: "God is confirmed to be God": less rightly, as it seems.

(printed under page 526)

(43) ‹illam vocat› · call in col 949

Deus e cœlo... vocat. Autumat Welchmanus legendum, Deus qui e cœlo.. vocat. Mallet Jacksonus, Deus e cœlo illam vocans Angelus est dictus. Sed lectio vulgata his emendationibus opus non habet.

"God from heaven ... calls." Welchman holds that "God who from heaven ... calls" should be read. Jackson would prefer "God, calling her from heaven, is called an Angel". But the common reading has no need of these emendations.

(printed under page 526)

(44) ‹—› · call not in crop

Deus esset potius. Sic editi ad unum omnes. Jacksonus tamen textum emendandum putavit, ediditque, Deus esset positus; propterea scilicet, inquit, quod potius nullum habeat sensum in loco. Hanc vero emendationem vix admittendam censeo: vulgata enim lectio legitimum fundere sensum comperitur. Nimirum, auctor locum Geneseos XXI, 17 edisserens, ubi legitur; Exaudivit autem DEUS vocem pueri, vocavitque ANGELUS Dei Agar de cœlo, hæc habet: Hic Deus, — ANGELUS dictus, cum superius — DEUS esset potius, non alius intelligitur, etc. Perinde ac si dixisset: Qui dicitur Angelus Dei vocasse Agar de cœlo, hic antea Deus esse perhibetur qui exaudierit vocem pueri. Illud quoque accedit, emendatione Jacksoni admissa, vim orationis in Novatiani textu retundi; cum illud Deus esset potius plurimum valeat, contra vero frigore frigescat Jacksoniana restitutio Deus esset positus.

"God was rather." So the editions, every one. Jackson, however, thought the text should be emended, and printed "Deus esset positus" (God was set forth); because, he says, "potius" (rather) has no sense in the place. But I judge this emendation hardly admissible: for the common reading is found to yield a proper sense. The author, that is, expounding the place in Genesis 21:17, where we read: "And GOD heard the voice of the boy, and the ANGEL of God called Hagar from heaven", says this: "This God — called an ANGEL, though above — was rather GOD, no other is understood", etc. As if he had said: he who is said to be the Angel of God who called Hagar from heaven is the one declared before to be God who heard the voice of the boy. There is this too: if Jackson's emendation is admitted, the force of the sentence in Novatian's text is blunted; for "Deus esset potius" carries great weight, whereas Jackson's restoration "Deus esset positus" grows cold with chill.

(printed under page 526)

(45) ‹—› · call not in crop

Si enim. Vet. editt. Sed enim: quod castigavit recte Pamelius. JACKSON.

"Si enim" (for if). The old editions: "Sed enim" (but indeed), which Pamelius rightly corrected. JACKSON.

(printed under page 526)

(46) ‹—› · call not in crop

Sed et Angelus. Vocem et ante Angelus reposuit Pamelius ex ms. Anglic. et genuinam lectionem probat statim quod sequitur, sed et Deus. Omisit et cum vet. editt. Welchmanus male. ID.

"But also an Angel." Pamelius put back the word "et" (also) before "Angelus" from the English manuscript, and what follows straight after, "but also God", proves the reading genuine. Welchman, with the old editions, wrongly left out "et". THE SAME.

(printed under page 526)

(47) ‹unxisti› · call in col 950

Unxisti. Sic editt. Pamelii ex ms. Anglic. recte habent: quibus congruunt tum Græca tum Latina. Welchmanus edidit erexisti, corrupta exemplaria Gagnæi et Frobenii secutus, in quibus ita ponitur ex alieno loco, nimirum ex v. 45. ID.

"Unxisti" (you anointed). So Pamelius's editions rightly have it from the English manuscript; with which both the Greek and the Latin agree. Welchman printed "erexisti" (you set up), following the corrupt copies of Gagnæus and Froben, in which it is so put from another place, namely from v. 45. THE SAME.

(printed under page 526)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius.

Galland's commentary.

Letters in ⟨angle brackets⟩ are damaged at the right edge of the scan in col 952's notes and are supplied. (printed under page 527)

(48) ‹non vacabitur› · call in col 951

Jam nunc. Ita Pamelius aliique, LXX: οὐ κληθήσεται ἔτι. At editores Anglicani, etiam nunc: quam quidem lectionem exhibet paulo post idem Pamelius.

"Jam nunc" (now). So Pamelius and others; the Septuagint: "shall no longer be called". But the English editors have "etiam nunc" (even now): and the same Pamelius indeed shows this reading a little after.

(printed under page 527)

(49) ‹mox transivit› · call in col 951

Mox transivit. Forte legendum mox ut trans. quot etiam suspicatur Welchmanus: et emendationi congruere videtur Vulgata, ubi legitur: Ortusque est statim sol, postquam transgressus est Phanuel. JACKSON.

"Mox transivit" (soon he passed). Perhaps "mox ut trans(ivit)" (as soon as he passed) should be read, as Welchman too suspects: and the Vulgate seems to agree with the emendation, where we read: "And immediately the sun rose upon him, after he was passed over Phanuel." JACKSON.

(printed under page 527)

(30) ‹—› · call not in crop (number as printed; the sequence requires 50)

Quia jam lucifer oritur, etc., Welchmanus ex prava interpunctione locum luxatum duc⟨it⟩; ejusque conjectura probatur Jacksono. Hinc uter⟨que⟩ alia demit, alia transponit. Immerito sane. N⟨os⟩ interim editionem Pamelianam expressimus, q⟨uæ⟩ utique lectori studioso integra et plana patebit.

"For now the day-star rises", etc. Welchman considers the passage dislocated through faulty punctuation, and his conjecture is approved by Jackson. Hence each of them removes some words and transposes others. Wrongly indeed. We meanwhile have reproduced Pamelius's edition, which will certainly appear whole and plain to the attentive reader.

(printed under page 527)

(51) ‹Visionis Dei.› · call in col 952

Visionis. Deest in editis hæc vox; et re⟨sti⟩tuitur a Welchmano. JACKSON.

"Visionis" (of the vision). This word is missing in the editions, and is restored by Welchman. JACKSON.

(printed under page 527)

(52) ‹et Deum› · call in col 952

Et Deum. Sic uterque Anglicanus edit⟨or⟩ Al. omittunt copulam et.

"And God." So both English editors. Others omit the conjunction "et" (and).

(printed under page 527)

(53) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 953

Alterum Deum. Has voces a librariis propter consuetam in ὁμοιοτελεύτοις negligentiam omissas, recte restituisse videntur Welchmanus et Jacksonus.

Another God. These words, left out by the copyists through their usual carelessness with homoeoteleuta, Welchman and Jackson seem rightly to have restored.

(printed under page 528)

(54) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 953

Ex quo nuuus ponere. Poneret rescribit Cotelerius Monum. Eccl. Gr. tom. III, p. 634, cui adhaerent editores Anglicani. Caecus porro est, inquit Welchmanus, qui non videat, haec ad proxime antecedentia pertinere, et proinde in suo loco jam reponi: cum tamen in caeteris omnibus editis longe a se invicem separentur, his in initio cap. 15 positis, istis in fine cap. 27. Vide superius adnotata ad cap. 15.

From which ... to place [nuuus as printed]. Cotelier, Monumenta Ecclesiae Graecae, vol. III, p. 634, rewrites poneret, and the English editors follow him. He is blind, moreover, says Welchman, who does not see that these words belong to what immediately precedes, and so are now put back in their proper place; whereas in all the other editions they are set far apart from each other, these at the beginning of ch. 15, those at the end of ch. 27. See what was noted above on ch. 15.

(printed under page 528)

(55) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 953

Futuram. Mallet futurae Welchmanus: sed nihil mutandum censet Jacksonus.

Future [acc.]. Welchman would prefer futurae; but Jackson judges that nothing should be changed.

(printed under page 528)

(56) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 953

Et benedictionem. Editionem Pamelianam sequimur, quam emendandam existimavit Jacksonus, rescribens ex... benedictione. Welchmanus autem pro et legendum in conjiciebat.

And the blessing. We follow Pamelius's edition, which Jackson thought should be emended, rewriting ex ... benedictione ("from ... the blessing"). Welchman, for his part, conjectured that in should be read for et.

(printed under page 528)

(57) ‹anchor: At si› · call in col 953

At si. Ita veteres editi. Neque aliter Welchmanus et Jacksonus. Pamelius vero ex ms. Anglic. At si.. Mox Jacksono Voweri ms. secuto, contenderit reponere placuit.

But if. So the old printed editions. Nor otherwise Welchman and Jackson. Pamelius, from the English manuscript, At si.. Shortly after, Jackson, following Vower's manuscript, chose to restore contenderit.

(printed under page 528)

(58) ‹anchor: Nam si omnibus› · call in col 953

Nam si omnibus... Et si quivis Angelus. Sic prorsus legit et supplet Pamelius, partim ex editione Gagnaei priore. Locus tamen adhuc implexus videtur. Monuit vir doctus, voces dii, jure et Deus Christus visas esse Gagnaei additionem, et omissas a Gelenio, vindice ms. Britannico; cujus lectio, uno vocabulo subjecti vel subditi addito post verbum dicuntur, hunc sanum edit sensum: Nam si omnibus caelestibus, terrenis et infernis Christo subditis, etiam ipsi Angeli cum omnibus caeteris quaecumque subjecta sunt, Christo dicuntur (subjecti vel subditi): et tamen quivis Angelus, etc. Haec, ut equidem puto, est germana lectio JACKSON.

For if all things ... And if any Angel. So exactly Pamelius reads and supplies, partly from Gagny's earlier edition. Yet the passage still seems tangled. A learned man has pointed out that the words gods, rightly also Christ God seemed to be Gagny's addition, and were left out by Gelenius, with the British manuscript to back him; and its reading, with the one word subjecti or subditi added after the verb dicuntur, yields this sound sense: For if, all things heavenly, earthly and infernal being subject to Christ, even the Angels themselves, with all the rest whatever are subject, are called (subject or subordinate) to Christ: and yet any Angel, etc. This, as I at least think, is the genuine reading. JACKSON.

(printed under page 528)

(59) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 954

Profertur. Omnes edit. Pamel. proferetur. Sed veteres editt. profertur. Recte. JACKSON et WELCHM.

Is brought forward. All Pamelius's editions have proferetur ("will be brought forward"). But the old editions profertur. Rightly. JACKSON and WELCHMAN.

(printed under page 528)

(60) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 954

Qui subjectus. Vel legendum quivis subjectus, ut paulo ante; vel qui subjectus est. Ita Jacksonus. Postremum conjecit quoque Welchmanus.

Who, subject. Either read quivis subjectus ("anyone subject"), as a little before; or qui subjectus est ("who is subject"). So Jackson. Welchman too conjectured the latter.

(printed under page 528)

(61) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 954

Dicitur. Forte dicetur ut paulo ante. JACKSON.

Is called. Perhaps dicetur ("will be called"), as a little before. JACKSON.

(printed under page 528)

(62) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 954

Deus deos. Vocem Deus expunxit Jacksonus inhaerens Heb., LXX, et Vulg. quam tamen exhibent omnes editi.

God ... gods. Jackson struck out the word God, keeping to the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Vulgate; yet all the printed editions show it.

(printed under page 528)

(63) ‹anchor: Deus in synagoga› · call in col 954

In synagoga. Haec verba recte restituit Welchmanus, sensu auctoris vindice; qui et paulo post pro aperitur legendum esse reperitur existimat, ut mox quidem ipsemet auctor. JACKSON.

In the assembly. Welchman rightly restored these words, with the author's sense to back him; and a little after he judges that reperitur ("is found") should be read for aperitur ("is disclosed"), as indeed the author himself writes shortly after. JACKSON.

(printed under page 528)

(64) ‹anchor: et rursus recipere› · call in col 955

Recipere. Editores Anglicani legendum conjiciunt recipiendi. Vulg. sane sumendi. Sed Graecum λαβεῖν expressit auctor.

To take back. The English editors conjecture that recipiendi should be read. The Vulgate indeed has sumendi. But the author rendered the Greek λαβεῖν.

(printed under page 529)

(65) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 955/956 (not visible)

Tantummodo ante, etc. Legendum putat Jacksonus tantummodo Deus ante, etc., ut respondeat sequenti tantummodo homo. Verum, quamvis non legatur Deus, sensus integer manet.

Only before, etc. Jackson thinks only God before, etc., should be read, to answer to the following only man. But even though God is not read, the sense remains whole.

(printed under page 529)

(66) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 955/956 (not visible)

Humanitatis. Editi, humilitatis, corrupte. Lego humanitatis cum Fr. Junio; quam vocem edidit etiam Welchmanus. JACKSON.

Of humanity. The printed editions have humilitatis ("of lowliness"), corruptly. I read humanitatis with Fr. Junius; and Welchman too printed this word. JACKSON.

(printed under page 529)

(67) [printed "(7)"] ‹anchor: et in resurrectione› · call in col 956

Et in resurrectione. Editi, et resurrectione, nullo sensu. Rescripsi et in resurrectione cum ip[so] Novatiano statim in sequentibus non semel: qu[od] et conjectavit Latinius. ID.

And in the resurrection. The printed editions have et resurrectione, with no sense. I have rewritten et in resurrectione, with Novatian himself in what immediately follows, more than once; which Latini too conjectured. THE SAME [Jackson]. [Line ends cut at the image edge.]

(printed under page 529)

(68) ‹anchor: amictum ipsum› · call in col 956

Amictum ipsum. Frobenius cum Gagn[aeo] Amictum ipse; et sic edidi Welchmanus. Se[d] quum alia inusitata verba usurpaverit Novatianu[s], insolens verbum amictum neutrius generis in illiu[s] contextu reliqui. Habet etiam auctor paulo pos[t] amictum et amicti. ID.

The garment itself. Froben, with Gagny, has Amictum ipse; and so Welchman printed [edidi as printed]. But since Novatian has used other unusual words, I have left the uncommon word amictum, of neuter gender, in his text. The author also has, a little after, amictum and amicti. THE SAME [Jackson]. [Line ends cut at the image edge.]

(printed under page 529)

(69) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 957 (not visible)

Quisquis. Welchmanus mallet quis; atque hanc esse veram lectionem vix dubitat Jacksonus.

Whoever. Welchman would prefer quis ("who"); and Jackson hardly doubts that this is the true reading.

(printed under page 530)

(70) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 957 (not visible)

Quique sanguine, etc. Locus hic obscurus, sive etiam mutilus et corruptus videtur Pamelio. Medelam exhibet Welchmanus ita legens: Qui uvae sanguine, id est vino, lavit substantiam corporis, materiam carnis abluens (sive, et materiam carnis abluit) ex parte suscepti hominis passione. Paulo aliter legit distinguitque cum Fr. Junio Jacksonus: Qui in sanguine, id est vino, lavit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis, abluens ex parte suscepti hominis passione.

And who with blood, etc. This passage seems to Pamelius obscure, or even mutilated and corrupt. Welchman offers a remedy, reading thus: Who in the blood of the grape, that is, in wine, washed the substance of the body, cleansing the matter of the flesh (or, and cleansed the matter of the flesh) by the passion on the side of the man he had taken up. Jackson, with Fr. Junius, reads and punctuates a little differently: Who in blood, that is, in wine, washed the substance of the body and the matter of the flesh, cleansing them by the passion on the side of the man he had taken up.

(printed under page 530)

(71) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 957 (not visible)

Sicut.... monstratur. Al. sic ut.... monstretur. Minus recte ut videtur.

As ... is shown. Others, sic ut ... monstretur ("so that ... it may be shown"). Less correctly, as it seems.

(printed under page 530)

(72) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 957 (not visible)

In similitudine Graecis ἐν ὁμοιώματι inhaeret auctor. Sic et mox expressit ὑπερύψωσε superexaltavit.

In the likeness: the author keeps to the Greek ἐν ὁμοιώματι. So too, shortly after, he rendered ὑπερύψωσε by superexaltavit ("highly exalted").

(printed under page 530)

(75) [printed so; in sequence (73)] ‹anchor: in forma› · call in col 957 [the call is printed (75) in the text]

In forma. Editi omittunt in quam recte post Welchmanum restituit Jacksonus.

In the form. The printed editions leave out in, which Jackson, after Welchman, has rightly restored.

(printed under page 530)

(74) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 957 (not visible)

Etiam. Hanc vocem omittit Pamelius, quam alii retinent.

Also. Pamelius leaves out this word, which others keep.

(printed under page 530)

(75) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 957/958 (not visible)

Et, Conjunctionem ejusmodi velut importunam delendam censet Welchmanus.

And: Welchman judges that this conjunction should be deleted as out of place.

(printed under page 530)

(76) ‹anchor: conditionis fragilitatem› · call in col 958

Humanam conditionis fragilitatem. Frustra sunt Welchmanus et Jacksonus, qui hanc praecedentium editionum lectionem sollicitare tentant, rescribentes humanae conditionis fragilitatem. Minucius in Octav. cap. XXXVI, eadem loquendi ratione usus comperitur, Corporis humana vitia pro corporis humani vitia. Ad quem locum complura profert ejusmodi locutionum exempla eruditus Davisius inter quae istud quoque Novatiani occurrit quo de agimus. Videsis tom. II nostrae Bibl. PP., pag. 402, not. 12.

The human frailty of condition. Welchman and Jackson labour in vain in trying to disturb this reading of the earlier editions, rewriting humanae conditionis fragilitatem ("the frailty of the human condition"). Minucius, in the Octavius, ch. 36, is found using the same manner of speech, Corporis humana vitia for corporis humani vitia. On that passage the learned Davies brings forward many examples of such expressions, among which this one of Novatian that we are dealing with also appears. See vol. II of our Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 402, note 12.

(printed under page 530)

(77) ‹anchor: At si› · call in col 958

At si. Ita editores Anglicani ex Gagnaeo, Frobenio, etc. Al. Ac si.

But if. So the English editors, from Gagny, Froben, etc. Others, Ac si ("As if").

(printed under page 530)

(78) ‹anchor: suis viribus exercens› · call in col 958

Exercens. Exserens Latinius.

Exercising. Latini, exserens ("putting forth").

(printed under page 530)

(79) ‹anchor: Exinanit› · call in col 958

Exinanit. Sic lego cum Gagnaeo, Barrensi et edit. prima Frobenii. Lectionem confirmant praecedentia dejicit, deponit, fert, et sequentia descendit, audit, experitur. Pamelius minus recte exinanitis. JACKSON.

He empties. So I read, with Gagny, the Barrois edition and Froben's first edition. The reading is confirmed by the preceding casts down, lays aside, bears, and the following descends, hears, experiences. Pamelius, less correctly, exinanitis. JACKSON.

(printed under page 530)

(80) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 959 (not visible)

Super omne. Ita edidit Pamelius: atque isthaec lectio congruit praecedenti super omne ex textu Paulino (Philipp. II, 9) et subsequenti super omne Novatiani. Editi Anglicani super omnia.

Above every. So Pamelius printed: and this reading agrees with the preceding above every from Paul's text (Phil. 2:9) and with Novatian's following above every. The English editions have super omnia ("above all things").

(printed under page 531)

(81) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 959 (not visible)

Qui super omnia est, Dei. Existimat Jacksonus ita legendum esse: Qui super omnia est. Deus est ergo nomen illud, etc.

Which is above all, of God. Jackson judges it should be read thus: Which is above all. God, then, is that name, etc.

(printed under page 531)

(82) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 959 (not visible)

Nativitatem. Welchmanus mallet nativitate. Neque abnuit Jacksonus. Mox uterque sese exinan., cum veteribus editis. At se praebent editt. Pamel. quas item expressimus, rescribentes paulo ante Ex quo dum, ubi editt. Anglic. habent. Ex quo et dum.

Birth [acc.]. Welchman would prefer nativitate [abl.]. Nor does Jackson object. Shortly after, both have sese exinan[ivit], with the old printed editions. But Pamelius's editions give se, which we have likewise followed, writing a little before Ex quo dum, where the English editions have Ex quo et dum.

(printed under page 531)

(83) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 959/960 (not visible)

Succurrere. Sui currere Latinius.

To come to the aid. Latini, sui currere.

(printed under page 531)

(84) ‹anchor: in Scripturis esse› · call in col 959

Esse. Mallem et, cum Gelenio.

To be. I would prefer et ("and"), with Gelenius.

(printed under page 531)

(85) ‹anchor: ausi sint non Filium› · call in col 959

Non Filium. Legit Welchmanus, eum non Filium.

Not the Son. Welchman reads eum non Filium ("him, not the Son").

(printed under page 531)

(86) ‹anchor: usque adeo Deus› · call in col 959

Deus. Legendum putat idem Welchm. Deus est. Consentit Jacksonus.

God. The same Welchman thinks Deus est ("is God") should be read. Jackson agrees.

(printed under page 531)

(87) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 959/960 (not visible)

Jam. Non dubitat Jacksonus, quin legendum sit etiam. Qui praeterea integrum locum luxatum existimans, sic rescriberet: Cujus auctoritas tantum movit quosdam effrenatius et effusius in Christo divinitatem confiteri, ut putarent, etc.; nisi quis confitentes pro confiteri legere censeat.

Already. Jackson does not doubt that etiam ("even") should be read. Judging besides that the whole passage is dislocated, he would rewrite it thus: Whose authority so moved some to confess the divinity in Christ more unrestrainedly and lavishly, that they thought, etc.; unless one should judge that confitentes ("confessing") should be read for confiteri ("to confess").

(printed under page 531)

(88) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 961 (not visible)

Non hominem sed Deum. Ita Pamelius aliique. Welchmanus tamen eumque secutus Jacksonus ordine inverso ediderunt, non Deum, sed hominem: argumenti nimirum ratione, inquit posterior, hanc transpositionem postulante.

Not man but God. So Pamelius and others. Welchman, however, and Jackson following him, printed it in reverse order, not God, but man: because, the latter says, the logic of the argument demands this transposition.

(printed under page 532)

(87) [printed so; in sequence (89)] ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 961 (not visible)

In Filio Dei et hominis. Pamelianam editionem expressimus, praecedentibus congruentem. Has autem voces Dei et omisit Welchmanus: eique primum accesserat Jacksonus, sed postea mutata sententia, rescribendum existimabat, Filius Dei in homine sit.

In the Son of God and of man. We have followed Pamelius's edition, which agrees with what precedes. Welchman, however, left out the words of God and; and Jackson had at first sided with him, but later, changing his view, judged it should be rewritten Filius Dei in homine sit ("the Son of God be in man").

(printed under page 532)

(90) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 961 (not visible)

Dei et hominis Filium. Hic pariter Pamelium sequitur. Delevit Welchmanus et hominis.

The Son of God and of man. Here likewise he [the editor] follows Pamelius. Welchman deleted and of man.

(printed under page 532)

(91) ‹anchor: Filius sibi Dei› · call in col 962

Filius sibi Dei. Ordo verborum facilior erit si legerimus, illum sibi Filius Dei, vel illum Filius Dei sibi, etc. JACKSON.

The Son of God to himself. The order of words will be easier if we read illum sibi Filius Dei, or illum Filius Dei sibi, etc. JACKSON.

(printed under page 532)

(92) ‹anchor: in nativitatem› · call in col 962

In nativitatem. In nativitate omnino legendum putat Jacksonus: neque aliter conjiciebat Welchmanus.

Into birth. Jackson thinks in nativitate ("in birth") should by all means be read; nor did Welchman conjecture otherwise.

(printed under page 532)

(93) ‹anchor: hominis Filium› · call in col 962

Et hominem Dei Filium — Deum accipiant, Sic Pamelius. Editio Frobeniana: Et hominem Dei Filium, id est Verbum, sicut scriptum est, Deum accipiant. Quam quidem lectionem secutus est Welchmanus. Luxatus locus videtur Jacksono, legendumque: Et Filium, id est Dei Verbum — Deum accipiant. In eamdem sententiam Vesselingius Probabil. cap. 16, pag. 322.

And the man, the Son of God — let them accept as God. So Pamelius. Froben's edition: And let them accept the man, the Son of God, that is the Word, as it is written, as God. Welchman followed this reading. To Jackson the passage seems dislocated, and he would read: And the Son, that is the Word of God — let them accept as God. Wesseling is of the same opinion, Probabilia, ch. 16, p. 322.

(printed under page 532)

(94) ‹anchor: utroque connexum› · call in col 962

Ex troque contextum. Has voces quas prae se ferunt editi, omisit Jacksonus; quippe quae nimirum ortae videantur ex negligenti repetitione priorum ex utroque connexum. Easque pariter delendas jusserat Welchmanus.

Woven together from [troque as printed] both. These words, which the printed editions display, Jackson left out, since they seem plainly to have arisen from a careless repetition of the preceding ex utroque connexum ("joined from both"). Welchman too had ordered them deleted.

(printed under page 532)

(95) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 963 (not visible)

Quod. Nihil nos cogit ut cum editoribus Anglicanis legamus ut quod.

That which. Nothing compels us to read ut quod with the English editors.

(printed under page 533)

(96) ‹anchor: licet› · call in col 963

Licet. Hanc vocem corruptam existimat Welchmanus, legitque cum scilicet. Consentit Jacksonus, quamvis de loci restitutione subdubitet. Uterque tamen absque sontica causa, ut videtur. Minus item mihi probatur ejusdem Jacksoni sententia, legentis paulo post, immortalis anima. Vox anim immortalitatis ad generositatem spectare nemo non videt: omnisque evanescit ambiguitas, si qua tamen est, ubi Novatiani oratio hac aut simili ratione conformetur: Si enim anima in quovis homine hanc habet immortalitatis generositatem, ut non possit interfici, etc.

Although. Welchman judges this word corrupt, and reads cum scilicet ("since, namely"). Jackson agrees, though somewhat doubtful about the restoration of the passage. Both, however, without weighty cause, as it seems. Nor do I approve the same Jackson's view, reading a little after immortalis anima ("the immortal soul"). For [anim as printed] everyone sees that the word immortalitatis belongs with generositatem; and all ambiguity, if there is any, vanishes when Novatian's sentence is shaped in this or a similar way: For if the soul in any man has this nobility of immortality, that it cannot be killed, etc.

(printed under page 533)

(97) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 963/964 (not visible)

Idem. Eadem edidit Welchmanus, secutus Gagnaeum. Caeteri cum Pamelio idem.

The same [masc./neut.]. Welchman printed eadem [fem.], following Gagny. The rest, with Pamelius, idem.

(printed under page 533)

(98) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 963/964 (not visible)

In loco. Latinius vult legi in illo: apte satis. Quid si scripserit ipse auctor inlico pro illico? JAKSON.

In the place. Latini wants in illo ("in him") read: aptly enough. What if the author himself wrote inlico for illico ("on the spot")? JACKSON [JAKSON as printed].

(printed under page 533)

(99) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 963/964 (not visible)

Exercere. Cum Latinio forte legendum exserere, quam quidem conjecturam Welchmanus admittit, non item Jacksonus.

To exercise. Perhaps, with Latini, exserere ("to put forth") should be read; this conjecture Welchman admits, but not Jackson.

(printed under page 533)

(1) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 965 (not visible)

Ad Christum. Si Jacksonum audias, addenda hic forte vox dicatur. Sed nihil necesse: paulo enim superius dixit: Cum legat dictum — ad Filium: quae quidem duae voces hoc item loci subaudiendae.

To Christ. If you listen to Jackson, the word dicatur ("is said") should perhaps be added here. But there is no need: for a little above he said: Cum legat dictum — ad Filium ("since he reads it said — to the Son"); and these two words are likewise to be understood in this place.

(printed under page 534)

(2) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 965 (not visible)

Christo meo Domino. Cum LXX scripsissent Κύρῳ, antiquarii existimantes Isaiam loqui de Christo Jesu, nec ad Cyrum attendentes, assumpta vicina voce Κυρίῳ locum Sbripturae jam olim corruperunt. Quapropter Tertullianus adversus Judaeos, cap. 7, et adversus Praxeam cap. 11, et 28; Cyprianus Testimon. lib. I, cap. 21; NOVATIANUS heic, cum plurimis tam Graecis quam Latinis apud Hieronymum ad hunc textum Isa. XLV, 1; et ad Habac. III, 3: κυρίῳ legunt, ac de Christo Domino interpretantur. Ita COTELERIUS ad cap. 12 Epist. S. Barnabae. Videsis adnotata in hunc Isaiae locum, tom. I nostrae hujus Biblioth. PP. pag. 132.

To Christ my Lord. Whereas the Seventy had written Κύρῳ ("to Cyrus"), the copyists, thinking Isaiah was speaking of Christ Jesus and not attending to Cyrus, took up the neighbouring word Κυρίῳ ("to the Lord") and so long ago corrupted the passage of Scripture [Sbripturae as printed]. Hence Tertullian, Against the Jews ch. 7 and Against Praxeas chs. 11 and 28; Cyprian, Testimonia bk. I ch. 21; NOVATIAN here, with very many, Greek as well as Latin, cited by Jerome on this text (Isa. 45:1) and on Habakkuk 3:3, read κυρίῳ and interpret it of Christ the Lord. So COTELIER on ch. 12 of the Epistle of St. Barnabas. See the notes on this passage of Isaiah, vol. I of this our Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 132.

(printed under page 534)

(3) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 965 (not visible)

Collocatum. Welchmanus sic emendavit vitiosam praecedentium editionum scripturam collocutum: eique adhaesit Jacksonus. Congruenter sane prioribus positum scriptum, etc. Paulo post praeterea collocatur legimus.

Set down. Welchman so emended the faulty reading of the earlier editions, collocutum ("spoken with"); and Jackson kept to him. It fits, indeed, with the preceding positum scriptum, etc. Moreover, a little after we read collocatur.

(printed under page 534)

(4) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 965/966 (not visible)

Ego et Pater. Sic editt. Frobenii et Pamelii. Gagnaeus vero et Barrensis: Ego et Pater unum sum. At editores Anglicani: Ego et Pater unus sum. Quae vera videtur lectio, ab ipsomet Novatiano paulo post repetita.

I and the Father. So the editions of Froben and Pamelius. But Gagny and the Barrois edition: Ego et Pater unum sum. And the English editors: Ego et Pater unus sum. This seems the true reading, repeated by Novatian himself a little after.

(printed under page 534)

(5) ‹anchor: At cum› · call in col 966

At cum. Welchmannus ex Gagnaeo, Atqui cum. Sed Gelenius ex ms. Britan. et post illum Pamelius substituit, At cum. JAKSON.

But when. Welchman, from Gagny, Atqui cum ("And yet when"). But Gelenius, from the British manuscript, and Pamelius after him, substituted At cum. JACKSON [JAKSON as printed].

(printed under page 534)

(6) ‹anchor: alterius expromitur› · call in col 966

Expromittur. Exprimitur est aptior lectio: quod legendum suspicatur Welchmanus. ID.

Is put forth [Expromittur as printed]. Exprimitur ("is expressed") is the more fitting reading, which Welchman suspects should be read. THE SAME [Jackson].

(printed under page 534)

(7) ‹anchor: sumus et Pater› · call in col 966

Sumur et Pater. Sic editi. Welchmanus putat legendum, Sumus ego et Pater. Atque ita in textu rescripsit Jacksonus, vindice auctoris sensu, ut ipse ait.

We are, and the Father [Sumur as printed]. So the printed editions. Welchman thinks Sumus ego et Pater ("I and the Father are") should be read. And so Jackson rewrote it in the text, with the author's sense to back him, as he says.

(printed under page 534)

(8) ‹anchor: societatem pertinet› · call in col 966

Pertinet. Ita Pamelius ex Latinio, pro pertinere vett. editt. Quam emindationem secuti quoque sunt editores Anglicani.

Belongs. So Pamelius, from Latini, for the old editions' pertinere. This emendation [emindationem as printed] the English editors also followed.

(printed under page 534)

(7) [printed so; in sequence (9)] ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 967 (not visible)

Illud est. Hic Pamelium sequimur, aliosque qui eum praecesserunt editores. Quam tamen lectionem aegre ferens Welchmanus, edidit ille est. Nihil enim heic loci est, inquit, ad quod illud referri potest. Alia vero bene multa conjectat Jacksonus, quae nobis minus probantur.

That is. Here we follow Pamelius and the other editors who preceded him. Welchman, however, disliking this reading, printed ille est ("he is"). For there is nothing in this place, he says, to which illud can refer. Jackson conjectures a good many other things, which we approve less.

(printed under page 535)

(10) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 967 (not visible)

Quantum vero ad concordiam pertinet. Ad supplendum locum uno membro mutilum addidi verba uncis inclusa, tamquam maxime accommodata ad argumentum et sermonem praecedentem auctoris: et nullus dubito quin haec aut similia verba, propter ὁμοιοτέλευτον pertinet, praetermiserit librarius. Latinius pluribus vocibus supplevit sic: Quantum vero ad concordiam in una fide et sententia pertinet. JAKSON.

But as far as concerns concord. To fill out the passage, maimed by one clause, I have added the words enclosed in brackets, as best suited to the argument and to the author's preceding discourse; and I have no doubt that the copyist passed over these or similar words because of the like ending pertinet. Latini filled it out with more words, thus: But as far as concerns concord in one faith and judgement. JACKSON [JAKSON as printed].

(printed under page 535)

(11) ‹anchor: ipsum sunt› · call in col 967

Ipsum sunt. Ita ex ms. Anglic. Castigavit Pamelius lectionem ipsi sunt, quam exhibent praecedentes editiones.

They are the same thing. So from the English manuscript. Pamelius corrected the reading ipsi sunt ("they are the same persons"), which the earlier editions show.

(printed under page 535)

(12) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 967/968 (not visible)

Consequenter est, sed Filius. Sententiam plane mutilam ad hunc modum restituo: Consequenter non Pater est, sed Filius. Illud ter proxime reccurrens festinantem forte librarium fefellit. WELCHM. — Eadem restitutio arridet quoque Jacksono.

Consequently he is, but the Son. I restore the plainly maimed sentence in this way: Consequently he is not the Father, but the Son. The -ter recurring immediately [reccurrens as printed] perhaps deceived a hurrying copyist. WELCHMAN. — The same restoration pleases Jackson too.

(printed under page 535)

(13) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 967/968 (not visible)

Hoc ipso, quo — probat. Ista ex cod. ms. Anglic. supplevit Pamelius, cujus editionem hic expressit Jacksonus. Ea vero cum vett. editt. praeterit Welchmanus.

By this very thing, by which — he proves. Pamelius supplied these words from the English manuscript, and Jackson followed his edition here. Welchman, with the old editions, passes them over.

(printed under page 535)

(14) ‹anchor: haereticus› · call in col 968

Dum haereticus, etc. Mallet Welchmanus locum ita legere ac distinguere; Dum haereticus gaudet, quasi oculo quodam propriae, etc. Sic vero Jacksonus: Dum haereticus quasi oculo quodam gaudet, proprio (oculo subintellecto) veritatis et luminis amisso.

While the heretic, etc. Welchman would prefer to read and punctuate the passage thus: While the heretic rejoices, as with a certain eye of his own, etc. But Jackson thus: While the heretic rejoices as it were in a certain eye, his own (eye being understood) of truth and light having been lost.

(printed under page 535)

(15) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 969 (not visible)

Nobis. Ita editores Anglicani, loco vobis praecedentium edit.

To us. So the English editors, in place of the earlier editions' vobis ("to you").

(printed under page 536)

(16) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 969 (not visible)

Prophetissam. Sic veteres edit, ut habet Vulg.; quam lectionem secutus est Welchmamus. Pamelius Proph[…]m. Jachsonus Propheten, apud quem Junius vult legi Prophetin.

The prophetess. So the old editions, as the Vulgate has; Welchman [Welchmamus as printed] followed this reading. Pamelius Proph[…]m [letters lost in the print]. Jackson [Jachsonus as printed] Propheten, in whose edition Junius wants Prophetin read.

(printed under page 536)

(17) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 969 (not visible)

Vocabitur. Haec est editionum Novatiani lectio. Sed inquit Jacksonus, cum ratio argumenti auctoris postulet legi vocatur, quin ita ipse scripserit non dubium. Idque jam antea conjecerat Welchmanus.

Will be called. This is the reading of the editions of Novatian. But, says Jackson, since the logic of the author's argument demands that vocatur ("is called") be read, there is no doubt that he wrote so himself. And Welchman had already conjectured this before.

(printed under page 536)

(18) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 970 (not visible)

Subdidit. Hic et paulo post subdit legendum contendit Jacksonus, ut oratio prioribus et posterioribus cohaereat, adjicit, dicit, subnectit, etc.

He added. Here and a little after Jackson contends that subdit ("he adds") should be read, so that the sentence may hang together with what comes before and after: adds, says, subjoins, etc.

(printed under page 536)

(19) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 970 (not visible)

Praemittit, Sic editi: minus recte, ut videtur. Welchmanus rescripsit promit: atque ita fortasse scripsit Novotianus. Neque enim placet quod conjecit Jacksonus promit et, propter sequens adhuc.

Sends before. So the printed editions: less correctly, as it seems. Welchman rewrote promit ("brings forth"); and perhaps Novatian [Novotianus as printed] wrote so. For Jackson's conjecture, promit et, on account of the following adhuc, does not please.

(printed under page 536)

(20) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 970 (not visible)

Me Deest apud Pamelium pronomen istud, quod exhibent alii.

Me. This pronoun is wanting in Pamelius; others show it.

(printed under page 536)

(21) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 971 (not visible)

Duobus, istis locis... effossis luminibus. Videlicet Joan. X, 30, et XIV, 9, de quibus, inquit aucor, quasi de duobus oculis gavisus est haereticus: at quorum unus ei hoc capite effossus est, alter proxime antecedente. WELCHM. — Quae quidem sententia cum serio attendenti satis aperta noscatur, haud proinde recipiendum videtur quod placuit Jacksono, statuenti nimirum veram esse lectionem effusis luminibus, quam exibet ms. Woweri.

These two passages ... the eyes being dug out. Namely John 10:30 and 14:9, in which, says the author [aucor as printed], the heretic rejoiced as in two eyes: but of these one was dug out for him in this chapter, the other in the one just before. WELCHMAN. — Since this meaning is recognized as plain enough to anyone who attends seriously, what pleased Jackson does not seem acceptable, namely his ruling that the true reading is effusis luminibus ("the eyes being poured out"), which Wower's manuscript shows [exibet as printed].

(printed under page 537)

(22) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 971/972 (not visible)

Diversus. Dividitur, Gagnaeus et Frobenius, quos secutus est Welchmananus. Fluxit diversus ex ms. Anglic. et non mutandum. JACKSON.

Diverse. Dividitur ("is divided"), Gagny and Froben, whom Welchman [Welchmananus as printed] followed. Diversus comes from the English manuscript and is not to be changed. JACKSON.

(printed under page 537)

(23) ‹anchor: Joan. XX, 22,› · call in col 971

Post. Hanc vocem requirit loci ratio, et restituit Latinius pro editt. per ID.

After. The sense of the passage requires this word, and Latini restored it for the editions' per ("through"). THE SAME [Jackson].

(printed under page 537)

(24) ‹anchor: distributus et missus› · call in col 972

Cumulate distributus et misus. Ita Pamelius ex ms. Cod. Anglic., quae genuina lectio videtur. Cumulate admissus, Gaegnaeus et Gelenius, quos secutus est Welchmanus.

Distributed and sent in full measure [misus as printed]. So Pamelius, from the English manuscript codex; this seems the genuine reading. Cumulate admissus ("admitted in full measure"), Gagny [Gaegnaeus as printed] and Gelenius, whom Welchman followed.

(printed under page 537)

(25) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 973 (not visible)

Requiescet... implebit. Editi requiescit... implevit. Ubi mendum suspicatur Pamelius. Atque ita textum restituerunt editores Anglicani.

Will rest ... will fill. The printed editions have requiescit ... implevit ("rests ... filled"). Pamelius suspects a fault there. And the English editors restored the text accordingly.

(printed under page 538)

(26) ‹anchor: comessationes fugat› · call in col 973 [the call is printed (24) in the text]

Fugat. Sic recte emendavit edit., fugit Welchmanus. JAKSON.

Puts to flight. So Welchman rightly emended the editions' fugit ("flees"). JACKSON [JAKSON as printed].

(printed under page 538)

(27) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 973/974 (not visible)

Idem. Ita Pamelius. Al. item.

The same. So Pamelius. Others, item ("likewise").

(printed under page 538)

(28) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 973/974 (not visible)

Spiritus Proph. Consentit auctor cum vulgato Latino interprete, quantumvis hodie Graece legatur πνεύματα. PAMEL.

The Spirit of the prophets. The author agrees with the common Latin translator, although today the Greek reads πνεύματα ("spirits"). PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 538)

(29) ‹anchor: castitatis› · call in col 974

Castitatis. Ita recte correxit charitatis edit. Welchmanus. JACKSON.

Of chastity. So Welchman rightly corrected the editions' charitatis ("of charity"). JACKSON.

(printed under page 538)

(30) ‹anchor: Et haec quidem› · call in col 974

Et haec quidem, etc. Queritur hic Pamelius Spiritum sanctum a Novatiano Deum non appellari, nec ullam ejus mentionem fieri, cum Patrem et Filium unum esse Deum hocce in capite auctor demonstrat. Sanctum quidem Spiritum nominatim non appellat Deum Novatianus: sed de illius divina aeternitate in cap. praecedente non silet, et Deum esse multis argumentis probat. Quid enim ei propositum est, cum divina illius attributa defendit: nisi ut probet, quod se probaturum promiserat, nempe oportere credere etiam in Spiritum sanctum, ac proinde eum unum esse cum Patre et Filio Deum? Unde etiam postquam ea absolvit quae de Spiritu sancto dicere statuerat, sic initio hujus capitis tres personas conjungit; Et haec quidem de Patre, et de Filio, et de Spiritu sancto breviter nobis sint dicta. Quod si tacere de Spiritu videtur Novatianus, dum Patrem et Filium non duos esse Deos, sed unum ostendit; non aliunde quaerenda hujus rei causa, nisi quod in evertenda Filii divinitate omnis haereticorum conatus versabatur. Nam si semel probassent Filium non esse unum cum Patre Deum, eadem opera Spiritum sanctum a Divinae naturae consortio dissociassent. Sic etiam semel demonstrato, Patrem et Filium per substantiae communionem, ut ait Novatianus, unum esse Deum; non jam superaret dubitandi locus, quin Spiritus sancti divinitas nequaquam tres Deos efficeret. MARAN. Divin. D. N. J. C., lib, cap. 19, § 3, pag. 521.

And these things indeed, etc. Pamelius complains here that the Holy Spirit is not called God by Novatian, nor is any mention made of him, when in this chapter the author shows that the Father and the Son are one God. Novatian does not, indeed, call the Holy Spirit God by name: but in the preceding chapter he is not silent about his divine eternity, and proves by many arguments that he is God. For what is his purpose, when he defends his divine attributes, except to prove what he had promised to prove, namely that one must believe also in the Holy Spirit, and therefore that he is one God with the Father and the Son? Hence too, once he has finished what he had resolved to say about the Holy Spirit, at the beginning of this chapter he joins the three persons thus: And let these things about the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have been said by us briefly. And if Novatian seems silent about the Spirit while he shows that the Father and the Son are not two Gods but one, the cause of this is to be sought nowhere else than in this: that the whole effort of the heretics was spent on overthrowing the divinity of the Son. For had they once proved that the Son is not one God with the Father, by the same stroke they would have separated the Holy Spirit from fellowship in the divine nature. So too, once it was shown that the Father and the Son are one God through communion of substance, as Novatian says, no room for doubt would remain that the divinity of the Holy Spirit by no means made three Gods. MARAN, De divinitate Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, bk. [number not printed], ch. 19, § 3, p. 521.

(printed under page 538)

(31) ‹anchor: propensiore› · call in col 974

Propensiore. Pro certo habet Jacksonus auctorem scripsisse propansiore. Sed fallitur vir eru- (continues)

More inclined. Jackson holds it for certain that the author wrote propansiore ("more extended"). But the learned man is mistaken (continues)

(printed under page 538)

(32) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 975 (not visible)

Promitur. Ita recte Welchmanus, quem sequitur et Jacksonus, pro editt. promittitur.

Is brought forth. So, rightly, Welchman, whom Jackson also follows, for the editions' promittitur ("is promised").

(printed under page 539)

(33) ‹anchor: Deus› · call in col 975

Si unus Deus. Sic se habet editio Pamelii, quam exscribit Jacksonus. Veteres editi: Si unus Christus Christus autem, etc., atque istam lectionem retinuit Welchmanus.

If God is one. So stands Pamelius's edition, which Jackson copies. The old printed editions: Si unus Christus Christus autem, etc., and Welchman kept that reading.

(printed under page 539)

(34) ‹anchor: alter est Filius› · call in col 975

Est Filius. Pro est legendum omnino puto et, ut bene procedat argumentum. Paulo post pro ac si mallem at si: sed nihil muto. JACKSON.

Is the Son. For est I think et ("and") should by all means be read, so that the argument may proceed well. A little after, for ac si I would prefer at si; but I change nothing. JACKSON.

(printed under page 539)

(35) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 975/976 (not visible)

Et novissimus. Excidisse videtur ego, legendumque cum Jacksono, et ego novissimus: ut habent Heb. LXX et Vulg.

And the last. Ego ("I") seems to have dropped out, and with Jackson one should read et ego novissimus ("and I the last"), as the Hebrew, the Septuagint and the Vulgate have.

(printed under page 539)

(36) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 975/976 (not visible)

Sic Scripturarum. Ita Pamelius aliique. Unus Welchmanus hunc locum sic legit ac distinguit: Si Scripturarum caelestium nullam partem praeterire debemus? Minus recte, ut videtur.

Thus of the Scriptures. So Pamelius and others. Welchman alone reads and punctuates this passage thus: If we must pass over no part of the heavenly Scriptures? Less correctly, as it seems.

(printed under page 539)

(37) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 975/976 (not visible)

Siquidem. Legit Latinius scilicet. Sed frustra. Nam vox siquidem idem est interdum, quod quandoquidem: quo sensu optime congruit huic loco. Cicero I Tusc. 1: Antiquissimum e doctis genus est poetarum: siquidem Homerus fuit et Hesiodus, ante Romam conditam. Idem, lib. IX, Epist. 12: Gratulor Baiis nostris: siquidem, ut scribis, salubres repente factae sunt.

Since indeed. Latini reads scilicet ("namely"). But in vain. For the word siquidem sometimes means the same as quandoquidem ("since"), in which sense it suits this passage very well. Cicero, Tusculans I, 1: The most ancient kind of the learned is the poets, since Homer and Hesiod lived before Rome was founded. The same, bk. IX, Letter 12: I congratulate our Baiae, since, as you write, it has suddenly become healthy.

(printed under page 539)

(38) ‹anchor: apud Deum› · call in col 976

Apud Deum. Ita rescripsimus cum Jacksono. Editi pro apud Deum habent Deus; atque hanc lectionem expressit Welchmanus.

With God. So we have rewritten, with Jackson. The printed editions have Deus for apud Deum; and Welchman followed this reading.

(printed under page 539)

(39) ‹anchor: legitima disputatione› · call in col 976

Disputatione. Legendum putat Jacksonus dispositione. Sic enim loquitur ipsemet Novatianus superiore cap. 15, sub finem, ubi legimus in eamdem sententiam dispositione legitima. Paulo post idem editor Anglicanus rescripsit credetur pro credemur praecedentium editionum.

Disputation. Jackson thinks dispositione ("arrangement") should be read. For so Novatian himself speaks in ch. 15 above, near the end, where we read to the same effect dispositione legitima. A little after, the same English editor rewrote credetur for the earlier editions' credemur.

(printed under page 539)

(40) ‹anchor: qua› · call in col 976

Qua. Vet. codd. legunt quia, quos sequitur (continues)

By which. The old copies read quia ("because"), whom [...] follows (continues)

(printed under page 539)

(41) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 977 (not visible)

Dominum. Existimat Welchmanus legendum. Dominum esse illum, aut omnino non esse; quod quidem probatur etiam Jacksono.

Lord. Welchman judges that one should read: that he is Lord, or is not at all; and this Jackson too approves.

(printed under page 540)

(42) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 977 (not visible)

Dominus? Et Magister unus Christus est dictus. Ita legunt ac distinguunt editores Anglicani. Al. Dominus et Magister unus Christus dictus.

Lord? And Christ is called the one Master. So the English editors read and punctuate. Others: Christ called the one Lord and Master.

(printed under page 540)

(43) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 977 (not visible)

Iisdem. Sic recte Welchmanus cum Jacksono. Al. Idem.

By the same. So, rightly, Welchman with Jackson. Others, idem.

(printed under page 540)

(44) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 977 (not visible)

At si. Ita veteres editi, quibus accedunt Welchmanus et Jacksonus.

But if. So the old printed editions, with whom Welchman and Jackson side.

(printed under page 540)

(45) ‹anchor: aut illi› · call in col 977

Aut illi. Haec est lectio Gelenii et Pamelii ex ms. Britann. quam sequitur Jacksonus. At Welchmanus ex Gagnaeo, neque illi. Paulo post Jacksonus legere mallet est nuncupatum, ut in reliquis habet Novatianus.

Or to him. This is the reading of Gelenius and Pamelius from the British manuscript, which Jackson follows. But Welchman, from Gagny, neque illi ("nor to him"). A little after Jackson would prefer to read est nuncupatum, as Novatian has in the other places.

(printed under page 540)

(46) ‹anchor: unus est Deus› · call in col 977 [the call is printed "(4 )" in the text]

Ab illo quod unus est Deus. Sic omnes editi, praeter unum Welchmanianum, ubi legitur, ei quod unus est Deus per hoc quod Deus.

From that which is one God. So all the printed editions, except Welchman's alone, where one reads: to him who is one God, by the fact that [Christ is] God.

(printed under page 540)

(47) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 977/978 (not visible)

Ex quo quando ipse voluit. Hunc locum plenius edisserit S. Hippolytus contra Noetum, c. 11, unde forte ista mutuatus est Novatianus. Videsis tom. II nostrae Biblioth. PP. pag. 460, A, et quae ibi fuere annotata.

From whom, when he himself willed. St. Hippolytus sets out this passage more fully, Against Noetus, ch. 11, from whom perhaps Novatian borrowed it. See vol. II of our Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 460 A, and the notes made there.

(printed under page 540)

(48) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 977/978 (not visible)

Quin. Ita legunt vett. editt. eamque lectionem expressit uterque editor Anglicanus. Pamelius ex ms. cod. Britann. rescripsit quia.

Indeed. So the old editions read, and both English editors followed that reading. Pamelius, from the British manuscript codex, rewrote quia ("because").

(printed under page 540)

(49) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 977/978 (not visible)

Pater..... antecedat necesse est. Quae uncis inclusimus, testatur Pamelius abfuisse a cod. ms. Anglic. illaque primum addidisse Gagnaeum explicationis causa, ne Arianis videretur favere auctor. Eadem etiam habentur in editione Frobenii, fortasse ex Gagnaeo. Quapropter ea quoque retinuit Welchmanus. Neque aliter Maranus Divin. D. N. J. C. lib. IV, cap. 19, § 2, pag. 518. At Bullus Defens. fid. Nic. sec. III, § 7, pag. 222, et Jacksonus illa omnia omisere.

The Father ..... must go before. What we have enclosed in brackets, Pamelius testifies was absent from the English manuscript codex, and that Gagny first added it for the sake of explanation, lest the author seem to favour the Arians. The same is found also in Froben's edition, perhaps from Gagny. For that reason Welchman too kept it. Nor otherwise Maran, De divinitate D. N. J. C., bk. IV, ch. 19, § 2, p. 518. But Bull, Defensio fidei Nicaenae, sect. III, § 7, p. 222, and Jackson left all of it out.

(printed under page 540)

(59) [printed so; in sequence (50)] ‹anchor: quia nascitur› · call in col 978

Simul..... qui originem solus non habet, nascitur. Non potuimus non supplere ex ms. Anglic. hanc periodum antea desideratam: quae tamen caute legenda. PAMEL. — Eamdem periodum omisit Welchmanus, restituit Jacksonus Pamelium secutus.

Together ..... is born of him who alone has no origin. We could not but supply from the English manuscript this sentence, previously missing: it is, however, to be read with caution. PAMELIUS. — Welchman left out the same sentence; Jackson restored it, following Pamelius.

(printed under page 540)

(51) ‹anchor: vicinus› · call in col 978

Vicinus. Sic Pamelius ex corrupta voce vicinis, quam exhibet ms. Anglic. Minus placet conjectura viri docti apud Jacksonum, legentis divinus.

Near. So Pamelius, from the corrupt word vicinis, which the English manuscript shows. The conjecture of a learned man cited by Jackson, who reads divinus ("divine"), pleases less.

(printed under page 540)

(52) ‹anchor: sed post Patrem› · call in col 978

Sed post Patrem. Haec et quae mox post vocem efficiens sequuntur, post Patrem qua Filius, in ms. Anglic. exstare testatur Pamelius. « Verum, inquit, maluimus in contextu relinquere, ut nemo hinc errandi ansam sumat. Quanquam interim (continues)

But after the Father. Pamelius testifies that these words, and those that follow shortly after the word efficiens, after the Father, inasmuch as Son, stand in the English manuscript. "But," he says, "we preferred to leave them in the text, so that no one may take occasion of error from it. Although meanwhile (continues)

(printed under page 540)

(53) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 979 (not visible)

Esset. Hic, et paulo post ubi legimus genitus non esset, conjiciebat Welchmanus legendum est. Atque ita edidit Jacksonus.

Were. Here, and a little after where we read genitus non esset, Welchman conjectured that est should be read. And so Jackson printed.

(printed under page 541)

(54) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 979 (not visible)

Si invisibilis... quia nec innatus est. Has duas periodos et dimidiam quae in praecedentibus editis desiderabantur, ex laudato codice Anglicano supplevimus, omittentes illud excusorum, Christus autem non innatus est, atque illa ex iisdem excusis addentes, sed ex Patre est, quia genitus est. PAMEL. — Nimirum editiones quae Pamelianam praecesserunt, post voces et ideo duos approbasset etiam Deos, sic se habebant: Christus autem non innatus est; sed ex Patre est quia, genitus est. Caeterum vetera exemplaria expressit Welchmanus: Pamelianum vero Jacksonus.

If invisible ... because he is not unborn either. These two and a half sentences, missing in the earlier printed editions, we have supplied from the English codex already cited, leaving out that phrase of the printed copies, But Christ is not unborn, and adding from the same printed copies, but he is from the Father, because he was begotten. PAMELIUS. — That is, the editions that preceded Pamelius's ran thus, after the words and therefore would have proved there were also two Gods: But Christ is not unborn; but he is from the Father because he was begotten. Welchman, however, followed the old copies; Jackson, Pamelius's.

(printed under page 541)

(55) ‹anchor: unus› · call in col 979

Unus. Legendum unum putat Welchmanus.

One [masc.]. Welchman thinks unum [neut.] should be read.

(printed under page 541)

(56) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 979/980 (not visible)

Idcirco. Cum Gagnaeo supplemus: Idcirco unum Deum asseruit (nempe Scriptura) et ex ms. cod. Anglic. initium potius et principium. PAMEL.

Therefore. With Gagny we supply: Therefore it asserted one God (namely Scripture), and from the English manuscript codex, rather the beginning and source. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 541)

(57) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 979/980 (not visible)

Filius. Legimus iterum cum Gagnaeo; Filius autem nihil ex arbitrio suo gerit, pro eo quod substituerat Gelenius: Idem est denique quod nihil. PAMEL.

The Son. Again we read with Gagny: But the Son does nothing of his own choice, in place of what Gelenius had substituted: It is the same, finally, as nothing. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 541)

(58) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 979/980 (not visible)

Deos. Hanc vocem ab editis omissam, restituit primus Welchmanus, eumque secutus Jacksonus.

Gods. This word, left out by the printed editions, Welchman first restored, and Jackson followed him.

(printed under page 541)

(59) ‹anchor: not in crop› · call in col 979/980 (not visible)

Nam... dum qui ex illo nascitur. Haec iterum supplemus ex ms. cod. Anglic. parenthesi interjecta. PAMEL.

For ... while he who is born of him. These words again we supply from the English manuscript codex, set in as a parenthesis. PAMELIUS.

(printed under page 541)

(60) ‹anchor: natus› · call in col 980

Natus. Deest haec vox apud Pamelium, ex typothetae fortasse incuria: eam enim exhibent al.

Born. This word is wanting in Pamelius, perhaps through the typesetter's carelessness; for others show it.

(printed under page 541)

(61) ‹anchor: Cujus› · call in col 980

Cujus.... inaequalitate divinitatis. Haec restituit ex ms. Anglicano Pamelius; Gagnaeus et Frobenius edidere, ut non dissonantia divinitatis: atque hanc lectionem retinuit Welchmanus.

Whose .... by inequality of divinity. Pamelius restored these words from the English manuscript; Gagny and Froben printed ut non dissonantia divinitatis ("so that not by discord of divinity"), and Welchman kept that reading.

(printed under page 541)

(62) ‹anchor: inaequalitate› · call in col 980

Ut non aut dissonantia, aut inaequalitate, Fatebor ingenue in his verbis legendum mihi videri aequalitate. Utrumque enim pari studio removet auctor a sanctissima Trinitate, et in natura et substantia discrepantiam, et in originis ordine aequalitatem. Quare substantiae communionem inter Patrem et Filium admittit, eamque in hoc positam putat, quod tota divinitatis auctoritas Filio tradita, eadem in Patre esse non desinat. Sed illud semper arctissime tenet Filium ut a Patre genitum non esse origine aequalem Patri. Quare illud Pauli Philipp. II, 6: Non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo, sic interpretatur: « Quamvis se ex Deo Patre Deum esse meminisset, nunquam se Deo Patri aut comparavit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo Patre, et hoc ipsum quod est, habere se, quia Pater dedisset. » MARAN. Divin. D. N. J. C. lib. IV, cap 19, § 2, pag. 519.

So that not either by discord or by inequality. I will frankly confess that in these words it seems to me aequalitate ("by equality") should be read. For the author removes both from the most holy Trinity with equal zeal: discrepancy in nature and substance, and equality in the order of origin. So he admits a communion of substance between Father and Son, and holds that it consists in this, that the whole authority of the divinity handed to the Son does not cease to be the same in the Father. But he always holds most firmly that the Son, as begotten by the Father, is not equal to the Father in origin. So he interprets Paul's words, Phil 2:6, He did not count it robbery to be equal to God, thus: "Although he remembered that he was God from God the Father, he never compared or set himself beside God the Father, mindful that he was from his Father, and that he had this very thing that he is because the Father had given it." MARAN, De divinitate D. N. J. C., bk. IV, ch. 19, § 2, p. 519.

(printed under page 541)

Heading: Gallandii commentarius. (the commentary above the full-width band, under the end of De Trinitate)

Galland's commentary.

(printed on page 542, above the band)

(63) ‹anchor: remittit; unus› · call in col 981 (printed "(65)" or a worn "(63)" at the head of the note)

Patri remittit; unus. Sic Pamelius. Veteres editi quos secutus est Welchmanus, illi remittit: unde unus.

Patri remittit; unus ("sends back to the Father; one"). So Pamelius. The old editions, which Welchman followed: illi remittit: unde unus ("sends back to Him: whence one").

(printed on page 542, in the commentary above the band)

(64) ‹anchor: Filii sui› · call in col 982 (in the paragraph set under col 981; the call is printed "(66)")

Et principium ipsius quoque Filii sui. Haec ex ms. Anglic. supplevit Pamelius. Mox Deum genuit legendum existimat Welchmanus, consentiente Jacksono. Paule post Dominus sit legit Latinius.

And the beginning also of His own Son. Pamelius supplied these words from the English manuscript. Just after, Welchman thinks Deum genuit ("He begot as God") should be read, with Jackson agreeing. A little after [Paule as printed], Latini reads Dominus sit ("may be Lord").

(printed on page 542, in the commentary above the band) (65) begins in the left half of this commentary (Manente in illo. …); the whole note is filed in n982. The two notes below belong to the next unit (De cibis Judaicis, below the band); they are kept here as filed, and are not this unit's.

(1) ‹anchor: faciat liberiorem› · call in col 981

Liberiorem. Sic Pamelius. Mallet Latinius hilariorem.

Freer. So Pamelius. Latini would prefer hilariorem ("more cheerful").

(printed under page 542)

(2) ‹anchor: dum, quo› · call in col 981

Quo. Haec est lectio Gelenii et Pamelii. Welchmanus quod, minus recte, Mox Jacksonus edidit affectus. Sensus enim, inquit, videtur esse, similes affectus vobis remittens. Sed lectio vulgata planior. Vocem enim similes respicere putarim literas, quarum paulo ante mentio.

On which. This is the reading of Gelenius and Pamelius. Welchman, quod, less correctly. Shortly after, Jackson printed affectus. For the sense, he says, seems to be returning to you like affections. But the common reading is plainer. For I should think the word similes ("like") refers to literas ("letters"), mentioned a little before.

(printed under page 542)

(65) ‹anchor: manente in illo› · call in col 982 (in the paragraph set under col 981)

Manente in illo. Locus valde obscurus visus est Pamelio, et quantum apparet, mutilus aut corruptus. Gagnaeus legebat manentem in se quod audivit ab illo, Welchmanus, unius litterulae adjectione legendo manentem, pro manente, recte procedere sententiam, auctoremque alludere ad Heb. V, 7, in verbis auditus est, existimavit. Aqud Jacksonum vero vir doctus rescribendum conjecit, manens et in illo, cui etiam subditus est: quae tamen lectio ab exemplaris scriptura nimium recedere videtur.

Manente in illo ("there remaining in Him"). The place seemed very obscure to Pamelius and, as far as appears, mutilated or corrupt. Gagny read manentem in se quod audivit ab illo ("remaining in himself what he heard from him"); Welchman, reading manentem for manente by adding one small letter, judged that the sentence runs correctly and that the author alludes to Heb 5:7 in the words auditus est ("he was heard"). In Jackson [Aqud as printed], however, a learned man conjectured that it should be rewritten manens et in illo, cui etiam subditus est ("remaining also in Him to whom He is also subject"); yet this reading seems to depart too far from the text of the copy.

(printed on page 542, in the commentary above the band; begins in its left half, "cor-|ruptus" set whole) The note below belongs to the next unit (De cibis Judaicis, below the band); kept here as filed, not this unit's.

(3) ‹anchor: ad brabium› · call in col 982

Brabium. Editio Pamelii 1635, bravium, At Frobeniana et reliquae Pamelianae bravium. Sic etiam uterque editor Anglic. Statim vero sursum pro cursu edidit Jacksonus, Graeca respiciens Philipp. III, 14, τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως ubi Vulg supernae vocationis. Paulo post idem Jacksonus legendum suspicatur et condigne.

Prize. Pamelius's edition of 1635, bravium; and Froben's and the other editions of Pamelius, bravium. So too both English editors. Immediately after, Jackson printed sursum ("upward") for cursu ("in the course"), with an eye to the Greek of Phil 3:14, τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως ("of the upward calling"), where the Vulgate has supernae vocationis. A little after, the same Jackson suspects that et condigne ("and worthily") should be read.

(printed under page 542)