BY THE SAMB AUTHOR: a.

SEPTIMII FLORENTIS TERTULLIANI

Tertulliat's Treatise against Praxeas DE CARNE CFJIRISTI LIBER
Tertullian's Tract on The Prayer
St Augustine's Enchiridion

TERTULLIAN'S
TREATISE ON THE
INCARNATION
The text edited wíth an
Introduction, Translation and
Commentary

by

ERNEST EVANS
D.D. Oxford, Hon. D.D. Glasgow
Vkar oJ Hellijeld, and
Canon of tuadford

LONDON
S.P.C.K
r956
 CONTENTS

Fìr* published in ry56

úy S.p.C.K. INTRODUCTION
Holy Trinity Church, Marylebone Road, London,
N.W. t De Carne Chrkti and its antecedents page vi
The Argument x
The úrcarnation and the Resurrection xviü
ALL RIGHTS RBSBRVED
Marcion and Apelles xxiv, xxxi
Manuscripts )arxü
Note on nah,tra, conditio, condicío x)o(v

LATIN TEXT AND ENGLISH VERSION 4

NOTES .A,ND COMMENTARY 8z

INDEX OF SCRIPTURÂL REFERENCES r85

INDEX LOCORUM r88

INDEX VERBORUM LÀTINORUM r93

P¡inteil in Great Brítain at the (Jnìversíty press,

Camhidge
(Brooke Crutchley, (Jniuercíty prínte)
 INTRODUCTION

DE CARNE CHRISTI AND ITS ANTECEDENTS

Tertullian's treatise De Carne Chrßti was intended, as its author
several times remarks, to serve as yuaestructio or scaffolding for the
further work De Resurrectione Carnis. It appears to have been
written well within the first decade of the third century, and cer-
tainly befor" 1's¡¿rrllian became seriously in-fluenced by Mon-
tanism. The date zoó will not be far out, though it may be some-
what too early, since we have to allow dme since abort r97 for the
Apologeticus, the two books Aduersus Nationes and the brilliant
essay in'natural religion' entitled De Testimonio Anímae naturaliter
Christianae, as well as for at least four dogmatic treatises, one of
which, Adversus Marcionem, is of great length and underwent t\áo
revisions.
Bearing on the subject of the present treatise, we have in Ter-
tullian's earliest work (Apol. zr) astatement of the doctrine of the
Incarnation which subsequently required no alteration in point of
fact, but only the rejection of a somewhat misleading term.
But I shall fìrst explain whathe is (substantiam) so as to make intelli-
gible the tnaflfler of his birth (natiuitatis qualitas).' I have already stated
that it was by word and reason and power that God made this world
and all that is in it. Among your philosophers also there is agreemenr to
regard logos, i.e. speech and reason, as the artiûcer of the universe. . . . '

tã that Jp.."h
"rid
.."ro.r, and rnoreover porver, by which *.
h"-r" ''
stated that God made all things, we also ascribe as proper substance
spirit, which has in it speech as it pronounces and with it reason as ir
ordains and as its assistant power as it brings to pass. This spirit, we
h¿ve been taught, was brought forth from God, and by that bringing
forth was begotten, and therefore is named Son of God, and God, as a
consequence of unity of substance. For God also is spirit. When a ray
stretches forth from the sun, there is a portion from the whole: but the
t Brt qualitas also implies ranl< or digoiry, and something of th¿t kind is to be
understood here.
 V111 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION ix
I
I
the ray is the sun's :iuy, arLd because the
se subject-matter. The earliest of them v/as De Praescríptione Haere-
t,
I
extended. There is spirit from spirit, and ticorurn intended to prejudge the case against all heretics what-
way as there is light kindled from light. soever (but with the gnostics particularly in view) on the plea that
matrix) remains intact and undiminished
the novelty of their doctrines and the recent emergence of their
however many offshoots you borrow ofits quality. So also that which
sects prove their falsity: for the truth must lie with the churches
has come forth from God is God and Son of God, and borh are one
which are in agreement with the apostolic sees of Christendom to
which we have to assume that their founders committed the true
faith: and further, the Scriptures themselves are the possession of
these churches, and these alone (and not the heretics) have the
right to appeal to them.
The fìve books Against Marcion were published separately as
they were. completed. The earlier books at least got into circula-
tion in falsifìed or mutilated form, and had to be revised once and
And again (ibid.):
again by their author . In De Carne Christi 7 therc is an explicit
reference to the fourth book against Marcion, and throughout this
book there are many reminiscences of the argument and the
phraseology of the larger work. Hermogenes was a painter,
resident apparently at Carthage, who attempted to explain the
evil that is in the world by the theory that God made it out of some
same Logos who with a word both was making and had made all
pre-existent matter which was intractable under his handling: the
things.
book Aduersus Hermogenefil coîtrover$ this excursion into Mar-
This statement, committed to v/riring by Tertullian within a cionism by one who was not himself a Marcionite.
The treatise Agains t the V alentinians is a ft anslation of parts of the
first book of Irenaeus Against the Heresies. Irenaeus had thought
that part of the attraction of gnosticism was that it claimed to
communicate to its adherents precious and secret knowledge: for
it was their practice (for which they were severely criticized by
the church writers) to baptize first and instruct afterwards. It was
therefore reasonable to expect that iftheir secret doctrines could
be discovered and published abroad, agteat deal oftheir attraction
would disappear. Irenaeus therefore begins his work by describing
at length the tenets of the various gnostic sects, beginning with
those of the Valentinians, who were the most in-fluential of them.
-With
the same end in view Tertullian turned into Latin the per-
tinent sections of his predecessor's work, adding little or nothing
of his own: even the quips and sercasms are copied along with
relative dates can be ascertained they follow a natural order of the rest. Somewhat later than this the book called Scorptiace
X INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Xl
(i.e. remedy against scorpion-bites) is Tertullian's own argumenr verecity of the opponents, si eos aut ín odium aut in ìnuidíam aut in
against the gnostic pretension that believers arejustified in denying cont e ffip tionern s.'
addu cemu
Christ so as to escepe persecution. It appears that readers of D¿ (ú) The narratio was e statement of the question at issue, develop-
Carne Christl are supposed to have rced Ah,ersus Valentinianos and ing if necessary into part¡t¡l, the division of the subject under its
to have a general knowledge of what the gnostic doctrines were.' several asPects.
(c) The fdes quae sequitur narrationem comprised the proof of
one's own case (confirm.atio) and the refutation of the adversary's
THE ÀRGUMENT (reprehensio).
(/) Room is sometimes found for an arnplifcatio, tnwl:jLch quae
?ro nobis essent amplifcanda et augenda quaeque essent pro aduersariis
infrnanda atque fr angenda.
(e) The peroratío or conclusio.
This is the scheme here followed by Tertullian. The exordium
($r) consists of a brief statement of the case and of its practical
and the more so as the subject of his oration is of greater moment. importance, together with an attack on the intelligence of Marcion
In the present instance, perhaps in conscious imitation of Cicero, and Apelles, who are spoken of throughout as though present in
he presents his case in two speeches, the actio gtrima, concerning the
court. The narratio ($$z-r0) necessarily develops into partitio, for
reality of Ch¡ist's flesh, clearing the ground so that the actio the claims of Marcion, Apelles, the Valentinians, and others have
secunda mey prove the resurrection of the flesh of all mankind.
to be examined separately: and, as they have to be separately
The rules governing the construction of the suasoríawere based refuted, the reprehensio in each instance follows the statement of
on the practice of the great orators and the doctrines of the their case. The amplifcario ($$ Í7-4) considers in detail the
scriptural texts which bear on Christ's human descent and his
nt that the orators at least regarded
not as imperative laws.3 Generally nativity, rescuing them from false interpretations which have been
put upon them, and showing that their only conceivable meaning
eech was supposed to fall into four
is that Christ was possessed of truly human flesh derived from his
or five parts:4
(ø) The purpose of the exordium or principium was ro conciliare
mother, and through her from David, from Abraham, and from
the mind of the audience, an effect which, it was suggested, could Adam. The peroratio ($$za-25) summarizes the scriptural evi-
dence and suggests that the decision of the present question will
frequently be obtained by attacks on the characrer, intelligence, or
serve as a leading case for the further claim that our natural human
' See Addendum on p. xlüi. flesh will undoubtedly rise again, seeing that it is of the same
' SeeBenedettoRiposati, Sødisuí'Topica'díCicerone (Milan, ry47),especialJy quality as the fesh of Christ which has already risen.
the chapter Paftes Oratíonis, pp. 264-284, where reference is made to Cicero and The narratio and partìtio ($$z-r0) form a refutation of three sets
other Greek and Latin w¡iters on rhetoric.
3 Cf. Cicero, De Oratore,n. rg.77-83 where Cicero (or Antonius) describes the
of unsatisfactory ans\Mers to the questions briefly stated in the
rhetoricians' doctrine as perridicula-i,e. as common sense dressed up in un-
exorãium-caro Christi anfuerit et unde et quomodofuerit. As against
necessarily fine language, defining rules on a suþect in which accurate definition Marcion, Tertullian sets out to prove that the flesh of Christ was
is impossible.
t Cicero, De Inuentione L ts. zo. Of this advice 1's¡¡u'lliari, in the present work
4 Cicero, Topica 97; De Inuentíone r. 4. rgi t, and elsewhere, makes only too abundant use.
3r, r.43) n. rg. Zg.
Xll INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION x11l

real human flesh, and that the events of his life were real events, thing that is impossible for God is that he should act deceitfully.
devoid of pretence or phantasy ($Sr-s). As against Apelles, who Moreover, our adversaries have no reason to fear that God, in
\Mas not at all points in agreement with his master, it is shown that truly assuming manhood, should have ceased to be God. God
Christ's flesh was born by a real human birth, of a mother known cennot cease to be what he is: and we for our Part have never
aìã acknowledged to be his morher (SSo-p). Against cerrain un- alleged that God was in such sense made flesh as to cease for the
named Valentinians and Alexander, Tertullian proves that Christ's future to be what he was before. When angels appeared in human
flesh was neither 'soul made visible', nor was it of angelic origin or shape they were still angels: and the Holy Spirit remained Holy
quality, nor composed of 'spirit', in the peculiar gnostic sense of Spirit when he descended in the bodily form of a dove ($3).
that term ($$ro-r0). Since, then, the assumption of human flesh is neither impossible
Under this general scheme, the argument proceeds as follows: for God nor imperils his deity, our adversaries are thrown back
upon their remaining argument. They rehearse with perverse
Exordium ($r) delight what they term the filth and nastiness of childbirth,
Those who deny that our flesh will rise again are forced by their stigmatizing it as unworthy of God. In so doing they show their
distaste for humanity itself. But it was precisely this humanity
own logic to deny that the flesh of Christ, who it is admitted did
rise again, was truly human fesh. Thus it is our task to prove the that Christ loved, redeeming it at great cost, having chosen the
verity of Christ's fesh as against Marcion who denied both flesh foolish things of the world to confound the wise ($a). For that
and nadvity, against Apelles who admitted the flesh but denied matter, what canbe more foolish than the Passion of Christ? And
the nativity, and against Valentinus who professedly admitted this would have been an impossibility if he had not been truly
both but put an unnatural meaning upon them. man. Marcion in fact denies that Christ's Passion was more than
appearance, and that his death was a real death: in so doing he
'W'e,
provides excuses for those who put him to death. however,
Narratio and partitio ($$z-r0) maintain that Christ is both spirit (for God is spirit) and flesh
(a) Against Marcion (SSz-S). The annunciation to Mary, com- (for man is flesh), and that he is both of these not in pretence but
bined with the prophecy of Isaiah, and the Gospel nerrarive con- in truth, since he himself is the Truth ($s).
cerning the angelic host, the shepherds, the wise men and Herod, (å) Against Apelles (SSó-q). Marcion's successors, differing in
the circumcision, and the prophecies of Simeon and Anna-all of this respect from their master, admit the verity of Christ's flesh,
which Marcion has excised from his gospel-are plain evidence of though they deny that it was born. Yet how could it have been
Christ's nativity ($z). Denial of Christ's human birth can only be flesh, except it had been born? They reply that it could have been
based upon the assumption that for God to be born is either derived from the stars, or from the substances of the upper, the
impossible or unseemly. But with God norhing is impossible ideal, world, alleging the example of the angels who, without any
except what is not his will. The question what may or mey nor process of birth, appeared in the fesh to the patriarchs and others.
have been his will cannot be discussed es a metter of abstract But those angels are not in parallel case with Ch¡ist; they assumed
theory, but only in the light of recorded fact: and the records fesh without any intention of dying, and thus there was no need
prove that it was God's will to be born. Even if we disregard the for them to be born. But Christ's intention was to die, and so it
nativity stories which Marcion has excised, we have to admit that was essential that he should be born: whereas, on other occasions,
the fact that Christ geve the impression of being human is a proof in the theophanies, when Gòd the Sõn presented himself in human
that he was human and had been born into that estate: for one flesh, it 'was not as yet his purpose to die, and consequently there
b
xiv INTRoDUcrroN INTRODUCTION XV

was no need for him to be born. Moreover, there is no evidence possible for him to have saved the soul except by first turning it
that those angels did derive their flesh from any celestial substance: into flesh. If such were the case, it 'was no soul of ours that he
it is equally possible that they constructed for themselves flesh out delivered: for our soul has not been turned into flesh (S ro). Ag"it
'We
ofnothing. know nothing for certain about this, for Scripture they argue that God's reason for turning soul into flesh, and
is silent on the matter. This however we do know, that if flesh is making it into a body, was that he was anxious to make soul
to experience death it must frst have experienced nativity ($ó). visible to men. This is as much as to say that he turned soul into
The text, ''Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?' is darkness for the purpose of causing it to shine. Moreover, even if
quoted by Apelles as though our Lord were denying that he had a it were necessary to display soul as body, it would have been much
mother or brethren. Actually the question was intended as a more fitting to display it in its own body (for soul, being a real
rebuke to his mother and his brethren, either because of their un- thing, is body, of a kind), or (if soul be itself incorporeal) as some
belief or because of their importunity in distracting him from his new kind of body, and not as a body already earmarked as that of
divine work. There is also in this text a parable of the synagogue something else, namely flesh. It was, however, Christ's will to
in the mother who v/as estranged, and of theJews in the brethren live a human life: and this he could only do by assuming a soul of
who did not believe ($7). When Apelles and his like suggest that human fashion, not tuming it into flesh but clothing it with flesh
Christ's flesh was composed of celestial elements they are in- ($ rr). Further, what reason was there for making soul visible to
consistent with their own principal theory, that the universe was itself? It was already sufiìciently cognisant of itself. The reason
created by a certain'fiery prince of evil'. If that were true, the why the Son of God came down and took to himself a soul was
whole world would be the outcome of sin, and the celestial not that soul should obtain cognisance of itself in Christ, but that
elements, being part of the world, would owe their existence to it should be made competent to know Christ in itself: for it was in
sin: so that, as between celestial and terrestrial, there would be danger of perishing, not through ignorance ofitself (for it was not
'Word
nothing to choose in the matter of badness. Certainly the apostle ignorant of itself) but through ignorance of the divine
writes,'The second man is from heaven': but on refl.extion it ($rz). And further, if soul were turned into flesh so as to be
becomes evident that he is not suggesting that there was in Christ shown to be soul, it would follow that flesh must be turned into
a different sort of celestial matter, but is contrasting the heavenly soul so as to be shown to be flesh. In such a case neither of them
and spiritual (that is, the divine) substance of Christ, the second would be itself, and each of them would be neither. If things are
Adam, with the earthly substance of the flesh of the fìrst Adam not what they are, and cease to be described by their own nemes,
($A). So far is it from being the case that Christ's flesh was of all rational thought becomes impossible. But the evidence of the
celestial quality, that it bore such definite evidences ofitsterrestrial Gospels, and of our Lord himself is that he possessed both soul and
origin as to conceel from common eyes the fact that he was the flesh, and that each of them retained its own characteristics: nor is
Son of God: and moreover, his Passion, with the indignities to there anywhere any indication of the existence of such a com-
which he was subjected, is suffìcient proof that his flesh was not bination as flesh-soul or soul-flesh (St¡). A further suggestion
only human, but even uncomely ($9). to meet our objection that their theory would leave
-made
Christ without an effective soul-is that he also clothed himself
(c) Against certain unnamed theorists, and Valentinus and
Alexander ($$ro-r0). There are some who affìrm that Christ's with an angel. There can be no setisfactory reason for this. His
'We reason for clothing himself with manhood was the redemption of
flesh was made out of soul. ask, to what purpose ? If for the
purpose of saving the soul (for these people regard the flesh as mankind. There can have been no such reason for him to clothe
incapable of salvation) we ask whether they suppose it was im- himself with an angel, for he had received from the Father no
b-z
XVi INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION )(\¡l1
commandment concerning the salvation of angels. Nor can it from her. As the author of the new birth he musr needs himself
have been that he needed the angel as helper for a work he was be born in a new manner. The new birth takes place when man is
born in God: for God has been born in man, taking to himself
flesh of the ancient seed without the operation or egerrcy of the
ancient seed: so that Mary's faith in the divine message undid the
effect ofEve's faith in the serpent's deception (S rZ). It was neirher
proper nor feasible for the Son of God to be born of human seed:
has been made lower than the angels: yet he never speaks, as the for in that case he would have been wholly a son of man and
prophet does, of 'the angel that spake in me' ; and since he never could not have been also the Son of God. But he himsel{ in such
i*yr, 'Thor saith the Lord' but always 'But I sey unto you', he a saying as 'The spirit is willing but the fesh is weak', gives clear
shows himself greater r:han the prophets, even though, in the flesh, indication of both the one and the other of his fwo substances, rhe
he has been made lower than the angels ($ra). Spirit (for God is spirit) and the flesh ($ r8). When the evangelist
Valentinus invented for Christ a kind of 'spiritual'flesh-flesh says that Christ was not born 'of the will of the flesh', he does not
composed of the elements of his supposed transcendental ideal mean to deny that he was born of the substance of the flesh: nor
*orld. There can be no limit to conjectures, once we lay aside the is that the significance of 'not of blood'. What he does deny is the
testimony of the Scrþtures, nd the acilal material of human male seed, which it is admitted is the
Son of Man. It is objected, that if operative heat of the blood. But as concerning the mother's
Christ's flesh was of earthly e been womb the circumstances are different: if he did not take to him-
conceived 'by the will of a man'. There is no such need. Nor is selffesh from the womb, it was to no purpose that he ever entered
there any force in their argument that fesh of earthly origin would the womb: the process would have been less complicated outside
make CLrist lower than the angels: for we admit, and Christ him- the womb ($r9). Our artempr to play
self admits, that as man he. is lower than the angels. ''Why then, about with prepositions, 'for'ofa virgin'
and 'in the womb' for th Matthew and
Paul andJohn declare that Christ was born 'of' Mary; and Christ
himself in the psalm says, 'Thou arr he rhar didst rend me our of
my mother's womb'-a strong expression which indicates that he
actually adhered to his mother's body and at his birth brought
with him some of her substance ($zo). Moreover, what reaion
would there be for his being born of the Virgin unless that which
the Virgin brought forth is something of her own? How is he
the fruit of her womb, unless the fruit is hers whose the womb is?
caused it to cease to be sinfìrl (St0). How is he the flower out of the root of Jesse, unless the fower
springs 'out of' Mary? ($zr). Again, how is Christ the seed of
Amplificatio (SStz-r¡) Abraham and of the loins of David, and how is he the second
Leaving now this discussion of other men's baseless suggestions, Adam, unless he is 'of' Mary who is descended through David
*" ,"rioo, case on the fact that it was from the Virgin that Christ and through Abraham from Adam? ($zz). In the case of Christ
took his flesh, and that it was flesh, of her substance, that he took there is a special appropriateness in the expression 'openeth the
 INTRODUCTION x1x
xv1ll INTRO DU CTI ON
The silence of this early preaching concerning any resurrection
v/omb,: for the virginity which remained intact at the conceptiorr but that of Christ is not difücult to understand. The discourses
b.."*. *o-"nhoãd "i th. nativity-which is why the apostle were not addressed to believers, who might have needed further
says 'born of a woman' (Sr¡).
enlightenment or have been moved to ask questions, but in every
Conclusio (SSr+, z,s) case to those whom the apostles desired to convince: and, their
primary purpose being to establish the Messiahship ofJesus ¿nd to
.ott r.rt the hearers to action in accordance with that belief, there
was no need, and little opportunity, to go beyond the facts, their

spread concern about the future of the individual believer: it was

nit until later (r Thess. 5. 13) that anxiety arose concerning those
who before the Advent had fallen asleep. The Jewish mind was
THE INCÄRNATION ÀND THE RESURRECTION not accustomed to think of any future life there may be in terms
of the immortality of the soul-which was a Greek concePtion-
but in terms of the conservation or the redintegration of man-
hood in all its constituents. As soon as the apostles' converts'were
assured of their place within the Messianic kingdom, at once they
would assume that they wouid be there in their completeness.
Christian doctrine from the beginning is not of the immortality
of the soul (if that concept had meant anything at all to theJewish
mind, it might have been taken for granted) but of the resurrec-
tion of the dead.
But almost at once, in r Corinthians 15, we fìnd the germ of
future objections. 'Flesh and blood carinot inherit the Kingdom
of GoC': this is what the objectors said, and St Paul admits the
fact' but denies the deductions they drew from it. To them 'flesh
and blood'meant the material constituents of human bodies with

they are recorded as saying, they can have said nothing that it was worth any
one's while to believe or to disbelieve, nothing upon which a 'good news'
could have been built, and nothing to justify the authorities in trying to silence
ecost' If them.
r r Cor. 15. 5o. toûro õÉ gr¡ur means'This I admit'. If the apostle had been
ibilitY of
r records making the statement on his own âccount he would probably have said roúro
õè Àéyr,r.
less than
XX INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION XXl
all their inconveniences and disabilities. In these Gentile circles with Christ for a thousand years, and the second and general
there has apparently been no thought of an earttrly Messianic resurrection to be followed by the judgement and the establish-
kingdom with its centre in Jerusalem: the kingdom of God is ment of the new heaven and the new earth. This theme, which
located in heaven, and these material things are unworthy of a afterwards came to be up
place there. The objectors (even though they were Greeks) do throughout the second er-
not seem, so far as St Paul's words take us, to have substituted a sons such as Papias, but dit
theory of the immortality or the resuscitation of the soul: they such as Justin and lrenaeus. It was pressed with vigour by the
were merely uncertain of the future of themselves and of those Montanists (though it does not seem that Tertullian was very
who had fallen asleep in Christ. Stated in those terms, the objec- interested in it) and this may be one reason why succeeding
tion was unanswerable, as St Paul admits. But the Christian hope generations tacitly allowed it to drop.
cannot be stated in those terms: so long as we view human nature That diftìculties were felt about rhe resurrection, even in circles
only in terms of its disabilities we shall get nowhere: it must be proGssedly orthodox, is evident from the solution of them offered
considered in view of its possibilities. Which is what St Paul pro- by Athenagoras. But for the mosr part, during the second cenrury
ceeds to do-or rather, he has aheady, in the preceding paragraph, and later, those who denied the general resurrection were moved
shown how he is going to do it. The body, after its resurrection, not by the a posteriorl consideration of physical diffìculties but by
will be a 'spiritual body'-which, as the context shows, cannot be the a priori assumption that material things are evil in their origin,
taken to mean a body composed of spirit, for in that case the are unworthy of God's interest and attention, and are incapable of
present 'natural body' would need to bè composed of soul. Rather being made fit for the liG to come. This at once affects, or is
will it be the case that as the body now, whjle 'natural', is affected by, two further doctrines, of creation and of the incarna-
governed by the soul and thus is something much befter than dead tion, and it is these with which Tertullian has to deal in rhe series
matter, so, after the resurrection and the transformation which of treatises Agaínst Hermogenes, On the Flesh of Christ, and On
Christ will effect at his coming, the body will be so under the the Resurrection of the Flesh.Thereis also involved the doctrine of
control of spirit that its present disabilities will all disappear. St the Atonement, whichinthe long run, though they are not always
Paul might not have rccognized our terms, but what he seems to explicit about it, is the test by which, in the view of the fathers,
mean is that while the substance of the body remains itself, there all doctrines stand or fall. And finally, rhere is involved the
will be such a change of its quality that it will no longer be rightly question of morals, particularly in that restricted sense in which
described as 'flesh and blood', and will escepe the opprobrium in spme quarters the seventh commandment (and all that it
which is usually implied by that phrase. impliçs) was and is regarded as the primary (and almosr the only)
St Paul's explanation seems to have removed any difiìculties of moral precept: for if the flesh is not of God's creation, if it was not
this kind, at least for the time being: for it appears from Heb.6. z really sanctified by the Incarnation, and if it can have no part in
that the resurrection of the dead and 'eternal judgement were eternal life, then it is a thing of no account; and in that case it
among those doctrines which the second generation of Christian seems to be a matter of opinion whether it should be maltreated
believers could be assumed to accept without question as 'first with excessive rigorism, or equally maltreated by allowing it un-
principles of Christ'. Some complication was introduced into the bridled licence-for each of these views found favour among the
matter, even beyond those circles in which theJohannine Apoca- sectaries against whom controversial works are directed.
-We
lypse was explicitly known, by its distinction (zo. 4-6) between a have said that the doctrine of redemption, in its final
first resurrection, of the martyrs alone, who will reign on earth effects as in its efficient cause, is inextricably bound up with the
XX1I INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION xxltl
doctrine of creation, and that both these doctrines are equaþ of the second century saw, for if the created world is unworthy of
bound up with the doctrine of the Incarnarion. If it is the case God, or incapable of being redeemed by him, neither can he be
that the created world is God's handiwork, there arises a general held responsible for its beginnings. And moreover, if Christ's
presumption that the elements of the world, purged (as necessary) assumption of human nature was mere pretence, or was in-
ofimperfections for which God cannot be held responsible, have a complete in any particular, then the redemption of mankind has
permanent value in the eyes of their Creator. If ir is the case that to be interpreted as equally a matter of human orientation or as
at the Incarnation God the Son took upon him created human equally incomplete. It is by the doctrine of the Atonement, in the
nature in its completeness, and after his resurrection carried it up first or the last resort, that Christian verity stands the test, and it is
into heaven, there again arises a presumprion that what he has by their incompetence to meet that doctrine that all heresies fall.
done in himself he will also do with us, and rhar ar rhe consumma- It is then with good reason that Tertullian, having treated of
tion of all things it will be human narure in its complereness which the doctrine of creation in response to the theories of the Valen-
will enjoy the full benefits of redemption. If, on rhe other hand, tinians and Hermogenes, finds it advisable to clear up the doctrine
material things in general, and the human body in particular, of the Incarnation as a necessary prelude to the discussion of the
either as what they are or as the best they are capable of becoming, resurrection of the dead. His method, here as elsewhere, is to dis-
are so smirched and degraded as to be unworthy of God's interest,
countenance all argument from preconceived theories. To his
or even more if they are smirched and degraded in their very mind theology is not a deductive but an inductive science. Its
origins, or if the neture of God himself is such that he is incapable function is not to draw theoretical conclusions from universal
of any interest in them, it would follow that the supposed in- major premisses as to what God ought to be and to do, but to
'Word
carnation of the divine or Son never really happened, that discover from the evidence of the Scriptures what in fact God is,
his human life and his redemptive act'were a mere appearance, and what he is recorded to have done and to have promised to do.
that the resurrection which the apostles preached amounted ro no Certainly there is an initial prejudice in favour of the traditional
more than the disappearance from human view of what had been faith of the apostolic churches. Tertullian is even prepared to
merely the phantasm of a body, and that the doctrine of redemp- claim that the mere statement of this faith might reasonably be
tion must be reduced to the status of a parable ofwhat God would regarded as suflicient to discountenance all forms of heresy. But
have done had he been competent (or had he thought it necessary) he will not insist on that. He is ready, ex abundantL to examine the
to do it. records in each several case, using the apostolic faith (as he uses the
Thus it was with reference to Christ's human nature, with thoughts, and sometimes the words, of his predecessors in this
reference to the truth of the Incarnation, that docetism first raised field) not as a major premiss to govern all discussion but as an
its superficially attractive head, and it was with the same reference unobtrusive norm or canon (regula) by which to ensure the
again that it showed itself in the gnosricism and Marcionism of the validity of his own interpretation of the facts recorded.
second century, the Apollinarianism of the fourth, and the mono- On the subjects discussed in this treatise and its companion the
physitism (and its derivatives) of the fifth cenrury and larer, nor to scriptural deta are: (r) That our Lord Jesus Christ is evidently
speak of its recurrence in certain parodies of Christianity in our declared, both in fact and word, to be both God and Man;
own times. There is always (to give the misguided such credit as (z) That since the beginning of Christianity the apostolic preach-
is due) a desire to be more zealous for God's honour than he is for ing and the faith of the Church have been that having truly died
his own. But the reference could not be held ar that one point. upon the cross for our redemption he rose again from the
The doctrine of creation was bound to be affected, as the thèorists dead and afterwards ascended into heaven; (3) That the apostles
xxlv INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
themselves, with our Lor tainly we may discount Tertullian's sarcasms on his Pontic origin,
as Christ rose again from for he came from Sinope, not (as Tertullian suggests) from the
athiscoming; and (+)fh Crimea: we may refuse also any suggesrion (which indeed Ter-
it is stated (on the authority of the Holy Spirit) that God is the tullian does not make) that he was insincere. 'We may perhaps,
sole and only creator of the world, and that since the beginning he but with some hesitation, accept the statement that when he first
has been preparing by his guidance of events and by the word of appeared in Rome' his faith was that of the Church-with hesita-
prophecy for the redemptive act which Christ was ro perform and don because a developed doctrine such as his is not the work of a
is still to complete; and that it has been abundantþ proved that day, or even of a Gw months. In Tertullian's day a letter was
there is no part of his creation which is beyond the range of his extant which was referred to as evidence ofhis original orthodoxy.
grace and power. These facts are beyond question: but they are a But when and for what purpose was it written?, Hardly, as is
consistent whole and not a series of isolated data. Tertullian holds suggested, for the satisfaction of the Roman Church at his recep-
the faith in a wide and inclusive grasp, while prepared, if need be, tion into it: neither then nor now are churches accustomed to
to examine it in detail so as to prove its consistency with itself and demand written professions of faith from laymen, or even clerics,
with the documents which vouch for it. He will do this, as he unless they are already suspect. It is true, but not for our purpose
repeatedly says, ex abundanti, at the same time as he examines the important, that in the first fervour of faith he made the Roman
theories of his adversaries and shows that they are inconsistent Church a present of zoo,ooo sesterces, which were returned to
both with themselves and wi¡h th him when he was expelled from the Church. ln the same con-
claim, as it suits their purpose, to text3 we are told thaì he was twice expelled from the Church,
The adversaries in view in the and the unlikely statement is made that when he sought to be
one-time disciple Apelles, and the Valentinians. A brief accounr of restored a third time he was promised acceptance on condition
Marcion and Apelles follows: to give a sarisfactory accounr of the that he brought back with him all whom he had led astray-a
Valentinian system would entail the transcribing of the whole of condition manifestly impossible of fulfilment-but that he died
Tertullian's treatise against them, or of the first book of Irenaeus before he could manage this. He had in fact, inless than a genera-
against the Heresies, which all subsequenr wrirers on the subject tion, succeeded in founding not a mere local sect but a world-
drew upon. Sufücient for the understanding of Tertullian's wide society with an organization copied from (perhaps in some
criticisms will be found in the nores on rhe texr (pages 87, rz}, respects in advance of) that ofthe Church, a society strong enough
146, and ró5). r The date is somewhat uncertain. About r3o would not be far out. Dr
MÂRCION Salmorr wrote (in the article reGrred to) that'the beginning ofMarcionism was
so early that the church writers of the end of the second century, who are our
It is perhaps unfortunate that our information about Marcion and best authorities, do not seem themselves able to tell with cerrainty the story ofits
his tenets comes almost exclusively from his adversaries; but it by commencement'. But it was already e menace whenJustin wrote his Apology:
no means follows that the statements they make are false.' Cer- ApoI. t 26, 58 znd perhaps Dial. 35.
t This account of Marcion antl his doctrines is drawn up almost entirely from 2 Adu. Marc. r. r, prinøm eius
fden nobiscumfuisse ¿f¿. Another letter is referred
data supplied by Tertullian. Much has been written on the subject since to, De Carne Chisti z, rescindendo quotl retro credidisti, sicut et ìpse confteris ín
the publication of the Dic¡ionary of Christian Biography: but George Salmon's quadam epistula et tui non flegafit et nostri probant.
article there is still valuable as giving most of the available reGrences, along 3 De Praescr. 3o, Postmodum Marcion
ltaenitentian eonfessus, um condicìoni datae
with a far from unsympathetic assessment of Marcion himself. It is also a sibi occurrìt, ita Ttacem receptutus sí ceteros quos perditíoni erudisset ecclesíae restitueret,
brilliant piece of writing. morte pfaeuentus est.
)o(v1 INTRODUCTION INTRO D UC TI O N xxvll
a reduced footing, for several centuries' intruder into a world not his own, with the function of delivering
e been a men oistrong convictions and men from the power of their creator. He appeared in a phantasm
as well as of some business ability, all of of a body, and it is the soul onlywhich he will save, theflesh being
ent with frequent wandering into the incapable of salvation. His mission was to reveal that unknown
Church and out. god, and involved the repudiation of all that v/as past: so much so,
not easy to determine at what point his doctrine started, or
It is that the righteous men of the Old Testament, the servants of the
Testament as creator, have no part in this new redemption, which is however
of an inferior extended to such as Cain and others who by rebellion against the
Many ancient creator showed themselves capable of being transferred to his rival
evil. Marcion and superior.'
had things to say about this, others) to the There is one apparent inconsistency in Marcion's reconstruction.
intractability of matter and Naturally, as the Christ who appeared by Jordan had but a
Tertullian mentions this,' and su phantasm of a body, there can have been no nativity, no child-
philosophy:'but neither of the hood, and no growth to manhood: the early chapters of St Luke,
ã1ro r.-"rks that Marcion's Pri
which narrate such things, have to go, and all other references to
the fìrst to make, was in his doc earttrly relationships have either to be removed or explained
Son were more common than doubts about the Father'
until away. One might have expected the passion to be similarly
M"r.ion inferred, in addition to the Creator, another god wlose excised. But this Marcion did not do,u though he was bound to
sole attribute was goodness.'3 And it is the case that he postulated
interpret it docetically. And this perhaps is the key to the matter.
two gods, 'of unJqual rank, the one a judge' stern and warlike' The passion was too important, too deeply entrenched in Christian
the o"ther'mild, placid, only kind, and supr^emely good"+ The thought and devotion, for anyone to omit it: and it seems as if, in
crearion of the wãrld and the whole course of history recorded
in Marcion's view, Christ himself was so important that he must be
the Old Testament, along with the Christ there prophesied' placed in isolation from all earthly relationships, unconnected
whom the Jews are sdll expecting, he ascribed to the former: to with anything that had ever gone before, independent even of the
the la*er hË ascribed the saving ãf th. world through the
Christ God who made the world. The name of Christ is always attrac-
whom Christians believe. Arid httt perhaps we come to the tive: the exaltation of Christ has always an appeal. It might have
heart of the matter. been a matter for marvel if a new theory of the creation of the
According to Marcion, Christ appeared, unheralded and un- world, coupled with a repudiation of the prophets and a series of
antitheses in which one scripture was set against another, had
expected, tñe representative of a god hitherto unknown'
an
proved so attractive as to become the basis of a world-wide society
, Adu. Marc. r. z, languens enim (quod et nunc multio et maxime haeretici)
chca malí in half a generation: but that the exaltation of the name of Christ,
quaestionem, unde malum, elc. however wrongheaded in manner and consequence, should have
2 De Pruesc¡.7, Ea est enim mateia sapientiae saeulatis, temeraia ínlerpres
díuixae

natfiae et disPositionís, etc. ' Adu. Marc.vrn, passím.

2 De Carne Chrísti
3 De Praesci. 34, Facilius de filio quam de patre haesitabatur donec Marcion pruetet S, Sunt plane et alia tam stulta, quae pertínent ad contumelias et
passiones dei: aut prudentiam dicaú deum crucifxum, aufer hoc qrloque, Marcion.
ileatoreffi alium deum solius bonitatís inducerct'
a Adu. Matc. t. 6, Marcionem dispares deos constituere, alterum iudicem ferun Evidently he had not done so: the passion narrative was retained in his mutilated
atque optimum' gospel.
bellipotentem, altetum mìtem placidun et tantummodo bonum
 INTR O DU CTI O N INTROD UC TI O N XXlX
xxv111

had this effect is not ar all surprising. And with this

it is consistent ffue but as being non-Christian. It was still regarded as an
th"t Mar.ionites, almost of the heretics of that day, did not authentic record of human history and as the work of the servants
"1orì. of the God who made the world. Hence Marcion was compelled
refuse martyrdom, and that not even Tertullian has any strictures
he can *"k" ,rpon the morals either of Marcion or of his to invent another god, the father of his Christ, and another Christ
(the one promised in the Old Testament) who was still to come
followers.
irÀ"y have been some such considerations as these, or possibly to save the Jews only by giving them political supremacy.'
it was ."cluriv. and unintelliger t
concentration uPon what are Marcion's Christ appeared suddenly and unannounced by the
'Bible diftìculties', which sug- banlcs ofJor:dan'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar to reveal ro
still euphemisticaþ referred tã as
qested to Marcion that seParation mankind the existence of a superior god hitherto unknown and
Ñew which came to be regarded a unsuspected, who would deliver them from the in-flictions im-
posed upon them by their Creator. This Christ possessed but a
denial of the divine authoritY of
phantasm of a body, for of course it was impossible for him to
."r"ii.¿ a good deal of editíng of the New. All those texts had to
of make use of the works of the Creator-though, as Tertullian
U" ,.-o"å in which ou, Loid speaks of himself or is spoken
points out, Marcion himself did not consistently follow our rhis
by th" apostles, as fulfìlling th. it11 and the Prophets' as well. as
thor.' orhers in whicli the Old Testament is quoted with principle, for he still used the Creator's warer for baptizing and
approval or in support of-Ch'istian teaching'- Seizing-upon a
"11 the Creator's bread and water for the eucharist, as well as the
.äimi' rexr of G"iãti"rr, (which some moderns have used for the Creator's land to kneel upon. Docetism, however, is of the essence
1.,, excuse) Marcion postuiated ^a of this system,3 extending in a sense even to the Passion, for Mar-
same PurPose, with
"rrèobetween the rest of the apostlî cion's Christ possessed no body which could suffer, though he did
fon¿"å.*"t disagreement i"f S' (apparently) suffer in himself from the indignities to which the
paul, afiìrming thät whil. the others became apostates toJudaism,
paul alone bõ"*. an authenric apostle of Christ. Hence Mar- Creator's servants subjected him. Marcion adopted from St Paul
(nph. +. s) the do.trii. of the descent into helÈa non-corporeal
cion's New Testament consisted õf th" Gospel according to
St
descent, of course-so that the gospel was preached even to the
Luke which (largely on rhe evidence of the Acts, which Marcion
,.j..t.d) it k".îí to be of Pauline origin, and ten. epistles of dead, with the result that the good men of the Old Testament
Sip"otr-,t ough even here rhere had to b" to-. editing, for the (Noah, Abraham, and others), being satisfied with their own God,
rejected this newcomer, whereas the bad men (Cain, the men of
Nativity ,tori.iof St Luke were unacceptable, as were the last two
of Romans, and orher isolateã texts which were either Sodom, and so forth), being alreadyin rebellion against their own
"hrpt".í
removed or rewritten.3
The Old Testament was not rejected by Marcion as being un- ' Aút. Marc. t. rg, cum ea separatío legis et euangeliì ipsa sit quae aliunr. deum
euangelii ínsinuauerit aduersus deum legis. It is to be observed that Tertullian
t r. rg, Separatío legis et etangelíí proprium et pincipale opus est
consistently speaks of the Creator as the true God, and of Marcion's /¿øs
Adu. Marc.
snperíor as no god at all. He will not even address the latter by the proper
Marcionis.
? Excluding the Pastofals and (of course) Hebrews. The Pasto¡als werë after- vocative ileus, b:ut (as if the word were a proper noun, the name of an idol) as
dee (Adu. Marc. t. z9).
wards accepted by Marcion's disciples' 2 Or, according to another version, 'came down'to Capurnaum (Luke
3 TertufliÅ's fourth and ûfth books against Marcion examine these documents 4. 3r),
all reference to Nazareth being omitted.
textby text with intent to show thrt Marcion is proved mistaken even,on 3 De Carne Christi t, rQ ôoxeiv, which evidently is not part of Tertuliian's
what
errid.nc" accepted by himself. Hence we can ascertain with fai¡ accuracy
refutation, but was a principle insisted upon by Marcion himself.
Marcion's text wâs.
 INTRO DU CTI O N xxxl
INTROD U CTION
The resurrection appear- Valentinus' but borrows none of his speculations. His doctrine of
God, received the gospel and were saved' the hitherto unknown god is broadly different from the essentiaþ
ances of this Christ *!tt docetic' though no more so than his
"ft" --- At phåt"'- of a body dis- unlnown god of the gnostic schools. He is a docetist, but in a
previous it came' It foilows different sense from theirs. FIis Creator is not a misguided demi-
appeared '*the*Ltttt
salvation of mankind is of
from this
the soul onþ: or, is
as it imes more accurately put' of
the Adarn by
Jft" tpitir-ø" the soul is
whereas the ed in bY
the Creator,
;il';d,ø, god'without the but him-
ÀPELLES
self.
Marcion's doctrines \Mere aP Concerning Apelles not so much is known.' He was a disciple of
seminated bY word of mouth' Marcion, but left (or was expelled from) the Marcionite society.
Antitheses: we have no Precise The suggestion ofincontinence as the reason for his expulsion may
mav well have consisted of series rest orri misconception: in any case it is one so commonly pre-
(
illustrate the oPPosition of the ferred by ancient controversial writers against their adversaries
was exPosltlorl
,..*, ", if the sirongest weaPon >f the Marcionites Tertullian's that it may be safely disregarded.3 Apelles apparentþ, having
of the Scriptures - tftt ""t'" of their own views' a brilliant been associated with Marcion in Rome, withdrew to Alexandria,
;;t;;ã-rh.-, the fìve books Against Marcíon' is where he developed his doctrine, a modified Marcionism, which
oresentation of the cas (according to Tertullian) admitted that Christ possessed true
'rhlog ro abookwhich
human fleih but continued to deny the nativity.a At some period,
he did or not, is uncer apparently late in his career, he attached himself to a clairvoyant
Tertullian, alwaYs at his most gìt1 n"-ed Phjlumena who claimed (or was reputed) to be
possessed by an 'angel', who communicated to her revelations
(gcrvepóoers) which were written down and read in public by
ck the grov/th of the sect' Neither
Apelles. Apelles' own book was entitled ovÀÀoytogoí,'reason-
ave been exPected to know of the
Both of them were
ingr'-though the word itself suggests that Apelles may have
modern doctrine of progressive revelation'
Gal"tians 4' zr-26' which Marcion ' De Carne Chrìstì t.
t"r'f"ast from'St í"u1, 2 The facts are collected and discussed in the article by Dr Hort n D'C'&.
"**.
had not excised, ,h;;;; il h"d"ltt"d
it a little') of the allegorical
3 De Praesc.3o, Si eú Apellis stemma retractandum est, tam non t)etus et ipse quam
method. sparingly' and never trans-
Marcion instítutor et praeformator eius, sed lapus in femínam desefior contínenfiae
gressing Marcion aPPerently used it' Marcionensis ab oculis sanctíssímì magístri Alexanfuiam secessit. índe post anflos
e Old Testament' but to impugn
not to re regtessus nox melior, nísi tantum quía íam non Marcìonites, ín abetam femínam

,fr. iri".ti.iry of in
GosPel'. impegit, íllam uìrginem Philumenen quaffi supra edidimus ($ó) '..cøløs efletgeffiate
couottd as one.of
It has been asked eircumuentus quae ab ea didicit Phaneroses scripsít.
at one tlme wltn ÍI. rt, lVaø et Phìlumene illa møgis persuasìt ApeIIi
the gnostics. He was ePPare
4 Adu. Marc. ceterisque

deserÍoribus Mareíonis ex jde quidem Christum efucumtulisse eanem, nullius tamen

I Adv. Marc. v. 4, Marcionei noußsìmam Ahahae mertionem deteliquisse' nullø tativitatís, utpote de elementis eaffi mutuatum.
magis auferenda, etsi ex parte conuertit'
 INTRODU CTION INTRODUCTION xxxlll
xxxll
contains thirteen treatises of Tertullian. It seems to be the
ettemÞted to resolve some of the &vrr0éoer5 proposed by
only representative of a larger collection of Tertullian's works
i;;;;å;. wã t* 1r"", of him as resident at Rome' very old and
compiled perhaps as early as the fifth century. No other
of the second
i"ì.i, ""¿ disliking controversy, in the last decade
extant manuscript seems to have been copied from this. Of
century.
the present treatise it contains onþ chapters r-9 and part
Tertullian had written a treati
of ro.
has not survived. He refers to
constructed for seduced souls bY
II A group of manuscripts, apparently first- or second-hand
copies of a codex (now lost) which was at Cluny in the
This has a gnostic sound and w
eleventh century and itself seems to rePresent a collection of
a theory of creation nearer to
tv/enty-one treatises, made in Spain, perhaps under the direc-
than was Marcion's theorY as el
tion of St Isidore, Bishop of Seville (óoo-ó3ó). Most extant
though not unlike
manuscripts are of this group. Its most important repre-
Esnig.'There seems
sentatives are
the later Marcionit
Apelles: and again a
Montepessulanus [M] (Montpellier H ia) of the eleventh
century.
Mãrcionites converted
Paterniacensis [n] (Schlettstadt 439), also of the eleventh
century.
¡d who is caPable of doing harm' Magliabechianus [F] (Florence conv. soppr. r. vi. 9) of
lbetter be kePt in a good temPer" the fifteenth century $az6).
Magliabechianus [N] (Florence conv. soPPr. r. vi. ro) of
Apelles himself, whatever his theories, "t"ì' to
have been a less
the fifteenth century.
foìmidable oPPonçnt than his master'
These last two aPPear to be copies of two now lost manu-
scripts of the Cluny group, both of which were known to
MÀNUSCRIPTS Beatus Rhenanus and were used by him in his first and third
recorded in this editions (r5zr, r539).
For the information (as distinct from the opinions)-
,fr. editor is irrdjt.J to the second "olu-t of the second part of il Codex Trecensis [T] (Troyes 523) formerly at Clairvaux,
"åi.
i"rioffi*', works by Aemilius Kroymann (mentioned below)' a3d.to itself ofthe twelfth century and the onþ extant representative
,h;;;"f*. to T.rtili"n's works ii Corpus Christianorun (1953), the of a collection of five treatises made aPParently in the fifth
wriær of which is unnamed. century, possibly (it is suggested) by Vincent of Lérins. This
of three manuscript has only recently come to light, having been dis-
The text of De Carne Christi depends on the testimony
:: covered by Dom Wilmart in r9ró, though it or some of its
the ninth century, now at Paris kindred were known to Martin Mesnart (ts+s) who records
rmerlY the ProPertY of Agobard, some of its readings, and (it seems) to the copyists of the
. This, in its now mutilated state, otherwise valueless manuscripts quoted by Oehler as Leiden-
sis and Luxemburgensis.
De Carne Cfußti 8 nd De Anima 4 (quoted on pa'ge
nz)'
'
? For which see Salmon's atticle on Maicion inD;'C'B"pp' 8zr' 8zz' and the
The older editions were based for the most Part on manuscripts
there given. of the Cluny group, which it was easy enough, when need arose,
reference to Neumarur's translation from the Armenian
 INTRODUCTION xxxv
)o(x1v INTRODUCTION
agreei my hope is that I have expressed my disagreement with
to check by reference
tñ"t defer.nce and courtesy which is due to a scholar who was
complicated matters,
akeady an exPert on this subject while I was sdll a child.
otherwise have been
r
NOTE ON 'NÂTUR.A," t CONDITTot, coNDICIO'
L, -y edition of Aduersus I
Praxean discussed the meaning of
substantia þages 39-45) and status (pages 50-52), suggesting that
the formei is indicated by the existential verb, while the latter
represents the copula in so far as it attaches attributes which are
p.-r-"n.rlt, and constitute the natura of the object. I did not dis-
ãus, the meaning of natura, because in that work Tertullian him-
self avoids usingìhe word: that omission I propose now to rectify'
In the sa*. wòtk (pages zor, z8o) I referred to conditio and con-
dicí0, srtggesting that they are often confused in the.manuscripts
and thaì-the former meens creation, while the latter means
aftributes in some sense dependent on the status of the object. I
now think that, though there is some confusion in the manu-
scripts, this is not so common as I then supposed-, and that Ter-
having observed that Tertullian usually refers ro God the Father tullian in any case used the words with care: and I shallsuggest
a, deul rndto God the Son as ãominus, the editor of Trecensis alters
that conditio refers to the same set of facts as status and natura
deus to donínus in several instances where it rightly and naturally is
(that is, to attributes which pertain to an object as it is in itself),
used of our Lord. He also, on occasion' seems to accommodate
while condiclo refers to attributes accruing to an object by virtue
of its relation to things outside itself.
Natura
Aût. Hermog. 43. Nam de nature materiae quoties cadas accipe. supra
dicis, Si autem esset materia nature mala non accepisset translationem in
melius, nec deus aliquid compositionis accommodasset illi: in vacuum
enim laborasset. finisti igitur duas sententias, nec materiam nature
malam, nec nâturam eius a deo potuisse converti, horum immemor
postea inferens, At ubi accepit compositionem a deo et ornata est,
-cess"vit
e natgre. Si in bonum reformata est, utique de malo reformata
est, et si per compositionem dei cessavit a natura, (a) mali natura cessavit:
ergo et mala fuii natura ante compositionem, et desinere potuit a natura
post reformationem.
The last sentence is unintelligible in Oehler's text. The above
punctuation is mine, as is the insertion of abeforc mali.
 xxxvl INTRO DU CTION INTRODUCTION xxxvll
For observe how often you trip up regarding the nature of that pre- Adu. Marc. tt. 6. Ut ergo bonum iam suum haberet homo
existent matter. First of all you sây, 'But if matter had been by nature emancipatum sibi a deo et fieret proprietas iam boni in homine et
evil it would not have been capable of change for the better, nor could quodammodo natura, de institutione adscripta est illi quasi libripens
God have succeeded in giving shape to its formlessness: for his labour emancipati a deo boni libertas et potestas arbitrii, quae eficeret
would have been in vain.' Here you lay down two propositions, that bonum ut proprium iam sponte praestari ab homine.
matter is not by nature evil, and that if it had been it would have been
Free paraphrase will here be more intelligible than transla-
impossible for God to change its nature: and then, forgetting this, you
conclude, 'But when it received at God's hands its form and ornament tion. It was God's intention that man should be possessed of
it relinquished its nature.' If the transformation which took place was goodness: and this goodness (which must in any case be God's
into goodness, evidently it was a transformation out of evil: and if by gift) must be not merely conferred upon man from without but
God's handling of it it relinquished its nature, it was a nature of evil must be his very own. The Roman law of conveyancing affords a
which it relinquished. Consequently, before God's handling of it it parallel which is more or less (quasi) to the point. A property is
was by nature evil and there was no impossibility of its receding from transferred from one person to another (e.g. from a testator to his
its nature as a result of transformation, assigns) by the formality of mancipatio, there taking place a
fictitious sale in the presence of five witnesses and of the libripens
Apparently ndtura here represents the Aristotelian gúors both
'We who holds the balance in which there is a pretence ofweighing the
in its instrumental and in its attributive sense. could hardly, in
price, in effect the mere token of a price which is not actually
the present context, follow Aristotle in giving the word a genetic
paid.' In the case of man and his goodness the donor is God,
meaning,r for the pre-existent matter of which Hermogenes
while the libripens is liberty and the po\Ã/er of free choice (which
supposed that God had created the world is ex hypothesl without
itself is God's gift de instítutione, by virtue of creation): and in
beginning and (until the creation) its natura was always what it
consequence man is capable of possessing and exercising as his
was. The same observation will hold when we come to consider
'We own (emancipatum sibi) that goodness which is in its origin an
natura dei: natura is necessarily permanent. may suppose then
' attribute of God. Goodness thus becomes man's proprietas et
that the natura of an object is the asemblage of those qualities
quodønmodo fiatura, he himself possesses it and is credited with it.
which it possesses by virtue of its being what it is: or, correcting
Afui. Marc. t. zz. Tetullian is arguing that if Marcion's god
ourselves slightly, we might suggest that if the status of an object
had really been God and had been good he would not have waited
is that assemblage of qualities which make it what it is, its natura
so long to redeem the world which, Marcion alleges, was created
will be those qualities which make it such as it is. So that, if it bad or at least imperfect.
were to change its nature and acquire a different set of qualities,
it would also change its status and become a different object and For death a.lteady existed, and so did the sting of death, which is sin :
acquire a different name (as Tertullian says of argilla and testa, so also did that malice of the creator, against which it was incumbent
upon the goodness of that other god to come to the rescue. For thus it
$r3): it would also in the process become a different substantia, would have satisfìed this fìrst rule of divine goodness, proving itself a
i.e. another thing altoget}er.
natural goodness by coming to the rescue immediately the need arose.
Secondly, we observe that attributes are only natural if they
For in God all attributes must needs be natural and congenital (naturalia
really belong, in the closest sense in which a person or thing is
et ingeflita), for thus only will they be eternal, as God himself per-
capable of having belongings. manentþ is (seeutdum statum ipsius): otherwise they must be reckoned
r Aristotle, Metaphysics,A,4, gúor5 ÀÉyercxr Évc uèv rpónov f¡ rõv guogÉvcov r See the Diccionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, s.v. mancipiunr, :¡nd
yéueor5, olov ei rt5 èrrexreívc5 ÀÉyor rò u, xrê. Ramsay's Roman Antiquifies, pages 3o2,3o4,
 INTROD UCTI ON INTRO D UCTI ON xxxlx
x)o(v111

conringent and ext oPPosite of

eternai (aeternitatis a goodness
tþ"
that is þ.rennial 9P i"
tre"ruri.', ofthose callY his (lø
thesaurís naturalium proprietatuttr reposita) might be in existence previous
itskerci,., to up each one of
to the causes o.."riorrs
"rrd
of - take
"' cannot be sure of its future.
ü.r" it arose and (seeing it was there beforeh"i3,il.f:_ry;:::*:
",
t been in oPeration since the verY Conditío

vided he existed at all. It is inco

utes
polMer a thing is what it is, is such as it is, and has those attributes which
free
\nrdum SUfe
make-it such as it is, because God made it so and it cannot be
COUTSG
it is otherwise. This, it will seem, involves a certain necessary limita-
tion, as in the two following examples:
Adv. Marc.I. 3, quantum humana conditio de deo defìnire Potest'
Ibid. m. ó, humana conditio deceptui obnoxia.

(øf the case of Marcion's But there are occasions when conditio refers to God, with whom
action it ceases to be
god ,tt"." has been it efrained from work: rhere can be no question of creation, though perhaps of limitations
índ it follows that that which was for a time imposed not by fact but by logic:
capable of refraining-for with Adu. Marc. ru. ó (continued) : non negans enim fìlium et spiritum et
Atso, as it
cannot be natural, so
substantiam creatoris esse Christum eius, concedas necesse est eos qui
eternal: nor is it coeval with God, pâtrem non agnoverint nec fìlium agnoscere Posse per eiusdem sub-
natural: and thus, in fact, it neither establishes its own PerPetuity
es
it"nti"" cuius si plenitudo intellecta non est' multo magis
regards the past nor vouches for it as regards the future' "ondition.r.r,
portio, certe qua plenitudinis consors.

There are of course numberless instances where conditio meens

Irecapitulate. The goo 'creation', often as a verbal noun, and not infrequently as a con-
(naturalia), is governed bY I. í (i'e'
be natural and congenital ffi siluln
(which does not here mean 'u w both
ihir .ottt.*t, but appears to be senses, comes from
than God, what is rrätu."1 is íngenitum.The goodness of God must
b. .t.rt"i, secundun statum ilsíus, artd therefore par de-0, coeval Adu. Marc. II. ó: ceterum facile est offendentes statim in hominis
with Godi it gives proof of its perpeturty in the past and promise ruinam antequâm conditionem eius inspexerint, in euctofem referre
"futurå.
of it for the Will ir t¡rerfollow that the natura of any quod accidit quia nec euctoris PersPecta sit ratio.
xl rNTRoDUcrIoN
r TNTRoDUCTToN xli
'W'e
Otherwise, it is easy to take immediate offence at man's ruin, through now come to Passages where the reference is to attributes,
not having previously considered in what state he was created, and divine or human, which are contingent upon, or are exemplified
thus to discredit his Creator with what has occurred, because there has in, relationship.
also been failure to appreciate what the Creator had in mind.
Adu. Marc. r. 7: ita ego non nomini dei, nec sono nec notae nominis
}Jerc hominis conditio means men as God created him, but with huius, summum magnum in creatore defendo, sed ipsi substantiae cui
special reference to those attributes with which he was created, nomen hoc contigit. hanc inveniens solam innatam infectam, solam
particularly the possession of libertas et potestas arbitrii, the grant of aeternam et universitatis conditricem, non nomini sed statui, nec
which was a necessary consequence of the bonitas et ratio dei, God's appellationi sed condicioni eius, summum magnum et adscribo et
goodness expressing itself both in fact and intention. Conditio vindico.
meens both the act of creation and 'that state in which he was Tertullian is arguing that the concePt suffiffiutn înagnuffi, that
created'-which gives us both natura and status. than which nothing greater is conceivable, is applicable to the
Creator alone, i.e. the true God, as distinguished from the sup-
Condicio
posititious good god invented by Marcion. It is true, he admits,
My suggestion is that condicio, when it refers to attributes, implies that the tercn deus is a common noun, used not only for heathen
such of them as depend upon, or afFect, external relationships. gods but even in Scripture for men who are not gods at all. But
There seems to be frequently a retention, exPress or implied, of this gives Marcion no right both to concede that the Cteator is a
the original sense of contingency. god and to claim that there is also another god of a superior sort.
'We
Adu. Marc. rr. 5 (a Marcionite argument) : Si enim et bonus, qui are not arguing about the word deus, either spoken or written,
evenire tale quid nollet, et praescius, qui eventurum non ignoraret, et but about the substantia, the real entity, to which that term
potens, qui depellere valeret, nullo modo evenisset quod sub his tribus applies: and this entity is the onþ one which is known to be
condicionibus divinae maiestatis evenlre non posset. unb.gott.o and uncreated, alone is eternal and the creator ofthe
If the Creator had been at once good and prescient and powerful, the universe, so that we lay claim to the concept sutltlnuln ffiagnuffi rlot
fall would never have taken place.
for the name of that Entity but for hís status, his attributes con-
Here evidently the three condiciones ere those stated in the three sidered as his own, and not for his designation but for his condicí0,
conditional clauses of the protasis. But they are more than that, his attributes considered in relation to all over which heis surnmum
for they arc condiciones divínae naiestatis, attributes of God in ffidgnuffi.
relation to his creation: so shortly afterwards we have, istas species
So again Adu. Marc.r. 3, quae erit iam condicio ipsius summi magni?
. . . bonitatem et praescientiam et çtotentíam.
nempe ut nihil illi adaequetur, id est ut non sit aliud summum magnum.
Adu. Marc. tt. zz, condicionalem idcirco et rationâlem demonstravit
recusationem eorum quae administranda praescripserat. Now of human relationships:
By saying 'your feasts', 'your solemn assemblies', God showed that Adv. Marc. r. 24, aha est nostra condicio apud auctorem, apud
his refusal to accept devotions which the Law prescribed was contingent iudicem, apud offensum principem generis.
upon Israelite misuse of them.
Marcion claims to have been delivered by his good god from
AIso Adu. Marc. w. 19, heretics 'condicionales et rationales (voces)
the power of the Creator: but the fact that he is still subject to
simplicitatis condicione dissolvunt'-'stâtements made under special
conditions and for specific reesons are misinterpreted under pretence of diseise and discomfort and to irritation from gnats and lice (all of
universalizing them'. which he blames the Creator for) shows that he has not been
 INTRODUCTION xliii
xlü INrRoDUcrroN

because we know that redemption is a Process in us, not a mere

act offfansference from one god to another.
Adu. Marc. u. 5: videamus et hominis condicionem, ne per illam
potius evenerit quod per deum evenire non potuit' liberum et sui
ärbitrü et suae polettatiì invenio hominem a deo institutum'

secondary qualities which other bodies do possess.

slave, his own master þui arbitrii) and not a minor sub tutela, and
under his own control þuae potestatis) and not like a wife in manu
et potestate uiri.'
Adu. Marc.II. 9: denique cum manifeste scripture dicat flasse deum in
faciem hominis et factum hominem in animam vivam, non in spiritum
vivificatorem, separavit eam a condicione factoris' characteristics.

To be alive is an attribute of human soul: to be life-giving is an

aæribute of deity, a condicio, because it is an attribute in relation- ÀDDENDUM TO PAGE X
ship with that to which life is given' So again:

less digniry.'

Finally, a beautifully complicated senrence, which contains both

condicio and qualitas and proprietas.

' I owe this interpretation to the Rev' Dr A. Ehrhardt.

SEPTIMII FLORENTIS TERTULLIANI
DE C,.q.RNE CHRISTI LIBER
 S IGLA

A Codex Agobardinus Parísiensís [8.N. r0zz] saec. ix qui

quidem post S to sed anítnae nostrae deficit.
T Codex Trecensis [523] saec. xij.
M Codex Montepessulanus lH 54] saec. xj.
P Codex Paterniacensis [+¡q] saec. xj.
N Codex Florentinus Magliabechianus [conv. soppr.
"j. S]
saec. xv.
F Codex Florentinus Magliabechianus lconv. soppr. vj. ro]
saec. xv.
R' Editio princeps Beati Rhenani quae Basiliae anno r5zr in
Iucem prodiit: qui Rhenanus et P usus est et Hirsaugiensibus
quibusdam libris iam deperditis.
R3 Editio tertia eiusdem Rhenani, Basiliae armo r j39 prolata.
R Consensus duarum harum editionum.
B Editio Martini Mesnartü, Lutetiae anno rj45 prolata: qui
Mesnartius et A et T necnon alio iam deperdito libro
videtur usus esse.
X in hac nostra editione codd. tvtpNF et Rhenani editiones
indicat si quando (ut persaepe fit) inter se consentiunt.

Gel. Editio Sigismundi Gelenü, Basiliae, r55o.

Pam. Editio lacobi Pamelii, Antverpiae, r579.
Iun. Editio Francisci lunü, Franckerae, rSgT.
Rig. Editio Nicolai Rigaltii, Lutetiae, 1534.
(Jrs. Lectiones Fulvii Ursini a Rigaltio laudatae.
Oeh. Editio Francisci Oehler, Lipsiae, r854.
Kroy. Editio Aemilii Kroymarur, Vindobonae ry42 IC.S.E.L.
vol. rxx], cui viro docto grato animo acceptum referi-
mus quidquid in apparatu critico potuimus adnotare.

t-2
 Q. SEPTIMII FLORENTIS TERTULLIANI TERTULLIAN ON THE FLESH
DE CÂRNE CHRISTI LIBER OF CHRIST

r Qui fidem resurrectionis ante istos Sadducaeorum Propinquos

r Those whose design it is so to disturb the faith of the resurrec-
tion as to deny that that hope extends even to the flesh-a faith
sine controversia moratam ita student inquietare ut eam sPem
which, until the emergence of these kinsmen of the Sadducces,'
negent etiam ad carnem pertinere, merito Christi quoque carnem had remained exempt from controversy-with good reason tear
quaestionibus disüahunt, tanquam aut nullam omnino aut quoquo asunder with inquisitions Christ's flesh as well as ours, alleging
s modo aliam praeter humanam, ne si humanam constiterit fuisse either that it existed not at all, or that in any case it was other than
praeiudicatum sit adversus illos eam resurgere omni modo, quae in
human: else, if it were admitted that it was human, this would
constitute a leading case against them that flesh certainly does rise
Christo resurrexerit. igitur unde illi destruunt carnis vota, inde 'We,
again, seeing it has risen again in Christ. in consequence,shall
nobis erunt praestruenda. examinemus corPoralem substantiam need to lay the foundations of the aspirations of the flesh at the
domini: de spiritali enim certum est. caro quaeritur: veritas et point at which these dismantle them. We have to weigh up the
ro qualitas eius retractatur, an fuerit et unde et cuiusmodi fuerit. corporal substance of the Lord: for concerning his spiritual sub-
renuntiatio eius dabit legem nostree resurrectioni. Marcion ut stance there is no dispute. It is his flesh that is under inquisition.
Its verity is under discussion, and its quality-whether it existed,
carnem Christi negaret negavit etiam nativitatem, aut ut nativi-
and whence it came, and of what sort it was. A decision con-
tatem negaret negevit et carnem, scilicet ne invicem sibi testi- cerning it will lay down the law for our own resurrection.
monium responderent nativitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine Marcion, with the purpose of denying Christ's flesh, also denied
rj carne nec caro sine nativitate: quasi non eadem licentia haeretica his nativity: or else, with intent to deny his nativity, denied his
et ipse potuisset aut admissa carne nativitatem negare ut Apelles flesh. Evidently his intention was that nativity and flesh should
not give mutual testimony each to the other, inasmuch as there
discipulus et Postea desertor ipsius, aut et carnem et netivitatem
can be neither nativitywithout flesh nor flesh without nativity-
confessus aliter illas interpretari ut condiscipulus et condesertor as though he too could not by the same heretical licence either
eius Valentinus. sed et, qui cernem Christi Putativam introduxit, have admitted the flesh and denied the nativity, as did Apelles his
20 aeque potuit nativitatem quoque phantasma confingere, ut et pupil and subsequent renegade, or else, admitting both flesh and
conceptus et praegnatus et partus virginis, et ipsius exinde infantis nativity, have put a different meaning upon them, as did his
fellow-pupil and co-renegade Valentinus. And moreover, as he
r: 2 morâtam X morata A orta TBng' ita Rig. ista A: omíttunî ceterí. was the first to make the suggestion that Christ's flesh was
4 distrahunt TX distruunt 24. putative, he could equally well have invented a phantasm of
7 Christo.4T Christum X. a nativity, so that the Virgin's conception and pregnancy and
g caro AX carnis ?aB. child-bearing, no less than the subsequent life of the Chfd
r4 responderent z4 redderent T: lectíones conÍaminanf cett. himsel{ might have been held docetically: they would have
18 confessus AX uulgo professus T Kroy. lllas ATB^s'llís X' r Cf. r\cts 23. 8.
zo nativitatem zl. nativitatis TX.
 6 oE c^aRNE cuRrsrl oN THE FLESH OF CHRTST 7

rQ ôoxeiv haberentur: eosdem oculos eosdemque deceived the same eyes and the same minds as the supposition
ordo, sensus
fefellissent quos carnis opinio elusit.
of flesh played tricks with.
z Plane nativitas a Gabriele adnuntiatur: quid illi cum angelo
z Clearly is nativity that Gabriel announces.' ''What,' says
it
creatoris? et in virginis utero concePtus inducitur: quid illi cum
Marcion, 'have I to do with the Creator's angel?' And in a
virgin's womb that conception is represented. ''W'hat,' says he,
[Esaia] propheta creatoris? odit moras, qui subito Christum de
caelo deferebat. aufer hinc, inquit, molestos semPer Caesaris
'have I to do with Isaiah, the Creator's prophet "
He abhors delay.
?

He was for bringing Christ unexpectedly down from heaven.

i census et diversoria angusta et sordidos Pannos et dura praesepia: 'Away,' he says, 'with Caesar's enrolments, always a nuisance,
viderit angelica multitudo deum suum noctibus honorans: servent
potius pecorâ pastores, et magi ne fatigentur de longinquo: dono
and with inns with no room:3 away with dirty rags and hard
mangers: let the angel host take the responsibility when it gives
illis aurum suum: melior sit et Herodes ne Hieremias glorietur:
sed nec circumcidatur infans, ne doleat, nec ad templum deferatur,
honour to its own God, and that by night: the shepherds had
ro ne parentes suos oneret sumPtu oblationis, nec in manus tradatur better watch over their flocks: no need for the wise men to be
fetched along from afar: for all I care, they may keep their gold:
Simeoni, ne senem moriturum exinde contristet: taceat et anus
also let Herod be a better man, lest Jeremiah have something to
illa, ne fascinet puerum. his opinor consiliis tot originalia instru-
boast of;+ and let not the Child be circumcised, lest he feel pain,
menta Christi delere, Marcion, ausus es, ne caro eius probaretur.
ex quo, oro te: exhibe auctoritatem: si propheta es Preenuntie nor brought to the temple, lest he burden his parents with the
expense of an offering, nor put into the hands of Simeon, lest he
apostolus praedica publice, si apostolicus cum apostolis
's aliquid, si make the old man sorry because he is soon to die: also let that old
senti, si tantum Christianus es crede quod traditum est: si nihil
'woman hold her tongue, lest she
istorum es, merito dixerim, morere. nam et mortuus es, qui non Put the evil eye uPon the boy.'5
es Christianus, non credendo quod creditum Christianos facit: et
eo magis mortuus es quo magis non es Christianus qui cum fuisses
,o excidisti rescindendo quod retro credidisti, sicut et ipse confìteris
in quadam epistula et tui non negant et nostri probant. igitur
foretell something: if an apostle, preach publicly: if an apostolic
rescindens quod credidisti iam non credens rescidisti: non tamen
men, agree with the apostles: if but an ordinary Christian, believe
quia credere desisti recte rescidisti, atquin rescindendo quod
the ffaditional faith. If you are none of these-I have good reason
for saying it-die. Nay, you are already dead, for you are not e
z3 elusit T Rrg. clusit z{ illusit X. Christian, seeing you do not believe that which, when believed,
z; z utero soibebam uterum AX curr' angelo creatoris et virginis utero TB
makes men Christians: and you are the more dead as you are the
(narífesto errore).
propheta creúotis suíbeb an Esait crettorís X (forsan r ecte) esset a propheta more not a Christian as having been one and having fallen away
3
creatoris.z{ essentia ôreatoris TB. by annulling what you formerþ believed, as you yourself claim
ó deum TMPNRB dominum,4F. in a certain epistle, and as your people do not deny, and ours
ro oblationis TB obligationis z!X. prove. Therefore, when you annulled what you did believe, you
rr moriturus exinde contristetur /.
senex annulled it as no longer believing it. Yet your having ceased to
13 ausus es .24ï ausus est XB. believe was no valid reason for annulling it: on the contrary, by
14 ex quo Oeh. ex qua ATX efibe auctoritatem A auctoritate (oøisso
t z lsa.7. :r4. 3 Luke a. r-r4.
Luke r. zó-3o.
efibe) TX. 4 Matt. z. r-r8. 5 Luke z. zr-38.
18 creditum ATFBøø' traditum MPRB om. N.
 T-
8 oE c.A,RNE cHRrsrI oN THE FLESH OF CHRTST g
credidisti probas ante quam rescinderes aliter fuisse: quod credi- annulling \Ã/hat you did believe you prove that before you en-
,s disti aliter, illud ita erat traditum. porro quod traditum erat id nulled it the case was differenr, and ir was that different belief
erat verum, ut ab eis traditum quorum fuit tradere: ergo quod which was the traditional one. But what \ ¡as traditional was true,
as having been handed down by those who had the right to do so:
erat traditum rescindens, quod erat verum rescidisti. nullo iure
and thus by annulling what was traditional you annulled what was
fecisti. sed plenius eiusmodi praescriptionibus adversus ornnes
true, and your act was illegal. But I have already in my boolc
haereses alibi iam usi sumus: post quas nunc ex abundanti re- against all the heresies made fuller use of rhis kind of appeal to
30 tractamus, desiderantes rationem qua non putaveris natum esse fundamental law. That I take for granred as I now of supèrfluity
Christum. resume the discussion, demanding the reasons which led you to
3 Necesse est, quatenus hoc putas arbitrio tuo licuisse, ut eut suppose that the birth of Christ never took place.
impossibilem aut inconvenientem deo existimaveris nativitatem. 3 lnasmuch as you suppose this was within your competence to
sed deo nihil impossibile nisi quod non vult. an ergo voluerit decide, it can only have been that your idea was that to God
nativity is either impossible or unseemly. I answer, that to God
nasci (quia si voluit, et potuit et natus est) consideremus. ad com-
nothing is impossible excepr what is against his will. So rhen we
s pendium decurro. si enim nasci se deus noluisset, quacunque de
have to consider whether ir was his will to be born: because, if it
causa, nec hominem se videri praestitisset: nam quis, hominem was, he both could be and was born. I betake myself to a short
videns eum, negaret natum? ita quod noluisset esse nec videri cut. If it had been God's will for himself nor to be born-whar-
omnino voluisset. omnis rei displicentis etiam opinio reprobatur, ever his e have permitted
quia nihil interest utrum sit quid an non sit, si cum non sit esse himself t for no one, seeing
ro praesumitur: plane interest illud ut falsum non patiatur quod vere him a m been born. Thus,
non est. 'Sed satis erat illi, inquis, conscientia sua: viderint what it had been his will nor ro be, ir certainly would have been
his will not to seem to be. 'Whenever any fact is objectionable,
homines si natum putabant quia hominem videbant.' quanto
even the supposition of it is disapproved of: because it makes no
ergo dignius, quo constantius, humanam sustinuisset existima-
matter whether a thing is or is not iq when it is not, there is a pre-
tionem vere natus, eandem existimationem etiam non natus subi- sumption that it is. But this certainly does mamer, that God
rJ turus cum iniuria conscientiae suae. quantum ad fiduciam ïeputas should not experience as a falsehood that which he is not in truth.
ut non natus adversus conscientiam suam natum se existimari 'But,'you say, 'his conscience was enough for him: it was men's
sustineret? quid tanti fuit, edoce, quod sciens Christus quid esset fault if they thought him born because they saw him a man.'
id se quod non erat exhiberet? non potes dicere,'Ne si natus Well then, with how much more dignity, as well as consistency,
would he have borne with men's esrimate of him if really born,
29 rctra;ctem:u;s A. seeing that even though nor born he would have had to bear with
3:3 voluerit libri nolaerít(Jrs. Kroy. the same estimate, with wrong done to his own conscience
5 voluisset T (manifesto errore).
besides. How much, think you, does it count towards our con-
7 ira AT itaque XB.
rc 1llud om. A. fidence in him, if while not born he did againsr his conscience pur
13 quo z{T quantoque XB. up with the repute of having been born? Tell me, what madè it
ri quantum,4 quam tv ceteti. worth Christ's while, that when he knew what he was he should
17 qtrod AT clulll' XB. make himself visible as what he was not? Your ans\^/er carinot be,
 r
IO DE CÂRNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST II

fuisset et hominem vere induisset deus esse desisset, amittens quod 'Lest if he had been born and had really clothed himselfwith man
2o eratdum fit quod non erat' : periculum enim status sui deo nullum he might have ceased to be God, losing what he was while be-
coming what he was not.' For God runs no risk of ceasing to be
est. 'Sed ideo, inquis, nego deum in hominem vere conversum'
what he is. 'But,' you say, 'the reason why I deny that God was
ita ut et nesceretur et carne corporaretur, quia qui sine fine est
really and truly changed into man, in the sense of being both
etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est: converti enim in aliud finis est
born and corporated in flesh, is that he who is without end must
pristini: non competit ergo conversio cui non comPetit finis.' of necessity also be unchangeable: for to be changed into some-
z5 plane natura convertibilium ea lege est ne Permaneant in eo quod
thing else is an ending of what originally was: therefore change is
convertitur in eis, et ita non permanendo Pereant dum perdunt inapplicable to one to whom ending is inapplicable.' I admit that
convertendo quod fuerunt. sed nihl deo Par est: natura eius ab the nature of things changeable is bound by that law which pre-
irmnium rerum conditione distat. si ergo quae a deo distant, a cludes them from abiding in that which in them suffers change-
quibus et deus distat, cum convertuntur amittunt quod fuerunt, the law which causes them to be destroyed by not abiding, seeing
3o ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a ceteris rebus nisi ut contrarium that by process of change they destroy that which they once
obtineat, id est ut deus et in omnia converti possit et qualis est per- were. But nothing is on equal terms with God: his nature is far
severare? alioquin par erit eorum quâe conversa amittunt quod removed from the circumstances of all things whatsoever. If then
fuerunt, quorum utique deus in omnibus Par non est: sic nec in things far removed from God, things from which God is far
removed, do in the process of being changed lose that which they
exitu conversionis. angelos creatoris conversos in efügiem
once'were, where will be the difference berween divinity and the
¡s humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantem corporis
rest of things except that the contrary obtains, namely that God
gestasse veritatem ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham et manibus
can be changed into anything whatsoever, and yet continue such
ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth, conluctatus quoque homini as he is? Otherwise he will be on equal terms with the things
angelus toto corporis pondere dimitti desideraverit, adeo detine- which, when changed, lose that which they once were-things
batur. quod ergo angelis inferioris dei licuit conversis in corpu- with which he is not on equal terms, as in all respects so also in the
+o lentiam humanam, ut angeli nihilominus Permanerent, hoc tu outcome of change. You have read at one time, and believed it,
potentiori deo auferes, çluasi non valuerit Christus eius vere that the Creator's angels were changed into human shape, and
hominem indutus deus perseverare? aut numquid et angeli illi that the bodies they were clothed with were of such veriry that
phantasma carnis apparuerunt? sed non audebis hoc dicere: nam Abraham washed their feet, and that by their hands Lot was
zo ft A est T assumit XB (on. P)' snatched away from the men of Sodom,' and an angel also having
z3-4 converli enim...competit finis om. TBms'. \Mrestled with a man with the whole weight of his body desired
z4 conversio cui XB conversio eius cui A Rig' Kroy. to be let go, so fast was he held.' Well then, that which was per-
z8 conditione /TP condicione ceteri. mitted to the angels of the inferior God when changed into human
z8-9 a quibus et T et om. AXB eut a quibus Urs. corporeity, the faculty ofnone the less remaining angels-will you
33 ita pungebatn de:us om. zL deus ut Kroy. deny this to the more mighty God, as though his Christ had not
38 adeo z4X (a deo) ab eo a quo TB. the power, when truly clothedwith manhood, of continuing to be
39 ergo TXB enim A inferioris dei z4 inferioribus dei T inferioribus
deo XB.
God? Or did perhaps those angels too become visible as a phan-
tasm of flesh? No, this you will not dare to say. For if in your
4r eius om. XB.
43 Ph"ntas-att N Rig. Oeh. ' Cf. Gen. 18; r9. '? Cf. Gen. 32. z4-26.
 12 DE CARNE CIIRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST r3
si sic apud te angeli creatoris sicut et Christus, eius dei erit Christus view the Creator's angels are as Christ is, Christ will belong to
¿s cuius angeli tales qualis et Christus. si scripturas opinioni tuae that God whose angels are such as Christ is. If you had not
resistentes non de industria alias reiecisses alias corrupisses, con- maliciously rejected some and corrupted orhers of the scriptures
fudisset te in hac specie evangelium Iohannis praedicans spiritum which oppose your views, the Gospel ofJohn would in this mater
columbae corpore lapsum desedisse super dominum. qui spiritus have put you to rout when it proclaims that the Spirit in the body
cum [hoc] esset, tam vere eret et columba quam et spiritus, nec of a dove glided down and settled upon our Lord.' Though he
so interfecerat substantiam propriam assumpta substantia extranee. was spirit he was no less truly dove than spirit, yet had not put to
sed quaeris corpus columbae ubi sit, resumpto spiritu in caelum. death his own proper substance by the assumprion of a substance
aeque et angelorum, eadem ratione interceptum est qua et editum not his own. But, you ask, where is the body of the dove, now
fuerat. si vidisses cum de nihilo proferebatur, scisses et cum in that the Spirit has been withdrawn inro heaven? Just like the
nihlum subducebatur. si non fuit initium visibile, nec finis. bodies of the angels, it was suppressed on the seme terms on which
55 tamen corporis soliditas erat quoquo momento corpus videbatur: it had also been produced. If you had seen it when it was being
non potest non fuisse quod scriptum est. brought out of non-existence, you would have been aware also
4 Igitur si neque ut impossibilem neque ut periculosam deo when it was being withdrawn into non-existence. As its begin-
repudias corporationem, superest ut quasi indignam reicias et ning was not visible, neither was its ending. Yet it was a body, a
accuses. ab ipsa quidem exorsus odio habita nativitate perora, body in three dimensions, at whatever moment it was visible as a
age iam spurcitias genitalium in utero elementorum, humoris et body.'That which is written cannot possibly nor have been so.
s sanguinis foeda coagula, carnis ex eodem caeno alendae per novem 4 So then, if your repudiation of embodiment is due neither to
menses. describe uterum de die in diem insolescentem, gravem, the supposition that God would find it impossible nor ro the fear
anxium, nec somno tutum, incertum libidinibus fastidii et gulae. that it \Mould bring him into peril, it remains for you to reject and
invehere iam et in ipsum mulieris enitentis pudorem, vel pro peri- arraign it as undignified. Beginning then with that nativiry you
culo honorandum,-vel pro natura religiosum. horres åtiqüe et so strongly object to, orate, attack now, the nastinesses of genital
ro infantem cum suis impedimentis profusum, utique et oblitum. elements in the womb, the filthy curdling of moisrure and blood,
dedignaris quod pannis dirigitur, quod unctionibus formatur, and of the flesh to be for nine months nourished on that same
quod blanditiis deridetur. hanc venerationem naturae, Marcion, mire. Draw a picture of the womb getting daily more un-
despuis, et quomodo natus es? odisti nascentem hominem, et manageable, heavy, selÊconcerned, safe not even in sleep, un-
44 eius dei AT eiusdem substantiae XB eius dei substantiae Bmø. certain in the whims of dislikes and appetites. Nexr go all out
45 cui angeli T (forsan recte). against the modesry of the travailing woman, a modesty which at
48 sedisse T descendisse F. 49 lroc om. TBms' least because of danger ought to be respected and because of its
J2 aeque et AT om. et XB. nature is sacred. You shudder, of course, at the child passed out
5J quoquo A qtto ceteri. along with his afterbirth, and of course bedaubed with it. You
4: 3 quidem AX iarn TB (forsan rccte) odio habita om. .AX.
think it shameftrl that he is straightened out with bandages, thar
S quaero an cartrjs sotdes scribendum sit.
ó in diem TB om. ceteri he is licked into shape with applications of oil, that he is beguiled
7 nec somno tutum T Rd. nec sono totum z4 nexum totum XB. by coddling. This natural object of reverence you, Marcion, be-
9 horrendum f ffalso). spittle: yet how r /ere you born? You hate man during his birth:
ro-rr oblitum. dedignaris sribebam ablutum dedignaris áT oblitum. how can you love any man? Yourself at least you evidently did
dedignaberis XB. 2 Cf..Lake 3. zz.
' Cf.John r.32-34.
 r-
f4 DE CÀRNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST I5
quomodo diligis aliquem? te quidem plane non amasti cum ab not love when you withdrew from the Church and the faith of
ecclesia et fide Christi recessisti. sed videris si tibi displices aut si Christ. But it is your own concern if you are an object of dis-
's pleasure to yourself or ifyou were born some other way. Christ,
aliter es natus: certe Christus dilexit hominem illum in immundi-
there is no doubt of it, did care for the sort of man who was
tüs in utero coagulatum, illum per pudenda prolatum, il1um per
curdled in uncleannesses in the womb, who was brought forth
ludibria nutritum. propter eum descendit, propter eum praedica- through organs immodest, who took nourishment through
vit, propter eum omni se humilitate deiecit usque ad mortem, et organs of ridicule. For his sake he came down, for his sake he
20 mortem crucis, amavit utique quem magno redemit. si christus preached the gospel, for his sake he cast himself down in all
creatoris est, suum merito amavit: si ab alio deo est, magis humility even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.' Evidently
adamavit, quando alienum redemit. amavit ergo cum homine he loved him: for he redeemed him at a gteatpÅce.' If Christ
etiam nativitatem, etiam carnem eius: nihil amari potest sine eo belongs to the Creator, with good reason he loved his own: if he
is from another god his love was even greater, in that he loved one
per quod est id quod est. aut aufer nativitatem et exhibe hominem,
who was not his own. In any case, along with man he loved also
,s adime carnem et praesta quem deus redemit. si haec sunt homo
his nativity, and his flesh besides: nothing can be loved apart
quem deus redemit, tu haec erubescenda illi facis qui redemit, et from that by which it is what it is. Else you must remove
indigna, quae nisi dilexisset non redemisset? nativitatem reformat netivity and show me man, you must take away flesh and present
a morte regeneratione caelesti, carnem ab omni vexatione resti- to me him whom God has redeemed. If these are the consrituenrs
tuit: leprosam emaculat, crecam reluminat, paralyticam redinte- of man whom God has redeemed, who are you to make them a
3o grat, demoniacam expiat, mortuam resuscitat: et nasci in illam cause of shame to him who redeemed them, or to make them
erubescit? si revera de lupa aut sue alrtvacca prodire voluisset, et beneath his dignity, when he would not have redeemed them
unless he had loved them? Nativity he reshapes from death by a
ferae aut pecoris corpore indutus regnum caelorum praedicaret,
heavenly regeneretion, flesh he restores from every distress:
tua opinor illi censura praescriberet turpe hoc deo et indignurn hoc
leprous he cleanses it, blind he restores its sight, palsied he makes it
dei filio, et stultum propterea qui ita credat. sit plane stultum: de
whole again, devil-possessed he atones for it, dead he brings it
3J nostro sensu iudicemus deum. sed circumspice, Marcion, si again to life: is he ashamed to be born into it? If indeed it had
tamen non delesti: Stulta mundi elegit deus, ut confundat been his will to come forth of a she-wolf or a sow or a cow, and,
sapientia. quaenam haec stulta sunt? conversio hominum ad clothed with the body of a wild or a domestic animal, he were to
culturam veri dei, reiectio erroris, disciplina iustitiae pudicitiae preach the kingdom of heaven, your censorship I suppose would
make for him a ruling that this is a disgrace to God, that this is
zr cre¿toris A cre¿tor eius T (sec. man.) XB, beneath the dignity of the Son of God, and consequently that any
zz aáarnwit XB ¿mavit AT. man is a fool who so believes. A fool, yes certainly: let us judge
z5 adime TXB aut adhibe z{ post rcdemtt periodum faciebam. God in accordance with our own sentiments. But look about
zó qui redemit scribebam (íta T, man.) qtem F quLae eeteri.
sec.
you, Marcion, if indeed you have not deleted the passage: Gol
z9 reluminat AT perlumtnat XB.
hath chosen thefoolßh things of the world, that he may put to shame the
3o nasci in illam erubescit TXB Kroy. nos illam erubescemus A Oeh. 'What
things that are ûise.3 are these foolish things ? The conversion
34 sit T.XB si A de nostro ,,4 si de rrostro ceteri.
37 sapientia zL sapientiã 7 sapientes XB.
of men to the worship of the true God, the rejection of error,
r Cf. Phil. z. 8. 2 Cf, r Cor. ó. zo. 3 t Cor. t.27.
38 culturam.¿lT cultum XB.
 Ió DE CÂRNE CHRISTI ON TIIE FLESH OF CHRIST T7

misericordiae patientiae, innocentiae omnis? haec quidem stulta instruction in righteousness, in chastity, in mercy, in patience, and
40 non sunt. quaere ergo de quibus dixerit: et si te praesumpseris in all manner of innocency? No, these are not foolish things.
invenisse, num erit tam stultum quam credere in deum natum, et Inquire then to what things he did refer: and if you presume you
quidem ex virgine, et quidem carneum, qui per illas naturae have discovered them, can any of them be so foolish as belief in
God who was born, born moreover of a virgin, born with a body
contumelias volutatus sit? dicat haec aliquis stulta non esse, et alia
of flesh, God who has wallowed through those reproaches of
sint quae deus in aemulationem elegerit sapientiae saecularis: et
nature? Let someone say these are not foolish things: suppose
4J temen apud illam facilius creditur Iuppiter taurus factus aut
it to be other things which God has chosen for opposition to the
cycnus, quam vere homo Christus penes Marcionem. wisdom of the world-and yet, the professors of this world's
5 Sunt plane et alia tam stulta, quae pertinent ad contumelias et wisdom find it easier to believe that Jupiter became a bull or a
passiones dei: aut prudentiam dicant deum crucifixum. aufer hoc swan than Marcion finds it to believe that Christ veritably became
quoque, Marcion, immo hoc potius. quid enim indignius deo, men.
quid magis erubescendum, nasci an mori, carnem gestare an 5 There are, I submit, other things too that are foolish enough,
i crucem, circumcidi an suffigi, educari an sepeliri, in praesepe those concerned with the reproaches and sufferings of God. If
deponi an in monimento recondi ? sapientior eris si nec ista not, let them call it prudence that God was crucified. Excise this
crJideris. sed non eris sapiens nisi stullus in saeculo fueris, dei also, Marcion-or rather, this for preference. For which is more
stulta credendo. an ideo passiones a Christo non rescidisti quia ut beneath God's dignity, more a matter of shame, to be born or to
phantasma vacabat a sensu earum? diximus retro aeque illum et
die, to carry about a body or a cross, to be circumcised or to be
ro nativitatis et infantiae imaginariae vacua ludibria subire potuisse.
crucified, to be fed at the breast or to be buried, to be laid in a
manger or to be entombed in a sepulchre? You will be the wiser
sed iam hic responde, interfector veritatis: nonne vere crucifixus
if you refuse to believe these either. Yet wise you cailrot be,
est deus ? nonne vere mortuus est ut vere crucifixus ? norure vere
except by becoming a fool in the world through believing the
resuscitatus ut veïe scilicet mortuus ? falso statuit inter nos scire foolish things of God. Or was your reason for not tearing out of
Paulus tantum Iesum crucifixum, falso sepultum ingessit, falso your scriptures the sufferings of Christ that as a phantasm he was
rs resuscitatum inculcavit? falsa est igitur et fides nostra, et phan- free from the perception of them? I have already suggested that
tasma erit totum quod speramus a Christo, scelestissime hominum, he could equally well have undergone the unsubstantial ridicule
qui interemptores excusas dei: nihil enim ab eis passus est Christus, of an imaginary nativity and infancy. But your enswer is now
39 omnis. haec z4 omnia hæc TXB. 4o te om. A.
required, murderer of the truth: was not God truþ crucfied?
4r num TBns' nonAXB. did he not, as truly crucified, truly die? was he not truly raised
5: ó monimento ,4. monumeîtvrrr celer¡. again, seeing of course he truly died?'Was it by fraud that Paul
7 in saeculo AT saeculo XB. determined to know nothing among us save Jesus crucified,'
9 a sensu ATBns. ad sensum XB (tnanifesto enore). was it by fraud that he represented him as buried,'by fraud that
n l.jc TXB h:nc A. he insisted that he was raised up again?l Fraudulent in that case
rz deus AXB å¡rs T.
is also our faith, and the whole of what we hope for from Christ
13 suscitatus AT et híe et infra se statuit á.
14 Iesum A om, ceteri Christlum potius expectasses.
will be a phantasm, you utter scoundrel, who pronounce innocent
15 inculcavit? ínterrogandí signum ponebam. the assassins of God. For of them Christ suffered nothing, if he in
ry dei AXB domini T. ' Cf. r Cor. z. z, " Cf. r Cor. 15. 4. 3 Cf, r Cor. t5. r7_lg.
ET
 r8 DE C¿,RNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST r9
si nihil vere est passus. parce unicae spei totius orbis: quid destruis reality suffered nothing. Spare the one and only hope of the
necessarium dedecus fidei? quodcunque deo indignum est mfüi whole world: why tear down the indispensable dishonour of the
,o expedit: salvus sum sinon confundar de domino meo: Qui me, faith? Whatever is beneath God's dignity is for my advantage.
inquit, confusus fuerit, confundar et ego eius. alias non invenio I am saved if I am not ashamed of my Lord. Whosoeuer is
ashaned of me, he says, of hin w ill I also be ashamed.' I find no other
materiâs confusionis quae me per contemptum ruboris probent
grounds for shame, such as may prove that in contempt of dis-
bene impudentem et feliciter stultum. crucifixus est dei filius:
honour I am nobly shameless and advantageously a fool. The Son
non pudet, quia pudendum est. et mortuus est dei filius: prorsus of God was crucified: I am not ashamed-because it is shameful.
,s credibile est, quia ineptum est. et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, The Son of God died: it is immediateþ credible-because it is
quia impossibile. sed haec quomodo vera in illo erunt si ipse non silly. He was buried, and rose again: it is certain-because it is
fuit verus, si non vere habuit in se quod figeretur quod moreretur impossible. But how can these acts be true in him, if he himself
quod sepeliretur et resuscitaretur, carnem scilicet hanc sanguine was not true, if he had not truly in himself that which could be
suffusam ossibus substructam nervis intextam venis implexam, crucified, which could die, which could be buried and raised up
again-this flesh, in fact, suffused with blood, scaffolded of bones,
30 quae nasci et mori novit, humanam sine dubio ut natam de
threaded through with sinews, intertwined with veins, competent
homine ? ideoque mortalis haec erit in Christo quia Christus homo
to be born and to die, human unquestionably, as born of a human
et filius hominis. aut cur homo Christus et hominis filius si nilil mother? And in Christ this fesh will be mortal precisely because
hominis et nihil ex homine, nisi si aut aliud est homo quam caro, Christ is man, and Son of Man. Else why is Christ called Man,
aut aliunde caro hominis quam ex homine, aut aliud est Maria and Son of Man, if he has nothing that is man's, and nothing
3i quam homo, aut homo deus Marcionis? aliter non diceretur derived from man?-unless perchance either man is something
homo Christus sine carne, nec hominis filius sine aliquo parente other than flesh, or man's flesh is derived from somewhere else
homine, sicut nec deus sine spiritu dei nec dei filius sine deo patre. than from man, or Mary is something other than human, or
ita utriusque substantiae census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc Marcion's god is a man. Unless one of these suppositions were
true, Christ could not be described in the Scripture as man except
natum inde non natum, hinc carneum inde spiritalem, hinc in-
with reference to his flesh, nor as Son of Man except with refer-
+o firmum inde praefortem, hinc morientem inde viventem. quae
ence to some human parent: as neither could he be described as
proprietas conditionum, divinae et humanae, aequa utique naturae
God without the Spirit of God, nor es the Son of God without
cuiusque veritate dispuncta est, eadem fide et spiritus et carnis: God for his Father. Thus the ofücial record of both substances
18 quid AT qrli' XB. represents him as both man and God: on the one hand born, on
zo me líbri mei Rrg. the other not born: on the one hand fleshly, on the other spiritual:
z3 crucifixus ATBms. natus XB (nanifesto errore). .
on the one hand weak, on the other exceeding strong: on the one
24 prorsus om. AT.
hand dying, on the other living. That these two sets of attributes,
3o humanam. . . natam XB humana . . .nata AT, ut periodo post írnplexamfacta
the divine and the human, are each kept distinct from the other,
íta quae sequuntur rcsuibas quae nasci et mori novit, humana sine dubio ut
nata de homine ideoque mortalis, haec e¡it in Christo etc.
is of course accotrnted for by the equal verity of each nature, both
3r quia Christus TB om. ceteri. flesh and spirit being in full degree what they claim to be: the
35 aliter AT ha:od aliter B aut aliter X dicetur ?. powers of the Spirit of God proved him God, the sufferings
4z cuiusque on. X. r Matt. ro. 33;Mark 8. 38; Luke 9. zó.
 r-
DE CÀRNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 2T

virtutes spiritus dei deum, passiones carnem hominis probaverunt.

si virtutes non sine spiritu, perinde et passiones non sine carne: si
4i caro cum passionibus ficta, et spiritus ergo cum virtutibus falsus.
quid dimidias mendacio Christum? totus veritas fuit. maluit,
credo, nasci quam ex aliqua parte mentiri, et quidem in semet-
better, I am sure, to be born than to be partially alíar, a liar too
ipsum, ut carnem gestaret sine ossibus duram, sine musculis
against himself, by wearing flesh with
solidam, sine sanguine cruentam, sine tunica vestitam, sine fame
muscles yet firm, without blood yet
so esurientem, sine dentibus edentem, sine lingua loquentem, ut
clothed, flesh that hungered without
phantasma auribus fuerit sermo eius per imaginem vocis. fuit his discourse should be a
itaque phantasma etiem post resurrectionem cum manus et pedes ghost of a voice. In such a
suos discipulis inspiciendos offert, Aspicite, dicens, quod ego sum, the resurrection when he
quia spiritus ossa non habet sicut me habentem videtis-sine dubio offered his hands and feet for his disciples to examfute, saying,
5i manus et pedeS et ossa quae spiritus non habet, sed caro. quomodo Behold thatI am I, because a spirit hath not bones as ye see me hauing'-
hanc vocem interpretaris, Marcion, qui a deo optimo et simplici et undoubtedly meaning hands and feet and bones which a spirit
bono tantum infers lesum? ecce fallit et decipit et circumvenit has not but flesh has. How dô you interpret this saying, Marcion,
omnium oculos, omnium sensus, omnium accessus et contactus. when you deduce Jesus from a god who is supremely good and
ergo iam Christum non de caelo deferre debueras sed de aliquo candid and free from all evil? See how he beguiles and deceives
óo circulatorio coetu, nec deum praeter hominem sed magum and circumvents the eyes of all, their perceptions, their approaches,
hominem, nec salutis pontificem sed spectaculi artificem, nec their contacts. In that case you ought not to have brought Christ
down from heeven, but from some b and of strolling mountebanks,
mortuorum resuscitatorem sed vivorum avocatorem: nisi quod et
not as God without manhood but as a man and a magician, not as
si magus fuit, natus est.
the high priest of salvation2 but as the producer of a pantomime,
6 Sed quidam iam discentes Pontici illius, supra magistrum
not as the raiser of the dead but as a seducer of the living: excePt
sapere compulsi, concedunt Christo carnis veritatem, sine prae-
that even if he was a magician he was born.
iudicio tamen renuendae nativitatis: 'Habuerit, inquiunt, carnem, 6 Next we come to certain disciples of this man of Pontus, who,
dum omnino nonnatam.' pervenimus igitur de calcaria quod dici driven to be wise above their master, allow Christ veritable flesh,
s solet in carbonariam, a Marcione ad Apellen, qui posteaquam a yet without prejudice to the denial of his nativity. '.We will
disciplinaMarcionisin mulierem carne lapsus et dehinc invirginem admit,' they say, 'that he had flesh, provided it was in no sense
Philumenen spiritu eversus est, solidum Christi corpus sed sine born.' So we come, as the proverb has it, from the limekiln to the
nativitate suscepit ab ea praedicare. et angelo quidem illi Philu- charcoal-furnace, from Marcion to Apelles. This person, after
menes eadem voce apostolus respondebit qua ipsum illum iam suffering t carnal fall from the school of Marcion in respect of a
'women, and thereafter a spiritual overthrow in respect of the

43 spiritus dei deum ,4 spiritum dei TXB (Jorsan recte). virgin Philumena, adopted from her the preaching of a three-
47 ctedo scribebam crede z4MPNRB credi F credi et TB^s' dimensional body of Christ, yet without a nativiry. Now the
57 Iesum om. TBns' apostle will answer that angel of Philumena's in the same terms in
6: r quidam iam T quid iam AXB quidam Urs. ' Lttke 24. 39. '¿ Cf. Heb.9. rr.
 22 DE CÀRNE CHRISTI oN THE FLESH OF CHRIST 23

ro tunc preecinebat dicens, Etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangeliza- which, so long ago, he prophesied of the heretic himsele saying,
Euen if an angelfrom heaven ltreach the gospel to you otherwise thdn we
verit vobis quam nos evangelizavimus, anathema sit: his vero
haue preached it, let him be anathema:' these fürther arguings of
quae insuper argumentantur, nos resistemus. confitentur vere theirs, however, it shall be ours to resist. They admit that Christ
corpus habuisse Christum. unde materia si non ex ea qualitate in truþ had a body. From whence was its constituent matter, if not
from matter of that quality in which it was Present to sight?
qua videbatur ? unde corpus si non caro corpus ? unde caro si non
From whence the body, if the body was not flesh? From whence
's nata? quia nasci haberet, ea futura quae nascitur. De sideribus, flesh, if the flesh was not born ? For it had to be born if it was to be
inquiunt, et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem: such flesh as is born. 'From the stars,'they say,'and from the
substances of the superior world, he took flesh on loan.' And they
et utique proponunt non esse mirandum corpus sine nativitate, actually suggest that a body without a nativity is not to be
cum et apud nos angelis licuerit nulla uteri opera in carne pro- wondered at, seeing that we too admit that angels were permitted,
without any functioning of a womb, to aPPear on the scene in
cessisse. agnoscimus quidem ita relatum: sed þmen quale est ut
flesh." Now we agree that that is what the scripture rePorts.
,o alterius regulae fides ab ea fide quam impugnat insrrumentum Yet what sort of procedure is this, that a faith of a different rule
argumentationibus suis mutuetur? quid illi cum Moyse qui deum should borrow documentary evidence for its arguings from the
'What
faith it is attacking? has Apelles to do with Moses, when he
Moysi reicit? si alius deus est, aliter sint res eius. sed urantur
haeretici ornnes scripturis eius cuius utuntur etiam mundo-erit
illis hoc quoque in testimonium iudicü quod de exemplis ipsius
,s blasphemias suas instruunt-facile est veritati etiam nihil tale them a testimony ofjudgement, that they find suPPort for their
blasphemies from precedents he has provided-it is easy for the
adversus eos praescribenti obtinere. igitur qui carnem Christi ad
ffuth to win its case, even without raising this kind of objection to
exemplum proponunt angelorum, non natam dicentes iicet their use of the evidence. Therefore I would that these who claim
carnem, comparent velim et causes tam Christi quam et ange- that the flesh of Christ followed the precedent of the angels,
alleging that though flesh it was not born, would comPâre also the
lorum ob quas in carne processerint. nullus unquam angelus ideo reasons, Christ's no less than the angels', for which they made
¡o descenditut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte
suscitaretur. si mrnquam eiusmodi fuit causa angelorum cor-
porandorum, habes ceusem cur non nascendo acceperint cernem:
non venerant mori, ideo nec nasci. at vero Christus mori mìssus
nasci quoque necÈssario habuit ut mori posset. non enim mori
born, so that he might die. For customarily nothing dies except
2 Cf. Gen. 19. r.
3t futt om. T. ' Gal. r. 8.
 24 DE CARNE CHRISTI ON TIIE FLESII OF CHRIST 25

3i solet nisi quod nascitur: mutuum debitum est nativitati cum what is born. Nativity and mortality have a debt they owe each
mortalitate: forma moriendi causa nascendi est. si propter id quod to the other. The project of dying is rhe reason for being born. If
moritur mortuus est Christus, id autem moritur quod et nascitur, Christ died on behalf of that which does die, and if that does die
consequens erat, immo praecedens, ut aeque nascefetur propter id which also is born, it followed-or rarher, it preceded-that he no
less must be born on behaif of that which is born, since he had to
quod nascitur, quia propter id ipsum mori habebat quod quia
die on behalf of that which, because it is born, does die: ir was nor
+o nascitur moritur: non competebat non nasci pro quo mori com-
competent for him nor ro be born on behalf of that for which it
petebat. atquin tunc quoque inter angelos illos ipse dominus v/as competent for him to die.''Moreover, on the occasion in
apparuit Abrahae sine nativitate, cum carne scilicet, pro eadem
causae diversitate: sed vos hoc non recipitis, non eum Christum
recipientes qui iam tunc et adloqui et liberare et iudicare humanum
45 genus ediscebat in carnis habitu, non natae adhuc quia nondum
moriturae nisi prius et nativitas eius et mortalitas annuntiarentur.
igitur probent angelos illos carnem de sideribus concepisse: si non
judge the human race,z in the guise of flesh not as yet born
because not yet to die, except first there should be an annunciation
probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui
both of his nativity and of his mortality. Let them then show
angelorum accommodant exemplum. constat angelos carnem
proof that those angels received the substance of their flesh from
io non propriam gestasse utpote natura substantiae spiritalis-etsi the stars. As they do not prove it-because neither is it written-
corporis alicuius, sui tamen generis-in carnem eutem humanam neither will the srars be the origin of Christ's flesh, ro which they
transfigurabiles ad tempus videri et congredi cum hominibus apply the precedent of the angels. It is agreed berween us rhar rhe
posse. igitur cum relatum non sit unde sumpserint carnem, angels wore flesh not their own, seeing they are by nature of
relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare hoc esse proprium spiritual substance-rhough they have a body, albeit of irs own
ss angelicae potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. Quanto
kind-but yet are transfigurable into human flesh, and cen on
occesion come into sight and into contact with men. Since then
magis, inquis, ex aliqua. certum est: sed nihil de hoc constat, quia
it is not reported from what source they took their flesh, it is left
scriptura non exhibet. ceterum qui valent facere semetipsos quod
for our understanding not to doubt that it is a property of angelic
natura non sunt, cur non valeant ex nulla substantia facere ? si fiunt
power to take to itself a body from a source not material. 'How
quod non sunt, cur non ex eo fiant quod non est ? quod autem non much more,' yoo say, 'from a source which is material.' Cer-
6o est, cum fit, ex nihilo est. propterea nec requiritur nec ostenditur tainly. But on this there is no agreement, because the Scrþture
offers no evidence. Yet why should those who have the power to
39 quia nascitur AT quiz id quod nascitur XB. make themselves into that which by nature they are not,iot have
40 pro quo AXB propter quod T. the power to make themselves so out of that which is no sub-
47 catnettde sideribus concepisse A Rìg. Oeh. de sideribus accepisse sub-
stentiam carnrs TXB Kroy.
stance? If they are made into something they are not, why
should they not be made into it out of that which is not? But
io gestasse TXB edd. portasse Ä.
j2-J3 transfìgurabiles ad tempus videri...posse A Oeh. transfigurabilis ad when that which is not comes into existence, it exists out of
tempus ut videri . . . possent TF Kroy . transfigurabiles ad tempus ut videri . . . nothing. For this reason one does not ask, and we are not told,
? Cf. Gen. 18.5 etc.; 19. 16; 18.
possent MPNRB. ' Cf. Gen. 18. r. 20 rg.24.
 26 DE C¿,RNE CHRISTI oN THE FLESH OF CHRTST 27
quid postea factum sit corporibus illorum: quod de nihilo fuit, what afterwards became of their bodies. That which was from
nihl factum est. possunt nihl ipsum convertere in carnem qui nothing became nothing. Being able to change themselves into
semetipsos potuerunt convertere in carnem: plus est naturam flesh, they are able to change nothingness itself into fesh. It is a
demutare quam facere materiam. sed et si de materia necesse fuit bigger thing to change one's nature than to make matter. But
øs angelos sumpsisse cernem, credibilius utique est de terrena mateiia
even supposing it was necessary for the angels to have taken flesh
from matter it is certainly easier to believe that they took it from
quam de ullo genere caelestium substantiarum, cum adeo terrenae
terrestrial matter than from any species of celestial substances,
qualitatis extiterit ut terrenis pabulis pasta sit. fuerit: sit nunc
since it r,,vas to such an extent of terrestrial quality that it fed on
fluoque siderea eodem modo terrenis pabulis pasta quando terrena terrestrial food. And further, suppose now we grant that sidere-
non esset, quo terrena caelestibus pasta est quando caelestis non al flesh, while not terrestrial, may have fed on terrestrial food
zo esset-legimus enim manna esui populo fuisse: Panem, inquit, in the seme manner as terrestrial flesh, while not celestial, fed on
angelorum edit homo-non tamen infringitur semel separata celestial food-for we read that manna was meat for the people,
condicio dominicae carnis ex causa alterius dispositionis. homo and it says, Man did eat angels' food'-yet the attributes of the
vere futurus usque ad mortem, eam carnem oportebat indueret Lord's flesh, once they are set in a class by themselves, are not
cuius et mors: eem porro carnem cuius est mors nativitas ante- affected by a reason which belongs to a different dispensation.
zs cedit. As he was to be truly man even unto death, he was under necessity

Z Sed quotiens de nativitate contenditur otnnes qui respuunt of clothing himself with that flesh to which death belongs: and
eam ut praeiudicantem de carnis in Christo veritate ipsum that flesh to which death belongs has nativity for its antecedent.
dominum volunt negare esse (se) natum quia dixerit, Quae mihi 7 BÍt as often as there is discussion of the nativity, all those who
reject it as prejudging the issue concerning the verity of the flesh
mater et qui mihi fratres? audiat igitur et Apelles quid iam
in Christ, claim that the Lord himself denies having been born,
s responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello quo ad evangelium on the ground that he asked, Who is ny mother and who are ffiy
ipsius provocavimus, considerandam scilicet materiam pro- brethren?' So let Apelles too hear what answer I have already
nuntiationis istius; primo quidem nunquam quisquam adnunti- given to Marcion in that work in which I have made appeal to
asset illi matrem et fratres eius foris stantes qui non certus esset et the Gospel which he accepts, namely that the background of that
-Well
habere illum matrem et fratres et ipsos esse quos tunc nuntiabat, remark must be taken into consideration. then, in the first
ro vel retro cognitos vel tunc ibidem compertos: licet propterea place no one would ever have reported to him that his mother
abstulerint haereses ista de evangelio quod et creditum patrem eius and his brethren were standing without unless he were sure that
Ioseph fabrum et matrem Mariam et fratres et sorores eius opiime he had a mother and brethren and that it was they whose presence
notos sibi esse dicebant qui mirabantur doctrinam eius. 'Sed he was then announcing, having either previously known them,
or at least then and there made their acquaintance. This I say, in
67 fierit om. X.
spite of the fact that the heresies have deliberately removed from
7t senel om. T.
the Gospel the statements thet those who marvelled at his doctrine
7z condicío á conditio eeteri (forsan rccte).
said that both Joseph the carpenter, his reputed father, and Mary
74 et AT Kroy. est ceteri. est TXB et A Kroy.
7: 3 dominum AT deum X (uulgo). negere esse se scríbeban negasse* á his mother, and his brothers and sisters, 'were very well known to
negare T negare esse XB uulgo. r Ps. 78.25.
8 stantes A starc TXB. 2 Matt. rz. 48; cf. Mark 3. 33; Luke 8. zo, zr.
 r
28 DE CARNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 29

temptandi gratia nuntieverant ei matrem et fratres quos non them.' 'But,' they say, 'it was for the sake of tempting him that
habebat.' hoc quidem scriptura non dicit, alias non tacens cum they announced to him the mother and the brethren whom
's actually he had not.' Now the Scripture does not sey this,
quid temptationis gratia factum est erga eum: Ecce, inquit, sqr-
though elsewhere it is not silent when any action respecting him
reút legis doctor temptans eum: et alibi, Et accesserunt ad eum was þken with a view to temptation. Behold, it says, there stood
pharisaei temptantes eum: quod nemo prohibebat hic quoque law, tempting hiru:" and in another pIace, And
uyt a doctor of the

significari temptandi gratia factum. non recipio quod extra there came to hín the Pharisees, tenpting him.z And there was no
reason why it should not have been indicated here that this was
zo scripturam de tuo infers. dehinc materia temptationis debet sub-
done to tempt him. I refuse to accept an inference of your own,
esse. quid temptandum putaverint in illo ? 'IJtique natusne esser which is not in Scripture. Secondly, there has to be some ground
'What
annon: si enim hoc negavit responsio eius, hoc captevit nuntiatio beneath the temptation. was it they could think worth
tempting in him? ''Whether, of course, he had been born or
temptatoris.' sed nulla temptatio tendens ad agnitionem eius de
not : for as his answer constituted a denial of this, this was what the
quo dubitando temptat ita subito procedit ut non ante praecedat tempter's announcement angled for.' But no temptation, which
2j quaestio quae dubitationem inferens cogat temptationem. porro has in view the ascertainment of that in doubt of which it makes
si nusquam de nativitate Christi volutatum est, quid tu argu- the temptation, proceeds with such abruptness as to dispense with
a precedent question which by suggesting doubt may give point
mentaris voluisse illos per temptationem sciscitari quod nunquam
to the temptation. Consequently, as there had nowhere been any
produxerunt in quaestionem? eo adicimus, etiam si temptandus canvassing of Christ's nativity, how can you argue that these
esset de netivitate, non utique hoc modo temptaretur, eerum people wished by means of a temptation to elicit something they
adnuntiatione quae poterant etiam nato Christo non had never brought into question? To this we add that, even if
30 personarum
there had been a case for tempting him in respect of his nativity,
fuisse. omnes nascimur, et temen non ornnes aut fratres habemus the temptation would certainly not have proceeded on the lines
aut matrem: adhuc potest (q"ir) et patrem magis habere quam of an announcement of the arrival of persons whose present
matrem et evunculos magis quam fratres. adeo non competit existence was no necessary consequence of Christ's having been
born. All of us are born, yet not all of us have either brothers or a
temptatio nativitatis, quam licebat et sine matris et sine fratrum
mother: one is more likely ataîy point to have a father than a
¡s nominatione constare. facilius plane est ut certi illum et matrem et mother, and maternal uncles than brothers. Thus there is here no
fratres habere divinitatem potius temptaverint eius quam narivi- room for a temptation respecting his nativity, for this could quite
well be a fact apafi from any mention either of mother or of
tatem, an intus agens sciret quid foris esset mendacio petitus
brethren. It is in fact easier to suppose that, being assured that he
praesentiae adnuntiatae eorum qoi itr praesentia non erant. nisi had both a mother and brethren, they were making trial of his
16 erga- AT circa X.
divinity rather than of his nativity, by attempting to discover
zr putaverint A Oeh. putaverunt TXB Kroy. utique etc. interlocutorì whether while busy indoors he knew what there was out of
assígnabam, doors, when assailed with a lying report of the presence of people
3z quis om. lihrí.
t Cf, Luke 3. z3; Mark 6. z-4; l|y',latt. 13. jJ, Jó.
38 adnuntiatae AT on. XB. ? Luke ro.25. 3 Matt. 19. 3.
 30 DX CARNE CHRISTT ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 3r
quod et sic vacuisset temptationis ingenium: poterat enim who actually were not there. And yet, even in this case the device
40 evenire ut quos illi nuntiabant foris stare, ille eos sciret absentes behind the temptation would have failed of its purpose: for it
could have been the case that those whom they reported standing
esse vel valetudinis vel negotii vel peregrinationis nota ei iem
without were known by him to be absent, through the claims of
necessitate. nemo temptat eo modo quo sciat posse se ruborem or of business or of a long journey, which he was already
illness
temptationis referre. nulla igitur materia temptationis com- aware of. No one frames a temptation in terms through which
petente liberatur simplicitas nuntiatoris, quod vere mater et he knows that the embarrâssment of the temptation may recoil
upon himself. As therefore there existed no pertinent ground of
+s fraffes eius supervenissent. sed quae ratio responsi matrem et
temptation, it remains for us to admit the candour of the mes-
fratres ad praesens negantis discat etiam Apelles. fratres domini senger and to acknowledge that his mother and his brethren really
non crediderant in illum, sicut et in evangelio ante Marcionem had come for him. But let Apelles, as well as Marcion, hear from
edito continetur: mater aeque non demonstratur adhaesisse illi, me what was the reason behind the reply which for the moment
denied mother and brethren. Our Lord's brethren did not
cum Martha et Mariae aliae in commercio eius frequententur.
believe in him:' this also is included in the Gospel as it was
5o hoc denique in loco epparet incredulitas eorum: cum Iesus doceret published before Marcion's day. His mother iikewise is not
viam vitae, cum dei regnum praedicaret, cum languoribus et shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys
are often mentioned as being in his company.' At this juncture
vitüs medendis operaretur, extraneis defixis in illum tam proximi
their unbeiiefat last comes into the open. WhenJesus was teaching
aberant: denique superveniunt et foris subsistunt nec introeunr, the way of life, when he was preaching the Kingdom of God,
non computantes scilicet quid intus ageretur, nec sustinent saltem, when he was occupied in healing infìrmities and sicknesses, though
ss quasi necessarius aliquid afferrenr eo quod ille cum maxime age- strangers were intent upon him these near relations were absent.

bat, sed amplius interpellant et a tanto opere revocatum volunt. '{t length they come for him, they stand without and will not
enter, evidently not valuing what was being done inside. They
oro te Apelle, vel tu Marcion, si forte tabula ludens vel de histrio- do not so much es even wait, but, as though bringing more
nibus aut aurigis contendens tali nuntio avocareris nonne dixisses, important business than what he was then engaged upon, they go
so far as to interrupt, and wish him to be called away from so
Quae mihi mater aut qui fratres ? deum praedicans et probans
great awork. I put it to you, Apelles, or you if you like, Marcion,
oo Christus, legem et prophetas adimplens, ranti rerro aevi caliginem
if perchance when playing dice or laying bets on actors or jockeys
dispergens, indigne usus est hoc dicto ad percutiendam increduli- you were called away by such a message, would you not ask,
tatem foris stantium vel ad excutiendam importunitatem ab opere 'Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?'? 'When Ch¡ist
was preaching God and giving proof of him, was fulfilling the
40 stâre XB vulgo oø. A esse T.
Law and the Prophets, and was dispelling the darkness of long
4r nota ei,iarJJr AT nota XB.
Kroy. notae iem
ages pest, was it without justifìcation that he used this expression
44 nuntiatoris TXB enuntiationis A Kroy, nuntiationis Rig. Oeh.
49 Martha et Mariae aliæ suibebam marrha et maria aliae quae T (que
to castigete the unbelief of those who stood without, or at least to
Kroy.) marte et marie alie z4 marthae et mariae alle;e XB uulgo. expose their unseasonableness in calling him back from his work?
5ó revocatum XB vocatum 1 avocatum T Kroy. '2 Cf.John 7. 5.
so qmAXn quimihi T. Luke ro. 38-4r;John rr. J, 19 sqq.,24, 39; Matt. 27. 56;Mark;6. r.
 +

DE CARNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 33

32
For repudiating nativity, on the other hand, he could have chosen
revocântium? ceterum ad negandam nativitatem alius fuisset er
the place and time and occasion of a different discourse, not such
locus et tempus et ordo sermonis, non eius qui possit Pronuntiari
as could be uttered by one who had both a mother and brethren.
os etiam ab eo cui et mater esset et fratres: cum indignatio parentes 'When
indignation denies kindred, this is not a denial but a reproof.
negat, non negat sed obiurgat. denique Potiores fecit alios, et Besides, he gave others prior place, and when he reveals what has
meritum praelationis ostendens, audientiam scilicet verbi, demon- caused these to deserve preference, namely the hearing of the
strat qua condicione negaverit matrem et fratres: qua enim alios word, he makes it clear on what terms he has denied having a
mother and brethren: for on the terms on which he adopted to
sibi adoptavit qoi ei adhaerebarlt, ea abnegavit illos qui ab eo
himself those others who clave to him, on rhese he repudiated
zo absistebant. solet etiam adimplere Christus quod aiios docet.
those who stood apart from him. It is Christ's custom himself
quale ergo erat si docens non tanti facerc matrem aut patrem aut to put into practice the teaching he gives to others. Then how
fratres quanti dei verbum ipse dei verbum adnuntiata matre et could it be possible for him, when teaching men not to value
fraternitate desereret? negavit itaque Parentes quomodo docuit mother or father or brethren so highly as the word of God,
negandos, pro dei opere. sed et alias figu;'a est synagogae in matre himself to desert the word of God when his mother and brethren
were reported waiting? So then, he denied his kinsfolk for the
zs abiuncta, et Iudaeorum in fratribus incredulis. foris erat in illis
reason for which he taught they ought to be denied, for God's
Israel: discipuli eutem novi, intus audientes et credentes, cohae-
work's sake. And further: in another sense there is in his mother's
rentes Christo ecclesiam deliniabant, quam potiorem metrem et estrangement a figure of the Synagogue, and in his brethren's
digniorem fraternitatem recusato carnali genere nuncupavit' unbelief a figure of the Jews. Outside, in them, was Israel:
eodem sensu denique et illi exclamationi respondit, non matris whereas the new disciples, hearing and believing, end being inside,
80 uterum et ubera negans sed feliciores designans qui verbum dei by cleaving to Christ depicted the Church which, repudiating
carnal kinship, he designated a preferable mother and a worthier
audiunt.
family of brothers. To conclude, it was in this same sense that he
g Solis istis capitulis quibus maxime instructi sibi videntur answered also that other exclamationr-not as denying his
Marcion et ,{pelles secundum veritatem integri et incorrupti mother's womb and breasts, but as indicating that those are more
evangelü interpretatis, satis esse debuerat ad probationem carnis blessed who hear the word of God.

humanae in Christo per defensionem nativitatis. sed quoniam et

I We have expounded, in terms of the truth of the Gospel as it
was until Marcion and Apelles mutilated and corrupted it, those
s isti Apelleiaci carnis ignominiam praetendunt maxime, quam passages which these regard as their most effective armoury:
volunt ab igneo illo praeside mali sollicitatis animabus adstructam and this by itself ought to have been enough to establish the
et idcirco indignam Christo et idcirco de sideribus illi substantiam fact of Christ's nativity, and thereby to prove his possession of
human flesh. But inasmuch as these Apelleasts make a special
ó3 alius ATMPN alius necessarius FRB. point of sheltering behind the dishonour of the flesh, alleging that
ó4 possit TXB posset A Oeh. KtoY. it was constructed for seduced souls by that fìery prince of evil
o5 indignatio AN Oeh. Krol. indignatione T ali¡ alia' and therefore is unwortþ of Christ, and therefore he must
ó6 fecit sibi alios T KroY. needs have got him a substance from the stars, I have the task of
79 qtdeto an søibendum illi mulieris cuiusdam exclamationi'
8:6 ,nimabus,4XB ânimalibss TBne' abstructam TMPNF' ' Cf. Luke tt. 27,28.
ET
 l-
DE CARNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 35
34
competisse, debeo eos de sua Parature repercutere. angelum beating them back with the aid of their own ordnance. They tell
us the name of a certain mighty angel, and allege that he founded
quendam inclitum nominant qui mundum hunc instituerit et
ro instituto eo paenitentiam admiserit. et hoc suo loco trectavimus- this world, and did penance for founding it. This also I have dis-
cussed in its proper place-for I have also a book addressed to
nam est nobis et ad illos libellus-an qui spiritum et voluntatem et
them-asking whether one who, according to them, had the
virtutem Christi habuerit ad ea opera dignum aliquid paenitentia
spirit and will and power of Christ with a view to those works
fecerit. eum angelum etiam de figura erraticae ovis interpre- did anything rÃ/orthy of penance. This angel they go so far as to
tantur. teste igitur paenitentia institutoris sui peccatum erit interpret by the fìgure of the Lost Sheep. So, on the evidence of
,J mundus, siquidem omnis paenitentia confessio est delicti quia the penance of its founder, the world must be a mistake, since
locum non habet nisi in delicto. si mundus delictum est, qua all penance is a confession of sin, seeing it has no place except in
corpus et membra delictum erit perinde et caelum et caelestia cum case of sin. If the world is a sin, then on the analogy of body and
caelo: si caelestia, et quicquid inde conceptum prolatumque est. members the sky, and along with the sky the things in it, must
mala arbor malos fructus edat necesse est. caro igitur Christi de equally be a sin, and, if the things in the sky, so also whatever has
zo caelestibus structa de peccati constat elementis, peccatrix de been conceived and brought forth from them. An evil tree cannot
peccatorio censu, et Pars iam erit eius substantiae, id est nostrae, but bring forth evil fruits.' In that case the flesh of Christ, being
quam ut peccatricem Christo dedignantur inducere. ita si nihil de composed of things from the sky, consists of elements of sin, and
is sinftrl by reason ofits sinful origin, and will from its very nature
ignominia interest, aut aliquam purioris notae materiam excogi-
be part of that substance, our substance, with which, as being sin-
tent Christo quibus displicet nostra, aut eam egnoscant qua etiam
ful, they thinl shame to besmirch Christ. As then there is no
zs caelestis melior esse non potuit. legimus plane, Primus homo de
difference in respect of the dishonour involved, either let them,
terrae limo, secundus homo de caelo: non temen ad materiae
since they are displeased with ours, think out for Christ a material
differentiam spectat, sed tantum terrenee retro substantiae carnis
of purer brand, or else let them acknowledge this, than which
primi hominis, id est Adae, caelestem de spiritu substantiam
even that from the sky cannot be better. I am aware that it is
opponit secundi hominis, id est Christi. et adeo ad spiritum, non
written, The fr* nan is from the mud of the earth, the second man is
:o ad carnem, caelestem hominem refert, ut quos ei comparat constet
in hac cerne terrena caelestes fieri, spiritu scilicet: quodsi secundum fromheat,en:'but this has not in view a difference of material, but
is merely opposing to the previous earthy substance of the flesh
carnem quoque caelesds Christus, non comPârarentur illi non
of the first man, which is Adam, the celestial spiritual substance
secundum carnem caelestes. si ergo qui fiunt caelestes, qualis et
of the second Man, which is Christ. And so closely does he relate
Christus, terrenam carnis substantiam gestant, hinc quoque con-
the celestial Man to spirit and not to flesh, that beyond question
r3-r4 eum. . . interpretantur A Kroy. cum. . , interpretentur TXB uulgo. those whom he brings into parity with him are in this earthly
14 peccatum .zl.T delictum XB. flesh being made celestial, by spirit of course: whereas if Christ
,7-'r8 caelo: si caelestia, om. A Oeh. were celestial according to the flesh as well, those not celestial
"o-
19 et mala A Oeh. according to the flesh could not be brought into parity with him.
20 constat AOeh. Kroy. consistitTXB. Iftherefore those who are being made celestial, as Christ is already
zz Christo dedignantur inducere z{T Christus dedignatur induere XB.
celestial, wear an eartlìly substance of flesh, this provides a further
z3 aliquam AT a'htl:r XB.
r Cf. Matt. 7. t7) 12. ¡3; Luke 6' 43.
24 eîrr' TXB eandem A Rìg. Oeh.
y et AT Oeh. Kroy. est XB.
2 t Cor' 15. 47.
 r
36 DE CÀRNE CHRTSTT
oN THE FLESH OF CHRTST 37
3i firmatur ipsum etiam Christum in carne terrena fuisse caelestem progf o! our case rher Christ himself also was celesdal, yer in
sicut ü sunt qui ei adaequantur.
earthly flesh, as are those who are classed with him.
9 Praetendimus adhuc nihil quod ex alio acceptum sit, ut aliud 9 My next contention is that nothing that is derived from some-
sit quam id de quo sit acceptum, ita aliud esse ut non suggerat
thing else, though it be other than that from which it is derived,
unde sit acceptum. omnis materia sine testimonio originis suae
non est, etsi demutetur in novam proprietatem. ipsum certe
i corpus hoc nostrum, quod de limo figulatum etiam ad fabulas
nationum veritas transnúsit, utrumque originis elementum con-
fitetur, carne terram, sanguine aquam. nam licet alia sit species
qualitatis, hoc est quod ex alio aliud fit. ceterum quid est sanguis
quam rubens humor, quid caro quam terra conversa in figuras
to suas? considera singulas qualitates, musculos ut glebas, ossa ut
existence as one thing derived from another. Yet what is blood
saxa, etiam circum papillas calculos quosdam: aspice nervorum
but reddened water, and what is flesh but earth transformed into
tenaces conexus ut traduces radicum et venarum ramosos dis-
shape¡ still its own? Consider its attributes one by one, rhe
cursus ut ambages rivorum et lanugines ut muscos et comam ut
muscles as tur{ the bones as rocks, even a sort ofpebbles round the
caespitem et ipsos medullarum in abdito thesauros ut metalla
nipples. Look upon the clinging bands of the sinews as the
15 carnis. haec omnia terrenae originis signa et in Christo fuerunt, et
fìbres of roots, the branching meanderings of the veins as the
haec sunt quae illum dei filium celaverunt, non alias tantummodo
twistings of rivers, the down as moss, the hair as grass, even the
hominem existimatum quam humana extantem substantia cor- very treasures of the marrow in its secret place as the goldmines
poris. aut edite aliquid in illo caeleste de Septentrionibus et of the flesh. All these tokens of a terresrrial origin wère also in
Virgiliis et Suculis emendicatum: nam quae enumeravimus adeo Christ, and these it is which hid the fact that he was the Son of
2o terrenae testimonia carnis sunt ut et nostrae. sed nihil novum
God, since for no other reason was he supposed to be merely man
nihilque peregrinum deprehendo. denique verbis et factis tantum, than because he consisted of a human bodily substance. Ìf ,rot,
doctrina et virtute sola, Christum hominem obstuPescebant: m that was celestial, begged and borrowed
noteretur autem etiam carnis in illo novitas miraculo habita. sed
the Pleiades or the Hyades: for the things
carnis terrenae non mira condicio ipsa erat quae cetera eius
o less evidences that his flesh was terrestrial
,s miranda faciebat cum dicerent, IJnde huic doctrina et signa ista?
than that it was ours. I find no fface of anything novel or any-
etiam despicientium formam eius haec erat vox: adeo nec thing outlandish. In fact it was only for his words and works,
36 i om. TXB (forsan rccte).
solely for his doctrine and power, that they were astonished at
9: 6 utrumque originis elementum TXB Kroy. utriusque originem elementi
AOeh.
Christ as men: whereas a new kind of flesh in him would even
AOeh. facies TXB (quodforsan soibendum). have been remarked upon and taken for a marvel. But it was
7 species
9 conversa om. A Oeh. precisely the non-marvellous character of his terrestrial flesh
gr-ro fìguras suas TXB Rig. Kroy. tgura sua A Oeh. which made the rest of his activities things to marvel at, when
r5-ró et haecF Kroy. et AOeh. haec MPNRB dejcitT. Íotaomissaincísíone. they asked, Whence hath thß man this doctrine and these signs?'
r7 humana extantem scribebam ex humana tantum T Kroy. extantem These v/ere the words of men who even despised his outward
humana A Oeh. ex humana XB. appearance, so far was his body from being of human comeliness,
zr et factis tântum AT Oeh. Kro7. tantummodo et factis XB.
' Matt. r.r. 54.
 r-
DE CÂRNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 39
38
fuit, nedum caelestis claritatis. not to speak of celestial glory.' Also, though among you the
humanae honestatis corPus
prophets are silent regarding his ignoble presence, the very suffer-
tacentibus apud vos quoque prophetis de ignobili aspectu eius, ings, the very revilings tell the tale: the sufferings proved his flesh
ipsae passiones ipsaeque contumeliae loquuntur: passiones quidem human, the revilings proved it uncomely. Would any one have
dared even to scratch a novel kind of body with the end of his
¡o humanam cernem, contumeliae vero i¡lonestam probaverunt. finger-nail, or to defile his face with spittings unless it seemed to
an ausus esset aliqui ungue summo Perstringere corPus novum' deserve it?' Why do you allege that that flesh is celestial which
sputaminibus contaminare faciem nisi merentem? quid dicis you have no data for thinking celestial, why deny that that is
terrestrial which you have data for recognizing as terrestrial? It
caelestem carnem quam unde caelestem intellegas non habes, quid hungers when with the devil,¡ is athirst with the Samaritan
terrenam negas quam unde terrenem agnoscas habes? esurit sub woman,4 weeps ovetLazarts,5 trembles at the prospect of death-
The flesh, he says, is weaþ6-and at last sheds its blood. You take
¡ s diabolo, sitit sub Samaritide, lacrimatur utper Lazaram, trepidat ad
these, I suppose, for celestial signs. But, say I, how could he, as he
mortem-Caro enim inquit infirma-sanguincm fundit postremo : said would happen, be despised and suffer,7 if in that flesh there
haec sunt opinor signa caelestia. sed quomodo, inquam, con- had shone any radiance from his celestial nobility? By this means,
then, we prove our case that in that flesh there was nothing
temni et pati posset sicut et dixit, si quid in illa carne de caelesti brought down from the skies, and that that was so for the express
generositate radiasset? ex hoc ergo convincimus nihil in illa de purpose that it should be capable of being despised and of
suffering.
+o caelis fuisse, propterea ut contemni et pati Posset'
ro I turn to others, equally wise in their own eyes, who insist
ro Convertor ad alios aeque sibi prudentes qui carnem Christi that Christ's flesh was composed of soul, in that soul was made
animalem adfirmant, quod anima caro sit facta: ergo et cero into flesh.8 In that case his soul was flesh, and as his flesh was
composed of soul, so also his soul was turned into flesh. Here, as
anima, et sicut caro animalis ita et anima carnalis. et hic itaque
before, I ask for reesons. If it was for the salvation of soul in him-
requiro. si ut animam salvam faceret in semetipso suscepit
causes self that Christ assumed soul-because it could not have been
s animam Christus, quia salva nori esset nisi per ipsum dum in ipso, saved except through him, by being in him-I do not see why he
made it into fleshby clothing himself with fesh composed of soul,
non video cur eam carnem fecerit animalem induendo carnem, as though he were unable to save soul except it were turned into
quasi aliter animam salvam facere non Posset nisi carnem factam. flesh. For seeing that he aft^ords salvation to our souls when they
cum enim nostres animas non tantum non carneas sed etiam a are not only not fleshly but are even disjoined from the flesh,
2 Cf. Matt. 27.
carne disiunctas salvas Praestet, quanto niagis illam quam ipse ' Cf. Isa. 53. z. 3o; Mark 15. rg;Lake zz. 64.
3 Cl.ll/,.út.4. z-4. + Cf .Iohn +. z.
z8 vos uulgo nos FB Oeh. perperam' 5 Cf.John rr. ¡s. 6 Matt. aó.
4r; Mark 14. 38.
3o probaverunt om. AT.
7 Cf. M¿tt. 16. zr; Mark 8. 3t; Lrke 9. zz.
34-5 esurit...sitit T: esurüt...sitlilt eeteri lacrimatur XB lacrimat* T: 8 Throughout this chapter 'composed of soul' stands for animalis,'turned
lacrimatus est á.
into flesh' for earnalis, 'fleshly' for carneus. Catneusseemsto dlfferftomearnalis
37 inquam XB uulgo inquitis A
Kroy. (manifesto errore) inq,:itis TBns'
as referring to form r¿ther than mâtter.
38 dixit AT Kroy. din XB uulgo ex illa carne T.
 40 DE CARNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 4r
ro suscepit etiam non cerneam redigere potuit in salutem. item cum how much more was he able to bring ro salvarion that soul which
praesumant non carnis sed animae nostrae solius liberandae causa
processisse Christum, primo quam absurdum est ut animam solam
liberaturus id genus corporis eam fecerit quod non erat liberaturus.
deinde si animas nostras per illam quam gestavit liberare sus-
rJ ceperat, illam quoque quam gestavit nostram gestasse debuerat, id
have made it into that sort of body which he was not going to
deliver. And again, if the task he took upon him was ro deliver
est nostrae formae, cuiuscunque formae est in occulto anima our souls by the agency of that soul with which he clothed him-
nostra, non tamen carneae, ceterum non nostram ântmam self, that too with which he clothed himself musr have been ours
liberavit si carneam habuit: nostra enim carnea non est. porro si when he clothed himself with it, that is, of our fashion-ofwhat-
non nostram liberavit quia carneam liberavit, nihil ad nos, quia ever fashion our soul in secret is, at any rete not a fleshly fashion.
20 non nostram liberavit. sed nec liberanda erat quae non erat But if the soul he had was fleshly, ir was nor our soul that he
nostre, ut scilicet carnea: non enim periclitabatur si non erat delivered: for ours is not fleshly. So then, if it was not ours rhar
he delivered, it being a fleshly one that he delivered, ir is no con-
nostra, id est non carnea. sed liberatam constat illam. ergo non
cern of ours, because it was not ours that he delivered. In fact it
fuit carnea, et fuit nostra, si ea fuit quae liberaretur, quoniam
did not even need to be delivered, seeing it was not ours, being
periclitabatur. iam ergo si anima non fuit carnalis in Christo, nec fleshly: for it was not in peril if it'was nor ours, rhar is, was nor
2J caro potest animalis fuisse. non-fleshly. But it is agreed that it was delivered. Consequently
rr Sed aliam argumentationem eorum convenimus, exigentes it was not fleshly, and it was ours, seeing it was such as to need
cur animalem carnem subeundo Christus animam carnalem deliverance, because it was ours thar was in peril. So then if in
videatur habuisse. 'Deus enim inquiunt gestivit animam visibilem Christ soul was not turned into flesh, neither can his flesh have
hominibus exhibere faciendo eam corpus quae retro invisibilis been composed of soul.
s extiterit, natura nihil sed nec semetipsam videns prae impedi-
rr But we are faced with a further argument of theirs when we
demand why it should be supposed that Christ, by taking upon
mento carnis huius, ut etiam disceptaretur nata sit anima an non,
him flesh made out of soul, was in possession of a soul turned into
mortalis an non: itaque animam corpus effectam in Christo ut eam
nascentem et morientem et, quod sit amplius, resurgentem vide-
remus.' et hoc autem quale erit, ut per carnem demonstraretur
ro anima sibi aut nobis, quae per carnem non poterat agnosci, ut sic
ostenderetur dum id fit cui latebat, id est caro? tenebras videlicet argued whether soul was born or not, was mortal or not: and
so in Christ soul w view to our seeing it
ro'. rr post animae nostrae ãefcit A.
both being born, more, rising agaln.'
15 illa quoque...nostra quaeque T Kroy.
But it would be a means of fesh either
r9-zo quia non nostram TB quia cârnea non cst quia non nostram X.
itself or we should obtain proof of that soul whose exisrence rhe
4 et X uulgo sed T Kroy.
rr: 5 sed T Kroy. om. cetei. flesh precluded fr should be brought
7 mortalis ân non TB om. cete¡í. into view only by as invisible, namely
9 erít libri erar. [Jrs. Rig. Oeh. qui et ínfra possetp/o possit rcsoibunt. flesh. In that case d upon it so that it
 r
I

42 DE CA,RNE CHRISTI ON THE FLBSH OF CHRIST 43

accepit ut lucere possit. denique ad hoc prius retractemus an isto may be able to shine. So then in this connexion let us first discuss
modì ostendendá fuerit anima, dehinc an in totum invisibilem whether there was any need for soul to be brought into view in
such a manner: and next, when they allege that it was formerly

exist if it possesses nothing by which to exist. But since it does

exist it must ofnecessity possess something by which it exists. Ifit

dacium aut infirmitas deo comPetit, mendacium si aliud animam

zj quam quod erat demonstravit, infirmitas si id quod erat demon-
rt."r" trão valuit. nemo ostendere volens hominem cassidem aut
personam ei inducit: hoc autem factum est animae si in carne
ãorrrr"rr" alienam induit superficiem' sed et si incorporalis anima
deputetur, ut corPus hood if he had displayed soul as other than what it was, infirmity
30 tamen non sit eo non if he had not power to display it as what it was. No one, with the
erat, et ProP aliqua intention of bringing a man into view, pulls a helmet or a mask
corporis specie eam demonstrare quam ista communi omnium, over his face. Yet this was done to soul if by being changed into
dteìius iam notitiae, ne sine causa visibilem ex invisibili facere flesh it put on a top layer which was not its own. Moreover, even
gestisset animam, istis scfücet quaestionibus oPPortunam Per if soul be reckoned incorporeal, so that by some occult violation
¡s ðarnis in illam humanae defensionem. 'Sed non poterat Christus of reason soul exists while whatever it is that soul is is not body,
inter homines nisi homo videri.' redde igitur Christo fidem it was not on that account impossible for God-and it did more
suam, ut qui homo voluit incedere animam quoque humanae
condicionis ostenderit, non faciens eam cerneam sed induens eam
carne.
12 Ostensa sit nunc anima Per carnem, si constiterit illam
ostendendam quoiluo modo fuisse, id est incognitam sibi et nobis: for trespass would have lain against soul at the instance of human
flesh. 'But it was impossible for Christ to be seen among men
rz ad hoc uulgo tåhloc TB s' Kroy. prius TMPRB potius N ont. F
except as man.' Then give back to Christ his trustworthiness, and
pressius Kroy.
it will follow that he whose will it was to walk as man also made
18 nihil TMFR*g' nisi PNRB uøþo.
z7 carnem Kroy.
soul perceptible under human conditions, not making it fleshly,
3o et T Kroy. om. ceterí. but clothing it with flesh.
34 istis libi
iustis Kroy (forsan rccte). rz 'We might at this juncture be prepared to admit that soul was
35-ó in íllam om, X sed non Poterat etc. interlocutori assígnabam. made visible by means of flesh, if it were sufiìciently proved that
 r
ON THE FLESH OF CIIRIST 45
M DB C.å,RNE CHRISTI
it needed in some way or other to be made visible-that is, that it
quanquam in hoc vana distinctio est, quasi nos seorsum ab anima
was till then unlcnown either to itself or ro us: although in this
simus, cum totum quod sumus anima sit. denique sine anima context the distinction is idle, as though we were here and soul
s nihil sumus, ne hominis quidem sed cadaveris nomen. si ergo there, the truth being that the whole of what we are is soul. In
ignoramus animam, ipsa ignorat. ita superest hoc solummodo
se fact, without soul we ere nothing, e mere name, not even of a
man, but of a corpse. Ifi therefore, we are ignorant of soul, it is
inspicere, an se anima sic ignorarit ut nota quoquo modo fieret.
soul that is ignorant of itself, So it remains only to examine this
opinor sensualis est animae natura: adeo nihil animale sine sensu, question, whether soul was in such sense ignorant of itself as to
nihil sensuale sine anima, et ut impressius dixerim animae anima need by all possible means to be made known. The nature of soul,
ro sensus est. igitur cum omnibus anima sentire praestet et ipsa sen- I imagine, is perceptive. Certainly nothing that has a soul is with-
out perception, and nothing is perceptive apart from soul: and, to
tiat omnium etiam sensus, nedum qualitates, cui verisimile est ut
speak more precisely, perceprion is the soul of the soul. Therefore,
ipsa sensum sui ab initio sortita non sit? unde illi scire quod
since soul enables all to be perceptive, and is itself perceptive even
interdum sibi sit necessarium ex naturalium necessitate, si non scit of the perceptions of all, not to speak of their attributes, can any-
suam qualitatem, cui quid necessarium est? hoc quidem in omni one think it likely that it has nor from the beginning been en-
ts anima recognoscere est, notitiam sui dico, sine qua notitia sui dowed with perception of itself?'Whence its faculty of knowing
that which from time to time is necessary to it from the necessity
nulla anima se ministrare potuisset. puto autem magis hominem,
imposed by its natural characteristics, if it knows not its own
animal solum rationale, compotem et animam esse sortitum quae attributes and what is necessary to each? This indeed one can
illum faciat animal rationale, ipsa in primis rationalis. porro quo- observe in every soul, knowledge of itself: for without this
modo rationalis quae efiìcit hominem rationale animal, si ipsa knowledge ofitselfno soul would have been able to cause itself to
zo rationem suam nescit ignorans semetipsem? sed adeo non
function. But even more I thinl< that man, the only rational
animal, is endowed also with a soul competent to make him a
ignorat, ut auctorem et arbitrum et stetum suum norit. nihil rational animal, being itself in first instance rational. Yet how is it
adhuc de deo discens deum nominat: nihil adhuc de iudicio eius rational, this which makes man a rational animal, ifwhile ignorant
admittens deo commendare se dicit: nihil magis audiens quam of itself it knows not its own reâson? So far however is ìt from
being ignorant of itself that it knows irs Aurhor, and its Judge,
spem nullam esse post mortem et bene et male defuncto cuique
and its ov/n estate. While es yet it learns norhing of God, it
,s imprecatur. plenius haec prosequitur libellus quem scripsimus or
mentions God's name: while as yet it makes no acknowledgement
TESTIMoNTo .A.NIMÀE. alioquin si anima semetipsam ignorans of his judgement, it professes to commend its cause to God: while
erat ab initio, nihil a Christo cognovisse debuprat nisi qualis esset. it hears at every turn that there is no hope after death, it utters
nunc autem non effigiem suam didicit a Christo sed salutem. either a blessing or a curse upon this dead man or that. This
theme is more fully pursued in the book I have written oN rHE
tz 7 síc Kroy. lrc TB om. X. TESrrMoNy oF rHE souL. Another point: if soul had been
rz quod PRB uulgo q:l.d TMNF Ktoy. ignorant ofitself from the beginning, rhere is nothing it had more
r5-ró notitia sui...se XB sibi...a se T Kroy. need to obtain knowledge of from Christ than its own qualities.
17 compotem TB Kroy. computes X competere Oeh. suo marte.
In fact, however, what it has learned from Christ, is not what it
r8-r9 porro quomodo rationalis om. X (maxifesto erore).
 46 DE C,{RNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 47
propterea fìlius dei descendit et animam subiit, non ut ipsa se looks like but how it is saved. For this cause did the Son of God
:o anima cognosceret in Christo sed Christum in semetþsa: non come down and submit to having a soul, that soul might obtain
enim se ignorando de salute periclitabatur sed dei verbum. Vita knowledge, not of itselfin Christ but of Christ in itself. For ir was
inquit manifestata est, non anima: et Veni inquit animam salvam through ignorance, not of itself but of the Word of God, that it
facir., non dixit ostendere. ignorabamus nimirum animam, licet was in peril of its salvation. The life, it says, not 'the soul', flras
invisibilem, nasci et mori, nisi corporaliter exhiberetur. ignora- made manifest:' and I came, he says, to saue the soul;z he did not say
¡s vimus plane resurrecturam cum carne. hoc erit quod Christus 'to make it visible'.'We were ignorant, were we, that the soul,
manifestavit: sed et hoc non aliter in se quam inLzzato aliquo, though invisible, is born and dies, and should have continued so
'We
cuius caro non erat animalis, ita nec anima carnalis. quid ergo unless it were displayed in the form of a body ? were ignorant,
amplius innotuit nobis de animae ignoratae retro dispositione? surely, that it will rise again, and the flesh along with it. This it
quid invisibile eius fuit quod visibilitatem per carnem desideraret? must be that Christ made manifest: yet even this not otherwise in
t3 'Caro facta est anima ut anima ostenderetur.' numquid ergo himself than in such a one as Lazants, whose flesh was not com-
'What
et caro anima facta est ut caro manifestaretur ? si caro anima est, posed of soul, any more than his soul was turned into flesh.
iam non anima est sed caro: si anima caro est, iam non caro est sed furcher information did we then acquire of the state of the soul
anima. ubi ergo caro, et ubi anima, si alterutro alterutrum facta hitherto unknown?'What invisible attribute had it that stood in
J sunt, immo si neutrum sunt dum alterutro alterutrum fiunt? certe need of visibility by means of flesh?
perversissimum ut carnem nominantes animam intellegamus et 13 'Soul was made into flesh so that soul might be made visible.'
ãnimam significantes carnem interpretemur. omnia periclita- Then was flesh also made into soul, so that flesh might be made
buntur alitér accipi quam sunt, et amittere quod sunt dum aliter manifest? If soul is flesh, it is no longer soul, but flesh: if flesh is
'Where
accipiuntur, si aliter quam sunt cognominantur. fides nominum soul, it is no longer flesh, but soul. then is the flesh, and
ro salus est proprietatum. etiam cum demutantur qualitates accipiunt where is the soul, if both have been made out of each other-nay
vocabulorum possessiones. verbi gratia, argilla excocta testae more, if they are neither, in that each is made into the other?
vocabulum suscipit, nec communicat cum vocabulo pristini Evidently it is most perverse that whle using the word 'flesh' we
generis quia nec cum ipso genere. proinde et anima Christi caro should understand'soul', and whfe talking of soul should inter-
f""t" troo potest non id esse quod facta est et id non esse quod pret it as flesh. All things will be in danger of being taken for
¡s fuerat, aliud scilicet facta. et quoniam proximum adhibuimus other than they are, losing their own identity by being taken for
that other, if they are termed otherwise than they are. Fidelity of
3r periclitabatv T Kroy. periclitatur Xuulgo.
34 nasci et mori nisi corporalitet X uulgo nasci et nonmoriincorporaliter
terms is the safeguard of things being what they are. Even when
ut nobis nâscens et moriens corporaliter TBffis', quos paene sequitur Ktoy. qualities are changed, things receive new endowments of names.
37 cuius XB cuiusque T (nale íntellecto scriptotis sensu). For example, baked clay takes up the name of crockery, and has
T3i r onte c¡ro lacunam signauit Kroy., sed haud opus erat, no joint interest in the name belonging to its original species,
z-4 si caro etc. XB ,i ."ro .rt anima iam ttoo .td caro sed anima, si anima seeing it has none in the species itself. Consequently also the soul
câro est iam non anima est sed caro T Ktoy. ambíguitates a sctìlttore
of Christ, if made into flesh, cannot but be that which it has been
relíctas ¡esoluere coflatus esse uidetur librarius quispiam.
T made into, and have ceased to be that which it was, no\M that it
4 ubi anima T add. est XB uulgo si alterutro om- XB uulgo.
T âlterutrum alterum XB uulgo post fiwrt has been made into something else. And since I have adduced
5 alterutro alterutrum
quaerendi sìgnun posuít Kroy. a closeþ related illustration, I shall make fuller use of it. For
15 fuerat T fuerit XB uulgo'
t IJohn r. z. Luke 9. 5ó.
'?
 48 DE CARNE CTTRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 49

exemplum plenius eo utemur. certe enim testa ex argilla unum certainly crockery made out of clay is one body, and there is one
est corpus, unumque vocabulum unius scilicet corporis: nec Potest term for it, as being one body: crockery cannot also be called
testa dici et argilla, quia quod fuit non est, quod autem non est clay, because what it was it is not, and of that which it is not the
name also ceases to be applicable. So also, soul made into flesh is
et (nomen) non adhaeret. ergo et anima caro factauniformis soli-
zo ditas et singularitas tota est, et indiscreta substantia. in Christo
wholly a uniform solidity and singulaÅty, a substance un-
differentiated. But in Christ we observe soul and flesh set forth in
vero invenimus animam et carnem simplicibus et nudis vocabulis
plain and undisguised terms, that is, soul as soul, and flesh as fesh,'
id est animam animam et carnem carnem, nusquam
editas, never soul-flesh or flesh-soul-though they would have needed
animam-carnem aut carnem-animam, quando ita nominari to be so described, if such they had been-and even each substance
debuissent si ita fuissent, sed etiam sibi quamque substantiam for itself separately named by him, strictþ in accordance with the
,s divise pronuntietas ab ipso, utique pro duarum qualitatum distinc- distinction between their two sets of attributes, soul on the one
tione, seorsum animam et seorsum câtnem. quid? Anxia est, hand, flesh on the other. For example: My soul, he says, ís troubled
inquit, anima mea usque ad mortem: et, Panis quem ego dedero el)en unto death:' arrd, The bread which I shall give for the saluation of

pro salute mundi caro mea est. Porro si anima caro fuisset, unum the world is ny flesh.' But if his flesh had been soul, there would in
Christ be one thing, fleshly soul or else flesh composed of soul:
esset in Christo carrlea anima aut caro animalis: at cum dividit
but now that he distinguishes their aspects, flesh and soul, he
3o species, carnem et animam, duo ostendit. si duo, iam non unum:
shows them to be two things. If two, of course not one: if not
si non unum, iam nec anima carnalis nec caro animalis: unum one, evidently the soul is noi turned into flesh, nor the flesh com-
enim est anima-caro aut caro-anima. nisi si et seorsum aliam posed of soul-for 'one thing' amounts to 'soul-flesh' or 'flesh-
gestabat animam Praeter eem quae caro erat, et aliam circum- soul'-unless perchance he was also carrying about another soul
ferebat carnem praeter illam quae anima erat. quodsi una caro et apart by itself, in addition to the one which was flesh, and was
35 una anima, illa tristis usque ad mortem et illa panis pro mundi carrying round another flesh in addition to the one which was
salute, salvus est numerus duarum substantiarum in suo genere soul. But if there is one flesh and one soul, the latter sorrowful
distantium, excludens carneae animae unicam speciem. even unto death and the former bread for the salvation of the
world, there is conserved the duality of two substances each dis-
t4 'Sed et angelum,' aiunt, 'gestavit Christus.' quâ ratione? tinct in its own species, a duality which precludes the singular
'Qua et horrrit.-.' eadem .rgo .r, et ceusa. ut hominem aspect of a fleshly soul.
gestaret Christus salus hominis fuit causa, scilicet ad resti- 14 'But,' say they, 'Christ was also clothed upon with an angel.'
tuendum quod perierat. homo perierat, hominem restitui opor- By what method? 'The same by which he might have been
i tuerat. ut angelum gestaret Christus nihil tale de causa est. nam clothed with man.' Then the reason for it also is the same.
etsi angelis perditio reputatur in ignem PraçParatum diabolo et For Ch¡ist to be clothed with manlood, man's salvation was the
angelis eius, nunquam tamen illis restitutio repromissa est: nullum reason, the restitution of that which had perished. Man had
perished: it was man that must be restored. For Christ to be
r8-r9 quod autem non est et non adhaeret TB om' X nomen in-
serendum çtutabam.
clothed with an angel there was nothing of this sort by way of
zó quid? itapungebam. reason. For even though perdition is reckoned to angels-lnto the
3z nisi si T om. si XB uulgo. fire prepared for the deuil and hß angelsz-yet never to them has
14: 2 est XB sit T. r Matt. zó. 38; Mark 14. 34. ó. 5r. 3 Matt.25. 4r.
'?John
 r
5o DE CÀRNE CIIRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 5r
mandatum de salute angelorum suscepit Christus a patre. quod restitution been promised: no commandment concerning the
pater neque repromisit neque mandavit, Christus administrare salvation of angels has Christ received from the Father. That
ro non potuit. cui igitur rei angelum quoque gestavit nisi ut satel- which the Father has neither promised nor commanded, Christ
litem forte cum quo salutem hominis operaretur? idoneus enim cannot have administered. To what purpose then was he also
clothed with an angel, except perhaps as an attendant to help
non erat dei filius qui solus hominem liberaret, a solo et singulari
him in the accomplishment of man's salvation? Then was not the
serpente deiectum? ergo iam non unus deus nec unus salutificator,
Son of God competent by himself to deliver man whom the
sed duo salutis artifices, et utique alter altero indigens. an vero ut
serpent by himself and unattended had overthrown? In that case
rj per angelum liberaret hominem? cur ergo ipse descendit, ad id there is no longer one God, nor one Saviour, if there are two
quod per angelum erat expediturus ? si per angelum, quid et ipse ? artificers of salvation, the one quite powerless without the other.
si per se, quid et angelus? dictus est quidem magni consilü Or perhaps it was that he might deliver man by the agency of the
angelus, id est nuntius, officii non naturee vocabulo: magnum angel? Then why did he himself come down for a task which he
enim cogitatum patris, super hominis scilicet restitutionem, was going to accomplish by the agency of the angel? If by the
ao adnuntiaturus saeculo erat. non ideo tamen sic angelus intelle- angel, why also himself? If by himself, why also the angel?
gendus ut aliqui Gabriel aut Michael. nam et filius a domino Certainly he is describ ed as the angel ofgreat counsel," angel ' mean-
vineae mittitur ad vinitores, sicut et famuli, de fructibus petitum: ing 'messenger', by a term of ofüce, not of nature: for he was to
sed non propterea unus ex famulis deputabitur filius quia famu- announce to the world the Father's great project, that concerned
lorum successit ofücio. facilius ergo dicam, si forte, ipsum filium with the restitution ofman. Yet he is not on that account to be under-
,s angelum (id est nuntium) patris, quam angelum in filio. sed cum stood as an angel, in the sense of a sort of Gabriel or Michael. For
de [fìlio] ipso sit pronuntiatum, Minuisti eum modicum quid the son also is sent by the lord of the vineyard to the husbandmen,
citra angelos, quomodo videbitur angelum induisse, sic infra as the servants too had been, to fetch ofthe fruits ofit: but the son
angelos deminutus dum homo fìt, qua caro et anima, et filius must not be reckoned one of the servants just because he succeeded
hominis? qua autem spiritus dei et virtus altissimi non potest to the servants'task.' So I shall find it easier to say, if I have to,
¡o infra angelos haberi, deus scilicet et dei filius. quanto ergo, dum that the Son himself was the angel (that is, the messenger) of the
hominem gestat, minor angelis factus est, tanto non, dum angelum Father, than that there was an angel in the Son. But seeing that
gestat. poterit haec opinio Hebioni convenire qui nudum the Son himself is the subject of the pronouncement, Thot hast
hominem et tantum ex semine David, id est non et dei filium, made him a little lower than the angels,3 how shall he be thought to
ro igitur XB ergo T. have clothed himself with an angel when he is made lower than
rr forte T Kroy. forrclrn XB uulgo. the angels by being made man (as being flesh and soul) and the
13 deus XB dominus T. Son of Man? For as the Spirit of God, and the Power of the Most
14 sed T si XB. High, he cannot be held to be lower than the angels, seeing he is
15 ipse om. XB. God, and the Son of God. So then, even as he is made less than
r7-r8 magni consilü angelus XB angelus magni cogitatus T. the angels while clothed with manhood, even so he is not less if
zz vinitores T cultores XB quaero ønlegendum viticultores.
clothed with an angel. This view of the matter could have suited
a6 fìlio PR uulgo.
z7 angelum induisse Xts angelus T. Ebion, who determines that Jesus is a bare man, merely of the
29 qtra¡¿z quialibrì. seed of David, and therefore not also the Son of God-though
r Isa. 9. 5 (r.xx).
'? Cf. Matt. 2r. 33 seqq.
3z poterit XB poterat T. , nr. t. t.o_.
 r
52 DE C.ARNB CHRTSTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST J3

constituit Iesum-plane prophetis aliquo gloriosiorem-ut ita in clearþ he speaks of himself in somewhat higher terms than the
¡s illo angelum fuisse dicatur quemadmodum in aliquo Zachaúa: prophets use concerning themselves-so as to stete that an angel
was in him in the same way as tnZechaúeh, for example: though
nisi quod a Christo nunquam est dictum, Et ait mihi angelus qui
we object that the words, And the angel that spake in me said unto
in me loquebatur. sed nec quotidianum illud omnium prophe-
ffie,' were never used by Christ. Nor indeed was that habitual
tarum, Haec dicit dominus: ipse enim erat dominus, coram et ex expression of all the prophets, Thus saith the Lord: for he was him-
sua auctoritate pronuntians, Ego autem dico vobis. quid ultra ad self the Lord, declaring openly and on his own aathoÅty, But I
ao haec? Esaiam exclamantem audi, Non angelus neque legatus sed say unto you.' What more do we need, when we hear Isaiah
ipse dominus salvos eos fecit. crying out, Nol an angel nor a delegate, but the Lord hínself hath
15 Licuit et Valentino ex privilegio haeretico carnem Christi saued them?3
spiritalem comminisci. quidvis eam fingere potuit quisquis 15 Valentinus, by heretical privilege, allowed himself to invenr
humanam credere noluit, quando, quod ad omnes dictum sit, si a spiritual flesh of Christ. One who has refused to believe it
human can fashion it into anything he likes, since (and let this
humana non fuit nec ex homine non video ex qua substantia ipse
remark be addressed to them all) if it was not human and nor
s Christus et hominem se et fìlium hominis pronuntiarit: Nunc
derived from man, I cannot see what substance Christ himselfwas
autem vultis occidere hominem veritatem ad vos locutum: et, referring to when he declared himself both man and the Son of
Dominus est sabbati fìlius hominis. de ipso enim Esaias, Homo in li/ran: Now therefore ye seek. to kill a man who hath spoken to you the
plaga et sciens ferre imbecillitatem: et Hieremias, Et homo est et trilth,4 erld, The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.s Moreover it is of
quis cognovit illum? et Daniel, Et ecce super nubes tanquam him that Isaiah says, A man under chastiseftient, and knowíng how to
,o frlius hominis: etiam Paulus apostolus, Mediator dei et hominum bear weaþness:6 and Jeremieh, And he is a man, and who hath þnown

homo Christus Iesus: item Petrus in actis apostolorum, Iesum him?1 and Daniel, And behold, aboue the clouds as it were a son of
man:8 also Paul the Apostle, A mediator of God and men, the man
Nazarenum virum vobis a deo destinatum, utique hominem.
Chrßt Jesus:e again Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus of
haec sola sufücere vice praescriptionis debuerunt ad testimonium
Nazareth, ø man appointed by God for you'o-where there is another
carnis humanae et ex homine sumPtae et non spiritalis sicut nec
word for 'man', but it still implies humanity. These texts by
sidereae nec imaginariae, si sine studio et artificio
's animalis nec themselves ought to have been sufücient to non-suit them-as
contentionis haereses esse potuissent. nam, ut penes quendam ex evidence of his flesh being human and derived from man, not
Valentini factiuncula legi, primo non Putent terrenamet humanam composed of spirit, any more than it is composed of soul or of the
Christo substantiam informatam ne deterior angelis dominus stars, or is imaginaryif heresies had been ãbl. to rid themselves
of special pleading and of the tricks of contentiousness. For, as I
35 dicatur TB edicatX. have read in the works of one of Valentinus' faction, in the first
3ó a Christo TB Christo X.
:

place they refuse to admit that terrestrial and human substance

4o Xsaiam exclamantem audi XB Esaia exclamante T. was brought into shape for Christ, lest the Lord should turn out
15: z quidvisXB quidquidvis T.
2 Matt.
3 sit T Urs. Kroy. est XB. ' Zech. t. t4. 5. 20 etc. 3 Isa. ó3. 9 rxx.
6 Ir".
5 et hominem se T hominem XB. +
John 8.4o. 5 Matt. rz. 8. 53. 3.
9 cognovit illum MPNRB cognoscet eum TN. ecce om. XB. 7
Jer. 17.9 rxx.
8 Dan.
7. 13. 9 r Tim. z. j.
ro l\cts z. zz.
15 imaginariae XB putative imaginarie T,
 r
DE CARNE CHRISTI ON THE FI,ESH OF CHRIST 55
54

deprehendatur qui non terrenae carnis extiterunt, dehinc quod

to be of less worth than the angels, who do not consist of terres-
trial flesh: and secondly, because flesh like ours would have needed
20 oportefet similem nostree carnem similiter nasci, non de spiritu to be born like us, not of the Spirit, nor of God, but of the will of a
nec de deo, sed ex viri voluntate. 'Et cur, Non de corruptela sed man. 'And what,' they ask, 'is the meaning of Nol of corruption
de incorruptela? et quare non, sicut et illa resurrexit et in caelo butof incorruption?' And why, even as that flesh rose again and
resumPta est, ita et nostre par eius statim adsumitur ? aut cur illa was received up into heaven, is not ours, if it is like his, straight-
way taken up? Or else why was not his, if it is like ours, likewise
par nostrae non eeque in terram dissoluta est?' talia et ethnici
dissolved into the earth?' These are the sort of questions the
,s volutabant: 'Ergo dei filius in tantum humilitatis exhaustus?' et, Gentiles also used to canvass: ''Was then the Son of God emptied
Si resurrexit in exemplum spei nostree cur nfüil tale de nobis
,
out to such a degree of humility?'and, 'If he rose again for an
probatum est ? ' merito ethnici talia : sed merito et haeretici. num- example of our hope, why is there no evidence of anything of the
kind happening to us ?' You might expect such things of Gentiles:
quid enim inter illos distat nisi quod ethnici non credendo credunt
yes, you might expect them of heretics too. For is there any
at haeretici credendo non credunt? legunt denique, Minorasti difference between them, except that Gentiles by not believing
30 eum modico citra angelos, et negant inferiorem substantiam believe, while heretics by believing believe not? They find it
Christi nec hominem se sed vermem Pronuntiantis, qui nec for- written, Thou hast made him a little less than the angels,z yet they
deny the inferior substance of Christ, though he declares himself
mam habuit nec speciem, sed forma eius ignobilis, defecta citra
not even a man but a worm,3 though he had no form flor coffie-
otnnes homines, homo in plaga et sciens ferre imbecillitatem. liness,brt his aspect was ignoble, u)ltft out more than all men, end
agnoscunt hominem deo mixtum, et negant hominem: rnortuum he was a man under chastisenent, and knowìng how to bear weaþness.a
They acknowledge a men mingled with God, yet deny the man-
:s credunt, et quod est mortuum ex incorruptela natum esse con-
hood: they believe he died, yet that which died they claim was
tendunt, quasi corruptela aliud sit a morte. 'Sed et nostre caro born of incorruption-as though corruption were enything else
statim resurgere debebat.' exspecta: nondum inimicos suos but death. 'But our flesh too ought to be immediately rising
Christus oppressit, ut cum amicis de inimicis triumphet. again.' Have patience. Christ has not yet put down all his
enemies,5 so as to triumph over his enemies, with his friends to
16 lnsuper ergumentandi libidine ex forma ingenü haeretici
share his victory.
locum sibi fecit Alexander ille quasi nos aflirmemus idcirco 16 Yet once more that Alexander person, through lust of
Christum terreni census induisse carnem ut evacuaret in semetipso arguing, has, according to the rules of heretical trickery, made
cernem peccati. quod etsi diceremus, quacunque ratione muni- himself note\Morthy by his suggestion that we aflìrm that Christ's
purpose in clothing himself with flesh of human origin v/es that
5 remus sententiam nostrem, dum ne tanta'amentia qua putavit
in himself he might bring to nought the flesh of sin.6 Now
tanquam ipsam carnem Christi opinemur ut Peccatricem evacua- though we should say this we might by some reasoning or other
defend our judgement, provided it was not with that great folly
20 nostrae carnem snibebam nostri carnem XB nostrae carnis T'
by which he supposes that our opinion is that the very flesh of
z5 exhaustus XB exhibitus est T. r r Pet. r. 23. ? Ps. 8. 3 Cf. Ps. 22. ó.
3o modico XB modicum T. 5.
6 Cf, Rom. ó. ó.
TF Kroy. despecta MPNRB uulgo.
a Isa. 53. 3. s Cf. Ps. 8. 8; r Cor. :r5. 27,28.
3z defecta'
 r
56 DE CARNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 57
tam in ipso, cum illam et ad dexteram patris in caelis praesidere Christ, as being sinftrl, was brought to nought in him: for we
meminerimus et venturam inde in suggestu paternae claritatis remember that it sits on high in heaven at the righr hand of the
praedicemus. adeo, ut evacuetam non possumus dicere (quae in Father,' and we proclaim that it will come from thence in the
eminence of the Father's glory:z and consequendy, as láe cannot
'o caelis est), ita nec peccatricem in qua dolus non fuit. defendimus say it has been brought to nought, when it is in heaven, so neirher
autem non carnem peccati evacuatam esse in Christo sed peccatum
can we say it was sinful, when in it there was no guile.3 Our
carnis, non materiam sed naturem, nec substantiam sed culpam,
contention, however, is not that the flesh of sin, but that the sin of
secundum apostoli auctoritatem dicentis, Evacuavit peccatum in the flesh, was brought to nought in Christ, nor the marerial but its
cerne. nam et alibi in similitudine inquit carnis peccati fuisse quality, not the substance but its guilt, according to the apostle's
,s Christum, non quod similitudinem carnis acceperit quasi imagi- authority when he says, Ile brought to nought sin in thà flesh.+
nem corporis et non veritatem, sed similitudinem peccatricis For in another place also s he says that Christ was in the likeness of
carnis vult intellegi quod ipsa non peccatrix caro Christi eius fuit the flesh of sin: not that he rook upon him the likeness of flesh,
as it were a phantasm of a body and not its reality: but the apostle
par cuius erat peccatum, genere non vitio Adae aequanda. hinc
etiam confirmamus eam fuisse carnem in Christo cuius natura est
will have us understand by'the likeness of sinful flesh'thãt the
flesh of Christ, itself not sinful, v/as rhe like of that to which sin
zo in homine peccatrix, et sic in illa peccatum evacuatum, dum in
did belong, and is to be equated with Adam in species but not in
Christo sine peccato habetur quae in homine sine peccato non defect. From this text'we also prove that in Christ there was that
habebatur. at neque ad propositum Christi facerct evacuanris fesh whose nature is in man sinful, and that it is by virtue of this
peccatum carnis non in ea carne evacuare illud in qua erat natura that sin has been brought to nought, whilein Christ rhar same f.esh
peccati, neque ad gloriam: quid enim megnum si in carne meliore exists without sin which in man did not exist without sin. More-
,s et alterius (id est non peccatricis) naturae naevum peccati peremit ? over it would not suit Christ's purpose, when bringing to nought
'Ergo, inquies, si nostram induit, peccatrix fuit caro Christi.' noli the sin of the flesh, not to bring it ro noughr in that flesh in which
constringere explicabilem sensum: nostram enim induens suam was the nature of sin: neither would it be to his glory. For what
fecit, suam faciens non peccatricem eam fecit. ceterum, quod ad would it amount to if it was in a better kind of flesh, of a different
ornnes dictum sit qui ideo non putant carnem nostram in Christo (that is, a non-sinful) nature, that he destroyed the birthmark of
sin?6 'In that case,'you will reply,'if it was our flesh Christ
3o fuisse quia non fuit ex viri semine, recordentur Adam ipsun in
hanc carnem non ex semine viri factum: sicut terra conversa est
16: g post preedícernts grauìus pungebam (itaKroy.). quae in caelís esr addenda
putabam postea peccatricem [quia] nec evaatatam libil.
18 Adae aequanda iamdudum saibebam adaeguanda T Kroy, ,\dae, quando to all those who suppose that because he was not of a man's seed,
XB uulgo.
itwas not our flesh that was in Christ-let them remember that
zo dum T quod XB.
Adam himself was made into this flesh, though not of a man's
2r habetur TNF habeacur MP.
2 j naevum peccati peremit s cribebam vim peccati peremtt T Kroy. naevum seed: as earth was changed into this flesh without a man's seed,
peccati redemit XB uulgo. ' Cf. Mark 16. r9. 2 Cf. Matt. ró. z7; Mark 8.
38.
z6 inquies Tiinquis XB. 3 Cf. t Pet. z. zz. a Rom. 8. 3. 5 lbid.
3o fuit XB fuerit T. 6 Or, by another reading, 'overcame
the power of sin'.
 r
j8 DE CÂRNE cHRrsrr oN THE FLESH OF CTTRIST 59

in hanc carnem sine viri semine, ita et dei verbum potuit sine so also the Word of God was able, without coagulation, to pass
coagulo in eiusdem carnis transire materiam. into the material of that same flesh.
17 Sed remisso Alexandro cum suis syllogismis quos in argu- t7 But, dismissing Alexander, along with those syllogisms ofhis
mentationibus torquet, etiam cum psalmis Valentini quos megne which he tortures in his arguings, also along with those psalms of
Valentinus which with supreme impudence he interpolates as
impudentia quasi idonei alicuius auctoris interserit, ad unam iam
though they were the work of some competent author, let us now
lineam congressionem dirigamus an carnem Christus ex virgine
concentrate our attack at one single point, whether it was from the
s acceperit, ut hoc praecipue modo humanam eam constet si ex Virgin that Christ took to himself flesh: for by this method, if by
humana matrice substantiam traxit: quanquam licuit iam et de no other, it will be established that his flesh was human, if it
nomine hominis et de statu qualitatis et de sensu tractationis et de derived its substance from a human womb: although it has
exitu passionis humanam constitisse. ante omnia autem com- already become clear that it was ofhuman constitution, both from
mendanda erit ratio quae praefuit ut dei filius de virgine nascere- the appellation 'man' and from its natural characteristics, from the
ro tur: nove nasci debebat novae nativitatis dedicator de qua signum sense-perception of handling and from the issue of the passion.
daturus dominus ab Esaia praedicabatur. quod est istud signum? Yet before all else we shall need to adduce the reason which
Ecce virgo concipiet in utero et pariet fìlium. concepit igitur prescribed that the Son of God should be born of a virgin: which
was, that he must needs be born in a new manner, as being the
virgo et peperit Emmanuelem, nobiscum deum. haec est nativitas
founder of that new birth concerning which it was proclaimed by
nova, dum homo nascitur in deo, ex quo in homine deus natus est 'What sign is that?
Isaiah that the Lord would give a sign.
rj carne antiqui seminis suscepta sine semine antiquo, ut illam novo Behold, a virgin shall conceiue in the womb and shøll bear a son.' And
semine, id est spiritali, reformaret exclusis antiquitatis sordibus
so a virgin did conceive, and bore Emmanuel, God with us. This
expiatam. sed tota novitas ista, sicut et in omnibus, de veteri is the new birth, that man is being born in God, since the day when
figurata est, rationali per virginem dispositione homine domino God was born in man, taking to himself flesh of the ancient seed
nascente. virgo erat adhuc terra, nondum opere compressa, non- without the agency of the ancient seed, so that he might reshape
,o dum sementi subacta: ex ea hominem factum accipimus a deo in it with new (that is, spiritual) seed when he had first by sacrifìce
animam vivam. igitur si primus Adam ita traditur, merito expelled its ancient defilements. But that newness in its totality, as
sequens vel novissimus Adam, ut apostolus dixit, proinde de terra also in allits bearings, was prefigured of old, when by a reasonable
(id est carne) nondum generafioni resignata in spiritum vivi- ordinance by means of a virgin man 'was born to the Lord. The
ficantem a deo est prolatus. et tamen ne mihi vacet incursus earth was still virgin, not yet deflowered by husbandry, not yet
,s nominis Adae, unde Christus Adam ab apostolo dictus est si subdued to seedtime: of it we are told that man was made by
terreni non fuit census homo eius? sed et hic ratio defendit, quod
God into a living soul. Therefore, seeing that of the first Adam
it is so related, naturally the second or last Adam, as the apostle
17: 5 hoc praecþue modo XB praecipue T.
has called him, was likewise from earth (that is, flesh) not yet
6 licuit TX liquuit B.
unsealed to generation brought forth by God to be a life-giving
Ir est orn. T.
13 Emmanuel quod est nobiscum deus T. spirit. And yet-that I leave not otiose the introduction of the
14 ex quo in homine T koy. in quo homine XB. name of Adam-why was Christ called Adam by the apostle? if
16 spiritali T spiritaliter XB. his manhood was not of terrestrial origin? Here also reason gives
rg pro opere quaero an sqibendum vomere. t Isa. 7. 14. 2 Cf. r Cor. 15.
45.
 r
óo DE cÀRNE cHRrsrI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST óT

deus imaginem et similitudinem suam a diabolo caprem aemula the arrswer: it is because God by a contrary operation has regained
operatione recuperavit. in virginem enim adhuc Evam irrepserat possession of his own image and similitude taken captive by the
verbum aedifìcatorium mortis: in virginem aeque introducendum devil. Into Eve, while still a virgin, had crept rhe word, con-
30 erat dei verbum exstructorium vitae, ut quod per eiusmodi sexum structive of death:'into a virgin no less needed to be introduced
-Word
abierat in perditionem per eundem sexum redigeretur in salutem. the of God,constructive of life,' so that that which
crediderat Eva serpenti, credidit Maria Gabrieli: quod illa cre-
through that sex had gone astray into perdition should through
the same sex be led back again into salvation. Eve had believed
dendo deliquit haec credendo delevit. 'Sed Eva nfüil tunc con-
the serpent: Mary believed Gabriel. The sin which the former
cepit in utero ex diaboli verbo.' immo concepit. nam exinde ut
commítted by believing, the latter by believing blotted out. sBur
¡s abiecta pereret et in doloribus pareret verbum diaboli semen illi Eve on that occasion conceived nothing in her womb by the
fuit: enixa est denique diabolum ftatricidam. contra Maria eum devil's word.' Yes, she did. For the devil's word was to her a
edidit qui carnalem fraffem Israel interemptorem suum salvum seed, so that thenceforth she should be abject and obedient, and
quandoque praestaret. in vulvam ergo deus verbum suum detulit should bring forth in sorrows:¡ and in fact she did give birth,
bonum fratrem, ut memoriam mali fratris eraderet: inde prode- to the devil, the murderer of his brother.4 Mary, on the other
+o undum fuit Christo ad salutem hominis quo homo iam damna- hand, brought forth him who should somerime bring to salvarion
tus intraverat. his brother according to the fesh, Israel, by whom he himself was
r8 Nunc et simplicius respondeamus. non competebat ex semine slain. So then, God brought down into the womb his own'W'ord,
humano dei filium nasci, ne si totus esset filius hominis non esset et the good brother, that he might erese rhe memory of the evil
dei filius nihilque haberet amplius Salomone et amplius lona, ur brother: for the salvadon of man Christ must needs come forth
de Hebionis opinione credendus erat. ergo iam dei filius ex patris
from that organ into which man already under condemnation had
entered.
s dei semine, id est spiritu, ut esset et hominis filius caro ei sola erat
ex hominis carne sumenda sine viri semine: vacabat enim semen
r8 Now let us put our case less figuratively. It was not feasible
for the Son of God to be born of human seed, lest, if he were
viri apud habentem dei semen. itaque sicut nondum natus ex wholly the son of man, he should not also be the Son of God, and
virgine patrem deum habere potuit sine homine -"rr., should be in no sense greeter than Solomon or than Jonah, as in
".qo.
cum de virgine nasceretur potuit matrem habere hominem sine Ebion's view we should have to regard him. Therefore, being
to homine pâtre: sic denique homo cum deo dum caro hominis cum aheady the Son of God, of the seed of God the Father (that is,
spiritu dei, caro sine semine ex homine, spiritus cum semine ex spirit), that he might also be the Son of Man all he needed was ro
deo. igitur si fuit dispositio rationis super filium dei ex virgine take to him flesh out of human flesh without the action of a man's
seed: for a man's seed was uncalled-for in one who had the seed of
33 haec credendo delevit XB ista credendo correxit T Kroy. God. And so, as while not yet born of the Virgin it was possible
39 eraderet Rrg. evaderet TB*ø. redderet XB. for him to have God for his father, without a human morher,
18: r et TP Kroy. ut MNFRB (quodforsanyaestaret).
equally, when being born of the Virgin, it was possible for him to
z ne si B rulgo ntsí TX.
have a human mother without a human father. Thus, in short, is
3 tt Oeh. et XB om. T.
5 caro ei sola erat seribebam caro ei (uel ea) sola quae erat XB caro quae sola there man with God, when there is man's flesh with God's spirit-
t
e¡ú, T. Cf. Gen. 3. r. 'z Cf. Luke r.35;John r. 14.
9 hominem or. X. 3 Cf. Gen. 3. ró. a Cf. Gen.4. r.
 r
6z DE cÂRNE cHRISTT ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 6t
proferendum, cur non ex virgine acceperit corpus quod de virgine from man flesh without seed, from God spirit with seed. Therefore
protulit, quia aliud est quod a deo sumpsit ? 'Quoniam, inquiunt, if there was an ordinance of reason regarding the need for the Son
rj verbum caro factum est.' vox ista quid caro sit factum con- of God to be brought forth from a virgin, whar room is there for
testatur et declarat, nec tamen periclitatur quasi statim aliud sit doubt that he received from the Virgin that body which he did
factum caro et non verbum, si ex carne factum est verbum caro: bring forth from the Virgin, seeing that what he received from
aut si ex semetipso factum est, scriptura dicat. cum scriptura non God is something else? 'It is', say they,'because the Word was
dicat nisi quod sit factum, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, made fesh." This saying testifies and declares what it was thar was
20 non ex semetipso, suggerit factum. si non ex semetipso sed ex made fl,esh, while yet there is no risk that, in spite of this, something
'W'ord,
alio, iam hinctractaex quo magis credere congruat carnem factum else, and not the was made flesh, if it was out of flesh that
verbum nisi ex carne in qua et factum est, vel quia ipse dominus the'Word was made flesh. Or else, if out of himself he was made
sententialiter et definitive pronuntiavit, Quod in carne natum est flesh, let Scripture say so. Since the Scripture says no more than
caro est quia ex carne natum est. sed si de homine tantummodo what the 'Word was made, and not also from what he was so
,s dixit, non et de semetipso, plane nega hominem Christum et ita made, it follows that its suggestion is that he was so made out of
defende non et in ipsum competisse. 'Atquin subicit, Et quod de something else, and not out of himself, If not out of himself but
spiritu natum est spiritus est, quia Deus spiritus est, et De deo out of something else, beginning with that admission discuss of
natus est: hoc utique vel eo magis in ipsum tendit si et in credentes what it is more fitting to believe the'Word was made flesh, ifnot
eius.' si ergo et hoc ad ipsum, cur non et illud supra? neque of that flesh within which he was made flesh-if for no other
¡o enim dividere potes, hoc ad ipsum, illud supra ad ceteros homines, reason, because the Lord himself has judicially and categorically
qui utramque substantiam Christi et carnis et spiritus non negas. stated, That which is born in the flesh is flesh, because it has been born
ceterum si tam carnem habuit quam spiritum, cum de duarum of flesh.' If he said this of man only, and not also of himself,
substantiarum pronuntiat conditione quas in semetipso gestabat openly deny that Christ is man, and thus maintain that it did not
non potest videri de spiritu quidem suo de carne vero non sua apply to him. 'Nay, but he adds, And that which is born of the
¡s determinasse. ita cum sit ipse de spiritu dei (et spiritus deus est) ex Spirit ß Spirit,t because Cod is spiril,a and, He was born of God:s
deo natus, ipse est et ex carne hominis et homo in carne generatus. this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who
believe in him.'Then if this too applies to him, why not also that
14 quia aliud etc. cum lnaecedentibus coniunxi.
15 factum þtìore uice) TBmg. facra. XB. other? For you cannot divide them, this to him, the other ro the
ró et declarat om. XB (forsan rccte). rest of men: for you do not deny the two substances of Christ,
17 post et non verbum pimus leuíus dístínxít Kroy. that offlesh and that of spirit. But ifhe possessed fesh no less than
18, zo (års) semetipso TB semine ipso X (rer). spirit, when he makes a statement concerning the condition of the
z3 pronuntiat T Kroy. z4 si om. T Kroy. two substances which he bore within himself he cannot be
z5 nega hominem Christum XB nec de homine Christo TBmq. thought to have made a pronouncement concerning spirit as
zó defendes F Kroy. being his but flesh es not his. Thus, since he was himself by
33 pronuntiat conditione T conditione pronuntiat XB in semetipso
suibebam in semet ipse T et ipse XB. the Spirit of God (and the Spirit is God) born of God, he
was also of human flesh and as man conceived and born in
35 ita cum sit etc. íta pungebam ex ltarum certis testímoniis quae t)eru videtenlur
ìndagatß ita cum sit ipse de spiritu dei et spiritus deus est ex deo natus ipse the flesh.
i¡ X r I John 3.
est et ex carne hominis homo carne generatus ita cumipse de spiritu dei John r. 14. '?John 3. ó. ó.
+
spiritus et ex deo natus ipse et ex cârne hominis homo in carne generatus T. John 4. 24. 5
Johrl r. 13 (v.1.).
 I
6+ DE CARNE CIIRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST ó5

rg 'Qoid Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec

est ergo, 19 ''What then is the meaning of, Was born not of blood nor of the
ex voluntate viri sed ex deo natus est?' hoc quidem capitulo ego will of the flesh nor of the will of a man, but of God? " This text will
potius utar, cum adulte¡atores eius obduxero: sic enim scriptum be of more use to me than to them, when I have refuted those
esse contendunt, Non ex sanguine nec ex carnis voluntate nec ex who falsify it. For they maintain that it was rhus written, Were
s viri sed ex deo nati sunt, quasi supradictos credentes in nomine born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh or of a man, but of God," as
eius designet, ut ostendant esse semen illud arcanum electorum et though it referred to the above-mentioned believers in his name:3
spiritalium quod sibi imbuunt. quomodo autem ita erit, cum and from it they ffy to prove that there exists that mystic seed of
ornnes qui credunt in nomine domini pro communi lege generis the elect and spiritual which they baptize for themselves. Bur
humani ex sanguine et ex carnis et ex viri voluntate nascantur, how can it mean this, when those who believe in the name of the
ro etiam Valentinus ipse? adeo singulariter ut de domino scriptum Lord are all of them by the common law of human kind born of
est, Sed ex deo natus est. merito, quia verbum dei, et cum verbo blood and of the will of the flesh and of a man, as also is Valen-
dei spiritus, et in spiritu dei virtus, et quicquid dei est Christus. tinus himself? Consequentþ the singular is correct, as referring
qua caro autem, non ex sanguine nec ex carnis et viri voluntate, to the Lord-was born...of Gol. nightþ so, because the Word is
'Word
quia ex dei voluntate verbum caro factum est: ad carnem enim, God's, and with the is God's Spirit, and in the Spirit is
r j
non ad verbum, pertinet negatio formalis riostrae nativitatis, quia God's power, and God's everything that Christ is. As flesh,
caro sic habebat nasci, non verbum. 'Negans autem ex carnis however, he was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh
'Word
quoque voluntate natum, cur non negavit etiam ex substantia and of a man, because the was made flesh by the will of
carnis?' neque enim quia ex sanguine negavit substantiam carnis God: for it is to his flesh, not to the-Word, that this denial of a
renuit, sed materiam seminis quam constat sanguinis esse calorem nativity after our pattern applies; and the reason is that it was
zo ut despumatione mutatum in coagulum sanguinis feminae: nam the flesh, not the'Word, which might have been expected to be
ex coagulo in caseo eius (vis) est substantiae quam medicando born that way. 'But in denying, among other things, that he was
constringit, id est lactis. intellegimus ergo ex concubitu nativi- born of the will of the fesh, surely it also denies that he was born
tatem domini negatam, quod sapit voluntas viri et carnis, non of the substance of flesh.' No: because neither does the denial that
ex vulvae participatione. et quid utique tam exaggeranter incul- he was born of blood involve any repudiation of the substance of
,s cavít non ex sanguine nec ex carnis aut viri voluntate natum, nisi flesh, but of the material of the seed, which material it is agreed is
quia ea erat caro quam ex concubitu natam nemo dubitaret? the heat of the blood, as it were by despumation changed into
negans porro ex concubitu non negavit ex carne, immo confirma- a coagulator of the woman's blood. For from the coagulator there
is in cheese a function of that substance, namely milk, which by
'We
r9: r Quid estetc. ínteioeutoi assignabam. chemical acdon it causes to solidify. understand, rhen, a denial
z nati sunt Rig. (sed haud opus erat). that the Lord's nativity was the result of coition (which is the
ó ostendant T Kroy. ostendat XB uulgo lllLtd.TB-s' illius XB. meaning of the will of a man and of the fleså), but no denial thar it
8 domini X eius TB. was by a partaking of the womb. And why indeed does the
ró negans autem etc. interloutori assígnabam: alíoquínnegaveit scribere ytossis,
evangelist with such amplification insist that the Lord was born
19 calorem XB colorem T colatum humorem tentauít Kroy. (nirafelicítate).
not of blood nor of the will of the flesh or of a man, excepr rhar
zo-zr sanguinis feminae nâm ex coagúo om. X.
zr vis suppl. Gel. incaseatio eius est Kroy. (forsax recte). his flesh was such as no one would suspect was not born ofcoition?
z3 voluntas XII ex voluntate T, Consequently, his denial that it was born of coition involves no
z5 aut viri voluntate TMPF voltntate aut viri PRB vulgo. ' John r. 13 (u.1.). 'zJohn r. 13. 3 Cf.John r. rz.
ET
 T
66 DE cÀRNE cuRrsrr oN rHE FLESTT OF CHRIST 67

vit ex carne, quia non perinde negavit ex carne sicut ex concubitu denial that it was born of the flesh, but rather an afiìrmation thet
negavit. oro vos, si dei spiritus non de vulva carnem participaturus it was born of the flesh, seeing he does not deny'of flesh'in the
same terms in which he denies'of coition'. I put it to you: if the
:o descendit in vulvam, cur descendit in vulvam? potuit enim extra
Spirit of God came down into the womb without the intention of
eam fieri caro spiritalis simplicius multo quam intra vulvam [fieret
partaking of flesh from the womb, why did he come down into
extra vulvam]. sine causa eo se intulit unde nihil extulit. sed non the womb? For he might have been made spiritual flesh outside
sine causa descendit in vulvam. ergo ex illa accepit, quia si non ex the womb with far less trouble than within it. To no purpose did
illa accepit sine causa in illam descendit, maxime eius qualitatis he bring himself into a place from whence he took nothing out.
3J caro futurus quae non erat vulvae, id est spiritalis. But it was not to no purPose that he came down into the womb.
Consequently he did receive something from it, because if he did
20 Qualis est autem tortuositas vestra, ut ipsam rx syllabam
not receive something from it it was to no PurPose that he came
praepositionis ofiìcio adscriptam auGrre quaeratis et alia magis uti
down into it, the more so if he were going to be flesh of such a
quae in hac specie non invenitur penes scripturas sanctas? per character as, being spiritual, had nothing in common with the
virginem dicitis natum, non ex virgine, et in vulva, non ex vulva, womb.
s quia et angelus in somnis ad loseph-Nam quod in ea natum est, 20 But what sort of twistiness is yours, that you try to remove
inquit, de spiritu sancto est-non dixit ex ea. nempe tamen etsi ex that syllable'of', prefixed in the function of a preposition, and to
ea dixisset in ea dixerat: in ea enim erat quod ex ea eret. tantun- substitute another, which in this connexion is not found in the
holy Scriptures? You allege that he was born'by the virgin'not
dem ergo et cum dicit in ea, ex ea consonat, quia ex ea erat
'of'the virgin', and 'in the womb' not 'of the womb', on the
quod in ee erat. sed bene quod idem dicit Matthaeus originem ground that when the angel in a dream said to Joseph, Fot that
ro domini decurrens ab Abraham usque ad Mariam, Iacob autem *tt¡tt ¡ born in her is of the holy Spirit,' he did not say'of her'.
generavit, inquit, Ioseph virum Mariae ex qua nascitur Christus. Yet surely, though he had said'of her' he would have meant'in
sed et Paulus grammaticis istis silentium imponit: Misit, inquit, her': for that was in her which was of her. Equally then, when
deus filium suum factum ex muliere. numquid per mulierem aut he says 'in her', the meaning'of her'is included, because that
which was in her was ofher. Also it is in my favour that the same
in muliere? hoc quidem impressius, quod factum potius dicit
Matthew, when rehearsing the Lord's pedigree from Abraham
rj quam natum. simplicius enim enuntiasset natum: factum autem down to Mary, saysJacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary of whom
dicendo, et Verbum caro factum est consignavit et carnis veri- Christ ís born." Pad. too imposes silence on these teachers of
tatem ex virgine factae adseveravit. nobis quoque ad hanc grammar: God,he says, sent hís Son, nade of a wofltan.3 Does he
speciem psalmi patrocinabuntur, non quidem apostatae et haeretici iay'by a'woman'or'in a'woman'? His language is indeed the
T Kroy.
-or" å..or"te in that he says 'made' in preference to 'born'. For
3o cur descendit in vulvam? om.
:
it would have been simpler to Pronounce that he was born: yet
3t-z fieret extra vulvam on. T. by saying 'made' he has both set his seal on The Word was made
3z sed om. T.
flesh,i h"t asserted the verity of the flesh made of the Vilg1.
zot 54 parenthesim itdieabam. 'W'e, "oã
moreover, shall have in this connexion the suPPort of the
7 quod ex et erat om. X.
r4 potius om. X (forsan recte). Psalms, not indeed those of that aPostate and heretic and Platonic
r7 virginis T Kroy. (contta consuetudinem suiptois).
r Matt. r.20. ? Matt. r. 16. : Gal.4.4. + John r. 14.
 ó8 DE CÀRNE CHRISTI
oN THE FLEsH oF cHRIST 6g
et platonici valentini sed sancrissimi et receptissimi prophetae
Valentinus, but of the most holy and canonical prophet David.
,o David: ille apud nos canir Christum, p"t qoì- se cecirrit ipse
He, in our Church, sings of Christ, because by him Christ sang of
Christus. accipe vicesimum primum et audi dominum patri jeo
himself. Take psalm twenty-one, and hear the Lord conversing
colloquentem: Quia tu es qui avulsisti me ex.rt.ro
-"tii, meae:
ecce unum. Et spes mea ab uberibus matris meae, super te sum
with God the Father. For thou art he that didst rend me out of my
rnother's womb:' there is one. And ny hope ß fron rny mother's
proiectus ex vulva: ecce aliud. Et ab utero matris
-.". d.o, -.o,
2i es tu: ecce aliter. nunc et ad sensus ipsos decertemus. Avulsisti,
breasts. I have been cdst ul,on thee out of the womb:2 there is another.
Thou art my God er.,en from rny mother's womb:3 there it is in other
itrqît, ex utero. quid avellitur nisi quod inhaerer, quod infìxum, words. Now let us fight it out in view of the meanings them-
quod innexum est ei a quo ut auferatur avellitur? ri rroo adhaesit
selves. Thou didst rcnd me, he says, out of the womb. What is it that
utero, quomodo avulsus est? si adhaesit qui avulsus est, quomodo
is rent out, except that which inheres, which is fastened in, is
adhaesisset nisi dum ex utero est per illum nervu- ,r-Lili."r.-
entwined with that from which its removal requires it to be rent
ro quasi folliculi sui traducem adnexus origini vulvae? etiam cum
out? If he did not adhere to the womb, how was he rent out?
quid extraneum extraneo adglutinatur, ita concarnatur et con- If he who was rent out did adhere, how could he have adhered,
visceratur cum eo cui adglutinatur cum avellitur npiat secum
't except that whjle coming out of the womb he was knit by means
ex corpore [aliquid] a quo avellitur [quasi] sequelam quandam of that umbilical cord, as it were an offihoot of his caul, to the
abruptae unitatis et producem motui loitus. i.t.roro- cum er
womb where he originated? Even when something external is
ss ubera matris suae nominat-sine dubio quae hausit-respondeant
cemented to something external, it is so united in flesh and entrails
obstetrices et medici et physici de uberum rLetuta,an aliteì manare
with that to which it is cemented, that when it is rent away it
soleant sine vulvae genitali passione, suspendentibus inde venis
forcibly takes with it [something] out of the body from which it is
sentinam illam inferni sanguinis in mamillam et ipsa translatione
rent a'way, [as it were] a sort of corollary of broken unity and an
decoquentibus in materiam lactis laedorem: inãe adeo fit ut
aftermath of mutual coition. Moreover, since he also mentions
+o uberum tempore menses sanguinum vecent. quodsi verbum caro
his mother's breasts-undoubtedly implying that he sucked them
ex se factum est, non ex vulvae communicaiione, nilil operata
midwives, physicians, and biologists bear witness concerning
vulva, nihil functa, nilúl passa, quomodo fontem suum tran-sfudit -let
the nature of breasts, whether they are wont to flow except at the
in ubera qu¿;etrjsipati¿ndo non mutat? habere autem sanguinem
genital experience of the womb, from which the veins pay over
non potuitlacti subministrando si non haberet et causas sÃguinis
into the teat that cess of the lower blood, and in the course of that
+s ipsius, avulsionem scilicet suae carnis. quid fuerit novitatis in
transfer distill it into the more congenial material of milk. That is
Christo ex virgine nascendi palam est: sol'm hoc scilicet, quod ex
why, during lactation, the monthly periods cease. But if the
zr-z vicesimum primum...colloquentem T et David domino deo patri 'Word
was made flesh out of himself, and not out of what the
eloquentem XB (quod manifestofalsum) Christum (proDaLid) B*s.Oeh.
womb contributed, how did a womb which had wrought no-
z7 q'od (tetía uíce) T om. ceterì. 30 quaero an scribendum adnexus est. .
y lhqutd on. T oø. TMNF.
quasi
thing, performed nothing, experienced nothing, decant its foun-
TR"s. tain into those breasts in which it causes change only by the pro-
34 producem R3B producis MPNFRT fi¿dúcis cum et T er
MNF quae PRB uulgo (quaerendi sígno post nominarposl/o). cess of giving birth? It cannot have possessed blood for the supply
35 parenthesim índicauît Kroy. 38 in mamillam offi. TBns. of milk without also having reasons for the blood itself, namely
4r communione T Kroy. (manifesto errore). the tearing away of flesh which was its own. What novelty there
43 pariendo scríberc ausus sum habendo libú et edd. was in Christ, the novelty of his being born of a virgin, is plain:
43-4 fontem non potuit ?. 44 et causas T on. et ceteri.
' Ps. 22.9. ? Ibid. 3 Ps. zz. to.
 T-

DE CÂRNE ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 7Í

70 CHRTSTT

virgine secundum rationem quam edidimus, et uti virgo esset namely, this and nothing else, that he was born of a virgin
according to the mannet I have expounded, to the further intent
regeneratio nostra spiritaliter, ab omnibus inquinamentis sancti-
thet our regeneration should be virginal in a spiritual sense,
ficata per Christum virginem et ipsum etiam carnaliter ut ex sanctified from all defilements through Christ, himselfvirgin even
5o virginis carne. in the flesh, because it was of a virgin's flesh that he was born.
zr Si ergo contendunt hoc competisse novitati ut quemad- 2r If then they claim that novelty required that the 'Word of
God should not be made flesh from the Virgin's flesh, any more
modum non ex viri semine ita nec ex virginis carne caro fieret dei
than from a man's seed, I ask why the whole novelty should not
verbum, quare non hoc sit tota novitas, ut caro non ex semine consist in this, that flesh not born of seed has proceeded forth from
nete ex carne (semine nata) processerit? accedant adhuc com- flesh (born of seed). Let them meet my attack at an even closer
s minius ad congressum. Ecce, inquit, virgo concipiet in utero. range. Behold, he says, the vírgín shall conceitte in the womb.' Con-
quidnam? utique dei verbum, non viri semen. certe ut pareret ceive what? Evidently not a man's seed, but the-Word of God.
And ion was that for it
fìlium: nam Et pariet, inquit, filium. ergo ut ipsius fuit parere, quia
says, 'Thetefore, h was
ipsius fuit concepisse, ita ipsius est quod peperit, iicet non ipsius hers, having conc e that
fuerit quod concepit. contra si verbum ex se câro factum est, iam which she brought to birth is hers, even though that was not hers
ro ipsum se concepit et peperit, et vacat prophetia: non enim virgo which she conceived. On the other hand, if the Word was made
flesh out of himsel{ in that case he conceived and bore himself,
concepit neque peperit, si non quod peperit ex verbi conceptu
and the prophecy is pointless. For the Virgin neither conceived
caro ipsius est. sola haec autem prophetae vox evacuabitur ? an et anything nor bore anything unless that which she bore as a con-
'Word is flesh which was hers.
angeli conceptum et partum virginis annuntiantis ? an et omnis sequence of the conception of the
iam scriptura quaecunque matrem pronuntiat Christi? quomodo And this utterance of the prophet will not be the only one to be
made pointless. What about that of the angel who announced the
rj enim mater nisi quia in utero eius fuit? (ut quid in utero) si
Virgin' about everY
nihl ex utero eius accepit quod matrem eam faceret in cuius utero single s ? For how is
fuit? hoc nomen non debet caro extrenea: matris uterum non she hir mb, (and to
what purpose was he in her womb) if he has received from her
appellat nisi filia uteri caro; filia porro uteri non est, si sibi nata
womb nothing that should confer motherhood upon her in whose
est. tacebit igitur et Elisabeth, prophetam portens iam domini sui womb he was? Flesh from elsewhere has no right to use this
20 conscium infantem et insuper spiritu sancto adimpleta: sine causa name. Only flesh which is the daughter of the womb talks of 'my
mother's womb': and certainly it is no daughter of the womb if it
was born to itself. Thus Elisabeth too will keep silence, though she
47 et roti mendosum esse frustra suspìcøntur edd, not only carries within her that infant who as a prophet is already
zr: 4 semine na;ta. supplenda eensebam accedam R uúgo comminus T. conscious of his Lord,a but herself also is filled with the Holy
7 ipsius fuit parere quia T om. XB r.,ulgo.
Spirit: for without reeson does she say, And whence is it to me that
rr verbi conceptu T verbi concepto ll4NF verbo concepro PRB uulgo.
r Isa. 7. 14; Matt. r. 23. , Ibid.
rj ut quid in utero hís suppletß loco dfficilí mederi tentabam.
a Cf. Luke r. 4r, M.
3 Cf. Matt. r. zo; Luke r. 3r.
19 Elisabeth propheta T Kroy.
 72 DE C.A.RNE CHRTSTT ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 73
enim dicit, Et unde mihi ut mater domini mei veniat ad me? si the mother of my Lord should come to me?' If Mary was carrytng
Maria non filium sed hospitem in utero gestabat lesum, quomodo Jesus in her womb not as a son but as a guest, what can Elisabeth
'What
dicit, Benedictus fructus uteri tui? quis hic fructus uteri qui non mean by Blessed ß the fruit of thy wonb ?'? sort of fruit of a
ex utero germinavit, qui non in utero radicem egit, qui non eius womb is this, which has neither germinated from the womb, nor
zs est cuius est uterus? et qui utique fructus uteri Christus? an quia struck root in the womb, nor belongs to her whose the womb is?
In what sense, really, is Christ the fruit of her womb ? Is it not
ipse est flos de virga profecta ex radice Iesse, radix eutem Iesse
because he is himself the flower from the stem which came forth
genus David, virga ex radice Maria ex David, fos ex virga filius
from the root of Jesse,3 while the root of Jesse is the house of
Mariae qui dicitur Iesus Christus, ipse erit et fructus ? flos enim David, and the stem from the root is Mary, descended from
fructus, quia per florem et ex flore omnis fructus eruditur in fruc- David, that the flower from the stem, the Son of Mary, who is
30 tum. quid ergo? negent et fructui suum florem et flori suam calledJesus Christ, must himself also be the fruit? For flower is
virgam et virgae suam radicem, quominus suam radix sibi vindicet fruit, because by means of the flower and from the flower every
per virgam proprietatem eius quod ex virga est, floris er fructus: fruit is perfected into fruit. What then? They deny to the fruit its
siquidem omnis gradus generis ab ultimo ad principalem recen- own flower, to the flower its own stem, and to the stem its own
setur, ut iam nunc carnem Christi non tantum Mariae sed et
root, so as to preclude the root from laying claim, by means of its
o\Mn stem, to the ownership of that which is from the stem,
¡s David per Mariam et Iesse per David sciant adhaerere. adeo hunc
namely the flower and the fruit: whereas in fact the whole ladder
fructum ex lumbis David, id est ex posteritate carnis eius, iurat illi
of descent is counted back from the final to the principel, that no'ù/
deus consessurum in throno ipsius. si ex lumbis David, quanto at length these persons may know that the flesh of Christ adheres
magis ex lumbis Mariae ob quam in lumbis David. not only to Mary, but also to David through Mary and to Jesse
22 Deleant igitur et testimonia daemonum filium David pro- through David. Thus it is that God swears to David that this
clamantia ad lesum, sed testimonia apostolorum delere non fruit out of his loins, that is, out of the posterity of his flesh, will
poterunt, si daemonum indigna sunt. þse imprimis Matrhaeus, sit upon his throne.a If he is out of the loins ofDavid, the more so
fidelissimus evangelü commentetor ut comes domini, non aliam is he out of the loins of Mary, for on her account he is reckoned
s ob causam quam ut nos originis Christi carnalis compotes faceret as having been in David's loins.
ita exorsus est: Liber generaturae Iesu Christi filü David filii zz Thus even though they delete also the testimony of the devils
Abrahae. his originis fontibus genere manante cum gradatim who cry out toJesus'son of David', yet they will not be able to
ordo deducitur ad Christi narivirarem, quid aliud quam caro ipsa delete the testimony of the apostles, if the devils' testimony is
beneath their notice. Matthew himself, to begin with, a most
zz gesttbat XB uulgo portabat T Kroy. trustworthy compiler of the Gospel, as having been a companion
z5 et qui XB ut quid T.
of the Lord, for no other reason than of making us cognisant of
35 adeo T deo XB ideo Pam.
Christ's origin according to the flesh begins thtx: The book of the
38 in XB ex T.
generation of Jesus Christ, the son of Dauíd, the son of Abraham.s The
22 i r-2 proclamantia acl X proclama nti'.tm T corr. qu aerc an legenduø dominum
Iesum. fact that, by a descent which flows from these sources of origin,
3 poterunt B potuerunt TX. the sequence is brought down step by step to the nativity of
6 geniturae XB uulgo. z Ltke
pass¡ffi.A.b¡ahae T Ãbraherr.ceteri,
' Luke r.43.
a Cf. Ps. r32. rt;.Acts z. 3o.
r. 42. 3 Cf. Isa. rr. r.
5 Matt. r. r.
Z et
 T-
74 DE CÀRNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 7S

Abrahae et David per singulos ffaducem sui faciens in virginem Christ, can only mean that the very flesh of Abraham and David
ro usque describitur inferens Christum-immo ipse Christus prodit is registered as making an offshoot of itself through each several
virgine? sed et Paulus, utpote eiusdem evangelü et discipulus ancestor right down to the Virgin, and as bringing in Christ-nay
-de
et magister et testis, quia eiusdem apostolus Christi, confirmat rather, Christ himself comes forth-from the Virgin. Paul also,
Christum ex semine David secundum canìem, utique ipsius. ergo being a disciple and teacher and witness of the same Gospel,
ex semine David caro Christi. sed secundum Mariae carnem ex because he is an epostle of the selÊsame Christ, attests that Christ
t j semine David: ergo ex Mariae carne est dum ex semine est David. is of the seed of Dauid accordíng to the flesh'-evidentþ Christ's own
quocunque detorseris dictum, aut ex cerne est Mariae quod ex flesh. Consequently Christ's flesh is of the seed ofDavid. But it is
semine est David, aut ex David semine est quod ex cerne est of the seed of David in consequence of the flesh of Mary, and
Mariae. totam hanc controversiam dirimit idem apostolus ipsum therefore it is of Mary's flesh, seeing it is of the seed of David.
definiens esse Abrahae semen: cum Abrahae, utique multo magis Lr whatever direction you twist the expression, either his flesh is of
zo David, quasi recentioris. retexens enim promissionem bene- Mary's flesh because it is of David's seed, or else it is of David's
dictionis nationum in semine Abrahae, Et in semine tuo bene- seed because it is of Mary's fesh. The same apostle resolves this
dicentur ornnes nationes, Non, inquit, dixit seminibus tanquam whole controversy by defining Christ himself to be Abraham's
de pluribus, sed semine, de uno, quod est Christus. qui haec seed: and since he is Abraham's, evidently much more is he
nihilominus legimus et credimus, quam debemus et possumus David's, who is the more recent. Fot when tracing back the
25 egnoscere in Christo carnis qualitatem? utique non aliam quam promise of the blessing of the nations in the seed of Abraham-
Abrahae, siquidem semen Abrahae Christus: nec aliam quam Anã in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed"-he seys, He said not
Iesse, siquidem ex radice Iesse flos Christus: nec aliam guam seeds, as of many, but seed, of one, whích is Christ.3'What quality of
David, siquidem fructus ex lumbis David Christus: nec aliam flesh must and can we, who (in spite ofour opponents' objections)
quam Mariae, siquidem ex Mariae utero Christus: et adhuc read and believe this, acknowledge in Christ? Evidently no other
:o superius nec aliam quam Adae, siquidem secundus Adam than Abraham's, in that Christ is the seed of Abraham: nor other
Christus. consequens ergo est ut aut illos spiritalem carnem thanJesse's, in that Christ is the flower out of the root ofJesse:+
habuisse contendant, quo eadem conditio substantiae deducatur in nor other than David's, in that Christ is the fruit out of the loins
Christum, aut concedant carnem Christi spiritalem non fuisse, of David:5 nor other than Mary's, in that Christ is from Mary's
womb: and, still higher up, no other than Adam's, in that Christ
quae non de spiritali sdrpe censetur.
is the second Adam.6 It follows, therefore, that they must either
2l Sed agnoscimus adimpleri propheticam vocem Simeonis claim that those others had fesh composed of spirit, so that the
super adhuc recentem infantem dominum pronuntiatam, Ecce hic
same quality of substance may be brought down into Christ, or
positus est in ruinam et suscitationem multorum in Israel et in else admit that Christ's flesh was not composed of spirit, since its
descent is not recounted from a spiritual stock.
ro-tr
xB.
parenthesím índicabam prodtt sctibebaø proão.itu, TBffiø. proditur
23 'We recognize here the fulfilment of the prophetic word of
zr semine (1uíorc uice) TBme' nomine XB uulgo.
Simeon which he pronounced over the still new-born infant
z4 nilúlominus T on. XB. Lord: Behold, thís child is set for the ruin and røising up of many in
29 çluam Mariae scríbebam quam ex Mariae utero T quam ex Maria XB. ' Rom. t. 3; cf. z Tim. z. 8. 2 Ger'. zz, t8,
3o A.dae T Adtrr. ceterí. 3 Gal. 3. ró. 4 Cf. Isa. rr. r.
321 tî Christum T in Christo X. 5 Cf. Ps. r32. rr. 6 r Cor. 15.45.
 76 DE C¿,RNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 77
signum quod contradicitur. signum enim nativitatis Christi Israel, and for a sign that is being spoken against.r The sign is that of
s secundum Esaiam: Propterea dabit vobis dominus ipse signum: the nativity of Christ, according to Isaiah: Therefore the Litrd
himself shall give you a sign: behold, a uirgin shall conceiue in the womb
ecce virgo concipiet in utero et pariet fìlium. agnoscimus ergo
and shall bear a son.' Consequentþ we recognize as a sign capable
signum contradicibile conceptum et partum virginis Mariae, de
of being spoken against the conception and child-bearing of Mary
quo Academici isri, 'Peperit er non peperit virgo et non virgo.'
the virgin, concerning which these Academics say, 'She bare and
quasi non, et si ita dicendum esset, a nobis magis dici conveniret: bare not, virgin and no virgin.' And yet, even though this ex-
ro peperit enim quae ex sua carne, et non peperit quae non ex viri pression were tolerable, it would be one more suitable for us to
semine, et virgo quantum a viro, non virgo quantum a partu- use: for she bare, seeing she did so of her own flesh, and she bare
non tamen, ut ideo non pepere/it quae peperit quia non ex sua not, seeing she did so not of a man's seed, a virgin as regards her
carne, et ideo virgo quae non virgo quia non de visceribus suis husband, not a virgin as regards child-bearing: not however that
mater. sed apud nos nihil dubium, nec retorrum in ancipitem the expression 'bare and bare not' implies that it was not of her
ts defensionem: lux lux et tenebrae tenebrae et est est et non non: flesh, or that 'virgin and not virgin' means that she was not from
her own bowels a mother. With us, however, there is nothing
quod amplius hoc a malo esr. peperir quae peperit, et si virgo
doubtful, or that is twisted back into a plea that can recoil upon
concepit in partu suo nupsit: nam nupsit ipsa patefacti corporis those who make it: iight is light and darkness is darkness,3 and yea
lege, in quo nihil interfuit de vi masculi admissi an emissi: idem is yea and nay is nay, and what is more than this is on the side of
illud sexus resignavit. haec denique vulva est proprer quam et de evil.+ She bore which did bear: and if as a virgin she conceived,
,o alüs scriptum est, Omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam sanctum in her chjld-bearing she became a wife. For she became a wife
vocabitur domino. quis vere sanctus quam sânctus ille dei filius? by that same law of the opened body, in which it made no
quis proprie vulvam adaperuit quam qui clausam patefecit? difference whether the violence was of the male let in or let out:
ceterls omnibus nuptiae patefaciunt. itaque magis patefacta est the same sex performed that unsealing. This in fact is the womb by
virtue of which it is written also concerning other wombs:
quia magis erat clausa. utique magis non virgo dicenda est quam
Euerything male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the
.s virgo, saltu quodam mater antequam nupta. et quid ultra de hoc
Lord.sWho is truly holy, except that holy Son of God?'Who in a
retractandum cum hac ratione apostolus non ex virgine sed ex
est ? strict sense has opened a womb, except him who opened this that
muliere editum filium dei pronuntiavit agnovit adapertae vulvae was shut? For all other women marriage opens it. Consequently,
nuptialem passionem. legimus quidem apud Ezechielem de vacca hers was the more truly opened in that it was the more shut.
illa quae peperit et non peperit: sed videte ne vos iem tunc pro- Indeed she is rather to be called not-virgin than virgin, having
-Why
become â mother by a sort of leap, before she was a bride.
z3: 4 quod contradicitur PRr quod conrradicetur MNFR3B concradicibile T. need we discuss this any further? In stating, on these considera-
rz pepererit scríbebam pepeitlibri quaepeperitquianonexsuacarne T tions, not that the Son of God was born of a virgin, but of a
om. ceteri.
woman,6 the apostle acknowledges the nuptial experience of the
2r sâncrus ille dei filius scribebam sancrus ille T sancri fìlius FR-s. deifìlius .We
opened womb. read indeed in Ezekiel of that heifer which
MPNRB.
z3 ceteris iampridem scribebam, assentitur Kroy. ceterumlibi.
bare and bare not:7 but it is more than likely that by this expres-
23-24lto itaque. . . quia.. . utique scríbere uelim utique. .. quae. . . itaque. ' Luke z. 34. 2 lsa.
7. t4- 3 Cf. Isa. 5. zo. + Cf. Matt. 5. 37.
6 Cf. 7 Not in Ezekiel.
29 tunc T nunc XB, 5 Ex. 13. z;Lukez.z3. Gal. 4. 4.
 78 DB CARNE CHRISTI ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST 79
notarit hac voce disceptaturos super uterum
30 videns spiritus sanctus sion the Holy Spirit, even then having you in mind, censured
Mariae. ceterum non contra illam suam simplicitatem pronun- such as should argue about Mary's womb. Otherwise he'would
tiasset dubitative, Esaia dicente Concipiet et pariet. not, with the opposite of his usual clxity, have made a hesitating
24 Quod enim et alias [Esaias] iaculatur in suggillatione haere- statement: for Isaiah says, Shall conceiue and bear.u
ticorum ipsorum, et imprimis Vae qui faciunt dulce amarum et 24 For by the weapons he' hurls in other places also for the
tenebras lucem, istos scilicet notat qui nec vocabula ipsa in luce bruising of the heretics' persons (not to speak of their opinions),
proprietatum suarum conservant ut anima non alia sit quam quae and in the first place, Woe unto thern that make sweet bitter and
i vocatur et caro non alia quem quae videtur et deus non alius quam darþness light,t he censures of course these who fail to keep even
qui praedicatur. ideo etiam Marcionem prospiciens, Ego sum, words in the clarity of their proper meaning, that soul should be
itqoit, deus, et alius absque me non est. et cum alio idipsum no other thur the soul which is so called, and flesh no other than
modo dicit, Ante me deus non fuit, nescioquas illas Valentiniano- the flesh which is visible, and God no other than he who is
rum aeonum genealogias pulsat. et Non ex sanguine neque ex preached. Consequentþ, this time with an eye to Marcion, he
to carnis aut viri voluntate sed ex deo natus est, Hebioni respondit. says, f am God, and other apart fron me there ís not.a And when he
aeque Etiamsi angelus de caelis aliter evangelizaveÅt vobis quam repeats this in other terms, Beþre me there was no god,S he is having
nos anathema sit, ad energema Apelleiacae virginis Philumenes a knock at those I know not what genealogies of aeons, of the
[filium] dirigit. certe Qui negat Christum in carne venisse hic Valentinians. And, Was born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh
antichristus est, nudam et absolutam et simplici nomine naturae or of a man, but of God,6 was his answer to Ebion. No less, Euen if
15 suae pronuntians carnem, omtles disceptatores eius ferit, sicut et an angelfrom heauen yeach the gospel to you otherwise than we,let hím
definiens ipsum quoque Christum unum multiformis Christi be anathema,T is directed against the energeme of Apelles' virgin
argumentatores quatit, qui alium faciunt Christum alium Iesum, Philumena. Certainly, Whoso denies that Christ is come in the f.esh,
alium elapsum de mediis turbis alium detentum, alium in secessu this same is antichrist,s using the word 'flesh' unadorned and un-
montis in ambitu nubis sub tribus arbitris clarum alium ceteris qualified and in the straightforward sense of its own nature,
zo passivum, (alium nobilem alium) ignobilem, alium magnanimum strikes a blow at all who initiate discussions about it: as also when
alium vero trepidantem, novissime alium passum alium resusci- he defines that Christ himself is one,e þs overthrows these arguers
tatum, per quod suam quoque in aliam carnem resurrectionem for a multiform Christ, who make Christ one andJesus another;
adseverant. sed bene quod idem veniet de caelis qui est passus, one who slipped away from the midst of the multitude, another
idem omnibus apparebit qui est resuscitatus, et videbunt et who was arrested; one who having withdrawn to the mountain
3z ut dubitativae T. was glorious in the midst of a cloud in the sight of three witnesses,
z4: r Esaías om. T. another who was commonly visible to the rest; (one well known,
z-3 dulce amarum et tenebræ XB uulgo del:ucetenebrasdetenebirsTKroy. another) unknown; one courageous, but another anxious; and,
3 ipsa T istl. cetei. at the last, one who suffered, and another who was raised again,
7 alio idipsum rnodo seribebaø alio eodem ipso modo T alio idipsum
whereby they afiìrm also their own resurrection into other flesh.
eodem modo XB. to aut TKroy. et ceterí.
r3 ûlium seclusi fsfllum ûlumenen MPN alia alii. But it is ir -y favour that the same will come from heaven as did
zo alium nobilem ah:ull; supplenda eensebam, nísi forte totum locum íta reseribere suffer, the same will be evident to all as was raised up again,'o
malís,...stb tribus arbitris (secretum), alium cereris (sc. ix apostolís) ¡ he-i.e. the Holy Spirit. 2 lsa,.7. r.4. 3 Isa. 5. eo.
passivum, (alium) clarum (alium) ignobilem. a Isa. 45. 5, ó. 5 Isa.43. ro.
¡ohn r. 14.
6 ? Gal. r. 8.
zz aharn carnem T Kroy. alia carne eeterí. 8 rJohn4.3. 9 Cf.rCor.8.ó.
'o Cl,Actsr.rr.
 8o DE C¿,RNE CHRISTI oN THE FLESH oF cgRrsr gr
2i egnoscent qui eum confxerunt, utique ipsam cernem in
quam
saevierunr, sine qï1 nec ipse esse pJterit-nec agnosci:
ú ; illi
erubescant qui adfirmatti ."-.ri in caelis ,rí.o"- ,.rr*
o,
vagrnam exempto Christo sedere, aut qui carnem et animam
tantundem, aut tantummodo animam cernem vero non iam.
2s Sed hactenus de materia praesenti. satis iam enim
arbitror
instructam esse carnis in chrisio et ex virgine natae .t ho-*".
probationem. quod et solum discussum ,,iftì..r. potoirr.t_"itr"
furnished suffìcient proof that the fesh of Christ was both born
of the Virgin and was human. The discussion of this in itself

ut autem clausula de praefatione commo nefaciat, resurrectio

nostrae carnis alio libello defendenda hic habebit praesrrucrionem,
ro manifesto iam inde quale fuerit quod in christo'resurrexerit.
only have I proved what Christ's fl.esh was and whence it came,
z5: 34 parenthesím indíeabam. but I shall be found also to have established a previous judgement
6 cum ? om. XB uulgo (þrsan recte). against them all as to what it was not. But, that the conclusion of
8 clausula TM.NRB clausulamF commonefaciatKroy. (mirafeticítate) my argument may recall its preamble, the resurrection of our
communem faciat T communi facrat XB uulgo. fesh, which I shall have to defend under a different brief, will here
ro manifestato T resurrexerit TM.NR3 resurrexit FR.B (forsan recte). be found to have had its foundation laid, it being manifesr no.w,
if not before, what sort of thing rhat was which rose again in
Christ.
r Cf. Zech. rz. ro;John 19. 37.
 tl NOTES ,TND COMMENTÂRY 8¡

purposeof the present discourse is to lay foundations for that

NOTES AND COMMENTARY which will follow. Our subject here is the flesh of Christ, its
existence, its provenance, and its quality. The verdict in this case
will serve as precedent for the proof of our own resurrection. Our
adversaries are Marcion who denied Ch¡ist's fesh and his nativity,
TITLE Apelles who admitted the flesh while denying the nativity, and
In modern English 'flesh' has a more materialistic sound than thi Valentinians and others, who profess to acknowledge both,
but in a non-natural sense. Actually Marcion, who alleged that
the flesh was 'putative', might just as well have acknowledged a
putative nativity and a putative grov/th to meturity.
r istos Sadducaeorum propinquos. Tertullian supposes him-
inanimate object. On the other hand oa.pÇ, caro, can only refer to self in court and refers to his adversaries as though they were
flesh actually or potenrially alive: it denores the material of which present. The Sadducees said there was no resurrection, neither
angel, nor spirit: Acts 23. 8.
2 rrrotatam. This,followed bylra (Rigaltius), isundoubtedlythe
right reading. Rhenanus, in the note quoted by Oehler, seems-to
..ãd th" *oid mõratatn þtabilem etfrmam et inconcussam) : so also
"r
Oehler, whose index does not distinguish between the present
instance and De Pat. 4, rnoratus secundum dorninum: De Anima 33,
integre norati: Adu.Marc. rv. r5, aliquid et cutn creatore moratus nec
in totum Epicuri deus (whíchlast is rightly interpreted in a note by
Rigaltius, O e}Ier ad /oc.). Here however we must surely read
assumed at the Incarnation. The question under discussion is one
möratam; cf, Juvenal vt. t Pudicitiam Saturno rege florctatr in tertis
of substance, as the organized uisamque diu, wherc the word stands for the non-existent Past
in
vehicle and the verity of the participle of rnanere.
whole human he statement that
his flesh is truly flesh and his soul is truly soul, both the one and the 3 medto: logically, with good reason (as far as they are con-
other derived by natural descenr from the progenitors of all cerned). Cf. S+, si Christus creatoris est, suutt merito amøuir:,$r7,
si primus Adarn ita traditur, merito sequens: and frequentþ. Cf. also
manlind.
Novatian, De Trin. ro, quoted below on $2.
CH.{PT3R I
4 disttahunt. So all the MSS. excePt A (the oldest) which has
Those who interpret 'resurrection of the dead' in such a sense as distruunt (an imposible word), on the strength of which Mercer,
to exclude the flesh are also disposed ro make diffìculties as ro the followed by Kroymann, reads destruunt, which they observe
truth of Christ's incarnation: logically so, for if Christ's body occurs in the following sentence. This would be good enough
which rose again was of flesh such as ours, this constitutes a pre- stylistic reeson for it not to occur here, and in any cese the
sumption that our bodies also will rise again. So we have to build sentences are not parallel. Here the point is that the flesh of
up our case from the point at which these brealc it down, and the Christ is pulled asunder with inquisitions, like a body on the rack:
6-2
84 NOTES .6,ND COMMENT¿{RY
t' 4 NOTES ,{,ND COMMENTÂRY 85

naturally mean'in any and every way','at all events', as in

$rz (twice) and Adv. Marc.tt.9, quoquo taffiefl, ínquis, modo sub-
stantía creatoris delicti capax inuenitur cun aff.atus dei, id est anima, in
homine deliquit: it is echoed here by onni modo, 'in every way',
'at all. events', later in the sentence. But conceivably Tertullian
could have written quoquo when he meent aliquo, 'in some way or
other', and that may be his meaning here.
7 carnis vota. Oehler compares De Res. Carnis 4, nimirum haec
erunt uota carnis rccuperandae, iterum cuytere de ea euadere. But the
sentences are not parallel. lHerc carnis uota (a subjective genitive)
are the hope of the flesh concerning its own future : uota carnís
recuçterandae (an objective genitive) are the soul's hope that it will
be again united to the flesh from which death has separated it.
8 examinemus. .. certum est. Tertullian perhaps had in mind
Qintilian, Inst. Orat. xII. 3. 6, offine ius quod est certurt aut scrípto
aut moribus constdt: dubium aequitatis regula exaninandum esú: where
Lewis and Short (s.u. examino, ad fin.) are wrong in saying that
the reference is to judicial examination: rather it is to the advocate
preparing his case, arrd examinare (as in Tertullian) has not lost its
primary sense of 'weigh','estimate the value of'.
9 c¿rro quaedtur etc. This reading, with the common Punc-
tuation of these sentences, is almost certainly right. The second
hand of T, andMesnart, hle carnis (dependent onueritas),which
makes sense, though not the best sense. It is not true that the
verity of Christ's flesh was being sought for, but that the flesh
itself was the subject of a judicial inquiry (quaestio). The subject
of the present treatise (retuactatur) is its verity (an fuerit) and its

same as flatura, the essential attributes by which an object is what

it is, but with a further suggestion of the worth or dignity atten-
dant upon that: see a note on \3 periculum enim status sui.
rr renuntiatio eius. Kroymann wrongly observes, hoc est
resltonsio carnis. Renuntiatio certnot mean a speech in reply to an
8ó NOTES ÄND COMMENTÀRY tl NOTES .ÀND COMMENTÀRY 87
It
eriytitur. But there are places where it means a permission assumed
rather than granted, something of the nature of presumption, as
seems to be the case here, and at Adu. Marc. r. 3, alt duos deos liceat
induci poetica et pictoria licentia, et tertía iam haeretica.

16 Apelles, according to Hippolytus, Philos. vrt. 38, said that

Christ oüx êr ncxp0évov yeyevfloOcxr, oÛôè öocpxov eïvcxt. . . åÀÀ'
ëx rfr5 toü rrqvròs orioícg gercxÀapówcx gepõv oõgc rrerrorr¡xÉuct,
ror¡¡Éotr 0ep¡roü xcrÌ yu¡poû xcl úypoû xcxl Çr¡poü. For his relation
to Marcion see De Ptaescr. Haer.3o.
18 confessus, the reading of most MSS., should probably be
retained. Professus Q IAoy.) is the wrong word in this context.
Its correct use is of things personal to the ptofessor, e.g. artem
aliquam, philosophian, etc. Its appearance here will be due to
editing by T or his archetype, on the ground that confessu.s is too
good a word for the supposedly insincere admission of a truth:
Lence th. substitution of professus in its medieval sense 'prercnd to
acknowledge'. For confteri in this sense cf. Adu. Mørc. r 6, deum
uerc confessus utrumque (sc. et potiorem et quern ctedít ninoreru) duo
sulnffia rnagna confessus est.

18 aliter illas interpretati: so ATB^+': illís of the other MSS.

makes no evident sense. According to lrenaeus, whose account of
the matter is adopted by Tertullian and Hippolytus, the Valen-
tinian doctrine was briefly this: There are tr¡/o Christs, both of
them distinct from (though one of them comes into a loose
association with) Jesus. The superior Christ, who is, and must
remain, totalþ unknown to any excePt his four superiors in the
plerorna, is the last-born fruit of the pleroma. Along with his
Holy Spirit he was emitted by Mind, after the expulsion
"otrsort
of Achamoth, with the function of teaching the æons that Abyss
and Silence, the primary æons, are forever unlnowable and
incomprehensible. This gospel of the unlnowable so delighted
the æois that each of them contributed the best it possessed, and
the combination of all their gifts producedJesus, the perfect fruit
of the pleroma. The lower Christ is in no \May connected with the
H. was fabricated by Craftsman, the non-divine creator of
"bove.
the world, and (like his maker) is of 'spiritual' (i.e. non-divine)
 88 NOTES .A.ND COMMENTÂRY
NOTES ÄND COMMENTÂRY 89
constitution. This Chri.t appeared on earth in ,animal,
an body, Rhenanus and Mesnart,have natiuitatis, whichmakes no difference
i:r., constructed o?-soul (anima), b.ing boà th.;"-;,
to the general sense, but runs better with phantasma confngere and
(not^.bo.dy
'of') At his b"ptir- ir, ¡ordãr, h. *"r;[;"
"^.-tgp. composire
posesion of,by_that
may be what Tertullian wrote.
almost_divine Jesus_Savioor.- io
thls marìrier the vaientinians, admitting christ's 2r infantis ordo, 'birth and growth of the Chfd' : c{. Adu. Marc.
flesh, 'otherwise ty.2r, where ordo appearc in the same conneúon: quando nec con-
interpreted it' as being constructed oFrool,
"rrd, "i_iti;;
ñ, fusionis matería conyeniat nísi meo Christo, cuius ordo magis pudendus
explain it-in any or all of fou;*"yr_;;?;_
f;:::ylry,,they,could
rccuon_ by all rhe æons, as fabrication
ut etiam haereticorum conuiciis pateat, olnneln natiuitatis et educationis
by Craftsman, as birth
thro^ugh a virgin, or as possession byJesus-saviour foeditatem et ipsius etiam carnis indignitatem qudnta amarítudine ltossunt
descendine in perorantibus. Oelfer, in a note to De Pud. g, ordinem filii prodigi,
the torm of a dove. The third of rhese,
birth through a virsin. in suggests that orão means 'narrative', which in some cases is
fsoul, is chiefly in Tertullian's ñ;rr¿ lr.ri an¿i""
possible, but not at Adu. Marc. w. 7, reliquum ordinem descensionis
ve description is condensed from Tertullian
expostulo, 'the concomitants of that alleged descent'.
Irenaeus, Haer. ¡ Hippolytus, philos.
vt. 22 r{r Eoreiv haberentur. Kroymann marks a lacuna here,
rg sed et must be retained. Kroymann, without
MS. authoritv which he suggests should be filled out with magis esse quam haberent
writes scilicet, which is our of place in introducing
explanation of his .w1l
; ;;;l;;1; ut eosdem erc. If this meant what it is supposed to mean, it would
1.,-"1þ,. its proper frrr.tïr, b.irrg ;" indicate that Tertullian was a partial, but not a thoroughgoing,
indicate his deductions (with which h. ,uri..t, docetist: which is not the case. Also it would throw fefellissent
agree) from the theories or exor
r the other *ilirror
into the wrong tense. The sentence is perfectly clear, and no
alteration is called for.
2l elusit, T (and, by implication, A) Rig. Oeh. Kroy.: the other
authorities have íllusit. The sense required is apparently 'mocked
at', 'played tricks with', which would be illusit (which would
require a dative object, as at Tacitus, Ann. xvr. r) : eludere rnor.e
comnronly means 'escape by guile', as at Petronius 97, scrutantiunt
looked like it.Tertullian rerorrs eluderet manus (like Ulysses escaping from the Cyclops), but it
retained nativity, arguing that it was only a phantasm of
.the. a cen approach to the sense here required, as at Tacitus, Hist. t. z6
nativity in the same \May wh"t had all ,t. ápp.är"rr..
;?ilh quaedam apud Galbae aures praefectus Laco elusit. For the general
was putative fesh.",Cf. Adu. Marc. m. i)phantar*r sense cf, Adu. Marc. v. zo (commenting on Philippians z. 8) ef
19re1y r¡üi_
cans Christum; and below, iam nunc ru*
*rndorir* d;i:;;ir;;;l;;, tttortefiT crucis: non enim exaggeraret atrocitaten extollendo uirtutem
Cfuistus caro, sequítur ut et omnía quae
Í)er carnetn Chrirtï g;rto ,unt subiectionis quam irnaginariam phantasmate scisset, frustrato potius eam
ntactus, conuictus, ipsae quoque quatil. exÍ)erto, nec uirtute functo in passione sed lusu.
Christi eius (sc. Maicion*i
fìem
i non tere est passus: uere auteffi CHÄPTER II
Marcion repudiates the prophecies, and deletes from his gospel the
za,
1ativitatea Ø Oeh. Kroy.) receives supporr {rom mendacíum narratives, of Christ's conception, birth, and childhood. 'We can
Lkrßtus caro rrr the previous quotation: all the other MSS., with guess his reesons for this, while denying his authority to do it.
 90 NOTES AND COMMENT.A,RY
t" NOTES .AND COMMENTÀRY gr
If he is a christian he ought to believe the christian tradition. "l
don began, not with eny ennunciation, but with the unheralded
But he is nor a christian: his own acrion in denying the christian
appeerence of Christ at the baptism inJordan. Cf. Ady. Marc.L 15,
beliefhe once held at once shows this and
at nunc quale est ut dominus anno xii Tiberíi Caesaris rcuelatus sit? and
beliefis older than the heresy he has inven
ibid. 19, anflo xt) Tiberii Christus Iesus de caelo manare dignatus est,
original beliefl, and is the truth. This ap
spiritus salutaris. This discrepancy in the dates is explained by
standing refutation of all heresies, and wã
referring xii to the beginning of the ministry, ry to Pentecost:
in the present case: yet, to fortify my argument still further, I
but Luke 3. r has'fifteenth year' for the former (unless perhaps
proceed to examine the reasons he alleges.
Marcion altered it to ' twelfth'). See also Adu. Marc. w. z (quoted
r quid illi etc. Cf.
ldu. Marc. v. 6, quid illi cun exemplis dei in the following note).
n::t!i?_ Similar phrases frequently occur. On the rejection of the
Old Testament cf, Adv. Marc. r. rg, seprffatio t 3 qui subito etc. Cf. Adu. Marc. rn. z, atquín nihíl putem a deo
[i, et euangelii
proprium et principale opus est Marcionß. Gibriel, though mentioîed
subitum, quia nihil a deo non disltositum. Novatian, De Trin. ro,
ut merito haereticorum istorum testamenti ueteris auctoritatem resltuen-
1n-the Gospel (but in those chapters which M"rctn reiected) tium nescio cui commenticio et ex fabulß anílibus ficto Christo atque
belongs-to the original crearion and nor (Marcio" ;;ld:;;i
to the father of Marcion's christ. Adnuntìatur, in the r^ogu^[L fucato possim uere et constanter dicere, @is es? unde es? a quo missus
es? quare nunc venire uoluistì? quare talis? vel qua uenire potuisti?
ofthe public specracles, would refer ro the
þpoken) progr"å-?, uel quare non ad tuos abisti, nisi quod proba*i lIeg. probas te] tuos non
inducitur to enrrance on the scene: but the thèærical m'etaihor is so
habere dum ad alienos venis? etc. Novatian's argument is that the
remote as to be almost out of view.
Incarnation was the climax of a long preparation and the fulfrl-
z etin virginis utero etc. (Jtero (TB) (since índuciturfollows) ment of many prophecies: like Tertullian, he observes that
is more likely to h ve been altered rc'uìrru* than converselvl Marcion's Christ comes without preperation þubito) and as a
Conceptus, balancing natiuítas, will be the substantirr", not trespasser upon another's property. C{. Adu. Marc. t (passím) and
tÉ.
participle: there is no quesrion of the child conceived being intro- rv. T, anno xu principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in ciui-
duced into the womb, but rather of Isaiah's prophecy conZ.rnins tatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utíque de caelo creatoris ín quod de suo
conception in a virgin's womb bringing thrifaci to public noticei ante descenderat...ol,[)arere subiturn ex inopinato sagtit conspectum qui
2 c1rlr. [Esaia] propheta crearods? Esaia (XR) may be a semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit...quid autem illi
cun Galilaea, etc.?
-::g,-11 rLote oî propheta. A reads cun esset a prophrto cíeatoris,
yhich is meaningless. For esset a TB (followej UV frov-rr-j 4 atfet hinc, inquit, etc. These will not be supposed to be
have essentia (omitting propheta), which is rlmost ,í Marcion's actual words: it is a common enough rhetorical trick
for what has the essence of the crearor t ¡ do with-."rri"gt"(
,h. prZr.oi to put words into one's opponent's mouth which may reasonably
subject? The.passages of to by Kr.;;; be supposed to express the consequences of his thought.
eintilian referred
simply state that essen
Flavius or by Plautu
t invented by é.rgio, 6 deum suum etc. As the angels belonged to the Creator's
oo ,.l.rr"nåe to"the dispensation it would have been their own God whom they
present passage. Evi t is that though we praised if Luke z. 4 had been included in Marcion's gospel.
refer to Gabriel and ro rhe realty ãf ,f,. Viderít efc. seems to mean: ''What they meant by this, and what
nativity. and Marcion repudiates both, as bålonging
.conceprion, particular bearing it has on nativity, is their own concern, and I,
to the older dispensation: for accordiig ro úm rhe new dirpårJ-
Marcion, refrain from inquiring into it.' AF, followed by Oeh.,
92 NOTES AND COMMXNT.q.RY
þ rl NOTIS ÂND COMMENTÂRY 93

princípes,'our spiritual fathers from whom we trace our origin',

e.g. Adam, Noah, St Pau1, Abraham in respect of faith, not of
polygamy, Joseph, Moses, Aaron: Apol. zr, dudum ludaeís erat
apud deurn gratia ubì et insignis íustitia etfdes oríginaliun auctorutn,'in
so far es they continued in the notable righteousness and faith
of the patriarchs from whom they took their origin': Adu.
8 glorietur, i.e. ar having his prophecy fulfilled: Jer. 3r. 15, Marc. n g, nec potest (inquis) non ad originalem summam referri
quoted atMatl z. rT. corruptio portionis-in Marcion's view, the fall of man, resulting
ro oblationis. I have adopted this reading of TB with some from the corruption of that breath of life, the soul, which the
hesitation: it is an obvious correction for ariyon. to make who Creator breathed into Adam, proves that the originalis sumffia, the
found obligationis in his text, whereas there seems no reason for a original account on which (so to speak) the cheque was drawn,
Sumptu obligationis would mean i.e. the substance of the Creator, ís delictí capax (which to Tertul-
bound them', with a reference to lian is blasphemy): Adu. Hermog. tg, ad originale insfiumentum
Lord' in Luke z. 22-24. Moysi provocabo, 'Moses' narrative of the creation'. So here
rr senem motiturum...conüistet has the more abundant originalia instrumenta are the documents which tesdfy to Christ's
MS. testimony. Tertullian makes Marcion misunderstand the origin, the nativity stories of the Gospel, which are as it were his
text. simeon was not sad at the approach of death, but rerieved at birth-certificate, and which Marcion has presumed to suppress.
the prospect of departure. AtDe Anim.a 3,by argumentationes originales, id est philosophicas,we
must understand not (as Junius suggests) theories drawn from
natural principles, but theories which the philosophers have con-
structed concerning the origins of things.

Í4 ex quo, oro te: etc. Oehler's correction of A (quo for qua)

is apparentþ intended to mean, 'Since how long ago, pruy?',
and gives a good sense in conformity with Tertullian's general
criticism of the recent emergence of the heresies: cf. e.g. De
Praesc. Haer. 3o, where however we have ostendant mihi ex qua
auctoritate ytrodierint. Kroymann, with more than his usual felicity,
takes the reading of TX, adding exhibe from A, ex qua oro te
auctoritate? exhibe, which could find parallels in Cicero, e.g. Pro
Flacco 32. 78, liiteras...quas ea de muliere ad me datas...requisiuit:
recita (tholtgh here recita is addressed to the clerk of the court).
For the general sense of the passage cf. Adu. Marc. t zr, exhibe
ergo alíquam (sc. ecclesían) ex tuß apostolici census et obduxeris...non
esse credendum deum quem homo de suis sensíbus composuerit, nisi plane
lnophetes, íd est non de suis sensibus: quod sí Marcion poterit dici,
debebit etiam probarí.
 94 NOTES AND COMMENT.A,RY
tt n] NorES .aND coMMENTARY 95
t^5.. ri
apostolicus. Cf. De praesc. Haer. 32,33, where the regular use of a word which Horace used in this sense only once.
following phrases occur, in this order: ortoi opoiø'tlca: eccresiae
But I am not aware that other Christian writers copied him: nor,
apos.to.licae
þlural) : ab apostolis in episcopatum cinstitutos apostolici for that matter, does modern English.
tr aduce s : ap stolica do ctrina : op itoliru, (sc.
-

1emiß o
u ir) : ap o *otici
o

(uli). Also Adu. Marc. t. zr, apostålica traditío: opoiAlå ,rn'ru, 2t et nostri ptobant: wrongly omitted by Kroymann: what
ecclesiam: ibid. ry. z,_apostolic,os (Mark and Luke, he means by saying that they break the rule of the clausula is not
airri"g"iri;a clear: they have preciseþ the same rhythm as those he leaves by
from Matthew and ¡ohn): ibid.'v. z, scriptura Apostolicorim "J
(the removing them. The circumstances are those referred to Adu.
Acts). Also D¿ Pui. zt,'exhibe igitur et ìun, *ihi, opo*o,llrr,
iì* Marc. r r, non negabunt dßcípuli eius primam illius fdem nobiscum
inìtatem, addressed to the Roman
rning second marriages Ter- fuisse, ipsius litteris testibus: cf. ibid. w. 4, quid nunc si negauerint
Marcionitae primam apud nos fdem eius aduersus epistulatn quoque
the pope described himself as
ipsius? quíd si nec epistulam agnouerint? certe Antitheses non modo
arcion, with less justification.
fatentur Marcionis sed et praeferuflt: ex h¡s m¡hi probatio sfficit.
16 si tantum christianus es, for dummodo christianus srs, seems It is not clear what this letter was. It can hardly have been a
somewhar lame, bur isrot impossible: si autem (T) and, profession of faith exacted by the Roman church on Marcion's
si íanttum-
modo (F) seem to be editorial ãtt.-pt, ar improvemenr. arrival from Pontus: there is no evidence that at that date or for
zo rescindendo quod retro credidisti: cf. Adu. Marc. r. t, centuries later any church exacted such written professions, even
from the clergy. It appears from the second quotation (above)
that the Marcionites denied the authenticity of the lefter, so that
Tertullian is prepared to waive it and prove his point from the
Antitheses alone.
quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse il
the same effect De praesc.-Horr. 3o, with a brief history of the 24 aliter fuisse is intelligible, though somewhat concise, and
various sects. need not be altered. Kroymann inserts creditum tibi, r;-;reaning
Retro is Tertullian's regular word for antea: he even seys
retro- presumably abs te creditum: therc is no need for it. Cf. De Praesc.
siores for aetate Tniores (Apot. ry). There is precedent ór it in Haer.38, ex illß (sc. suipturis) sumus antequaffi aliterfuit, antequam a
Hor irritun l'quodcunque rctro est
uobis interpolarentur, where the text is doubtful: ibid. 3o, quidquid
tfrri lqrodfigirnt u*ähonorr*ir,. enendat ut mendosum retro aherius fuisse demonstrat, where lJrsinus'
But on foifeitrilian,s
practice. The suggestion of anteríus would simply duplicate retro, so probably
ancients, facing_with hopeless longing rowards a v"nlshed golden read and punctuate ut rnenÃosum, retro aliter fuisse etc.: lbid. 32,
age, regarded the as in fronttfihem (ËpnpooOeu, antia) anð, nßi illi qui ab apostolis didicerunt aliter praedicaverunt.
_past
the future as behind them (önroilev, poitea)'. fh"'Ch.iíi"",
looking for the resurre*ion of the dead ánd tt. m of the *orlá
zg ex abundanti teftactørmus. The general rejection of all
heresies on the ground oftheir recent emergence would have been
to come, takes the
lpposits view: and, in spite of the inveterate suflìcient to cover this present case: but, offering more proof
usage of the Latin lang'age, the change oi thought is
reflected than our cause strictly requires, we proceed to discuss Marcion's
in Tertullian's vocabulary. philippiais 3. r3 rù gèu ôníoo: reasons for denying Christ's nativity. Tertullian dislikes argu-
ËrrrÀau0avógeuo5 roi5 ôè ëunpoo0rv Èrrexreruógeuog (a
meta- mentation, but he will use it under protest to PrePare the way for
phor from running a race) may have influenced Tertuliàn to the
scriptural exposition: cf. Afu. Marc. t. ró, nunc enim cornmunibus
96 NOTES Ä,ND COMMENT,{,RY [rt NOTES A.ND COMMENTÂRY
plurinum sensibus et argt,ffientationibus iustis secuturae scripturarum of the Holy Spirit descending in bodily form as a dove-excepr
quoque aduocationifidem sternimu.s. Cf. that this is not in Marcion's gospel. If asked what afterwards
Qintilian, Inst. Orat. rv. S.
15, egregie uero Cicero pro Milone insidiatorem prinum Clodium became of those bodies, we ans\¡r'er that they were withdrawn
ostendit, tum addidit ex abundanti, etiam si id nonfuisset, talem tamen into the nothingness from which they had been brought into
ciuem cum surnffia uirtute interfectoris et gloría necari potuisse: ibid. v. being: and, in any case, what the Scripture seys must be true.
ó. z, the wise litigant will not rest his case on his own affìdavit,
nor will he challenge his adversary to that course, but will prove
r quatenus stands for quandoquídem: cf. Apol. ry, habetis quod
sciam, et vos sibyllam, quatenus appellatio ista verae uatis ueri dei
his case on argument or testimony and will introduce the aftdavit,
passim suçter ceteros qui vaticinari videbantur usurï)ata est. Hoc, the
ifat all, ex abundanti.
judgement which Marcion considered himself comperenr ro
CH.A.PTER III make, non natum esse Christum. Arbitrium is strictly speaking a
judgement in equity concerning nor the fact of obligation bur the
Marcion's reasons for denying Christ's nativity can only be either
amount: cf. Cicero, Pro Rosc. Com, 4. to, iudicium est ytecuníae
that to God such a birth is impossible or else that it does not be-
cefiae, arbitrium incertae. It is from the other (also classical) sense of
arbitrium,'power', 'authority' (e.g. Tacitus, Ann. vt. 5t, rei
Romanae arbilrium, the imperial power), that we obtain the
expression liberun arbitrium, 'freedom of choice'.

born he would have abstained from showing himself in human 3 voluerit is the reading of all the MSS. Ursinus, followed by
form and thus giving the impression of having been born: for Kroymann, rcads noluerif, wrongly. The catch is in the pafticle an.
this would have been a fal hy of God. Tertullian uses these interrogative particles in ways peculiar to
(z) There is no force in the enough that himself: e.g. Apol. r (Hoppe,line r5), an:nonne: ibid. q (line 37),
Christ should know the truth it was men's necubi:annon alicubi: ibid. 19 (1i". 0S) and frequenúy, non:
own fault if they received a false impression of him: the fact fl.onfiei ibid. ¡S (line z4), ne forte:an forte. lHere an stands for
would remain that he had forfeited our confidence by giving the at ftotl, and no alteration is called for.
false impression. (3) Ill-founded also is the suggestion that if he
had really been born and had truly taken manhood upon him,
4 compendium may prossibly be used here in its original sense of
weighing two things in the same balance: Lewis and Short give
that is, if God had really been changed into man, he would have several examples. The two questions, whether God was incom-
petent, and whether it was unseemly, could be treated as one. God
did consent to give the impression of manhood, and consequentþ
of having been born. That establishes the seemliness of it: and as
God's veraciry requires that the impression given should corre-
angels are reported to have assumed real human bodies and yet spond with the truth, rve have also the answer to the question of
remained angels: if angels have this power (and they, according to fact, and therefore of competence as well as seemliness. But the
Marcion, belong to a question of seemliness is pursued further in the following chaptel
god must have it. A It appears then more likely that compendiun here means a short
had only a phantasm cut: cf. Adu. Marc. L r, nunc quatenus admittenda congressio est,
angels on a level with Marcion's Chrisr. (5) Similar was the case interdum ne compendium praescriptionis ubique aduocatum ffidentiae
7ET
98 NorES ,tND coMMENTARy [m ur] NOTES ÂND COMMENTÂRY 99

deputetur, regulam adversarii prius rctexam, ne cui lateat in qua Nestorian sense) to indicate a distinct human person. Cf. Aãv.
principalis quaestio dimícatura esr: ibid. n. 29, quodsi utraque pars Prax. 3o, hominem eius, and my note.
bonitatis atque iustitiae dignam plenitudinen diuinitatis eficiunt omnía zo periculum enim status sui etc. Cf. Adu. Marc. t 6, flon
p otentis, comp endio interim p os suffi Antithe ses r e tudi s se. ffitgno. Status, I
est autem dei desinere de statu suo, id est de summo
have suggested elsewhere (Adu. Prax.,Infioduction, pages 5o-53),
ro illud is in all lvtSS. except A, and should no doubt be
represents the copulative verb in so far as it introduces attributes
restored. Kroymann rightly indicates that it is the object of
which are essential and permanent, and constitute the natura oî an
patiatur, not the subject of interest: but his reading falsan (sc.
object: in that case, it also involves the idea of stability. And as
opinionen) is unnecessary and unjustified. On the sentence as a
substantia represents the existential verb, being the thing as it is in
whole cf. Adu. Marc.t u, quid ergo tantopere notitian sui procurauit,
itself, in the case of God both substantia and status are ex hypothesi
ut in dedecore carnís exhiberetur, et quìdem maiore sì falsae? nam hoc
indestructible and eternal: and as status rcpresents the sum total
turpius, si et rnentitus est substantiam carnis.
of the necessary attributes, the properties, the meaning here is that
rr conscientia in common Latin usage is either (a)joint know- whatever it is that God does with himself there is no danger of his
ledge, knowledge shared with others, or (ú) consciousness, or losing all or any ofthose properties (of eternity, immortality, etc.)
(c) a good or bad conscience (not necessariþ with bona or mala). by which as God he is distinguished from all that is not God:
In Tertullian it seems to take its meaning from the Pauline text if there were, it would be conceivable that he could amittere quod
(r Cor. 4. 4) oûôèv yàp êucrurQ oúuorõc, and to indicate that erat dumft quod non erat.
which one is conscious of in one's own judgement of oneself, 2r conversum. Cf' Adu. Prax.27, quaerendum quomodo sermo
though it may not ofnecessity be within the cognisance of others. caro factus, utruffi quasi transfiguratus in cdrne dn indutus cnrfleÍn,
sit
Cf. Adu. Prax. 13, ceterum si ex conscientia ('that private Christian and the ans\Ã,er to this question there given. On the tetrr. con-
knowledge') qua scimus dei nomen et domini et patri et flio et spiritui t)ersrnn and its subsequent rejection I venture to refer to my note
sancto conttenire deos et dominos nom.inaremus etc.The word appears
on the above passage (page 3zo) and to my Introduction, pages 72,
again at the end of the following sentence almost in its modern
73 to which I would now add that it seems possible that it was
sense of 'conscience'. Marcion who said conl)ersuln, and that Tertullian, to avoid com-
15 quantum ad fiduciam etc. This reading of Ais apparentþ plicating the argument, accepts the word without protest and (for
correct. @am tu, of the other authorities, is somewhat lame, and the moment) argues from it without remarking on its un-
rø is redundant. Fiducia apparently means our confidence or trust suitability.
in Christ: 'If his birth and his manhood were an acted lie, how 24 non competit ergo etc. A alone has eius cui (T is here
could we trust him in anything?' From Apol. 39, fidem sanctis defective). Kroymann's (inexact) quotation from Ad Nat. r. s
uocibus pascimus, speftI erigimus,fiduciamfigimus, it seems likely that is apparently intended to show that conpetere can- be used abso-
fdes referc to the formal content of the faith, whilef ducia is the lutely, to mean'is possible'-which is true enough, though the
Christian's personal trust in Ch¡ist. clause quoted does not exemplify this.
tg hominem vere induisset. Horno is Tertullian's regular 25 ea lege est is conceivably equivalent to a verb of com-
word (and in this he is followed by the other Latin fathers, in- manding, and so is followed by ne instead of the more correct rt
cluding St Augustine) for Christ's human nature, with nowhere non: cf. Aût. Marc. r. 3, conditione et ut ita dixerim lege quae sutwno
any suggestion that the use of this term might be mistaken (in a rnagno nihil sinit adaequari.
7-2
IOO NOTES .A,ND COMMXNTÂRY [rt rul NOTES ,A,ND COMMENTÀRY IOI
27 nihil deo par est literally means that nothing is on a level Sodom while the Lord remained behind in conversation with
with God: from which it follows that there is nothing which can Abraham: that the angels alone entered into Sodom and rescued
be used as an analogy to suggest that what happens to it in certain
Lot: and that when they had come out of the city the Lord rained
circumstances will happen to God in like circumstances: cf. Adv.
fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven and destroyed it.
Marc. t 4, de deo agitur, cuius hoc príncipaliter propriurn est, nullius
It was assumed by Tertullian (as by Justin and by practically all
exempli capere coffiparationem, quoting Isaiah 4o. r8, 25, and adding,
commentators until the fourth century) that the Lord here is God
diuinis forsitan comçtarabtntur humana, deo non ita: aliud enirn deus,
the Son-a point however upon which Tertullian does not insist
aliud quae dei.
in the present context, being concerned only to refute the
27 ab omnium rerum conditione:. so ATP,the others having Marcionite suggestion about the angels. His observations here are
condicione. The words are often confused, not by Tertullian, but a summary of what he writes Adu. Marc. rrr. 9, where his argu-
by his copyists. See a separate note, p. xxxix, in which it is sug- ment is as follows: Marcion's suggestion that the flesh of Christ
gested that conditio (when it does not mean the act or process of can be taken to have been putative because the angels appeared to
creation, or the created world or reruln natura) refers to those Abraham and to Lot in phantasmate, putatiuae utique carnís, must be
natural attributes or relationships which accrue to an object by rejected, because þ) non admitteris ad eius dei exempla quem destruis,
virtue of its natura, but looking ourward rather than inward: for, the better and more perfect you suppose your god to be, the
whereas condicio refers also to outward relationships, but of a more less do the Creator's precedents appiy to him: (z) The angels'flesh
fortuitous or transitory character. Here apparenúy conditione is was not putative, it being just as easy for God to provide ueram
correct, (ø) as contrasting the natural attributes of things with the substantiam carnis as to exhibit real sensations and actions in puta-
essential attributes of God, and (å) as suggesring that, being tive flesh: (¡) Matcion's god, who has created no flesh (nor any-
created things, they will necessarily be subject to in-fl.uences to thing else), might perhaps be allowed a phantasm of flesh, whereas
which the Creator is not subject. our God, who had made flesh out of clay, would have been able
30 diversitas meens more than 'difference': in many cases to make for the angels flesh out of any material he wished: for it
'opposition' will not be too strong, as in the common expression was much easier for him to do this than to make the world out of
diuersa pars,'my opponents'. Here the suggestion is that just nothing, by his mere word: (a) The God whom Marcion acknow-
because created things are in this way affected by change, the ledges promises to men verarn substantiam angelorun (Luke 2o.36):
opposite must be the case with God, and that he cannot be why then shall not our God have given to the angels ueram sul¡-
affected, even by change. stantiarn hominum, undeunde sunptam? (s) fh. verity of their fesh
is attested by three witnesses, sight, touch, and hearing: and it is
33 quotum utique etc. In the clause as usually punctuated more difiìcult for God to deceive than to produce trre flesh, unde-
ut (addedby Kroymann before in omnibus) seems necessary, unless
(as is very unlikely) utique can stand for sicut. Brt this makes unde: (6) Other heretics allege that the angels' flesh ought to have
a very ugly sentence, and probably the easiest way out is to correct
been born of flesh: we reply that their flesh had to be human for
the punctuation, placing a colon after non est. purposes of human converse, but needed not to be born because
the reason for their appearance'was not (as Christ's was) to reform
34 angelos creatoris etc. The narrative of Genesis 18 and 19, our nativity by nativity and to destroy our death by resurrection:
if carefully read, indicates that the Lord appeared to Abraham for which reason Christ himself appeared to Abraham in ueritate
accompanied by two angels: t"hat after Abraham's hospitality
quidem carnis, sed nondum natae quia nondum ffioriturae, sed et discentis
and the conversetion with Sarah the two angels \¡yent away to
iam inter homines conuersari: (7) Since 'he maketh his angels spirits
T-O2 NOTES .å,ND COMMENTÀRY rvl NOTES ÂND COMMENT.ÀRY r03
[m
(breaths or winds) and his apparitors a flaming fire', rruly winds
and truly fire, he also made them truly flesh.

38 adeo detinebatur. It does nor appear from Oehler's or

Kroymann's data who \Mas responsible for this obvious correction
of the MSS. ¿ deo. T's reading is easy to explain, and may safely
be disregarded.

lg inferioris dei...potentiori deo. Ir is necessary (though,

in view of his language, not always easy) to remember that
Tertullian's God, the God of Christians, is the Creator of the
world, the God of the Old Testamenr as well as of the New.
Expressions such as the presenr (which are sufficiently frequent)
are therefore ironical, arguing against Marcion on Marcion'i own
CH.A,PTER IV
ground. CÎ. Adu. Marc. t rr, ttdln et quale est ut creator quidem
ignorans esse alium super se deum...tantis operibus notitiirn sui Having disposed of the suggestion of impossibility, we turn to the
armauerit...ille autem sublimior sciens inferiorem deum tam instructun co-púint ãf unseemliness. It is possible to make great play with
nullan sibi prospexerit agnoscendo paraturam? Also ibid. rr. r, nam the inconveniences, even the sordidness, ofconception' pregnancy'
qui in inferiorem deum caecutis, quid in sublímiorem? and 1bid. t. 27, childbearing, and infancy. These are really sacred things, the
si enim deus, et quidem sublimior, tanta humilitate fastigiun maiestatis concern of ã11 men alike, and those who thinl ill of them despise
suae stravit ut etiam morti subiceret, et morti crucis, cur non our common humanity-which indeed Christ did not despise,
ltutetis
nostro quoque deo aliquas pusillitates congruisse? The above reading but loved it, redeeming it at great cost. In loving our humanity
(of.4 alone) is therefore undoubtedly correcr. he loved al nativity and flesh included, for
these are in ring his ministry he cleansed the
42 hominem indutus: see above, horninem induisset.
flesh from s, and finally from death itself.
4l sed non audebis etc. Precisely because Marcion has ascribed If he had appeared emong men in
to Christ a phantasm of flesh, he is bound to mainrain thar the in our human judgement might
fl.esh assumed by the angels was real: otherwise there will be But 'God hath chosen the foolish t
parallel acdon between the New Testamenr and the Old, and it is it that the world counts as foolish? Not, surely, the conversion
wjll follow that the same God is responsible for both-which of mankind from idolatry and their instruction in all virtues, but
Marcion would not cere to admit. A specious argument, but that God should be born, born of a virgin, born in human
hardly convincing. fashion with all its inconveniences. In spite of the fables of its
mythology the world can imagine no greeter foolishness than
48 qui spiritus cum esset. IIoc without meaning, and must
is
this.
be removed, as Mesnart suggested. Spiritus here is a general
term, the predicate of the sentence, 'and though he was spirit'.
FromJohn 4. 24, deus spiritus esl, Tertullian deduces that 'spirit'
is a generic term descriptive of the divine being, the kind of
'substance' God is. The meaning here is that although (or because)
 IO4 NOTES .{ND COMMENT.A,RY rv] coMMENTÀRy
Iv NorES .lND roj
science and art: for since science and art are eternal there must opus dei nostri quod tuus doninus, ille deus melior, adamavit, propter
quem in
haec paupertina elementa de tertio caelo descendere laborauit,
cuius causa in hac cellula creatoris etiam crucifixus est: and ibid. r. z9
(of Marcion's god, who forbids marriage), quomodo diligit cuius
originem non amat?
20 magno redemito from r Cor. ó. zo, f¡yopáoOqre yàp rr¡.rfl5,
where Lat. vg. has pretío ffiagno: cf. ibid. 7.23,'rrgi5f¡yopáo0qre
tion. The word in rhis-sense is a synonym of incarnatio, tndby
(Lat. vg. pretio empti estis).
implication scriptural: though it remaini conceivable that in the
present contexr it is due nor to Tertullian but to Marcion, who 26 qui redemit. @i,my ov¡n correcrion of what I took to be
may have wished to becloud the Incarnation by the use of a rerm a misprint in Oehler, seems also to have occurred to the corrector
borrowed from an alien philosophy. of T.
3 perora, age iam etc. 3r si revera etc. This piece of bad taste is not without parallel:
in ifla sancissiãa et reuerenda i' lr':;':'. it neither can nor need be excused. Opinor is commonly used
Tertullian is an invererare Ci. ¿du. ironically, of an opinion attributed to the adversary, but with
Marc. y . zo-, where it is objected that Marcion's Christ, being which the writer does not agree: here the suggestion is the
incapable of these índignitates, musr also be incapable of confusíi, writer's, and neither party ought to have entertained such an idea.
quoting Luke 9. zó, 'Of him shall the Son of man be asharned., de nostro sensu etc. So I read, following A. We have a
34
5 coagula etc. The punctuation used in the texr seems to be perfect right, even a duty, to judge according to our own best
the best: Kroymann's is ingenious, but breaks the flow of the mind concerning things it is suggested that God might have
sentence. All diffìculty would disappear if we could inseft sordes done. If any alteration is needed, it is the substitution of est for si
after carnis. or sit before plane stuhun.
6. in diem (7'B) should perhaps be resrored, if only on rhe prin-
ciple that the longer text is usually the correct one.
35 si tamen non delesti. Marcion retained this text, r
Corinthians t. 27, 28. Cf. Adu. Marc. v. 5, etíam Marcion serudt.
9 h certainly correct: cf. infra, hanc quid est autem. stuhum dei sapíentius hominibus nísí crux et tnors
uefler . Marc. rrr. rr, quoted above. Hor_ Chrßti? quid infrmum dei fortìus honine nisi natiuitas et caro dei?
rcndu wrong ,.or., horres, in the next ceterum. si nec natus ex virgine Chtístus nec carne coflstructus, ac per hoc
sentence, shows. ",
neque crucern neque mortem uere perpessus est, nihil ín illo fuit stuhum
ro utique et oblitum. dedignaris quod etc. So I read, and et infirmum, nec iam stulta mundi elegit deus ut confundat sapiertiam
punctuate, following exactþ neither set of authorities. Ablutum etc. Tertullian often quotes this text: e.g. De Praesc. Haer.7,
de ingenio sapientiae saecularis quam dorninus stultitiam uocans stulta
mundi in confusìonem etiam philosophiae ipsius elegit.
45 apud. For the'Waszink's
practical equivalence of apud and ytenes, cf.
De Anima 14 and note. At Apol. 17, desinunt tarnen
t6 certe Christus dilexit etc. Cf. Adu. Marc. r. :r4, postremo Christiani haberi penes nos, ít appeers that penes has quite lost its
te tibi circumfer, intus acforis consiáera hominem: placebit tíii uel hoc ' internal' significance.
 - -Trl-r

IOó NOTES AND COMMENTÀRY þ vl NorES ÀND coMMENTÄ.RY ro7

lThis is one of the most lucid sections of Tertullian's work, in

CHÀPTER V
which his Latin flows with unwonted ease and perspicuity. There
was therefore the less reason for Kroymann to have disturbed the
Since we are speaking of 'foolish things', things supposedly text with a multitude of alterations of words and punctuation.
unworthy of God, are not the passion of Christ, and its eccompe- The text printed is that commonly received, with perhaps one or
niments, more foolish in appearance even than his birth and incar- two minor improvements.]
nation? Why does not Marcion excise these? Possiblybeceuse, asa
phantasm, Christ can have had no sensation of them. Therefore 7 sed non eris...credendo. This sentence, as Kroymann
we have to ask, was Christ really crucified, and did he really die? remarks, is not necessery to the argument. But it is precisely the
If not, the apostle \áas at fault in claiming to know nothing save kind of aside which would have been interpolated by a pleader
making a speech with his adversary present: and this is what
Jesus Christ, and him crucifìed, and in insisting that he was buried
and that he rose again. In such a case our faith also is false and Tertullian is pretending to do.
our hope in Christ is a phantasm: also Christ's murderers will be 8 passiones. . . non rescidisti. Marcion retained St Luke's
excusable, for phey will be found not to have really killed him. narrative of the passion, though he excised the parting of the
But all this is simply to deny the world's only hope. Our faith garments so as to avoid the acknowledgement of Psalm zz. See
has to have something for men to be ashamed of-else why did Adu. Marc.N.40-42 for Tertullian's comments which (except for
our Lord warn us of the consequences of being ashamed of him? the tone of voice in which they are made) seem entirely justifìed.
It is precisely these things that can be considered a metter of shame: Apparently Marcion said that 'the Christ' deserted the phantasm
yet how can they have been real in him, unless he was real in him- of a body at the supposed moment of death, and returned to
sel{ having real flesh like ours ? This in fact was the reason for his heaven: he omitted to consider what it was that was left behind,
becoming the Son of Man, that he might have wherewith to or what it was for whichJoseph provided burial-though this too,
suffer these indignities: and he cannot have been man without with the narrative of the Easter appearances, was retained in his
flesh, or have possessed flesh without birth from a human parent, gospel.
any more than he can have been God without the divine sub-
stence, begotten of God as Father. This is how he is presented to 9 diximus retro, i.e. in $r.
us, at the same time God with divine powers and man subject to ro nativitatis. . . imaginariae. Inaginarius apparently in this
human weaknesses, his miracles showing the one, his passion connexion means no more than'unreal': cf. De Corona t3, ornnia
showing the other. It is not permissible to make out that Christ inaginaria in saeculo et nihil veri: so Adu. Marc. rtr. 8, u caro
was half a lie, for he is wholly the Truth: his manhood must be as imaginaria. But there are places where it þtill meaning 'unreal')
real as his godhead, and manhood involves human birth and the refers to the imaginary (supposedly real) entities of the gnostic
possession of a body like ours. On his own testimony we may ideal worlds; e.g. Afu. Val. 27, ita omnia in inagines urgent, plane
not think of him as a phantasm, either before his resurrection or et ipsí inaginarii Christiani: and other places where it seems to
after: and Marcion in particular has no right to think so, for he mean imaginative (if I understand these two passages aright) in a
derives his Christ from a god wholly good and candid and reprehensible sense, as at De Monog. ro, the widow habet secum
veracious. But Marcion's Christ ought not to have come down animi licentiam, qui onnía homini quae non habet imaginario fructu
from heaven, but out of a troupe of wonder-working magicians- repraesentat, and Adv. Val. t7, of the conceptual effects of Acha-
except that, even so, he would have been a real man. moth's imagination.
ro8 Norrs .a'ND coMMENTÀRy d NOTES ÂND COMMENTÀRY ro9
I"
rr interfector may conceivably have the sense assigned to it by the copyists: cf. e.g. Cicero, De Lege Agraria * 17. 46, an is
by Tertullian's compatriot Appuleius, in the phrase interfectae imytudenter populo Romano per legls fraudem surripiatur, where
uirginitatis. Lauredanus rightly suggests imprudente: ibid. ru. z. 5, muho im-
pudentior, where one group of MSS. have (wrongly) imprudentior:
rr crucifixus est deus: so all the MSS. except T, which has ibid. rn. 2.8, netno est tøm impudens istorum, where all the MSS.
dominus: but cf. ltassiones dei, deum crucifixum, above. The whole
have impruders (corrected by Naugerius).
context rcqu¿ites deus.
30 novit, almost equivalent to potest, is unusual in Latin,
15 igitur means 'in that case', and there is no need to make the especiallywith a non-personal subject. Tertullian may have been
present sentence into a question. It is the necessary deduction copying the Greek idiom, e.g. Demosthenes, Phil. r.4o, npopáÀ-
from an aftìrmative answer to the questions preceding. Àeo0cxr ô' i¡ pÀmerv êuqvríov oÜt' oÏôeu oÜt' ë0éÀet. Posse to
20 qui me confusus fuerit: Mark 8. 38, Luke g.26, conftated Tertullian is a matter of power: whereas being born, and dying,
with Matthew ro. 32. Cf. Apol. 4, bonorum adhibita proscriptio are in a sense a restraint of power, for which nosse is more suitable.
sufundere naluit homínis sanguinem quam ffindere, 'is more a See the critical note for a possible difference of reading and
matter of exaction than of execution'. Confusus, for pudore punctuation.
sffisus, unknown in classical and pagan Latin, appears first in 33 nisi si aut aliud etc. The sequence of thought is perfectþ
the versions of the above texts. As appears from Irenaets, Haer. clear, and no alteration is called for. It is admitted that Christ is
IIr. 19. 4, the verb can be active, or deponent (with an accusative 'man' and 'son of man', for so it is written in St Luke's Gospel.
object), or passive: et confusurum qui confundentur confessionem eius If then, as Marcion demands, we deny the obvious deduction
...a Chrßto conJundentur. It belongs to that class of expressions from this, that Christ was possessed of human flesh, we need to
which developed in the popular speech which lies behind the find some other means ofjusti$'ing those expressions: which can
biblical versions, and is older than Christian Latin literature, only be either (a) that 'man' signifies not human flesh but some-
having become necessary in view of the new Christian attitude thing else, or (ú) that human flesh can have some origin other
towards certain moral acts or experiences. The Roman was in- than human birth, or (c) that Christ's mother is not human, or
capable of personal shame or personal repentance: the most he (/) that the father of Marcion's Christ, Marcion's 'good god',
could arrive et v/as the impersonel pudet me, poenítetne. Christians is human. The second and third suggestions are hardly in point
found that impersonality was not good enough, and developed here: but they fiIl out a good rhetorical sequence, and there is no
expressions ltke confusus surn, poenítentian ago (which does not reason for thinking that Tertullian did not write them.
mean 'do penance') to describe what was to them a personal act.
17 nec deus sine spüitu dei. 'spirit', once more, means the
Rigaltius, and subsequent editors, altered me of the MSS. to øei,
apparently to balance eius in the following clause: the versions of
divine substance: see above on S3, qui spiritus ciln7 esset.
the Gospel all read confusus ne fuerit...cohfundetur ezø: Rönsch, 38 utriusque substantiae census, a Pregnant expression, very
It al a und Vulgata, p. 3 S 4, makes no mention of genitive government. difücult to translate. Census means both origin, and the ranl< or
quality which depends upon origin. Perhaps 'the rank (or
zi bene irnpudentem. On first reading this (in Oehler's text) quality) deriving from the two substances'.
I thought there was possibly a misprint for bene inprudentem,
which would balance better with feliciter stuhum: brt cf. non 40 quae proprietas conditionum etc. Cf. Adu. Prax. 27,
secundum utrarnque substantiam in sua proprietate distantem...et adeo
ltudet etc., below. Imprudens and inpudens were often confused
IIO NOTES ÀND COMMENTÀRY Iv vd NOTES ÂND COMMENTARY III
salua est utriusque proprietas substantiae ut spirìtus res suas egerit in omnia quae [)er carneffi Christi gesta sunt mendacio gesta sint, con-
ìllo...et caro passiones suasfuncta slf, where Tertullian's argument gressus, contactus, convictus, ipsae quoque uirtutes...sic nec passiones
is that the facts of the case, recorded in the Gospel and referred to Chrísti eius (sc. Marcionß) fdem merebuntur: níhil enim ltassus est qui
by St Paul, preclude us from thinking that the Incarnation in- nofl uere est passus, uere auteffi pati phantasma non çtotuit. euersuffi est
volved such a confusion or mixture of godhead and manÏood as igitur totum dei opus etc.The subject is continued ibid. nl. ro, and
would have produced neither the one nor the other but something frequentþ recurs.
in between. Proprietas does not mean 'property' in eny sense 60 nec deum praetet hominem. Tertullian regularly uses
involving possession, but the fact that each of the substances, and praeter as a conjunction (:¿;51), ..g. De Res. Carn.22, nec ulli
the conditiones, is what it is and is not the other. On conditio see a
praeter patri notum: Adu. Prax. 13, neÍno alius praeter unus deus. B'tt
note on page xxxix. I can find no parallel to the present case, where praeter is equivalent
44 perinde is the reading of A: the other authorities have to sine.
proinde. There are indications that, either by
second-century CHÂPTER VI
writers or by their medieval copyists, the two words were either
confused or treated as equivalent, as in several places in this Some of Marcion's disciples (of whom Apelles is one) are Pre-
treatise. In the Medicean codex of Tacitus proínde occurs several pared to admit the reality of Christ's flesh, whìle still denying
times in the sense of perinde: e.g. Hist. n. 27, haud proinde id ihat it was born. Apelles' informant is alleged to have been an
ãamnum Vitellianos in metum compulit quam ad modestiarn composuit: angel who spoke in (or to) the woman Philumena: the apostle (at
ibid. u. 39 and97,wherc Rhenanus inthe editío princeyts substituted Galatians r. 8) has provided us with a reply to this. Their state-
perinde. ment is that Christ 'borrowed' flesh from the substances of the
superior world, and they supPort it by pointing out that in the
46 maluit, credo, nasci etc. Cf. Adu. Prax. tt (with C. H.
Scriptures angels are reported to have assumed human bodies
Turner's brilliant emendation), unutn tamen ueritus est, mentíri
*ithoot being born. But (r) since they have assigned the Old
veritatis anctoreffi semetiçtsum et suaffi ueritatem. I have ventured to
Testament to a god whose works they repudiate, they have no
wríte credo for the MSS. crede or credi (the latter is certainly
right to apply its precedents to their own god. However, we
wrong): though with some hesitation, for in Latin oratory this
sh"ll ttot pres this objection, for our case is strong in itself-
interjected credo seems to be usually ironical, and not to express
(z) The pntpot.t in those cases were different from the purpose of
the speaker's real opinion: e.g. Cicero, Phil. x. 7. 15, qui autem
Christ's incarnation. Christ came with the intention of dying
hos exercitus ducunt? ei credo qui C. Caesaris res actas everti, qui
(which the angels did not) and consequently must needs be born.
causaffi ueteranoruffi prodi volunt: and ibid. 9. r8, non sunt enim
And in fact, on the occasions referred to it was the Lord himself
credo innumerabiles qui pro comm.uni libertate arma caytiant.
who appeared in flesh not yet born because not yet to die. (3 ) Yet
57 ecce fallit etc. This theme is devefoped rnore fully Adu. sinc. our adversaries do not admit that it was the Lord who thus
Marc.ttt.8, especially: et ideo Christus eius, ne nentiretur,nefalleret, appeared, we shall challenge them to Prove their case as if it were
et hoc modo cteatoris forsitan deytutaretur, flon erat quod uidebatur et This they cannot do, for it is not so written: and we for
quod erat mentiebatur, cdro nec caro, homo nec hono, proinde deus ""g.h.
our part are justified (in default of contrary evidence) in suggest-
Christus nec deus: cur enim non etiam ãei thantasna portauerit?... ing that the angels' bodies were created out of nothing for each
quomodo verøx habebitur in occuho tam fallax repertus in aperto?... ociasion. (+) N.ith.. are we told what happened to those bodies
iam nunc cum mendacium deprehenditur Chrístus caro, sequitur ut et afterwards, and so may well be right in suggesting that they
Tt2 NOTES .{ND COMMENT¿,RY Ivt vrl NOTES ÀND COMMENTÄRY II3
reverted to the non-existence from which they came. (s) Even if proper for that flesh to be produced by process of birth. For
we should allow that those bodies 'weïe formed out of some birth is the antecedent of death, and the angels were not going to
material, it is more natural to suppose it to have been material die, as neither was the Lord at that time. Afterwards, when the
from the earth than from heaven, for they fed on earrhly food. Lord came with intent to die for our redemption, he would obtain
And ifit is objected that heavenly bodies could feed on earthly food his flesh by birth: but the time for that was not yet. The angels,
no less than earthly bodies on the manne that came from heaven, therefore, neque ad moriendum ltro nobis dispositi breuern carnis com-
'we revert to our primary contention that the circumstances, like tneatum non debuerunt nascendo silrnpsisse, sed undeunde sumyttam et
the purposes, of Ch¡ist's incarnation were different from these, quoqilo modo omnino dimissam, mentiti eoffi tatnen non sunt. (g) Since
and demanded a real birth as a precondition of a real death. the Creator 'maketh his angels spirits and hís ministers a flaming
fire', he is equally capable of making them flesh. (å) And finally,
The question of the nature and origin of the corporal substance the promise of reshaping men into angels (Luke zo. 36) is made
assumed by the angels who appeared to Abraham and to Lot by the same God who had informer time shaped angels into men:
(Genesis r8, 19) is discussed Adv. Marc. rrr. 9, under the following it
from which appears that the same God is the God of both
heads: (ø) The Marcionite postulate of a superior and more perfect Testaments.
god demands that his methods also should be better than those of The argument of the present chapter covers only the section
the Creator, his presumed inferior : and consequ erLúy non admítteris numbered (JJ of the foregoing analysis. The suggestion that the
ad eius dei exenpla quem ãesftuis. (ü) We do not admit thar rhe bodies of the angels may have been created especially for the
fl.esh assumed by those angels was putative: for if it was easy for occasion seems to be Tertullian's own. The statement thet one of
the Creator (as Marcion alleges) to have provided the semblance the three who appeared to Abraham was the Lord himself appears
of putative fesh, it was even easier for him, being the creator of in Justin Martyr and remains common form until the fourth
human fl.esh, to provide actual human flesh to ecr upon the per- century (c[ supra, p. roo): it undoubtedly provides the most
ceptions of the observers. (c) Marcion's god (i.e. not the Crearor), reasonable eccount of the narrative. Cf. Adu. Prax. t4, and my
being incapable of creation, would necessarily have to produce a note (page 269). Irenaeus, Haer. rv. 14, referring to Genesis 18. r
phantasm, being unable to provide the reality: whereas our God, says deum...qui in figura locutus est humana ad Abraham, without
who formed flesh in the beginning out of the dust of the ground, going more fully into the matter.
could equally well have formed flesh for the angels out of any
4 de calcaria in catbonariam. This ancient equivalent of
material whatsoever. (/) As the Marcionite gospel (Luke zo. 3ó)
'out ofthe frying-pan into the fire'is not in the Adagia ofErasmus,
records the promise that men will possess angelic substance, what
and seems to be otherwise unknown.
is to prevent our God from making angels possess human sub-
stence undeunde surnptam? (e) As Marcion does not feel bound to 7 solidum Christi corpus. Solidus is used by Tertullian in two
explain from whence this angelic substance will be derived, neither senses: (a) 'Solid', as opposed to hollow, ethereal, or unstable:
are we bound to explain the origin of that human substance, but e.g. Adu. Val. 16, exercitata vitia (sc. of Achamoth) et usu uiriata
ere at liberty to postulate its real impact upon the three senses of confudit þc. Soter) atque ita massaliter solidata defxit seorsum in
vision, touch, and hearing: fficilius deo mentiri quatn camis uerí- materiae corporalem paraturam: Adu. Marc. rr. g, caro r)erae et solidae
tatem undeunde producere,licet non natae. (f) The flesh assumed by substantiae humanae: so also De Exhort. Cast. z, solida fdes, md
the two angels was true flesh, as also was that of the Lord who here, solidum corpus, 'a body in three dimensions'. (á) In a sense
appeared with them: but in neither case would it have been derived from testamentary usage, roo per cent: e.g. Ad (Jxor.t r,
ET
tÍ4 NOTES .A,ND COMMÌNTÂRY Ivt ul NOTES ^ô.ND COMMENTA.RY rr5
tu modo ut solidum capere ltossis hoc rneae adnonitionìs fãeicommissum and more general grounds. Cf . Adu. Prax. z, sed salua ista praescrip-
deus faciat: De Monog. t6, aliud est si apud Christum legibus luliß tione ubique tamen...dandus est etian retractatibus locus, etc.
agi credunt, et existimant caelibes et orbos ex testarnento dei solidum non zB cornparent velim et causas etc. Causa, except where it
posse capere (:haeredes ex asse fieri non posse): hence De Monog. 3, means an action at law, seems to be used by Tertullian almost
etiam si totam et solidam (complete and entire) virginitatem siue always for the final cause or purpose, while ratio refers to the
continentiam Ttaracletus hodie determinasset, ut ne unis quiden nuptiis precedent cause or preliminary reasoning: these two aspects of
feruorem carnis desytumare ltermitteret: ar'd De Res. Carn. 36, solidam the same matter are indicated below, conseqtlens erat, immo Í)raece-
resurrectionen (i.e., as apPears from the context, utríusque sub- dens, etc. So also $ ro, ef hic itaque causas requiro, where, once
stantiae humanae). more, final causes alone are brought under review. Cf. Adu.
8 suscepit ab ea carries an unobtrusive reference to the Roman Marc. tt. 4, videbimus causas quae hoc quoque a deo exegerunt... si legis
father's act of lifting up his wife's chld from the ground and thus irnponendae ratio ytraecessit, sequebatur etian obseruandae: lbíd. * n,
acknowledging it as his own: the two preceding words make it an ita prior bonitas dei secundum naturaffi, seueritas posterior secundutn
oxymoron. causaffi: and especially ibid. rr. ó, where the causa for which men
have freedom of will is, oportebat dignum aliquìd esse quod deum
8 et angelo quidem etc. Cf. Adu. Marc. rI. rr, nam et Philu-
cognosceret, whlle ratio is the reasonirg by which God thought out
uene illa magis ytersuasit Apelli ceterisque desertoribus Marcionìs ex fide
this plan.
quidem Chrßtun circumtulisse carnern, nullius tam.en nativitatis, utpote
de elementis earnflutuatum.Thecitation of Galatians r. 8 is repeated 36 forma is the architect's or surveyor's plan: therefore 'pur-
from De Praesc. Haer. 6, where there is the comment, providerat pose' or 'intention'.
iam tunc spiritus sanctusfuturum in uirgine quadem Philumene angelum 40 pro fluo, by ellipsis for pro eo pro quo.
seductionis transfigurantern se in angelum lucis, cuius signis et praestigìis
44 qui iam tunc etc. Cf. Adu. Marc.lt.l (referred to above),
Apelles inductus nouatt haeresim induxit (?introfuxit): cf. ibid. 3o, ideoque et ipse tunc apud Abraham in ueritate quidem carnis apparuit,
where the angel becomes aî energelna. sed nondum natae quia nondum tnoriturae, sed et discentis iam inter
rr hisvero quae insuper etc. The apostolic textbeing suftìcient homines conuersari, but with the caveat that the 'learning' was for
to rebut the claim to angelic inspiration, our own task is to con- our sake rather than his, so that we might the more easily
trovert their supporting arguments. On argumentantul see a note believe that he had come for our salvation if we knew that he had
on $17 þage r5ó). done something of the kind already.

rz seqq. Kroymann's reconstruction of this passage is rash and 46 nisi prius. . . annuntiarentur, i.e. until the prophetic an-
unnecessary: the traditional text makes perfectly good sense. nouncement of his birth and death (by Isaiah and others) had
Moreover he is wrong in his observation that qualitas idem fere prepared for him and ensured his recognition.
quod substan¿ia: Tertullian is too careful with his words for this 47 carnern de sideribus concepiss. (A), as rhe more difficult
kind of equivocation, and ex ea qualitate in qua uidebatur stands,by a reading, should perhaps stand: the other may well have been a
common enough ellipsis, for ex eius qualitatis materia in qua uide- marginal paraphrase of this, avoiding the apparently inappropriate
batur. word conce2tisse.

zz sed utantut etc. Here, as frequently elsewhere, Terilllian 50 etsi corporis alicuius: the angels, being of spiritual sub-
will not insist on his gtraescriptio, having a sound case on other stance, have a body, for spirit is body, of its own kind-on the
8-z
 T-
IIó NOTES .6.ND COMMENT.A,RY [-t vtr] NOTES ÄND COMMENTÀRY IÍ7
Stoic principle that everything that exists is 'body' of some kind. (p) because a denial of one's present possession of a mother
Cf. Adu. Prax. 7, quis enim negabit deum corpus esse? and my notes and brethren is not necessarily a denial of nativity-the
on Pages 232, z3+. mother might be dead, and the brethren never have existed:
Sz ad tempus = cf. Adv. Marc. ttt. g, breuem carnis comneatwn. (c) they would have been more likely to be testing his divine
The text as printed, with this Punctuation, seems to me best to knowledge by making a false statement-though even this will
account for the variants: but there is little to choose between not serve, for apart from divine insight he might have had private
them. information which assured him that they could not possibly be
there.
67 fuerit, omitted by the MSS. of the Cluny group, seems to be
necessary as introducing the following sentence, which modifies (3) The true explanation of his answer is that he denies them
the preceding: it admits a point scored by a supposed interruption because of their unbelief, giving preference to others who were
in court from the opposite party. But, though we make this interested in the work he was doing. For a denial of human
admission, non tamen infringitur etc.-the point scored, end in fact relationships a different occasion would have been required.
the whole question of the theophanies, has no bearing on the case: Moreover, he is here doing what he instructs his disciples to do,
for at the Incarnation the circumstances þondício) and purposes giving the kingdom of God preference over earthly ties.
(causa) were entirely different, in that, as Christ wâs to die, he
(a) The episode is also an allegory of the rejection of the Syna-
must of necessity be born, and his flesh must needs be veritable
gogue and the acceptance ofthe Church.
human flesh.
(5) Our Lord's ans\¡/er to the exclamation of a woman from
CHÄPTER VII among the multitude is to be interpreted on the same lines.
'Whenever
this subject is discussed, a suggestion is advanced that
our Lord's question, ''Who it -y mother, and who are my The reference is to Matthew rz.4Ç5o, Mark 3. 3r-3j: Luke 8.
brethren?' constitutes a repudiation of those relationships and (by r9-zr omits the question,''Who is my mother and my brethren ?'
implication) a denial of his human birth and his possession of but retains 'My mother and my brethren are these which hear the
human flesh. Our answer is: word of God, and keep it.' The passage is also discussed z{/r.,.
Marc.ty. 19, forwhich see a note below: ¿t Adu. Marc.:nt. rr the
(r) Evidently the person who made the announcement was con- woman's exclamation (Luke rr. z7) andthe announcement of our
vinced that the mother and brethren were really who he said they
'were. Lord's mother and brethren (Luke 8. r9) are cited by Tertullian
himself as proof that qui homo uidebatur natus utique credebatur,with
(z) The suggestion that the announcement was made for the a promise of further discussion, which is given at rv. 19 and 26.
purpose of tempting cannot be sustained:
(a) because the text of the Gospel doe$ not say so, although 3 negare esse se natum. I have ventured to insert se, which
elsewhere when persons ask questions 'tempting him' the fact is could easily have fallen out after esse. Kroymann, improving on
remarked upon: A,has negasse se, which comes to the same thing, except that the
(å) this wes not a suitable occasion for tempting him in resPect present tense seems more netural: so Adu. Marc. w. tg, ipse,
of his nativity: inquiunt, contestatur se flon esse naturn. But in view of Adu. Marc.
(a) because such a question had never been raised, andthere w. z6 (quoted below) possibly we should read, with T, negare
is nothing in the context to lead up to it: natum.
 vul NOTES ÂND COMMENT,{RY I19
II8 NOTES AND COMMENTARY [.t
4 audiat igitut etc. The reference is to Adu. Marc. tv. rg, ifthere had not been those from whom (as well as to whom)
where the argument follows the same lines as here, with some to transfer. The substitution of others then was metitorum con-
verbal coincidences but with sufiìcient difference to indicate that dicione, non ex proxirnorum negatione, and he was giving an example
Tertullian is not here transcribing his earlier work but rehearsing in himself of what he said to others elsewhere, qui patrem aut
such of it as he carries in mind. This is, he says, the constantissimum rnatrem aut fratres praeponeret uerbo dei non esse dignum discipulum
argumentum of those who question our Lord's nativity. Heretics (Luke 14. zó). Thus his denial of his mother and his brethren is
make a practice of either complicating the meaning of plain state- itself an acknowledgement of their existence: quod alios adoptabat,
ments, or else of the overdue simplifying of statements con-
ditioned by their context or by the thought behind them (condi-
cionales et rationales). The latter is what they are doing here. Our
answer is: (r) The announcement that his mother and brethren
stood without could only have been made on the assumption that 6 materiam pronuntiationis. Below (twice) materia tenqtd-
he had a mother and brethretl, lluos utique norat qui annuntiarat uel floøis seems to mean the raw material out of which a temptation
retro notos uel tunc ibidem comçtertos dum eurn videre ãesiderant uel could be constructed. So here it seems likely that the meaning
dum ipsí nuntiun mandanL (z) The common resPonse to this is'the circumstances which gave ground for that remark'.
proposition is that the announcement was made teffiptandi gratia: rr ista: Matthew 13. ii, ió: Mark ó. 3:John 6.42. Luke has
but (a) the Scripture does not say this, though it is accustomed to nothing parallel to this. Creditum is of course Tertullian's inser-
remark on such occasions. This reply would have been sufücient, tion, safeguarding the truth which was unknown to those whose
but (ü) ex abundanti causas temptationis expostulo: if (c) for the pur- words he is quoting.
pose of ascertaining whether he had been born or not, I object r8 quod nemo etc. The awkward. The
sentence is adrnittedly
ihat the question had never arisen: his human characteristics made w
easiest ctuate after signifcød, omitting
it perfectly evident that he had been born, and they found it temptandi marginal explanation of quod.
easier to see in him a man and a prophet than God and Son of Bui this a hexameter, a clausula which
God. Again (p) even supposing there were need for this enquiry Tertullian avoids. Kroymann's eo quod, with a comma after
quodcunque aliud argunentum temptationi competisset qilaffi per earurn
factun, makes the beginning of the sentence ugly and breaks the
personaruffi mentionem quas potuit etíam natus non habere. More- force of non recipio etc.
over (y) they could have settled that question by consulting the
census roll. Consequently, the suggestion of temptation falls to
2r theY

the ground, and we conclude that his mother and brethren'were

hav arked

really there. (3) Then what was in his mind when he asked the
the o this
question: logically, of course, ít is a petitio princípü-
question? He asked it non simpliciter, but'ex causae necessitate et
condicione rationali, being rightly indignant that, while strangers
23 eius de quo sbnds for eius rei de qua: so Adu. Prax.3o, de

were within intent upon his words, these close relations should isto:hac de re: and frequently.
stand without and even seek to divert him from his task: flon toffi 32 adhuc potest quis etc. I have ventured to insert 4øis:
abnegauit quarn abdicaulf, as he explains by adding nisi qui audiunt thoughpossliwould have served' excePt that it is too far from the
uerba mea etfaciunt ea (Lake 8. zr), thus transferring to others those t With this interpretation the alteration by Fr' Junius of quem to quam becomes
terms of relationship. But there could have been no transference unnecessâry,
T2O NOTES ,TND COMMNNTÀRY [.','t rul NOTBS ÂND COMMENTÂRY T2T

MSS. Kroymann's potes is too abrupt. Possibly female mortality admitted model ofall speeches), who however had the excuse that
v/es at such a high rate that a man was more likely to have his his strictures were true.
fæher living than his mother: but I can conceive of no reason 6l alius fuisset etc. Oehler (followed by Kroymann) is
why a man wes more likely to have maternal uncles than brothers. insistent that alius is a genitive, to be construed with sermonis.
33 adeo stands for ideo or quaproÍ)ter: so in $ ró, q.v. In view of eius following they may be right, though this makes a
very awkward sentence. I should prefer to place a comma after
4r nota ei iam, Kroymam's excellent correction of AT. tefirpus and remove that after sermonis:'He could have found a
44 simplicitas here means 'honesty', or what our grand- different place and occasion, and a turn ofphrase such as could
fathers called 'candour' : the person meant what he said. So also
not have been used even by one who had a mother and brethren.'
Adu. Val. z, simplices notamur apud illos,'guileless', 'simplerons'.
Frequently the adjective and its derivarives indicate the literal, as 74 sed et alias etc. This reference to the synagogue is omitted
Adu. Marc.Iv. 19, no doubt because it might have led to further
distinguished from the allegorical, sense of scripture: e.g. Ad
argument as to why this is not a point in Marcion's favour.
Uxor. t z, ut tamen simpliciter interytretemur, as opposed tofiguraliter.
79 eodem sensu etc. Cf. Luke rr. 27, z8: Adv. Marc. tv. 26,
44 nuntiatoris seems ro have the better MS. testimony: the
exclamat mulier de turba beatum uteruffi qui illum l,ortdsset et ubera
following subjunctive is of indirecr narrarion dependent on it
quae illum educassent: et dominus, Immo beati qui sermonem dei
(as in quia dixerit above).
audiunt faciunt. quia et retro sic reiecerat ffidtrefi7 aut fratres dum
et
44 vere is not so much Tertullian's comment on this,what he
as auditores et obsecutores dei praefert...adeo nec retro negauerat natuftt.
supposes to have been in the messenger's mind, that certainty I had thought perhaps we should inseft mulieris cuiusdam after illi:
which would have fortified his reafiìrmation if challenged. bt:;c illi exclamationi means 'that much canvassed remark', and the

46 ad praesens seems to mean 'for that occasion only'. addition is unnecessary.

48 mater aeque etc. This is apparently intended ro suggesr CHÀPTER VIII

more than it says, namely, that there is no direct evidence in the
Gospels that our Lord's mother was in sympathy with his work. A further suggestion they make is that as the created world was
Ic might be added that there is equally no evidence that she was the result of the sinful act of an errant angel, it would have been
not. The statement about the brethren is made atJohn 7. S: at unseemly for Christ to become contaminated with earthly flesh,
Acts r. 14 they are shown to have changed their minds. Martha et which is the product of sin: and so he must be supposed to have
Mariae aliae is my reading: the MSS. vary. There was in facr one taken to himselfnot earthly flesh, but a celestial substance from the
'We
Martha and several Marys. stars. answer that this leaves us where we were: for the sky
itselfis part of creation, and if creation was a sin the matter which
52 tam proximi may conceivably be emphatic for tam pro- composes the stars is no less sinful than earthly matter. Moreover
pinqui: so Adv. Marc. tv. rg, taffi proxirnas þersonas...magis proxí-
the text, 'The second man is from heaven', when rightly inter-
mos. But possibly Tertullian has forgotten rher the word is a
preted, supports our case, not theirs. The subject the apostle has
superlative.
under discussion is not the creation nor the constitution of Christ's
57 si forte tabula ludens etc. This kind of ill-mannered. human nature, but the contrast between man's earthly origin
innuendo is almost a commonplace of the rhetoric of the schools. and the celestial attributes he receives from Christ. Consequently,
It is imitated from Cicero (e.g. Philippic n. t7. 42 seqq._.the since redeemed man is in Christ at once terrestrial and celestial,
Í22 NOTES ^å.ND COMMENTÀRY Iwr rxl NOTES ÀND COMMENTARY r23
it follows that Christ, with whom he is equated, was not only text is correct inductus means 'misled' and induxit means 'intro-
celestial in his godhead but also became truly terrestrial in his duced' or 'imported'.
manhood.
zS legimus plane indicates that the Apelleasts quoted r Corin-
5 quam volunt etc. Cf. De Praesc. Haer. 34, facilius de jlío thians rS. 47 in favour of their own views. At De Res. Carn. 49
quam de patre haesitabatur donec...Apelles creatoreÍn angelum nescío- Tertullian hes Primus, inquit, homo de terra choicus, id est límaceus,
quem gloriosum superioris dei faceret deun legis et Israelis, illum id est Adam, secundus homo de caelo, id est sermo dei, id est Christus,
ìgneum ffirmans: also D¿ Res. Carn. 5,friuolumistud corpusculum... non alias tarnen homo,Iícet de caelo, nisi quia et igtse caro atque anirna,
ignei alicuius exstructio angeli, ut Apelles docet: and De Aníma 23, quod homo, quod Adam: at Adu. Marc. v. ro he reads Primus, inquít,
Apelles sollicitatas rcfert animas terrenis escis de supercøelestibus sedibus homo de humo terrenus, secundus dominus de caelo. On this we
ab ìgneo angelo deo Israelis et nostro, qui exínde illis peccatricem circum- observe (r) that it does not appear what was the origin of the
finxerit what Tertullian reports here is not that the
carnetn. Thus form de terrae limo, as quoted here: (z) that whether or not
seduced souls were transmurcd into flesh, but that sinful flesh was Tertullian has the interpolation ó xúpro5, he takes that to be the
constructed for them: the material of which it was constructed is meaning of St Paul's words, and not (as some modern com-
left unspecifìed. mentators suggest) some supposed 'resurrection body' of heavenþ
origin: and (3) that as he reads dominus de caelo only in contro-
9 nominant. The name was actually mentioned, but is sup- verting Marcion, there is a possibility that he is refuting Marcion
pressedby Tertullian. Apparently it was the divine tetra- from Marcion's own text-that is, that the interpolated word is
grammaton in its triliteral Greek form IAû), for which see Adu.
due to Marcion. Both versions of the text were known to
Val. 4 (:Irenaeus, Haer. tt 7). Origen: it appears not to be quoted by Irenaeus or by any earlier
rr The libellus is not one of Tertullian's extarit works. This writer.
seems to be the only reference to it. zg ad spiritum, i.e. Christ's divine ,äbrt"n.., by virtue of
13 de figura erraticae ovis. According to lrenaeus, Haer. t which, even in hac carne terrena (meaning, apparently, both in
r. 17, the Valentinians interpreted this of the transgression of this present life and after the resurrection), Christians are caelestes.
Achamoth, and her recovery by Soter. Tertullian refers to the 33 qualis et Christus. E¿ has stronger MS. authority than
parable Adu. Marc. rv. 32, remarking that evidentþ the person esf. The sense really requires est, to contrast with funt, which is
who seeks for a sheep or a coin must be the one who has lost it, possibly why some copyists wrote it.
and consequently we must conclude that the world already
belonged to God who sent his Christ to recover it.
CHÀPTER IX
20 de peccatorio censu, 'by reason of its sinful origin'-almost
' ancestry' ; cf. Adu. Prax. 5, imago et similitudo censeris, and my note. A further argument against the celestial origin of Christ's flesh is
that everything derived from some previously existent material
22 Christo dedignantur inducere: so AT: the other, a much retains traces of the quality of that from which it was drawn.
weaker, reading seems to be an attempt to smooth out the Thus the human body has manifest afiìnities with the earth from
difiìculties of this: strictþ speaking it would require dedignetur. which it was moulded. All these earthly and human attributes
Inducere here means'clothe', but with a secondary sense of 'veil' were plainþ observable in the flesh of Christ, and it was these
or'becloud': at De Praesc. Haer.6 (quoted above on $ó), if the alone which gave rise to the short-sighted view that he was a man
124 NOTES AND COMMENTÂRY þx
ül NOTES AND COMMENTÂRY 12s

and nothing more. In no resped did his body show signs of informarn ytosterítati recensendam, 'a rule (sc. of monogemy) which
celestial origin. It was in his words and works alone that men was to need to be re-enacted for future generations'.
fomd anything to marvel at, though they would certainly have
remarked upon it if they had observed anything unusual in his
5 ad fabulas nationum veritas transrnisit. Ovid,Metam. r.
8o, has a kindred word to Tertullian's figulare, and something
physical constitution. It was solely because his manlood was not approaching 'in his own image' ' ...siue recens tellus seductaque
miraculous that they were astonished at his doctrine and his nuper ab altolaethere cognatì retinebat semina caeli,lquam satus Iapeto
miracles. Moreover his form was of even less than ordinary míxtam fluu ialibus undis lfinxit in efigiern rnoderantun cuncta deorum : I

comeliness, as the prophets testif|, and as the indignities to which ...sic rnodo quae fuerat rudis et sine imagíne telluslinduit ignotas
he was subjected bear witness. There is thus no reason for regard- homínum conuersa fguras,' Veritas, not truth in the abstract, but
ing his flesh as celestial, and every reason for knowing it to be the Truth of divine revelation: so Adv. Prax. 8, uiãerit haeresis si
terrestrial. It was terrestrial for the express purpose that it might quid de ueritate intítata esf. It was common form among the apolo-
be the object of contumely and reproach. gists to allege that any correspondences between Christian and
r praetendirnus adhuc, a further argument to the same effect. pagarL ideas were due to borrowing by the pagans: cf. Theophilus,

Oehler, in a note on De Pud. t7, observes: 'ltraetendere castrense

Ad Autol. r. 14, ã)v rt¡lo:ptõv rrpoerpq¡révc.lv rinò tõv rrpogqrõu
verbum est, significans praesidio esse.' He gives a number of ¡retcyevéorepor yevógeuot ol rrotr¡'rcì xcxì grÀóoogor ËxÀerycxv èx tõv
examples from late authors which serve to prove it a military åyícov ypcgóöv, where Otto gives reGrences toJustin, Apol. t 44,
term, but its meaning in all of them is not 'defend' but 'contend'. Tatian, O r at. 4o, Athenagora s, S up pl. g : s o also T eratllian, Ap ol. 47,
So also Tertullian, De Pud. 17, apostoli...pro sanctítate ytraetendunt: quis ytoetarum, quis sophßtarum, qui non omnino de prophetarum fofie

Adu. Marc. Í. 6, ut et contra malum homo fortior praetenderet:1bid. potauerit? inde ígitur philosophi sitin ingenii sui rigaverunr: and (in
III. 13, et ludas praetendet apud Hierusalem (quoted frornZechaùah greater detail) Ad Nat. t. z.
14. 14, rrapccrdÇe'rcxr, EnÞh: R.V. 'fight'). So here, 'we assert'. 6 utrumque originis elementum, now that it has the sup-
U/ is concessive, and equivalent to quamuis. port of T, is the better attested reading: but the other is attractive,
as being logically less accurate and thus more likely to have
4 in novam proprietatem. Proprietas rarcly, or perhaps never,
provoked the editorial hand.
in Tertullian means property or quality, but the fact that a thing
is what it is and not something else. See my notes on Adu. Prax. 7 lnar:nlicet aliaetc. Thepunctuation ofthis andthefollowing
7 and rt, and ibid. 27, secundum iltraffique substantiam in sua ytro- sentence is mine. If (as Oehler and Kroymann seem to think)
prietate distanten...salua est utriusque proprietas substantiae. So here hoc est etc. were a parenthetic explanationof the preceding clause,
'a new identity'. we should need to rcadfiatl. withf4 these seven words must be
its apodosis. In any case, ceterum inffoduces a further step in the
S de lirno figulatum: Genesis 2.7:I..XX ËrrÀqqev: Lar. vg. argument, and the question it introduces cannot þy its subject-
formauit. Tertullian regularly uses fgulare in this connexion: matter) be the apodosis of nam licet etc.
e.g. De Exhort. Cast. 5, cum homínem figulasset. At De Bapt. 3
we have hominis figurandi opus, where apparently none of the 17 humana extantem substantia. So I have ventured to
editors has suggesteð,f.gulandi. Tertullian could hardly have used write, this arrangement of the words seeming best to account for
extantem (24 alone), and the position of the not very apposite
formare here : it would have meant ' made into a pattern or rule' :
cf. De Exhort. Cast. 5, contestans quid deus in primordio constítuerit tantum (T alone). But it is tempting to read, with the Cluny
T26 NOTES ÂND COMMENTÄRY þx xl NOTES ÀND COMMENTARY 127

group, ex humana substantia: for though exstare, equivalent to esse, 17 inquam is evidently correct: inquítís would require an
'exist', is classical and sufiìciently common, and may easily answer, and moreover the question is not onewhich the oPPonents
enough come to mean'consist' (as here), in Tertullian's usage a would ask.
thing does not 'consist' of substance, but rather it 'is' substance: 38 sicut et diút: Matthew ró. zr (:¡4ark 8. 3r, Lu,ke 9. zz),
so that possibly extantetn is wrong, aná tantum could have crept and elsewhere.
in from tantummodo, three words back.
CHA,PTER X
z6 despicientium formam eiss. Forma here is a reminiscence
The suggestion of some others, that Christ's flesh was made out
of 'form or comeliness' (LXX eIôos oûõè õóÇcx) at Isaiah 53. z, a
of soul, equally breaks down on examination. Christ's purpose in
text frequently quoted, but usually to make the contrast between
assuming to himself a human soul was to save human soul, which
human weakness and heavenly glory: so Adu. Marc. tt.7, where
cannot be saved except in him: but there is no reason for supposing
Isaiah 53. z-t4,8. 14, Psalm 8. ó and 22. 7 are brought into con-
that soul only becomes capable of salvation if turned into flesh.
trast with Daniel 2.34,7.4 seqq. and other such texts: the same
Christ saves our souls while they not only remain souls, but even
set of texts, on both sides, are rehearsed at Adu. Iud.4. Ìvt Adu.
when (in death) they are disjoined from the flesh: even less did
Marc. lnt. 17 Isaiah Sz. 14 is quoted in the form, @emødmodum
that soul which he took to himself need to become flesh so that it
exytavescent nulti super te, sic sine gloria erit ab hominibus fortna tua,
might obtain salvation. Further, since these people assume that
and Tertullian proceeds, Certainly David says, Thou aft fafter
Christ came to save the soul alone, and not the fesh, why should
than the children of men, but that is in an allegoric seîsel. ceteruÍn
he be supposed to change that which he was saving into that
habítu incorytorabili (i.e. eo habitu quem cum corpoïe induturus
which he was not saving ? If it was his purpose to deliver our
erut) apud eundenl prophetam uermis etiam et non homo, ignoninia
souls by the agency ofhis soul, then his soul must needs have been
hominis et nullificamen populi (Psalm zz. 7): cf. De Idol. ú, uuhu
of the same fashion as ours-and whatever that fashion is, it is
denique et aspectu inglorius, sicut et Esaias pronuntiauerat. The present
not a fleshly one. It follows that if his soul was a fleshly one it was
is apparentþ the onþ place in which Tertullian, led away by his
none of ours, and as it did not save ours it is of no concern to us.
argument, suggests definite ugliness: so below, nisi merentem. fvt
Moreover, soul that 'ù/âs not ours stood in no need of salvation.
De Pat. 3, sed contumeliosus insuyter sibi est, Oehler has a long note,
But as it is common ground among us that soul was saved, it
with citations from Tertullian (as above), Origen, Augustine,
follows that it was our sort of soul that Christ had, and not one
and some moderns, in the last four lines of which he gives his
turned into flesh. So then, as Christ's soul was not turned into
own, evidently correct, interpretation of that phrase.
flesh, neither was his flesh made out of soul.
z8 apud vos Íluoque, i.e. Apelles and his followers, as well as
Marcion, rejectedtheprophets. Nos (FB Oeft.) seems insufiìciently This is clever debating, but of more than dubious theological
attested: if it is accepted the meaning is'even though we, like import. There seems to be an underlying suggestion that the soul
you, 'were to reject the prophets'. ,'
and flesh assumed by Christ needed to be brought to a state of
30 probaverunt is not in AT: 1f it is rejected we shall need to salvation so that ours could be saved through them. This is a form
extract ffirmant out of the precedingloquuntur-which does not of adoptionism ofwhich there are traces in Hermas (e.g. Similitude
seem very natural. v. ó), who could not be expected to know any better, and it
17 opinor is evidently ironical: see the note on maluit, credo, might have pleased Nestorius: but the suggestion is not one
røscl ($s). which Tertullian would really regard as tolerable. Elsewhere he
r28 NOTXS .å,ND COMMENT-å.RY [x xl NOTES .{ND COMMENTÂRY r2g
aflìrms that Christ's soul and flesh, though of the stock of Adam 4 causas requiro. Evidently throughout this context causa
(on which he insists most strongly), because they were not con- means the 6nal cause or purpose: see a note on $0.
ceived by the ordinary process of human generetion are exempt
from the consequences of Adam's sin (see especially $ ró). So we
8 animas...a carne disiunctas. Cf. De Anima 58, omnes ergo
animae penes inferos, inquis? uelis ac nolis et supplicia iam illic et
must surmise that in the present instance he has been carried away
refrigeria, which âre anticipations of those which will follow the
by the implications of his opponents' supposition, which he is final judgement.
content to controvert without sufiìciently safeguarding his own
view of the truth. ro item cum praesurnant. Praesumere and praesumptio tn-
It is not clearly indicated who these opponents were. That they variably in Tertullian refer to opinions formed without any
were gnostics of some sort seems probable, since it appears from foundation of evidence or reasoning: 'assume' and 'assumption'
$ rz that they introduced the concept of salvation by knowledge. usually give the proper sense. See â note by Heraldus (quoted by
If they were, it is likely enough that when they said 'soul' they Oehler on Apol.49) who observes that the same word is used by
did not mean soul in the ordinary sense, but some sort of semi- Appuleius, Metam.Ix. 14, of Christian belief in one God: sltretis
celestial 'matter', a kind of substantification of the 'passion' of atque calcatis diuinis numinibus, ín vicem certae religionis mentita
Achamoth. Tertullian was no doubt aware of this equivocation, sacrilega praesumptione dei quem praedicaret unicurn, confctis obserua-
but preferred to argue on simpler grounds. tíonibus vacuis,fallens otnfles honines et miserum maritum decipíens etc.
In this translation animalis is represented by'composed of soul', So Apol. 16, atque ita inde praesuffiptuffi opinor nos quoque ut Iudaicae
carnalis by'turned into flesh', carneus by'fleshly'. Evidentþ the religionis propínquos eidem simulacro initiari, where Souter has
terms have taken on a special meaning from their context. 'presumed' (a Scoticism for 'assumed'): ibid. zr, quasi sub umbra-
Carneus appears to differ frorn carnalis as referring to attributes culo ìnsignissimae religionis...aliquid propriae ltraesumptionis abscondat
rather than constitution: so that anima carnahs will mean soul (Souter, 'some of its own arrogance'-better, 'some assumptions
ffirned into fesh, whtfe anima carnea wll be soul which has of its own'): ibid., neque aliter de deo praesumimus (Souter, cor-
acquired fl eshly characteristics. rectly, 'nor is our idea of God different from that of the Jews') :
ibid. 25, illa praesumptio dicentium Romanos pro merito religiositatis
r convertor ad alios etc. Cf. Adu. Val. 26, in hoc (:eig diligen tß s im ai fu tantum s ubl ímit a t is e/aros (S ouìer,' prej udiced asser-
roüro) et Soterem in nundo repraesentatum, in salutem scilicet animalís tion'-better, 'unfounded statement'): ibid. 49, hae sunt quae in
(sc. substantiae). alia auteffi coffipositione monstruosum uolunt illum nobis solis praesumptíones uocantur (Souter, 'vain assumptions'-
(i.e. that' Christ' composed of four elements) prosicias (: p orricias : 'assumptions' would be enough): ibid., quae expedit uera praesumi
Irenaeus rà5 cnrcxp¡ás) earum substantíarum induisse quarurn surnfttatn ...h utilia (So'lrlet
uobis itaque praesumptio est haec ipsa quae damnat
saluti esset redacturus, ut spiritalem quidem susceperit ab Achamoth, 'presumed to be true', again meaning 'assumed': 'this very
animalem uero quern lnox a Demiurgo induit,Chtistum, ceteruffi cor- prejudice', better, 'is neither more nor less than an assumption') :
ltoralem ex aninalì substantia, sed miro et inenarrabili rationis ingenio
ibid. 5o, nec praesilfttptio perdita nec ltercuasio desperata (Souter,
coltstructaffi adninistrationis causa ideo tulisse fincontulisse, A: quaero 'neither reckless prejudice nor desperate persuasion'-perhaps,
an legendum circumtulissel quo congressui et conspectui et contactui et 'reckless assumption', 'criminal conspiracy'). In the pessage
defunctui ingratis (:frustra) subiaceret: materiale autem nihil in illo before us the point is that the gnostic and Marcionite doctrine
fuisse, utpote salutis alienum. The exposition is continued ibid. 27. that the flesh, being material, is incapable of salvation, is a mere
Sibi prudentes, Romans rr. zS, tz. t6 rrap' Ëcxrrrois gpóvrgor. assumption, based neither on scriptural evidence nor on natural
9ET
r3o NorES ÂND coMMENTARY [xr xr] NOTES ÀND COMMENTÂRY I3I
reeson or observed facts: it is mere guesswork or surmise, erected supposing it to have been God's purpose to make it visible, he
into a dogma. Ivt sed animae nostrae Codex Agobardinus ends. could with greater veracity have made it visible in its own body
than in the body of something else. Also, to make soul visible in
15 illam quoque etc. The reading of T (followed by Kroy-
the guise of flesh is not to display it but to hide it. Even lf þer
mann) makes a sentence which will just construe but has no
impossibile) soul, as invisible, did exist without body of its own,
apparent bearing on the words that follow. Kroymarur's punctua-
tion here is impossible. Forma in this context has its original it would have been more fitting, as well as less embarrassing, for
meaning 'shape'. Evidentþ soul, being corpus sui generis, has
God to make it visible in a new kind of body than in one which
was already appropriated to something else. 'To be visible among
some sort of shape, though this is lø ocatlto, not visible to the eye.
men', they say, 'Christ had to be man': quite so, and so he must
At De Anima 9 it is alleged that when God breathed soul into
have had the same sort of soul as eny other man.
Adam the fluid'set'like a jelly in a mould, taking its shape from
the body, omni ìntus linea expressuln esse (sc. flatun vitae) quam
densatus inpleuerat et uelut in forma gelasse.
r aliam argumentationem etc. This sentence, in con-
sed
nexion with what follows, is somewhat difiìcult. The solution
22 non c¿¡rnea is evidentþ equivalent to the preceding nostra, seems to lie in the meaning of conuenimu.s. Oehler's index (s.2.)
not to non nostra. gives these meanings: deprehendere, inuenire, petere, iudicio aggredi,
24 iam ergo etc. clinches the first part of Tertullian's reply to between which no distinction is made. His note at Apol. ro, to
the postulate of an animal flesh. In it he assumes by simple con- which he makes frequent reference elsewhere, says that conuenire
version that animal flesh implies carnal soul, which, on the is a juristic term. This is true: and the mostnatural meaning to
ground of the doctrine of the Atonement, he shows to be incon- expect is iudicio oppetere, 'join
issue with', 'tackle', as the following
ceivable. The adversaries are now supposed to accept this argu- citations show: Apol. to,
maiestatis rei conuenimur: lbíd. 3r, de
ment by conversion and to suggest the causø demanded earlier in quorum maiestate convenímur ín crinten: ibid. :S, in hac quoque relí-
the chapter, 'for the purpose of making soul visible'-a suggestion gione secundae maiestatis de qua in secundum sacrilegiurn conuenimut:
dealt with in the next chapter. De Res. Carn. t8, resurrectìo carnis, duo verba expedita decísa detersa:
iytsa conveniam, ipsa discutiam, cui se substantiae aãdicant: AdNat.t t,
scio plane qua responsione soletis redundantiae nostrae testimonium
,CHÁ,PTER XI
convenire. But if this is the most natural, it is not the only mean-
'When ing: cf. De Res. Carn. tz, quodcunque conueneris,fulf, 'whatever you
we point out that the supposition that Christ's fesh was
made out of soul involves the consequence that his soul was come ecross, has already existed': De Ieìunio t3, convenio uos et
changed into flesh, our opponents offer as a reason for this praeter pascha íeiunantes, 'I find you keeping other fasts besides the
lafter, that it was God's intention that soul, of whose existence Easter vigil': De Cor. ro, illorum deputatur (sc. habitus ßte) in
and attributes the impediment of the flesh had caused some un- quoruffi et ant¡quítatibus et sollemnítatibus et oficiis convenitur, 'ís
certainty, should now be made visible in Christ: and con- found in use': Adu. Hermog. 45, atquin nagis apparere coepit et
sequently, they allege, in Ch¡ist soul was turned into body so that ubique conueniri deus ex quo factus est mundul Transitional between
we might see it being born and dying and rising again. This is as this meaning and the other is Adv. Marc. t 6, conuenietts enim et
much as to sey that soul was made dark so that it might have quodammodo iniecta manu detinens adversarii sensurn. At Adu. Marc.
power to shine. Moreover, the statement that soul was invisible rv. ó the meaning seems to be 'welcome' (unless perchance the
implies that it already possessed body, an invisible one: so that, sentence is chiastic) : haec conveniemus, haec amplectemur, si nobiscum
9-2
r32 NoTES ÂND COMMENTÂRY ["t xd NOTES,A,ND COMMENT,{RY f33
magß fuerint, si Marcionis praesumptionem percusserint. Our sug- text, reads adhuc pressius for ad hoc príus, and dicant qui for dehinc
gestion then is that in the passage before us the meaning is not
'we join issue with' but 'we meet with another argument of an. Thìs simplifi es rhe senrence, and rnay conceivably (though not,
I think, probably) be what Tertullian wrore: adhucis".tt"ittly oot
theirs in ans\ ¡er to our inquiry why etc.'
impossible. Kroymann further suggests that et hoc autem (above,
r exigentes cur etc. This also is diftìcult, through excessive line 9) has begun the second parr of the refutation, rhe first part
brevity. The argument of the preceding chapter is compressed
into one sentence and made the ground of a further interrogation. laving got displaced and now appearing as $ 13 and its appendix
$ 14. In this he seems to be mistaken, for rhe order of thè iefuta-
The original suggestion was Christum animalem carnern subisse, tion is (r) that ifit were necessary to make soul visible, that would
that Christ assumed flesh made out of soul. Tertullian has shown be better done by making it visible as itself and nor as somerhing
that this involves the admission Christum aninam carnalern habuisse, else ($ rr): (z) soul is of its own narure comperenr to be cognisant
of itself, so that it was unnecessary for it to be made visible either
as flesh or as itself ($ rz): (¡) t""l is one thing and flesh is anorher,
and the terms cannot be interchanged: moreover our Lord him-
self speaks of his soul and his flesh as two distinct things and nor as
one thing confused ($r3). This concludes the argumenr, in Ter-
concealed through the hindrance of the flesh. The suggestion has tullian's usual style, with an appeal to scriptural facts: $r4, an
a Platonic sound, and it was no doubt from Platonic sources appendix to the main theme, trears of a suggestion advanced in
(though not apparently immediately from Plato) that the Valen- answer to a further consequence of Tertullian's argument, that on
the theoryjust criticized Christ would be left without an effecdve
human soul at all.
20 omne quod est corpus est. See a previous note, on $ ó line 5o:
but of the ideal and ffanscendent ion is
and on the corporeal nature of soul see the curious narrative at
ridiculous is summarily shown in quale
De Anima 9.
erit etc., after which the argument zJ quia nec hic etc., a back reference ro 53, plane interest illud
utfalsum non ytatiatur quod uere non est.

27 in carne conversa: whether or not it is worth while to read

carneln, the accusative is certainly to be understood. Conversa
(TR3) is evidently correct.
rz denique ad hoc etc. This sentence also is difücult, and the 33 alterius iam notitiae,'aheady known as something else'.
text must be regarded as doubtful. If prius'and dehinc are correct, Kroymann's notae in this context could onþ mean 'brand', and
has no pefticular point. Síne causa here means frustra, 'to no
effective purpose'.

14 istis scilicet quaestionibus etc. Kroymann, at first sight

plausibly, reads iustís. But there is a reference back ro the
'rackings' suggested in $ r. The last clause of the present senrence
r34 NOTES ÂND COMMENT.{,RY Iot xr] NOTNS ÄND COMMENTÀRY 135

means 'so as to establish the case of human flesh against it', and not composed ofsoul, neither was his. Is there enything else about
racking of some sort might be supposed to be necessary for the itself that soul needed to learn?
extraction of evidence.
4 cum totum quod sumus anima sit is a deliberately one-
35 sed non poterat etc. This I regard as a supPosed objection sided statement or exaggerationfor the purpose of the present
by the adversaries, whose 'Christ', being of 'animal' nature, argument, and not necessarily in contradiction with De Res.
needed to become 'carnal' so as to be visible to men. Tertullian Carn. 4o, porrl nec anima yter semetipsam homo, quae fignento iam
here disregards their supposition of a semi-divine 'Christ' and homini øppellato postea inserta est, nec caro síne anima homo, quae ytost
concentrates on the matter in hand. See previous notes. exilium animae cadauer ínscribitur: cf. ibid. 17, habet enim de suo
solum.modo cogitare, uelle, cupere, disponere: ad perfciendum autem
CH,APTBR XII operaffi carnis expectat.

'Vr'e
might admit that soul was revealed through flesh, if we first 7 frerct evidently stands forf eri deberet.
agreed that it stood in need of revelation, either to itself or to us-
though soul is not distinguishable from us, our whole existence
8 sensuali s. Sensus cenmean either perception ofthings without,
'Was or consciousness of thoughts within: here the emphasis is on the
being soul: for without soul we are not men but corPses. soul
latter. Cf, De Anima 38, where the natural attributes of the soul
then in need of knowing itself? Soul is by nature perceptive, and
are enumerated as immortalitas, rationalitas, sensualitas, intellec-
perception is so to speak the soul of soul. Since then soul gives
tualitas, arbitrií libertas.
perception to things perceptive, is it reasonable to supPose it was
ever without perception ofitself? Rather is it characteristic of soul 13 ex naturalium necessitate, 'from the necessity imposed
to be cognisant of itself: without such cognisance it could not by, or arising from, its natural attributes and relationships'. Cf.
function as itself. And especially is this the case in man, who is De Aníma 38: auferenda est enirn arguffientatoris occasí0, qui quod
rational because he possesses a rational (and not merely a vegeta- aníma desiderare uideatur alimenta, hinc quoque mortalem eam intelligi
tive) soul: if soul were ignorant of itself, it could not make man cupit, quae cibis sustineatur, denique derogatis eis evigescat, postreffio
rational. And the facts show that it was not ignorant: even epart subtractis intercidat. ()orro non solum proponendum est quisnam ea
from revelation it is conscious of its maker, its judge, and its own desideret, sed et cui: et si propter se, sed et cur et quando et quonaffi
permenence. Further, if it had been true that soul was ignorant of usque: tum quod aliud natura desideret, aliud necessitate, aliud secundum
itself, we might have expected Christ to give it instruction about proprietaten, aliud in causatn. desiderabit igitur cibos anima sibi quiden
itself. But the instruction we do find him giving is not of the ex causanecessitatis, carni uero ex natura proprietatis. certe enim domus
soul's attributes but of its salvation: for the purpose of his coming animae caro est, et inquilinus carnis anima. desiderabit itaque inquilinus
'was not that soul should know itself (by seeing itself visible) in
ex causa et necessitate huius nominis profutura domui toto inquilinatus
Christ, but that it should know Christ (by being conscious of his sui tempore, non il.t ipse substruendus nec ut ípse lorícandus nec ut ipse
grace) in itself: and its salvation was in danger through ignorance tibicinandus sed tantummodo continendus, quia non alìter continerì possit
'Word
not of itself but of the of God. It was the Life that was quam domo fuka.
made manifest, not the soul: and Christ came to save the soul, not
to reveal it. 'We were in no ignorance of the soul's birth and ró rninisffare: 'cause itself to function': so almost, Apol. z,
se

death, but only of its rising again. This Christ did reveal, in him- ne qua uis lateat in occuho (i.e. some diabolic power) quae uos...
self as in LazaflJs and others; and it follows that, as their flesh was contra iytsas quoque leges ministret.
13ó Norrs lND coMMENTARy [xn >on] NOTES ÂND COMMENTÁ.RY r37
t7 cornpotem et animam etc. will just construe with the leaves them complaining of its uselessness. Tertullian may con-
following relative clause. Should coflÍ)otem require a dependent descend to argue with such on their own ground: but he cannot
genitive, this would be rationis, which could easily have fallen out in the long run forget that Christianity is a gospel of salvation and
after ratíonale. not a source of occult knowledge, and that salvation depends not
on knowledge of facts but on the knowledge of Christ.
2r statum suum must have the meaning required by the
explanatory clause nihil magß audiens etc., i.e. 'its own per- 33 ignorabamus nimirum etc. The text must be regarded
manence', though not excluding the other four natural aftributes as doubtful, the authorities diflering among themselves. That
enumerated at De Anima 38 (quoted above): so, perhaps, es a given here is the reading of the Cluny group, and makes a saris-
more inclusive phrase, 'its own estate'. factory sense, provided it is observed that nimhum marks the
2r nihil adhuc etc. These observarions first appear at Apol. t7,
sentence as not Tertullian's own view but that imputed by him
cum tamen (animø) resípiscit, ut ex crapula, ut ex sornno, ut ex aliqua
to his adversaries: otherwise et mori will be wrong. Failure to
valetudine, et sanitatern suam ytatitur, 'deuîÍt' norninat, hoc solo, quia
observe this may account for the editorial variarions of the other
proprie uerus hic unus. 'deus bonus et magnus' et'quol deus dederit'
authorities. Ignorauimus plane rnarks Tertullian's own comment
omnium vox est. iudìcem quoque contestatur illum: 'deus uídet' et on his adversaries' supposed view. A little lower, erit must be
' deo conmendo' et' deus mihi reddet' . o testimonium aninae naturaliter
correct: 'this it must b; that Christ did make evidenr', the fumre
Christianae! They are expanded De Test. Anim. z (of the one God,
tense (as frequently) marking e necessary deduction.
the judge), 3 (of the existence of the devil), 4 (of the immortality
38 dispositione refers to the same set of facts as status, natura,
of the soul, and the resurrection of the flesh). The object of deo qualitas, and possibly also condício, but from the point of view nor
commendare, as appeers ftornApol. 17 (above),is either'itself 'or of what they are in themselves but of God who ordained that so
'its cause', i.e. not arnicum peregrinaturum or enything of that they should be.
nature.

zS imprecari in a good sense is uncommon: so Lewis and CHÀPTER )CII

Short, who quote Appuleius, Metam. g. 25, salutem ei fuerat ím-
precatus (after sneezing): Petronius, Sa/. 78, ut totus mihi populus
It is inconceivable that soul should have been revealed as soul
r the two things, if they are the same
bene inltrecetur, is hardly in point, for Trimalchio was nor an
the other. All understanding and all
authority on Latin usage. Here the verb takes its tone from both
adverbs.
if names do not remain attached to
the things to which they belong. Even when one thing is rurned
27 nihil . . . nisi seems to stand for nìhil. ..pot¡us quaffi. into another, as clay into pottery, it loses its old name and
assumes another. So the soul of Christ, if turned into flesh, will be
28 effigiem. This instance should be noted as an exception to
flesh and not soul, and must be so named, and there will result one
my general statement (Adu. Prax., pages 23+, 46) that Tertullian
commonly wes ffigies for what is appearance and not fact. uniform substance in which the two elemenrs cannot be discerned.
But in fact we find Christ himself referring in ser rerms ro his soul
zg non ut ipsa etc. Gnostics and others, both ancient and and to his flesh, not as one indiscrete thing but as two distinct
modern, are prone to regard the gospel not as a gospel but as a things: and that being so, neither has he a soul turned into flesh
system of information, which if not given to their satisfaction nor flesh composed of soul. For no one will suggest that the texts
r38 NOTES .A.ND COMMENTARY [-t )av] NOTES AND COMMENTARY r39
and other flesh besides that which, in thatcase quod auteffi rîÍst be construed as equivalent to eíus
he himself safeguards the dualiry of autem quod-ekind of ellipsis of which there are several examples.
s own species, excluding the idea of
rg ergo et anima etc. On soliditas see anote on $6: here the
both together appearing under one single form. meaning seems to be 'completeness', though 'solidity' is not
r caro facta est etc. The sentence is a summary and inter- impossible. Síngularitas occurs at De Exhort. Cast. r meaning
to the question at the begin- bachelordom or widowhood: here it is 'singleness' as opposed to
duality : cf. $ 14, hominem a solo et singulari serpente deiectum.
;:ffi"ffïi-å"ii:ilî* zS animam-carnem etc. The hyphens here are mine. I
is no formula of transition: the repetition itself is such a formula. imagine previous editors have seen the point, but I have preferred
z si caro anima est etc. The variations of T (see critical note) to make it plain.
are a misguided zS duatum qualitatum. @alitas is not 'a quality' in the
copyist (or his sense of one among many attributes, but the whole set of attri-
Latin order is p butes which constitute the natura of each object.
anima caro fulssel. Kroymann follows T.
26 quid is evidentþ no part of the text Anxia est etc., and it is

¿ ubi ergo c¿rro etc. The text of this sentence here printed is surprising that the editors, including Oehler and Kroymann, have
that of T. That of the other authorities, given by Oehler, is neither printed it so. Matthew 26.3s (:Mark ;.4.3+) nepíÀwó5 èorrv
grammatical nor comPrehensible. Even so, this use of alterufto i WXó pov Ëor5 Ocucrrov.
áherutrun, 'each made into the other out of the other', is diflìcult
36 in suo genere. . . unicr- speciem. Genus and sltecies are
to defend. The word usuaþ means 'one or the other, no matter here apparently not used in any technical sense: 'each in its own
which': but Lewis and Short quote it from Columella in the kind'...'one single form': so also above, diuidit species, 'dìs-
sense of utruffique, and that may be the meaning here, in which tinguishes the two forms'. AtDe Bapt. 4,water (the whole of the
case alterutro in both cases will be due to scribal ettemPts at
earth's water) ís genus unum,but there are species complures: quod
correction, and should be omitted. autern generiattributun est etiam in sptecies redundat,i.e. the possibility
9 fides norninum etc. Cf. Adu. Marc. r. 7, where Tertullian of its becoming a vehicle of the Spirit, indicated in the narrative
admits that names, such as 'god', are sometimes equivocal, and of the creation, becomes true of all or any water, whether sea or
contends that what we must discuss is not the names or terms but pond, river or spring, lake or river bed: so thet geníts rr,'eans
the substantia¿ represented by them. species, end species the individual instances.

rr vocabulorum possessiones. Kroymann marks a lacuna

and suggests that aliorurø has fallen out. 'if any alteration were CHAPTER )ilV
needed we should perhaps insert nottas before accipiunt. But in 'We have
proved that to suggest that Christ's body was made out
fact possessiones in Latin are 'new possessions', obtained by
of soul is tantamount to saying that in his case soul was changed
squatter's right. 'When
into flesh. we point out that this would leave him without
r8 quod autem etc. I have ventured to insert flotnefl, which an effective soul, our adversaries reply that in addition to soul he
coulJ easily have dropped out through confusion with non: had also assumed to himself an angel who discharged the soul's
r4o xIvl NOTES ÂND COMMENTÀRY T4I
NoTES .{,ND COMMENT.{RY Iot
functions. Here again we ask for what purpose. (r) Certainly back who was no mean Latinist. A possibility, but nor (I rhink)
not for the purpose of saving angels in the same way as his a probability, is that the editor or reviser was Tertullian himsel{
as Hoppe has suggested was the case with the Apology. In the
assumption of humaniry was for the purpose of saving man: for
event, I have produced an eclectic text, which I submit with much
though there are angels for whom the fire of damnation is pre-
deference to the judgement of the learned.
pared, it is nowhere on record that restoration has been promised
to them or that Christ has received from the Father any mandate r-4 sed et angelum etc. The punctuation of these sentences
concerning their salvation. (z) Could it be then that he assumed is that which I wrote ir -y copy of Oehler thirty years ago: in
an angel as an attendant or assistant in the work ofman's salvation? placing a period efter causa it agrees with Kroymann's.
Certainly not: for (ø) the Son of God was by himself competent @a ratione could mean 'on what principle', ratio rcfening to
without assistance to deliver those whom the devil without the antecedent or formal cause, as below $ry ratio quae praefuit:
assistance had enslaved: and (ü) such a view would suggest that cf. De Cor. 4, rationetn traditioni et consuetudini etfdeí patrocinaturam
there is not one God and one Saviour, but two saviours each in- aut iltse perspicies etc., and consuetudo autem etian ín civilibus rebus
effective without the other. Or (¡) could it be that the angel was pro lege suscipitur cum deficit lex, nec dffirt scríptura an ratione con-
not his assistant but his agent? In that case why did he need to sistat, quando et legem ratio commendet, and the whole chapter: or
come himselfl (a) Certainly he is described as the angel of great the meaning may be 'in what manner', as at Scorp. r, The
counsel: but in this case 'angel' means messenger, being a term of scorpion's tai, hamatile spiculun ín sumno tormenti ratione sftingit,
office, not of nature, for the Son is the angel or messenger of the 'after the manner of a catapulted javelin'. In either case qud et
Father, and yet is not on that account reduced to equal terms with hominem, the adversaries' supposed answer, must mean qua et
other messeng.tr. (S) The Psalm says that as man Christ is not the hominen uos eutn profitemiú gestasse, for the adversaries did not
equal of the angels, but is a little lower than they-though as spirit admit the manhood.
of God and power of the Most High he is far above them: but z eadetn ergo etc. Between est and sit there is not much to
if he were possessed of an angel he would not be lower, and the choose: brt ergo as a rule introduces a deduction of fact, rather
Psalm would be falsified. (0) This theory about an angel is than of requirement, and it seems more likely that Tertullian
Ebionite in principle, for it makes Christ a mere man, inspired as
wrote esl, meaning, 'In that case there is the same purpose and
the prophets were inspired, as Zechariah ascribes his inspiration to
intention.' Causa once more refers to the final cause: see a note on
'the angel that spake in me'. But Christ, who speaks of himself
$ ro, to which add De Anima 24, si tenpus in causa est obliuionis,
in higher terms than the prophets, never uses this expression, nor where the effìcient cause is indicated: anð, Adv. Marc. v. zo, where
even the common prophetic formula 'Thus saith the Lord', but causatio (twice) is a translation of npógcor5 at Philippians r. 18,
'I say unto you.' Finally (7) scripture explicitly rules out the 'pretence'. Below, nihíl tale de causa esf is perfectly good Latin,
suggestion, when Isaiah says, 'Neither an angel nor a deputy, but
and (in spite of Kroymann's rejection) the last three words should
the Lord himself hath saved us.'
be retained.

In this chapter codex T presents an unusually large number of 7 nullum mandatum etc. A reminiscence of John ro. 18,
rcrlrr¡v rqv êvroÀi¡v ËÀapov rrapù'roû rrcrrpóg ¡.rov, and Hebrews
variations from the traditional text, most of which are at least
interesting and not to be rejected without careful consideration.
z. 16, oit yàp ôt'¡nov åyyÉÀorv ênrÀa¡rpduercr, which latter might
(if its authority had been acknowledged on all hands) have settled
In general they seem to give theimpression of being due to editing,
the question under discussion.
not indeed by the actual writer of the codex but by someone farther
r42 NOTES ÄND COMMENTÀRY [ot XIvl NOTES ÂND COMMENTÂRY t43
should XRB have altered it to cuhores? If Tertullian wrote uiti-
cuhores both readings are accounted for.
27 quomodo videbitur angelum induisse seems to give the
required sense. The contestants did not say that the Son became
an angel, orwas an angel, but that an angel occupied the place of
the soul which had ceased to be soul by turning into flesh:
angelum indußse is the way that would b. é"pr.sted. If we read
then that of an agent for an absent principal. with T we must remove the comma which Kroymann puts after
13 salutificator. Oehler's index gives these references: in angelus, and translate, 'How shall it have come about that an
every case there is a scriptural angel has been, in the mamer indicated, made lower than angels
case a variant reading : De Res ,
by becoming man etc.?' It is possible that Tertullian \Mrote
Adu. Marc. u. 19:P5¿l- rn 1 angelum, leaving induisse ot gestasse, or some such word, to be
De Ieiunio ó:Deuteronomy 32. rs (cnò OeoÛ ocotflpo5 crrütoü): understood, and that T's prototype short-sightedly altered this to
De Pud. z: r Timothy 4. ro (oorÌ¡p rrávtcùv &vOpórlcov). The last the nominative.
reference, with Ërrï OeQ 3dóvtr in the context, suggests that here zg qua autem spiritus dei etc. Luke r. 35: cf. Adu. Prax.
deus is right and dominus (T) due to editing. 26,27, and my Introduction, pp. 65-7o. Kroymann suggests the
deletion of this sentence on the ground that it has nothing to do
15 cur ergo descendit. ípse is in T alone; without it the
with the present argument, and that the required safeguard against
emphasis of the sentence is on descendif, where it ought to be, for
the misunderstanding of the previous sentence comes a few lines
this word (and concept) here aPPears for the first time.
lower in the remarks on the Ebionites. This is misconceived, it
17 ni cogitatus,here being quite in Tertullian's style to interrupt his argument with a
as lü angelus is an passing caution (as an orator would interj ect an ' aside ' in making a
ed &yyeÀo5 (Isaiah speech): and in fact there is no anticipation of the remarks on the
g. S LXX). It that (certainlywith that text in
seems equallypossible Ebionites.
mind) Tertuilian \Ã/rote magni consilii atgelus, and in the next halÊ
3r tanto non, dum etc. All the authorities are at fault here:
this flagnuffi cogitatum, equeting
as tanto (TB) is evidently Åght: non, dum is from Gelenius. It does
case it is T which has the edited not eppear that, for the second gestat, any editor has suggested
st nuntius comes more naturally if gestet, though that is the mood required: for in fact the Son did
st preceded: as below. Irenaeus, Haer.trt. 17. 3, has not take to himself an angel-a mere supposition of Tertullian's
patris nuntiu.s. LXX makes heavy weather of the oPPonent.
so that the 'Prince of the Five Names' does not
âppear. Tertullian quotes the earlier part of the verse Adv. Marc.
32 poterit haec opinio etc. If sequence of tenses is of any
account, poterit is the correct form, with edicat following: poterat
rrr. 19.
could be the correction of one who recollected that Ebion (if
2r nam et frlius etc. Luke ao. g-r8. Deo vineae (T) is mani- there ever was such a person) had long been dead when Tertullian
festly wrong. Vinitores (T) is attractive, though the word melns wrote. According toìr.o".or, fromfhom our other authorities
'vine-dressers' (Virgil, Ecl.x.36), not 'vine-growers': and why copy the information, the Ebionite doctrine of Christ was in
r44 NOTES AND COMMENTÂRY [oo xv] Norns AND coMMENT,{Ry r4s
agreement with that of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, namely, that Kroymarrn) will not do: Zechariah is the only prophet of whom
Jesus was nudus homo (:r¡,rÀò5 äv0pcorrog), the son ofJoseph and
such a statement is made, and moreover the sentence in this form
Mary, and that Christ (apparently a kind of semi-divine Person-
age) came upon him at his baptism and left him before his cruci-
fìxion. Tertullian's other references to the Ebionites mention only
their observance of the Mosaic law, and say nothing about their
doctrine of Christ. In the present passage'rrl/e seem to have indica- case here.
tions of a doctrine somewhat different from that described by lg quid ultra etc. It is diftìcult to imagine how audi gor inro
Irenaeus, namely thatJesus vwas a mere men, not exactly possessed the text unless it (and the accusarives) were original. qild ultra
by any semi-divine 'power', but inspired in the same manner efc. seems to expect something new, which the text from Isaiah in
as the prophets were inspired. Prophetß aliquo gloriosiorem rrluist fact provides, returning from the digression about the Ebionites
be taken as one of Tertullian's ironical interjections, meaning that
if it were the case thatJesus was a mere -in, th.o he was -*.-
what less reticent about his own importance and greatness than
the prophets were about theirs: which of course is true, as Ter-
tullian shows in the following sentence, and as is evident from the
Gospels in which our Lord is recorded as having from the begin- CH.A,PTER XV
ning made himself the subject of his own preaching and as having
The Valentinian theory that Christ's flesh was spirirual is, no
represented himself as the indispensable and only Mediator and
less than the theories we have examined, discountenanced by the
way of access to the Father. Gloriosior is an intentionally offensive
express statements of our Lord himself as of the prophets and
word, indicating that if the Ebionite doctrine of Christ were true,
a?ostles, that he is truly Man. One of the Valentinians objects
then we should have to regard him as having said too much about
(a) that if Christ did possess earrhly and human subsrance, rhar
himself: but the odium of the offensive term is thrown back upon
would make him inferior to the angels: and (ú) that truly human
the heretics who provoke it. Whether we read aliquo or aliquid,
flesh would need to be born, as we are, of the will of a man.
itmakes no difference to the meaning: Kroymann's aliquot cotsld
only mean 'more boastful than a certain number of prophets'-
though it is unlikely that that was the meaning intended.

34 ut ita in illo angelum'fuisse dicat (or edicat, or even 'We an good scriptural authority for saying
dicatur) is apparentþ theright reading. U¿ introduces a consecu-
that in s made inferior to the angels: (ú) thai
dve clause dependent on constituit (pla4e...gloriosiorem being
the her professing a sort of incarnation while
parenthetic) : ita is balanced by quemadmòdum, beIow. This is in
denying Christ's humanity: and (c) that the time for our resurrec-
some slight contradiction with angelum gestauit, angelunt induisse,
above: but Tertullian is not no'w concerned with the main theme
tionhas not come, and will nor, until Christ has put all his
enemies (including these he¡etics) beneath his feet.
of this chapter, his answer to sed et angelum gestavit, but with a
supposed parallel with the inspiration of Zechariahwhich he sug- r licuit etc. It is surprising that someone with an itch for
gests that the Ebionite doctrine amounts to. In nonnullß (TB correcting Latin prose has not suggesred l¡buit:bat ¡, hoc putas
"f. S
I'46 NOTES ÂND COMMENTARY ["u xvl NOTES AND COMMENTÀRY r47

arbitrio tuo licuisse. On ex priuilegío haeretico cf. $r, Iicentia haere- LXX) by lrenaeus, Haer. tn. t8. z, quis est autem qui communícauit
tica, andthe note there: it appears that the presumption which has nobß de escls (r Cor. ro. ú) ? utrun is quí ab illß afigitur sursurt
assumed a permission which has not been granted has now become Christus superextensus Horo, íd est fini, et forruauít eorum Matrem:
so inveterate as to be the basis of a claim îor priuilegium, the Åght dn t)ero qui ex uirgine est Immanuel qui butyrum et nel manducauit, de
to take the initiative on any subject of discussion. quo øit propheta, Et hono est et quis cognoscet eum? Cf. also ibid.
trr. zo. z where the text is quoted against those who allege that
r c¿ünem Christi spiriølem comrninisci. Again, why has
not someone suggested Chrísto? Caro spiritalls is evidently, in Joseph was his father: and ibid. Iv. JJ. z anLoîg a long series of
prophetic testimonies to Christ. Tertullian, Adu. Marc. u. 7 in
this context, flesh constructed of, or condensed from, spirit. But
reference to the day ofjudgement, and in illustration of Zechaúah
'spirit' to the Valentinians had a special meaning. The lower
rz. 12, cognoscent eum qui coflpugerunt: so also Adv. Jud. 4.
Wisdom, Achamoth, despite her fall, retained some traces of the
divine or spiritual essence of her mother Sophia. These, without 12 virum vobis a deo destinatum: so De Pud. zt. At Acts
being conscious of it, she in part communicated to her son z. zz &troõeõery¡rÉuou appears to mean 'shown to be what we
Craftsman, the non-divine creator of the world: he in turn, him- claim him to be', or 'approved' (in the older sense of that word):
self unlnowing, passed on, in part, this semen spiritale to his Tertullian seems to take it to mean 'appointed' or 'predestined',
creation. It is this seed, breathed with the breath into Adam, which will not suit its original context. Lat. vg. approbatum.
which when ripened (adultun) becomes comPetent to receive 13 vice does not mean'instead of'but'as equivalent to': cf.
þuscipere, i.e. physically assimilate) the serno perfectus. Cf.
Adu. Apol. 17, the demons uice rebellantium ergastulorurn siue cdrcerufti
Val. 25, and passim. Spirit, in this context of thought, does not vel metallorum uel hoc genus poenalis seruítutis,'after the manner of
mean (as elsewhere in Tertullian) the divine'Word, but a kind of rebellious slaves etc.': ibid. 48, nundi sytecíes temporalis, quae illi
rather less than divine substance, which (presumably) the divine dispositioni aeternítatis aulaei vice oÍ)pansa est,' after the manner of a
Christ collected from Achamoth on his way down to earth, and drop-curtain'. The texts quoted ought to serve as a ytraescriptio
converted into the semblance of flesh. and preclude all further argument, and would do so if it were
could conceivably mean 'with what possible for heretics to be unprejudiced, and so forth.
4 ex qua substantia
confidence or assurance': cf. Adu. Prax.3t, and my note. But, 15 imaginariae, XRB: the double reading of T, putatiue
if this seems too far-fetched, it may be better to take it as 'in view ímaginarie, only means that the copyist rÃ/rote down the wrong
of what substance', seeing that the Valentinians held Christ to be word out of his head and immediately referred to his copy and
divine and his flesh 'spiritual', and so left him with nothing in 'wrote the right one as well.
âny sense human. Se, supplied by Ursinus aîter ipse, no\rv apPears 15 sine studio etc. Studiuffi is prejudice in favour of a person
in T in a less suitable place: its omission altogether is not un- or opinion: so Tacitus, Ann. t t síne ira et studí0, 'without rancour
paralleled. or partiality'. Artifcium contentionis hints that the discussion or
8 et homo est 17. 9 LXX has pa0eTcx f¡ xcxpôíc
etc. AtJeremiah conflict was by far-fetched devices kept alive long after the
rrcxpà rrcxvtc rcì xal 'rí5 yvóoetcxt aÜróv; mis-
öu0pc^lrróg Èorrv question ought to have been settled i at Adu. Marc. v. zo per in-
reading u¡X (weak or sickly) as üiN (man, or mankind): English vidiam et contentionem translates Philippians r. rJ ôrc A0óvov xcl
Ëptv, to which there is also a veiled reference here.
R.V. 'The heart is deceitful bove all things and desperately
wicked: who can know it?' Lat. vg. Prauum est cor omniurn et 16 quendam ex Valentini factiuncula will be the Alexander
inscrutabile: quis cognoscet illud? The text is quoted (also from dismissed briefly h StZ. Factiuncula comes ftom B**T: the
r48 NOTES ÂND COMMENTÀRY Irv xvr] NorES ,\ND coMMENTARY r4g
that Christians believe, whereas heretics credendo non credunt,
profess to believe, while refusing to accept the faith as we know it.

29 rninorasti etc. Psalm 8. 5 is often quoted, as is Psalm zz. ó,

always in conjunction with these texts from Isaiah Sz, 53i e.g.
Adu. Marc. rr. 7, rT; rv. 2r.

14 hominem deo mixtum: see the Introduction, page vüi.

CH.A,PTER XVI
20 sirnilem nostri cafnem is only intelligible 1f nostri stands
for nostrae,the feminine dative singular: if not, we should read Alexander argues that since, as he supposes, our belief is that
nostfde, as below, par nosttae. Christ's purpose in taking flesh of human origin v/as to bring to
nought sinful flesh, the implication is that Christ's flesh was sinful
conclusion abhorrent both to him and to us. 'Bring to
-a
nought in himself the flesh of sin'is not precisely the expression
we use, and even if it were, his conclusion would not follow:
for evidently Christ's flesh, since it is now in heaven and is to
come again in glory, has not been brought to nought: and as in it
there was no guile it was not sinful. Our position in fact is, not
that sinful flesh was brought to nought in Christ, but that the sin
of the flesh was-the guilt of it, not the substance. When the
apostle says that Christ was in the likeness of sinfLl flesh he does
not mean the mere likeness of flesh and not its realiry, but that
Christ's flesh, itself sinless, was in the likeness of ours which is
sinful, being like ours in natural kind but not like ours in defect.
Thus sin was brought to nought in Christ's flesh in that it, being
sinless, was the same flesh as in us is sinfìrl. Moreover there would
have been nothing noteworthy in his bringing to nought the sin
of the flesh in flesh of a different kind from that which in us is
sinful: nor would it have been feasible for him to do it. So then,
it was our flesh he assumed; though in assuming it he made it his
own, that is, sfuless. As for the suggestion ($r5) that Christ's
flesh cannot have been our sort of flesh, because it was conceived
almost 'bringing into court').
without male seed, the case of Adam is our answer: for his flesh
?,8 non credendo credunt seems to mean that the heathen, 'was constructed out of earth, also without the usual act of pro-
though they do nor assenr ro rhe faith, at least know what it is creation.
r5o NOTES ,q.ND COMMENT,TRY Ixvr xVI] NOTES ÄND COMMENT.A.RY r5r
'phantasm'. 'Likeness' is the word used when a thing is what it is
This chapter completes Tertullian's answer to the cavils noted
visible as: and it'is'when it is equal to or like that other thing. A
in the previous chapter, mentioning first a further objection phantasm, if only a phantasm, is not a 'likeness'.
raised by Alexander, based on the Pauline phrase, 'in the likeness
of sinful flesh', and 'condemned sin in the flesh', and then revert- At De Res. Carn. 46, for a different PurPose, the same method is
ing to a previous allegation that there could have been no truly employed: nisso deus filio suo in sirnulacro carnis delinquentiae et per
human flesh apart from the act of a human fæher. delinquentiam damnauit delinquentian in carne, non cdrnett in delit-
That Tertullian has given the correct interpretation of ' likeness of quentia: neque enim domus cum habitatore danrabitur. habitare enirn
.What pteccaturn dixit in corpore fiostro. damnata autem delinquentia caro
flesh of sin' will no doubt be generaþ admitted. he says here
is summarized from what he had already written Adu. Marc. absoluta est, sicut indemnatã ea legí rnoúis et delinquentiae obstricta est.
v. 14: Something of the same kind had already appeared in Irenaeus,
Haer. rrr, zr. z, quonian et ipse in sinilitudine carnis peccati factus est,
Though it is true that the Father sent Christ into the likeness of flesh utí condemnaret yteccatum et iam quasi condemnaturn proiceret illud
of sin, it will not follow that the flesh which was visible in him was a
extra carfiem: but lrenaeus, as a good pastor, proceeds, [)rovocLret
phantasm. St Paul has already (Romans 7. 18, 4) attributed sin to the
autem in similitudinem suam hontinem, imitatorem eum assignans deo,
flesh, and has described the flesh as the law of sin dwelling in our
members, hostile to the law of the mind (legí sensus). So he means
and more to the same effect.
that the Son was sent into the likeness of sinfirl flesh for the purpose of z Alexandet ife. Oehler observes, 'non constat de eo'. But
redeeming sin with a like substance, a fleshly substance, which was ille identlfrcs him with the individual ex Valentini factiuncula who
like sinful flesh while itself not sinful. Nøø et høec erit dei uirtus, in wrote the book referred to in $ :r5. Locum sibifecít may mean'has
substantía pari perfcere salutem.It would have been nothing noteworthy made himself conspicuous', though his theory seems hardly
for the Spirit of God (i.e. the divine Word) to bring remedy to the significant enough for that: so possibly the meaning is 'has
flesh: the greet thing was for flesh like sinful flesh to do this, while it
broached the topic', or something of that nature.
was indeed flesh but not flesh of sin. Thus 'likeness' will apply only to
'of sin' þinilitudo ad tìtulum peccati pertìnebit),but will not extend to 3 ut evacuaret etc. is inaccurately adapted (by Alexander, not
denial of the substance. He would not have added 'of sin' if his inten- by Tertullian) from Romans 6. 6, ö ncÀcnòs f¡¡róöu öu0pcono5
tion had been to indicate only likeness of substance whìle denying its oweoravpóOq,iva xcnapyr¡Ofl 'rò oõucr rfr5 ågcxpdc5. Kcrrcpyeîv,
verity: he would have said merely 'likeness of flesh'. But the form he regularly represented by euacuare,need mean no more than'bring
has used, 'of the flesh of sin', involves an affirmation of the substance, into desuetude', though frequently it appears from its context to
the flesh, while it relates the similitude to the defect (uìtium) of the mean 'destroy'. Later in this chapter euacuauit peccøtum in carne ís
substance, the sin. But even supposing he had said 'likeness of the
an inaccurate rendering of Romans 8. 3, xcréxprve'rì¡u å¡raprlcv
substance' there would still have been no denial of the verity of the
êv rfl oapxí. The substitution oî euacuauit for condemnauit is
substance. If you ask in what sense flesh which is 'like'is also 'true',
accounted for by quotation from memory: ePParentlyTertullian
this is because it is indeed veritable, though net conceived of seed of
like status, yet veritâble in descent and quality.' There is no likeness or thought this text beionged to the Romans ó context, for im-
similitude in the case of opposites: spirit could not be referred to as mediately afterwards, quoting the other half of Romans 8. 3 Èv
'the likeness of flesh', nor could flesh be in the likeness of spirit. If a ö¡roró¡.rarr ocpxò5 å¡.rcptícrg, he says et dlibi inquit-which causes
thing were not what it was visible es, the right word for it would be Kroymann needless concern.
t This sentence is difücult, as editorial attempts at emendation show: what is
8 in suggestu. Oehler's index says the word means apÍ)aratus,
w¡itten above is a paraphræe. orflatus,which appears to be the case in many of the places referred
f52 NOTES .å,ND COMMENTARY ["- xvrr] NOTES Ä.ND COMMTNTÂRY r53
to. Here however it has its original meaning of the raised seat of a fault or disfiguration with which one is born, and is thus a fair
judge or king. enough metaphor for original sin: the wey to remove it is not by
peying a price but by submitting to a surgical operarion, for which
9 adeo, ut evacuatâm etc. This is the punctuation I wrote in
perimere is a more appropriate word than redimere.
my copy of Oehler long ago: Kroymann agrees. Adeo once morc
stands for ideo: see a note on $ 7 and Adu. Marc. v. t4, adeo et carnis 30 quia non fuit. Fuerit (T) would be syntactically correct if
resurrectionem confrmavit. The MSS. here are in some confusion. the statement implied in the subordinate clause were merely a
After non possulnus dicere a relative clause is needed, to balance i¿ supposition or allegation of those who denied that Christ's flesh
qua dolus nonfuit at the end of the sentence. Kroymann's quia non was human fesh: but in Tertullian's view it was no supposition of
est euacuata, despite the partial support of T, is mere tautology. his adversaries but a fact drawn from Scripture and affìrmed by
I long ago thought the lost words were quae in caelis est. himself-for which reason he would wúte fuit (so, for that
matter, would Cicero).
t2 non materiam sed naturam. If, as previously suggested,
natura indicates the essential attributes of an object, and since in 3r sicut tena etc. See the passages from Irenaeus quoted on
this context natura is balanced by culpa, we must suppose that the the following chapter.
uitiun shortly to be referred to has taken such hold upon humanity
as to be no fortuitous accident but to have become a factor in
CHÂPTER XVII
what St Augustine calls natura secunda: that is, Tertullian, with his
usual sense ofrealities, is prepared to face the fact oforiginal sin Leaving these a priori erguments, we restate the crucial question as
(vitium), and original gltrlt (culpa). one of fact: 'Was the flesh that was Christ's derived from his
mother, or not? Ifit was, then it was human flesh by virtue of its
rB Adae aequanda was my or¡/n correction of Oehler's text. human origin-and this apart from further prooß, which also are
Adaequanda is now restored by Kroymann from l: but I still matters of fact, namel/, his being habitually described as man,
think the reference to Adam is necessary, (r) because aequare as well as such human characteristics es rhat he could be touched
seems to require a secondary object in the dative, and (z) because and handled, and that his passion issued in death. But the first
the reference to Adam at the end of the chapter (an anticipation question of all is why it was requisite that he should be born of a
of what is to come later), along with ipsum, seems to have been virgin. It was because, as the author of the new birth, he must
suggested by the mention of his name here. himself be born in a new manner, thus constituting the'sign' of
22 neque ad propositum etc. Christ's propositum,purpose, \Mas which Isaiah spoke. This new birth, by which man is born in
to cleanse human nature from within itself and not by some God, begins at the point at which God was born in man, raking
external act of divine po\Mer: his glory is to have done this in human flesh without the agency of human seed, so that having
human weakness, by the hiding of his power. first cleansed it ofits guilt he might reshape it ofnew and spiritual
seed. This newness, in all its espects, was prefigured in the old. It
zS naevum peccati perernit is a con_flation of the MS. was virgin soil which brought forth the first Adam, a virgin
readings. T has uitn peccati percmit, which is easy: the others mother who brought forth the second or lasr Adam: and observe
either have or attest nael)unt peccati rcdemít. It is difücult to in passing that the apostle's use of the term'second Adam'is a
account for the unusual word ndeuus unless Tertullian wrote it, proof of Christ's humanity. Moreover the Incarnation is e rever-
though redemitis hardly a suitable verb. Naeuu.s is a birth-mark, a sal of the Fall: so that, as the word of temptation entering into
 r54 NOTES ÄND COMMENTÂRY ["* xvrr] NOTES A.ND COMMENTARY r55

Eve engendered death, so the Word of God entering into Mary hen. Haer. nr. 3r.Si igitur primus Adam habuit patrem hominem et
engendered life: the evil effect of Eve's creduliry is set right by ex semine viri natus
est, merito dicerent et secundum Adam ex Ioseph
Mary's faith: the offspring of Eve was the wicked brother, his esse generatum. si autem ille de terra quidem sumptus est et verbo
l
brother's slayer, while the offspring of Mary was the good dei plasmatus est, oportebat id ipsum verbum recapitulationem ,\dae
Brother, his brother's Saviour. Christ must needs be born of in semetþsum faciens eiusdem generationis habere similitudinem.
quare igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus, sed ex Maria operatus
woman, so as to undo the evil wrought before the first woman
est plasmationem fieri? ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia esset
conceived.
plasmatio quae salvaretur sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, seryata
The stfiect of this chapter is also discussed Adu. Marc.IV. ro, similitudine. errant igitur qui dicunt eum nihil ex virgine accepisse,
where the argument talces a different form; briefly as follows: ut abiciant carnis haereditatem, abiciant autem et similitudinem. si
'We enim ille quidem de terra et menu et artificio dei plasmationem et
begin with two postulates, (r) that when Christ called himself the
substantiam habuit, hic autem non manu et artificio dei, iam non
Son of Man he cannot have been lying, and (z) that no one can be a
servavit similitudinem hominis qui factus est secundum imaginem
man without at least one human parent: consequentþ we must ask, in
ipsius et similitudinem, et inconstans artificium videbitur, non habens
his case, whether this parent was father or mother. It is admitted that
circa quod ostendat sapientiam suam. hoc autem dicere est et putetive
God is his father, and (since God is not a man) it follows that the
apparuisse eum, et tanquam hominem cum non esset homo, et factum
human parent was his mother. Since God and not man is his father,
eum hominem nihil assumentem de homine. si enim non accepit ab
it follows that his mother is a virgin: otherwise he will have two
homine substantiam carnis, neque homo fectus est, neque filius hominis:
fathers, which is like the heathen stories of Castor and of Hercules.
et si hoc non factus est quod nos eramus, non megnum faciebat quod
Since then he is Son of Man by descent from his mother, and since,
passus est et sustinuit. nos autem quoniam corpus sumus de terrâ
because he has no human father, his mother is a virgin, we have the
acceptum et anima accipiens a deo spiritum omnis quicunque confite-
fulûlment of Isaiah's prophecy. If Marcion seys a man was his father,
he denies the divine sonship: if he says that God is the father of his
bitur. hoc itaque factum est verbum dei, suum plasma in semetipsum
recapitulans. et propter hoc fìlium hominis se confitetur et beatificat
manhood, the idea is heathenish: if that his manhood is from his
mites quoniam ipsi haereditebunt terram: et apostolus Paulus in epistula
mother, he agrees with me: if that it is from neither father nor mother,
quae est ad Galatas manifeste ait, Misit deus filium suum factum de
he makes Christ a liar. From this last result only one thing can save
muliere [et Rom. r.3, 4].
him, namely, to affirm that Marcion's god, the father of Marcion's
hen. Haer. v. z¡. Misit deus fìlium suum, factum de muliere.
Christ, is a man (as Valentinus did by putting Ânthropos in the
Neque enim iuste victus fuisset inimicus nisi ex muliere homo esset qui
pleroma), or to allege that the Virgin is not human (which even
vicit eum. per mulierem enim homini dominatus est ab initio, semet-
Valentinus did not presume to do).
ipsum contrarium statuens homini. propter hoc et dominus semetipsum
filium hominis conf.tetur, principalem hominem illum, ex guo ea
[What Tertullian means by this last alternative is not very clear: quae secundum mulierem est plasmatio facta est, in semetþsum recapi-
I suspect we should perhaps read et for aut both times-'to affìrm
tulans: uti quemadmodum per hominem victum descendit in mortem
that Marcion's god is a man, while denying that the Virgin is
genus nostrum, sic iterum per hominem victorem ascendamus in
human'. See a note on page ro9.] vitam: et quemadmodum accepit palmam mors per hominem adversus
Much of what Tertullian says in this and the following chapters nos, sic iterum nos adversus mortem per hominem accipiamus palmam.
seems to have been borrowed from lrenaeus, as the following cita-
tions show: though perhaps by this time many things that Irenaeus On St Matt. r. zo, the following observation is worth recording:
had written had become the standard Christian expositions of the [Justin] Qyaestt. et Resltonss. ad Orthod. [acc. to Bardenhewer, by an
texts referred to. unknown author of the Sth century or later] : resp. r33, 'l<oorig, gr¡oív,
 -ï-

r56 NOTES ,A,ND COMMENTÀRY xvu] NOTES ÀND COMMENTARY t57

Ixvn
explanations given ofits reasonableness (as here), but, except in
i
vlò5 Âcvfô, uù qoÞnOñs rrcrporl,apeîu Mcrprùp rÌ¡v ywcixú oov. lò
yùp Èx ywcrrxó5 ztuo5 ¡copì5 nopvefcg rrrcrógevov uió5 èonv ÈÇ &v&¡x4g the presence of Ebionites, it was never necessary to argue to it.
roü &vôpò5 ral rfr5 ywcrró5, <þ rpónç poúÀrrcr é 0eò5 öoûucr vlòu 6 licuit is from liquere, not from licere: liquuir (introduced by
rQ cvôpl, fl ôrù ovucxgelcr5 fl Xc,lpl5 ouvcrgeíc5. That is, 'pater est quem
Mesnart) has no MS. authority, and is not Latin. It is already
nuptiae demonstrant'.
clear from the four considerations mentioned, without need of
further discussion, that Christ's substantia is human: he was re-
r remisso Alexandro etc. I suspect that Syllogßmi was the
ferred to as 'Son of man', he 'was found in fashion as a man', he
title of the book written by Alexander. Tertullian's dislike of was touched and handled (Luke 24. 39, r John r. r), and he died a
syllogisms stems from his general dislike of argumentation, for he
human death.
seems never to ]ulse argurnentarí for argument ofwhich he approves.
He disapproved, in fact, of deductive argument altogether, for he I cornrnendanda,'must be recommended for consideration':
regarded theology not es a deductive science deriving its con- Kroymann, with greater felicity than usual, pnnts commentanda,
clusions by syllogistic reasoning from one transcendental first 'must be discussed' or 'considered'. Ratio, once more, is the
principle or major premiss, but as bound to work by induction precedent cause, the thought in the mind of God which saw that
from the recorded facts of Scripture or from what was implied in this form of birth was necessary.
the faith and practice of the Church. The Psalms of Valentínus ro novae nativitatis dedicator. The meaning of noua natiuítas,
are referred to again in $zo, and not (apparentþ) elsewhere: both here and below, depends on the correct reading in the latter
Irenaeus, Haer. trt. rr. 12, says that the later Valentinians had context. If 7' is correct, with er quo in homine, the new birth is
compiled a 'Gospel of Truth', and, ibid. r praef., that they pos- that which is the beginning of the Christian life, or of the eternel
sessed certain rlnouvóuancx, 'Commentaries', which he had read. life of which al1 Christians are heirs. If in quo homine is correct,
The subject oî interserit is Alexander. the new birth, in the second mention of it, is the birth of Christ :
the earlier reference (with dedicator) wiJ, still be to Christian
4 lin6¿ (like gradus) is used for a position taken up in dis- regeneration: the sign (Isaiah 7. l.4) is a sign concerning this
cussion. The primary reference would be to the line marked in the
precisely because it is itself the birth of Emmanuel, and it was
ring at a v¡restling-match, congressio.
his act which was to make this regeneration possible.
4 încarnerr Christus ex virgine etc. There are fwo questions 13 Emmanuelem, nobiscum deum. The reading of Tlooks
involved: (r) whether it was, olwas not, human flesh which like an editorial accommodation to the text of Matthew r. 23.
Christ derived from his virgin mother: (z) whether it was from
14 ex quo in homine (T) seems to give the more setisfactory
his mother herself that he derived what he did derive, or whether
sense. It would hardly be true to imply, with the other authorities,
what appeared to be his human flesh was not derived from her but
merely passed through her without her contributing anything to
that Christ was born in man aheedy regenerate. But I wonder if
Tertullian did not wÅte quo in homìne, wing quo for quoniam as
it. The present chapter deals with the former quesrion: the other t
e.g. De Orat. þeveral times).
-What
is discussed in $ rS. was not in question by either parfy was
the truth of the scriptural statement that Christ was conceived (or 15 ut illam novo semine etc. This clause states the purpose (not
at least, appeared to be conceived) without the normal process of the manner) of the Incarnation, illam referring to caro antiqui
human procreation. The virginity ofMary was admitted (or even seminis in general, and not to cdro a Chri*o susceptd. It comprises
insisted on) by both parties r arguments may be drawn from it or three statements: (r) of the fact of regeneration through Christ,
r58 NOTES ÂND COMMENT.A,RY Ixvrr xvrr] NOTES ^A.ND COMMENTARY rJ9
and of the new constitution built up from that ne\á birth by the arose. Correxit gives a better balance with ãeliquit, but deleuit
operation of spiritual seed (i.e. the divine Word): (z) of Christ's makes a sort of assonance which is attractive.
redemptive sacrifice by which previous guilt is removed: and 34-35 ut abiecta pãrëret. Genesis 3. 16, 'Thy desire shall be to
(l ), by the tense of the participle expiatam, of the logical precedence thine husband, and he shail rule over thee': et in doloribus pdrëret,
'With some hesitation I have accepted spiritali ftom
of the latter. 'in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children'. Cf. Adu. Marc. t. rt,
T: semine sphitali,ifit is the ffue reading, will be a reminiscence of statim mulier in doloribus parere et viro seruire damnatur, sed quae ante
r Peter t.23, oÛx Èr orropäg gOcxprñs dÀÀù åg0úprov ôtù Àóyou sine ulla contristatione per benedictionern incrementum generis auãierat,
3õvro5 Oeoûxcì gévovro5, in the line of Tertullian's prectice of Crescite tantuffi et muhiplicamini, sed quae in adiutoriurt masculo, non
using'spirit'of all or any of the divine Persons. in servitium, fuerat destinata.

17 sed toø novitas ista etc. The general meaning of this 40 quo homo iam damnatus intraverat. This seems to
sentence is that there is a parallel, both in the fact itself and in mean that Scripture does not make the statement Adam cognouit
various subsidiary respects (which are indicated in the sentences uxorem suarn (Genesis 4. r) until after their condemnation and
which follow) between the virginal birth of Christ and the vir- expulsion from Paradise. See my Latin note at the end of the
ginal birth of man as he was first born to the Lord (homine domino introduction to $23, page r7g.
nascente) when God formed him of the dust of the earth. Rdtionali
disposìtione seems to mean, 'by an ordinance or act of God the CHÁ.PTER XVIII
reasons for which were pre-existent in God's mind'.
If Christ had been conceived of human seed there would have
19 virgo erat etc. I wonder if Tertullian did not write nondum been no room for divine sonship. Being already the Son of God,
uornere coftipressa, in the sense familiar to readers of Terence. There of the Father's seed (which is spirit), he needed only to take to
follows a reference to r Corinthians r5. 45, eí5 ryvXì¡v 3óóoav... eíg himself human flesh, without the agency of man's seed. Before
rrveüpa 3ororroroûu, which is St Paul's commentary on Genesis z. 7. the Incarnation God was his Father and he had no mother: at the
z6 sed et hic etc. Ratío defendit, 'God's intention supplies the Incarnation the blessed virgin became his mother and no man was
¿15¡¡¡s¡'-¿5 an advocate answers a question raised in court. This his father. From God he derived his divinity (and his per-
sentence refers only to the main question, why the apostle calls sonality), from his mother his humanity (without personality).
Christ the second Adam, not to the qualifìcation of that question, Consequently the body born of the virgin was of her substance.
'When
'if his manhood was not of terrestrial origin'. Aemulus in Ter- it says that the Word was made flesh it certainly does not
ttrllian invariably means 'opposite' or 'hosdle'. mean that the'Word transmuted part of himself into flesh. As it
only says 'what' the'Word was made, and not'out of what', it
zg Kroymann'sinsertion of d¡aboli before uerbum isunnecessary: leaves us to understand that it means 'out of something else'
Tertullian's readers did not need to have every point driven home and not out of himself: and 'out of what' more likely than out
with a sledge-hammer: and, if we must'be precise, the word of that fesh within which he was made flesh? In the statement
required is serltentis. The parallel and contrast here indicated That which is born in the fesh ís flesh and that which is born of the
between Eve and Mary is abbreviated somewhat from lrenaeus, spirit is spirit, both clauses alike apply both to him and to those
Haer. nt. 32. t. who believe in him: for it carmot be supposed that the first part
33 haec credendo delevit. Between the two readings there is applies only to other men (for this would be a denial of Christ's
not much to choose, and it is not easy to see how the variation manhood) and the second part both to him and to believers. So
 -T
160 NorEs ÀND coMMENTÀRY [xvn x\rml NOTES .A,ND COMMENTÀRY r6r
it does stete that of the Spirit he was born of God, while of the (habentem dei semen), human paternity v¡as not only impracticable
flesh and within flesh he was conceived as man. (non competebat) bw otíose (uacabat).
By parity of reasoning it is maintained that as the Son possesses
his divine nature and his rlnóorcor5 by spiritual generation from
the Father, so that which he is as man and Son of Man must be
derived from his mother, and consequendy is flesh as real as that
within which it was formed. There is
at the Annunciation there took place
the process of human generation: in
Incarnation the does not arise in any form
whatever (as St omelength, Enchiridion3|).
posible) between 'personality' and 'person'. This the Greek That such a m arise is shown by Justin's
lheologians possessed, at least from the late fourth century on- cere to deny it (Apol.r 33), and (without expressly mentioning it)
ward, in the two terms rirróorcxotg and rrpóoorrrov, in the sense Tertullian here tacitly excludes it by the phrase caro síne semine ex
homine.
There is some doubt about certain details of the text and its
punctuation, to follow either group of
authorities c I have in a few plãces
corrected (as and have at least succeeded
in making a text which will construe. The best contribution of T
is its confrmation (in three places) of Mesnart's in senetipso for in
semine Qtso.

r simplicius, 'more literally': by conrrasr with the allegories of

$ 17, we no\M proceed to deal with texts which directly bear on
the subject.
3 ut de Hebionis opinis¡1s s1.. See a note on $ 14, |ne 32.
Oehler's suggestion of ø¿ should probably be accepted: er would
require esset for erat.
12 igitur si fuit etc. Dispositío rationis refers back to dispositio
rationalis h StZ. Kroymann's objection to superflium...proferen-
dumishard to understand: it is equally possible (ifwe are going to
use Greek illustrations) to say ùrrèp roú vioû or rrepì roû vioü, and
what Luke 24. 49 H.bi.*, i. 3 h"v. to do with it (or with
have brought into being a second rinóqrcor5-which is im- "oi
each other) is not apparent. Cur non ex virgine etc.: ít betng
possible, since Ch¡ist is one Person and not two. And as he was admitted (by both parries, as it seems) that there rvas er least the
io be the same Person incarnate as he was from all eternity apparent birth of a human body from the blessed Virgin, what
 IxvrIr xrx] NOTES .å.ND COMMENTÂRY t63
t6z NOTES .A.ND COMMENTÀRY

reason can there be for supposing that this birth was no more
than z6 atquin subicit...ctedentes ipsius. The whole of this
should apparently be assigned to an objector, who (r) finishes the
apparent? There is in facïevery reason-for. acknowledging it to
sentence half quoted (Johrr ¡.6), and (z) adds rwo more of like
h'ri" b..o real: and in that casË the body that was born took its
character (Joh" +. z4 and r. r 3 ) with a comment on all three. The
*brrrrr"" from that body of which it was born, and must be
presumed to be of the same nature with it' @ia aliud est
etc'' awkward use of the participle credentes as a substantive apparently
'-o* go with what precedes, however awkward it makes the end arose from the collecting together of several applications of the
verb rrro-rerlerv in this context: and cf. Johtr Z. 39, rrepì roû
of the"sentence: if anached to what follows it makes nonsense,
rrueúuanos oû ËgeÀÀou Àcupúveru oï rrtqte\roqureg eï5 orutóv.
and throws inquiunt too far from the beginnin-g' The point,is'
that we know ïhat it was rhar lhrist received from God: and it 3r utramque substantiam...lton negas. Tertullian's adver-
follows (as already observed) that he must have received the rest sariesdid not flatly deny the flesh of Christ: they merely cast
from his human mother. doubts upon its origin, and consequently upon its nature. FIis
t4 quoniam' inquiunt etc. sugges-ts the opponents' presumed claim here is that if they quote the second half ofJohn 3. ó in their
vox ista efc. is Tertullian's further reply-if we affirm own favour, they must be consistent and quote the first halfin his:
"rrr*Ërt
that it was from human flesh that the word took the fesh in which in which case the whole text is on his side.
h" '*r, made flesh', it does not follow that it r ''as not the Word' conditione here apparently means both 'origin' and attri-
but something unspecifìed, that was made flesh'
33
butes or quality as determined by origin. In semetiytso is my own
r8 cum scrþtura noll dicat etc. Here we maydisagree with alteration, for in semet iytse.
our author. Úd.r, we had reasons both scriptural and rational
for knowing better, at least a posible interpretation of uerbum
'Word conuersun est ín
35 I have revised the punctuation of the concluding sentence,
caro factun Ãr -ight have been that the
giving an eclectic text, which seems to make sense-as that of the
,orní*,i.e., ex serleüpso. But such an explanation would þ" qyt' MSS. and editors does not. There seems to be no important
contrery to the -hoi. of the rest of our data, and would reduce difference intended between natus andgeneratus,batonly a stylistic
the Incarnarion ro unreality and thereby stultify the doctrine of variation: otherwisegeneratus (if it means more than'conceived')
the Atonement. would imply paternity at the Incarnation-which has just been
denied.
22 vel quia etc., 'for other reasons, and especially bec¿use

etc., Sentintialiter et defnítiue,like ajudge or ajurisconsult making

CHAPTER XIX
an authoritative and determinative statement'
The textJohn r. 13 (already referred to in passing), when read in
23 quod in carne etc. The text is incorrectþ quoted,-both here the singular number, which is its only authentic form, refers not
,nâ Àdr. Prax. z7: Tohtt ¡.ó, rò yeyevvq¡rÉuov Èx tñs ocpxò5
(as the Valentinians claim) to'those who believe on his name'but
odpÇ êøn. once ag"'in we disagree: rhe text undoubtedly refers,
to Christ himself: with the result that 'born of God' refers to his
in both its contrasting clauses, tã ordinary human generation and
divinity, while'not of blood, etc.' is a denial of human paternity.
regeneration, and hai no immediate bearing on the.Incarnation.
This, however, does not constitute a denial of human substance:
nüt T"rtollian is right in his claim that if the second clause (quod
he is right also for it does not say'not of the flesh'but'not of the will of the
de spirituerc.) refers to Christ, so does the first: and
can only be true flesh', which is precisely what we mean by a denial of human
in his futther suggestion that the whole sentence
paternity. A consideration of the physiology of conception shows
of believers becãus. it is alreadv true of Christ'
Í64 NOTES ÀND COMMENT,{RY Io* Kx] NOTES ÂND COMMENT.ô.RY Ió5
sed ex placito ltatris manus eius uiuum perfecerunt honinem uti fiat
Adam secundum imaginem et símilitudínem dei. Apparently both
Justin and Irenaeus thought that &ÀÀ' êx Oeoü stood for &ÀÀ'ÈK
OeÀriuqroS 0eoü. In a note on lrenaeus, Haer.ilr. 17. r,'W.'W.
Harvey explains how the variant could most easily have arisen in a
it was his intention to receive Syriac version by the omission ofone letter : but we should still have
e did not yet Possess: and this to account for (or oor) at the beginning of the sentence.
the same qualitY as hers.
.-\'l
3 obduxero: cf, Apol. 5o, sed obducimur, certe, cun obtínuimus.
ergo uicimus cum occidimur, denique euadimus cun obducimur, where
Souter translates 'are convicted', and Mayor's note suggests that
this meaning arose from the practice of blindfolding criminals led
to execution.
mentioned below.
6 ut ostendant etc. I suspect that Kroymann may be mistaken
2 ex deo natus est. The text in this form seems to be quoted in his suggestion that eJs¿ means'really exist': it seems more
natural for the words to mean 'that these (sc. believers in his
name) are that mystic seed' . Semen illud arcanum: cf. Adu. Val. z5:
Achamoth, they said, had unwittingly derived from her mother,
the errant Wisdom, a certain portion of spiritual seed, which (no
less unwittingly) she communicated to her son Demiurge (the
gnostic creator). He in his turn, also unwittingly, when he
on Isaiah 53. 8:'rì¡v yeueùv cxùroÛ tí5 ôrr¡yf¡oerar;-oú õoxei oot breathed into Adam's nostrils and gave him a soul, gave him with
ÀeÀÉX0cr cb5 oúr ÊÇ &v0póncov ëXovtoS tò yÉuo5 roÜ ôrà rà5 it a portion of this spiritual seed. This it is which alone is capable
åvouíqs toû Àcxoû eï5 O&vcrrov ncxpuôeôóo0cr eïpr¡géuov Ûnò roÛ of receiving and welcoming the 'perfect'Word', and this alone is
Oeoû; rrepî oÍr xcxì Movoñsroü ciucrros. . . crigctt otcxqvÀfr5 . . . rùv capable of salvation. This spiritual seed is the church, the reflexion
oroÀÌ¡v crriroü rrÀweiv ëgrl, .bs toÛ aigcrros crriroü oÛr èÇ or antitype of the syzygy Man and Church within
þpeculum)
åv0pcorreíov otrép¡rcrros yeyevvr¡gÉuou dÀÀ' Ëx 0eÀt'¡panos OeoÛ. the Pleroma. So man consists of four elements: the spiritual
This differs somewhat from Tertullian's explanation, for Justin, derived through Achamoth, the 'animal' (i.e. soul) contributed
paraphrasing ' but of God' as 'but by the will of God' makes the by Demiurge, the choic (a sort of semi-material matter), and the
whol. text iefer to the Incarnation. Irenaeus had this passage of flesh (which is matter as we know it). 'saviour'also, when he
made his appearance, had the counterparts of each of these four
elements-spiritual from Achamoth, animal (psychic, soul) from
Demiurge, but a corporal substance constructed of soul, so that
he might be visible, and so forth, but might not have contact with
matter, which is of necessity incapable of salvation-et totum hoc
Justin
-et
as to the bearing of the concluding phrase: ibid. v. r. 3: þays Tertullian) ut carnis nostrae habitum alienando a Christo a spe
fopter hoc ín ine non ex uoluntate carnis neque ex voluntate viri etiam salutis expellant. @od sibi ímbuunt would naturelly meen
166 NOTES .AND COMMENTÀRY Ixx )ax] Norns ÀND coMMENTÂRY t6Z

'which they baptize for themselves', and perhaps it does: but (¡) Th.t" follows an imposition of the har;.d per benedictíonem,
aduocans et ínuitans spiritum sdnchun. At this point the most holy
cf. Adu. Iu.d. 3, circumcisio carnalis, qude teft,poralis etat, imbuta est
in signum populo contumaci, where the meaning seems to b9 'w.as Spirit descends from the Father upon bodies which have been
cleansed and blessed. A parallel is suggested with the descent of
instñuted'-: io perhaps here, 'which they invent for themselves'.
the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at our Lord's baptism, and
reference is made to the presence of the dove of peace at the
cessation of the 'waters of the Flood.
In all this there is no reference to any regeneration or new birth
unto everlasting life. The original sacramental act is limited in its
effect to the remission of sins, and that only as preParatory to what
Tertullian regards as the more spiritually effective acts of unction
ceremonies of baptism in three stages, as follows: (the grace of which is not precisely defined) and benediction
(r) There is a washing with water, which conveys forgiveness (which ensures the descent of the Holy Spirit). Further, it seems
of rins and restitution to God, ad similítudinem eius qui retro ad to be Tertullian's view that this conveyance of the suPreme
'This, according to Tertullian, is a preparatory spiritual gift or presence is not the c
effectiveness derives not from any direct action corporately held by the Church (for
it, but from an angel who descends uPon the point to Pentecost) but is a repetitio
water: non quod in aqua spiritum sed in aqlaa
what was done at our Lord's own baptism. Js¡¡rlli¿¡¡ aPPears
enendati l?enundatif sub angelo ramur. Thts nowhere to make any direct quotation of r Peter r. z3 or of
remission or cleansing is obtaine sealed with
Joht:.2.
the threefold Name of God: angelus baptísmi arbíter spirituí sancto
uias dirígit abolitione delictorun quan fdes impettat obsignata in patre
rr quia verbum dei etc. As already observed, Tertullian
equates Luke r. 35 (where he read spiritus dei and uirtus ahissimi)
withJohn t 4 (verbum dei). See my rlotes Adu. Prax.26. His
meaning here is that atJohn r. 13 only the negatives apply to the
Incarnation: ex deo natus esr applies to the eternal generation. The
Incarnation, he suggests, wes not an act of generation but of
creation (factum esf), and that creation took place ex dei uoluntate.
sed spiritaliter proficit.z 15 formalis apparentþ construes with natiuitatis; 'e nativity
after our fashion' or'according to our precedent'.
¡ It seems more likely eius in this sentence means ,\dam, perhaps with no
that
sharp distinction between the second Adam and the first ,\dam in that state t6 negans autem etc. I assign this sentence to the inter-
in which he was created. Bo¡leffs (wrongly, I suspect) thjnks eiøs means ãeí. locutor, and suggest that we should rcad negarit for negar.,it:
z This probably refers not to the baptismal formula as such, but to the Creed, 'But when he denies, among other things, that he was born of the
apparentþ a four-clause creed, adding to the divine names the mention of the will of the flesh, why should we not take him to have denied also
Chot.h, quae ilium eory)us est. There are several points of doctrine here which that he was born of the substance of the flesh?' Kroymann can
later teache¡s thought it more prudent tacitly to drop. only make sense by omitting quoque and cur, an entirely iliegiti-
3 tJnctío seems to mean the oil, not the act of ânointing: and cttrrit stands fot
mete treatment of the authorities.
ffiana¡,
 -T
r68 NOTES ÂND COMMENT.A,RY ["i" xx] NOTES ÂND COMMENT,A,RY r69
18 neque enim etc. The general meaning of the sentence is per- Irenaeus, Haer. nt.3r. z, Èneì rreprooì¡ xcì f¡ ei5 tt¡v Mcxpícv
fectly clear, and the statement is near enough to the physiological qùroû xd0oôos. rí yùp xcxl ei5 øurt¡v xccr{¡er el uîôèv ËgeÀÀe
truth to be acceptable. Kroymann's suggestion oîcolatumhumorem ÀriryeoOcxr rrcrp' crrlrfl 5 ;
for calorenis attractive, though the parallels he cites in support ofit
prove nothing: what is needed is some quotation from the medical
writers to justify constat, failing which, collatun humorem would
be better. The second half of the sentence, as it stands, is a simile
drawn from the dairy: Kroymann's incaseatio (which he admits
he invented) would turn the simile into a meraphor, and thus CHÁ.PTER XX
demand the removal of id est lactis. Zis (restored by Gelenius)
could easily have fallen out through confusion wtth eius: though
The
-attempt
of our opponents to substitute 'by the virgin' for
'of the virgin'must fail, as must their suggestion that'co-nceived
(if we could account for its omission) rnateries would be better.
in her' (Matthew r. zo) excludes'born of h".'. The two state-
22 intellegimus ergo etc. Kroymann here, amending the text
of T, reads: intellegimus ergo ex concubitu nativitatem domíni negataffi,
quod sapit et ('non) ex uoluntate uiri et carflis', (id est) non ex
uulvae participatione. This could only be right if the precise dis-
tinction between uterus and uulua, noted on page r79, applied
here also and were emphasized. But it appears from
""d"ly
what follows that in the present chapter, as Kroymann himself
prints it, the words are synonymous. physiological fact does happen at childbirth. Also the psalm says
28 quia non pednde etc.: i.e. the text of the Gospel does nor 'I hanged yet upon my mother's breasts', and it ¡ well known
say non ex carfle brfi non ex uoluntate carnis, denyine the eústence that the milk does not fl.o\M unless there has been a veritable birth
of a father but not of a mother. which there are obvious physical reasons. So we con-
-afactfor
clude this discussion with the observation that the reason for
30 cur descendit in vulvam?, omitted by T (Kroymann) is
necessary to complete the sense: oro uos introduces e peremptory Christ's being born of a virgin \l¡as not that this was to be less than a
question, not a statement interrupted by a parenthesis, as Kroy- true birth, but that our regeneration in Christ was to be of virgin
mann reconstructs these sentences. Tertullian supposed that the purity.
'Word
divine descendit in uuluam to effect his own incarnation: The expression natum ex Maria uirgíne may be supposed to be
which true, though not perhaps in the sense he intended.
is derived from Luke r. 3 5 rò yevvógevou Ëx ooü ayrov. It is how-
30 potuit enirn etc. The text is in some {isorder, and probably ever not quite certain that èx ooü is part ofthe text: it is absent
extra vuluam (at the end) must be removed: it could have crept in from most Greek MSS., but occurs in'western'authorities from
as a marginal note oÍL extra eam. Possibly also fieret shoald go,
unless we rcad ut intra uuhtam (T), which is awkward. But the
meaning of the sentence is quite clear: flesh of spiritual origin or
constitution, if there were such a thing, could have been formed
with much less to-do without any prerence of a nativity at all. Cf,
r7o NOTES A.ND COMMENTARY ["* "*]
NOTES .A,ND COMMENT,{,RY f7r
that Christ r¡/as not born 'of' the Virgin in such a menner as to subject is the phrase ex ea_'When it says in ea, ex ea sounds along
be in any real sense her son, but merely passed'through'-her: with it.'
certain Apollinarians in the fourth century are reported to have rr nascitur must be retained: the fact that the Greek has
added, mìre explicitþ, 'as through a pipe'. In that case his êyevul¡Oq and the Latin vulgate ltatus es¡ will have prompted T
apparently human body was not really human and was not reel and N to make this alteration.
n.rn, U"i was supposéd to be some 'psychical' or 'spiritual'
substance transformed into the aPPearance of flesh. Tertullian
12 misit etc. Gal. 4. 4 is quoted DeVirg. Vel.6,with the remark
that in this text, as in some others, mulier includes uirgo. Strictly
insists that the word is er, and îot per, and that the preposition
speaking, Tertullian says, a 'woman ceases to be virgo as soon as
must be understood in all its full implications, which he proceeds
she is betrothed, but that in his instructions regarding the dress
to elucidate in detail. See also lrenaeus, Haet- :rrt. 3r (quoted
of women (r Cor. rr. 5) St Paul is using the generic term to
above on $ r7), and v. zr. r: here also Rom. r- 3, 4 and Gal. 4. 4
include the particular. See also De Orat.23.
are referrJd to. Justin, Dial. roo, quotes Luke r. 35 obliquely,
ôrò xcxi rò yevvó¡.revov êf awfr5 üyróv Ëqnv [probably read t4 potius ir o"ly n TB; its omission would be almost but not
åyrov Ëarcxr] vïòg Oeoü, and immediately, without any special quite in Tertullian's suyle.
emphasis on the change of preposition, comments, xcì 6tà tcxvqS 20 se cecinit ipseCbristus. Certain of the Messianic psalms
yryÉruq-ot ofüo5. It seems unlikely that Tertullian's adversaries 2.7-rz) represent Christ as speaking ofhimself. Psalmzz.
(e.g. Ps.
claimed Justin as their authority.
9 and ro does not seem to be quoted by Tertullian elsewhere.
3 in hac specie: cf. infr. ad hanc syteciem. Species being the par-- Justin quotes and comments on the whole psalm, Dial. g8-to5,
ti"ol"r appliiation of afornø or rule of law, the phrase here will but with nothing bearing on the present subject. Colloquentem
-.* 'itt this case' or 'on this particular subject'. (Tn*s'¡ may be what Tertullian wrote: actually the psalm is a
5 The punctuation given in the text seems the best way of monologue, not a colloquy between the Son and the Father.
treating what othe.wise would be an awkward sentence. There z8 si adhaesit etc. The general meaning of the sentence is
is at least a pretence, throughout this and several other of Ter- clear, but its construction is difficult, and is not really improved
ftllian's works, that they are speeches addressed to a court: in by Kroymann's transference of ex utero to the end of the con-
such a case, asides are quite in order. See also below, sine dubío ditional clause. If the mood and tense of adhaesissef have any
quae hausit. significance, it can only be 'how should we be aware of its
6 nempe tatnen etc. This and the following sentence-to-gether adherence?' In the latter part ofthe sentence esl is too far from
mean that for the sake of our Present argument the difference auulsus to be naturally construed with it. At the risk of correcting
between in ea and ex ea ís of no great significance : the phrases the author himsel[ I should be disposed to write, quomodo ad-
could be used indiscriminately without ,affecting our main haesisset nisi, dum ex utero exit, per illum neruum umbilicarem quasi
contention. But the sentences are awkwardly expressed: their follicull sui traducem adnexus adhaeret origíni uuluae. Folliculus is a
meaning would be clearer if the author had written diceret... skin or bag: here it apparently means the caul: tradux is the
dixßset.-..fuerøt...erat, and again, quod in ea fuerat. C,onsonare horticultural term for a'Iayer' or shoot.
tr"niitirre verb is unusual: its subject here is perhaps the 30 etiam cum quid etc. The omission of aliquid and quasi,
", "
evangelist, or the angel of God, who 'when he says "in ler'', with some MSS., makes no difference to the meaning of this
at the same time gives expression to " of her "' : or possibly the sentence, but greatly improves its form. Kroymann's alterations
I72 ot] NOTES ÂND COMMENT.A,RY r73
NOTES ÂND COMMENTÀRY [*"
ere no improvement. Produx apparently occurs only here: its back to $r7, the beginning of this part of the discussion. Etiam
carnaliter meens 'even in physical origin and constitution, and
naffiral meaning is 'aftermath', which suits the present theme:
apart from any suggestion (which God forbid!) of actual sin':
traducem, of some MSS., is obviously due to confusion with the
for 'the flesh', that is, the animate body, is for the rest of mankind
previous sentence. Mutui coitus probably means nothing more
the breeding ground of sin, inheriting the corrupt nâture of fallen
recondite than 'interconnexion'. The point of the illustration is
humaniry.
that ifthings originally unconnected cennot, after being cemented
together, be taken apart again without force, and without one CH¿,PTER XXI
taking something away from the other, even more, in the case of
those so closely connected as mother and child, must the child at
The 'newness' of Christ's birth admittedly consisrs in his having
been conceived without the agency of a human father: but there
birth take something from his mother, and that by force. Hence
is nothing in our authorities to suggest that his mother also was
auulsisti in the psalm. But possibly auellere is too strong for the
Hebrew: Driver translates 'caused me to burst forth': LXX, é totally inactive in the matter-indeed there is very good evidence
èxorráocg.
to the contrary. The prophecy of Isaiah certainly contemplates
conception without human paternity: but this conception is
17 suspendentibus seems here to mean 'paying over', sub- stated to be for the purpose ofchfd-bearing, and as the conception
ministrantibu.s, but I know of no parallel case. At Scorp. 6, is the mother's act, so the child to be born is his mother's son. The
susytendere uotutn meens 'attach one's hopes': at De Anima 18, alternative (an impossible one) is that the'Word should conceive
suspendendae veritatis,'holding back the truth'. The rest of this and bear himself, that is, should convert himself into flesh: in
clause, as printed, is what Gelenius made of the various MS. which case the mother's part is otiose, and the prophecy loses its
readings: in mamillam, omitted by TB^e', may have originated point. So also do the words of the Annunciation to Mary, along
as a marginal note, or its omission may be due to confusion with
with every other Scripture which reGrs to the mother of Christ:
illam. among which is the salutation of Elisabeth who addresses Mary as
4r communicatione has an active sense:'of that which the 'the mother of my Lord' and says 'Blessed is the fruit of tþ
womb provided' or 'imparted to him': not 'of that which he womb'. Moreover (reverting to Isaiah) how can Christ be the
borrowed from the womb'. Operata vulua, with the other two fl.ower of the stem which comes forth from the stock of Jesse
participles, is evidently nominative, not ablative. @ae nisi unless he is in true physical descent fromJesse through David?
pariendo: I have presumed to write paríendo for the li/rS. habendo, He is the fruit of David's loins, which again postulates physical
which is meaningless, and could have been anticipation
a copyist's descent from David: and this can only be a fact if he is veritably
of habere in the next sentence. Kroymann retains habendo, and the son of Mary, herself descended from David.
writes quem for quae,leaving the sentence still meaningless.
4s quid fuerit etc. The meaning of the, sentence is perfectly
Of the scriptural texts quoted in this chapter, Luke r. 42, 43
it eppears not to be used elsewhere by Tertullian.
clear, though would be diflìcult to explain the syntax of nascendi,
except perhaps as a Graecism: órr pèu oûv &u eiq rò xcxrvòu èv Isaiah 7. 14 has already been referred to in $ 17 and will appear
XprorQ roû ëx ncxp0êuov yevuq0flvcxr npóXerpóv Ëorrv. Kroy- again in $23. At Adu. Marc. trt. 13 Tertullian writes: Sed et
mann's punctuation makes nonsense of the sentence, and his sug- uirgìnem, inquit (sc. Marcion), parere natura non ytatitur, et taffien
creditur prophetae. et merito. çtraestruxìt enim fdem incredibili rci,
gested alterations of the text are not Latin. If any alteration were
needed it would be the insertion of et after esset. Nouitaris looks rutionem edendo, quod in signo esset futura. Propterea, fuquit, dabit
 -T

NOTES ,{ND COMMENTÂRY Ixxr xx4 NOTES ÂND COMMENTÂRY 175

174
here it to mean'be essential'. I suspect that at the end of
seems
the sentence Tertullian \árote ut caro non ex semine lratd ex carfle
semine nata processerit.

7 ergo ut ipsius etc. The text given is that of f. All the other
authorities hæe Ergo ut ipsius fuit concepisse, ita ipsius est etc-
9 si verbum ex se etc.: that is, if the'Word converted himself
ytatre est, utique non est ex homine: si non et ex homine, superest
ut ex
-homine
sft ffi;fie: si ex homine, iam apparet quia ex uirgine""ceterurn

tatis in deum.
14 quomodo enirn etc. Kroymann's alterations of this sen-
tence are not convincing. There does however seem to be some-
thing wrong, and I should suggest reading, ...nisi quia in utero eius
fuit? (ut quid in utero) si nihil ex utero etc.
19-28 tacebit igitur etc. The punctuation of these sentences'
down to ipse erit etfructus?, is mine.

Dauid secundun Mariae cefi.sufit etian in uirga ex tadice lesse pro-

its more natural sense.

Before siquidem it to supply, at least in thought,
Through this chapter Kroymann's alterations seem not to need
33 is necessary
something hki non rccte (Adv. Prax. 3). Perhaps some such words
particular consideration. have fallen out: in which case the preceding sentence was a
question.
35 adhaerere is perhaps too 'close' a word for the Present con-
text: it is carried õn.t fto- the previous part of the discussion.
Pertinere would have been sufücient.
176 NOTES ^A,ND COMMENTARY Ixxu >oil] NOTES ÂND COMMENTÄRY 177

35 adeo: so T Kroy. The MSS. and early editions had deo,which impossible: I suspect we should rea;d dominurn Iesurn, for xúpre
is meaningless. Pamelius wrote ideo,whichgives the sense required. vtò5 Aapíô occurs at Matt. 2c.. 3c,, and again, after 'lr¡ooü uiÈ
But Tertullian regularly says adeo for ideo: see notes on SSz, t0. Acpíô at Luke 18. 38, we have rrlpre ivc &vcrpÀê'go ar verse 42.
38 in lumbis (at the end of the chapter): cf. Heb. 7. ro. There 4 commentator quoted by Lewis and Short
^ sense word,
rare
'wes no need for T to change in to ex: even on stylistic grounds,
from Appuleius in the ofinventor (omniunfalsorum), which
complete uniformity is inadvisable. is obviously not the meaning here: and from the jurists in the
sense of interpreter; which would serve here if by'the gospel'
Tertullian means not the written record but the whole act of
CHÂPTER XXII
God which the Gospel is. Or conceivably he means 'wrirer',
If the witness which devils bore to Christ as the Son of David is with the title of Caesar's work at the back of his mind.
not acceptable, there remain various testimonies of St Matthew
and of St Paul that he is the son of David, and through David 5 compotes evidently meens 'acquainted with': cf. De Pall. z,
quí uero diuinas lectitamus (sc. historias) ab ipsius nundí natalibus
also of Abraham. All these link up with the fact that he is the
cornpotes st4fnus,'are well informed' : Adu. Hermog. zz, si tantam
son of Marf, through whom he is descended from these, and
curam ínstructionís nostrae insunpsit spiritus saÍtctus ut scfuemus quid
through these from Adam. Thus he is the Second Adam, and his
unde Ttrocesserit, nonne proinde nos et de caelo et de terra com2totes
flesh can no more have been of spiritual origin and constitution
reddidisset sígnifcando unde ea esset operatus, si ãe aliqua materia origo
than was that of his forefathers.
constaret illorum? At De Anina 45, si conpotes somniaremus, there
seems to be a recollecdon ofthe standing phrase compotes mentis,'fut
The genealogies are not discussed by Tertullian elsewhere.
full possession of our faculties'.
Romans r.3, 4 is adduced Adu. Prax. z7: sic et açtostolus de utraque
eius substantia docet. @i factus est, inquit, ex semine Dauid: hic erit I ad Christi nativitatem is what Tertullian ought ro have
homo et flius hominis. @i defnitus est flius dei secundum spiritum: written, and for that reason may perhaps be an editorial correc-
hic eritdeus, et sermo deifilius. uidenus duplicem statun,non corfusumsed tion. z{ Christi natiuitate (all MSS. excepr T) would be true of
coniunctum in una persona, deum et honinern lesum. Galatians 3. 8, ró St Luke's genealogy, but not of St Matthew's.
is referred to Adv. Marc. v. 4,brt with no observations that bear
on our present subject : the same is true of the reference at De Pat.6.
ro inferens Christum, the reading of all the MSS., must evi-
dently stand: it should be construed closely with de uirgine, the
r deleant is concessive: the ellipsis of quamuis is sufiìcientþ intervening words being a partial correction. The reason for the
frequent to need no illustration. The testimonies that Jesus is the correction is that of course the flesh itself was not en active agent
Son of David were in fact not given by devils, but by aflicted either during the line of descent or at the Incarnation itself, as the
men asking for healing-Matthew 2c..3c., Mark ro. 47, Luke 18. less than accurately expressed beginning of the sentence might
38. Tertullian's memory has slipped, and cónfused these pessages have suggested: at the hrcarnation at least the divine 'Word, who
with such as Matt. 8. z9: Mark r.24,3. rr, s.7; Luke 4. 34, 4r, is Christ, wes the agent of his own incarnation. For the views of
where the testimony of devils is that he is Christ, the Son of God. Tertullian and others on this subject see my edition of Adu. Prax.,
r proclamantia. The genitive plural (T alone) may safely be Introduction, pages 6l-Z+. Proditur, the reading of all tvtss.
disregarded:it is an alteration even in T. Ad lesum, in the excePt T, would be grammatically tolerable: producitur (Tn*e'¡
majority of MSS., is more úficút-ad being grammatically is an obvious correction of some copyist who thought that
f2 E1
 -T
NOTES AND COMMENTARY IxxnI xxru] NOTES .A.ND COMMENTARY f79
f78
never a wife. Actually however she did become a wife, not at
the conception but at her delivery: that which remained closed
at the conception was opened at the nativity. Hence the expression
'every male that openeth the womb'-an event which, in the
sense really intended, actuaþ took place only on this single
occasion. Hence also St Paul's expression, 'born of a woman'.
Thus it appears that the text from Ezekiel wes not a prophecy
13 utique ipsius: i.e.,when St Paul says 'according to the flesh" of what actually was to happen, but was a warning against these
he means Chiist's flesh, not David's. people and the quibble they were going to invent. For the Holy
-We
t4 sed secundurn etc. gain nothing, and lose nothing' Spirit does not indulge ín that kind of ambiguity, but speaks
by following Kroymann in asigiing this sentence to a supposed clearly and directly, as in Isaiah, 'shall conceive and bear'.
objector.
The alleged quotation from Ezekiel is not from Ezekiel but
16 quod (bis) aPPears to be the relative Pronoun' apparently from some lost apocryphal writing. It was known to
2r sernine (Tn*e.¡ should almost certainly be restored: there is Clement of Alexandria, who writes as follows (Strom. vu. 93, 94):
nothing in Galatians 3.8 seqq. to suggest nomine'
It seems likely that the majority of people even now think that Mary is
24 nihilominus (T alone) accentuates the fact (which would be a puerpera, having become so through the birth of the Child: though
irr*y.ase)thitwhereas Galatians 3' r5, ró was cut out of the she isnot a puerpera, for there is a report current that after her confìne-
"1.",
Marcionite BibÍe (cf. Adu. Marc.v. r4), we have retainedit in ours. ment she was examined by a midwife and found to be a virgin. Now
the divine Scriptures we find are like that. They give birth to the truth
while conserving their virginiry, while they also conserve the mysteries
of the truth under a veil. The scripture says, 'She bare and bare not',
meaning that she conceived of her own initiative and not in con-
sequence ofmarital intercourse. This is why, for those who are gnostics,
the scriptures are pregnant, whereas the heresies through lack of
intelligence consider them barren and hold them ofno account.
whichit was created'. [It is to be observed that by 'gnostics' Clement does not mean
CH,A,PTBR XXItr Gnostics, but orthodox Christians of rather more than ordinary spiritual
intelligence.]
The expression is also quoted by Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 30,
where it appears that it was a heifer which bare and bare not:
but in later Greek õáucxÀrs can mean a girl. Apparently only
Tertullian ascribes the phrase to Ezekiel.
Ex eis quae sub hoc capitulo permisit sibi Septimius, vulvam
constabit haud ipsum uterum esse sed os eius externum: qua de re,
si ita curiosus sis, conferas quae scripserunt luvenalis, Martialis, et

in that she really was a mother, and'bare not'in that she was alü profani.
 -T
I8O NOTES AND COMMENTÀRY Ixxrv xxrv] NOTES A,ND COMMENTARY I8I
4 contraficitur. contfadicibile (T) seems to be an anticipation tion of the genealogies of Æons anterior to God, as well as the
åf *h", is writren below. The Greek ofluke z.34has the present Ebionite denial of Christ's divinity, and the claim made by
tense (&vtrÀeyó¡revov), Lat. vg. the future, cui contradicetur' Apelles that his particular theories were revealed by an angel.
Likewise St John strilces at these persons who deny that Christ
came in the flesh, as well as all those who divide Christ into two
persons of opposite or complementary characteristics. The inten-
tion of these last, when they allege that Christ who rose again is
not the seme as Christ who died, is to find support for their
further assumption that their o'wn resurrection will be in a
different flesh from this present. But, in fact, Christ who will
rz pepererit'was a marginal rygges-liolin the fìrst edition of come again is the same Christ that suffered, as they willfind, to
Rh.àttït, and has be.n adopted by atl editors until Kroymann' their cost, when he does come: and thus there is no truth in the
idea that at the present time Christ's body, with or without the
soul, is set aside like an empty scabbard with Christ himself with-
drawn.
r Kroymann is no doubt right in his suggestion that the subject
possible. of this sentence (and indeed of those that follow) is spiritus sanctus.
So read et alias, with T. [Kroymann's apparatus is ambiguous
regarding F.] Suggillatio is bruising: cf. Petronius rz8, nolì
suggìllare miserias,'don't hit a man when he's down'. Whether
we read the ablative or the accusative, it seems to be the accusative
means corpus, and idem is masculine.
that is intended. The metaphors are slightly mixed: iaculari
suggests a shooting match, suggíllatio a boxing match. The quota-
tion of Isaiah 5. 20 was suggested by the reference to it above,
$23: cf. Scorp. r, uae autem qui dulce in amarum et lumen in tenebras
conuertunt.

3 $ri nec vocabula etc: ista cot:J.d mean aníma, caro, detls;
ipsa (T) is probably right. On heretical methods in general, cf.
$r, licentia haeretica.

CHÀPTER XXTV 7 alio idipsum modo. This is what I make of the somewhat
confused MS. testimony. It has at least the advantage of being
good Latin and of being true.
ro The subject of respondit is sti1. spiritus sanctus: the quotation is
the direct object of the verb. So in the following sentence, with
dirígit.
r8z Norns .q'ND coMMENTÁ.RY Ixxrv xxv] NOTES AND COMMENTÂRY r83

13 filium probably got into the MSS. by confusion with Philu- the flesh of Christ. The first, that it did not rise again, and con-
sequently is not in heaven: which is the Valentinian view. The
mena, and L bettei ã*"y. Cf. De Praesc. Haet. 3o Apelles lz
s.cond, that Christ's flesh rose again, and is where Christ is,
alteram feninam impegit, íllam uirginen Philumenen...cuius energe-
At Diodorus continuing in unity of person with his deity: which is the doctrine
mate ciicumuentus quae ab ea didicit Phaneroses scripsit.
ñ. jr, Ëuepyf¡¡rcacx are the effects of Medea's magic: Philumena's of the Church. The third, that Christ's flesh rose again, but with
,rrig.*o seems to be not the effect of her possession, but the evil Christ abstracted from it-that is, out of union with the Word
and his divine nature. Of this last view there are three possible
rpitit (t.poted to be an angel) which possessed her.
ramifications, some imagining that the flesh abides alone in heaven
13 Before qui negat we must supply in thought cum dicit or without personal union, others that this is the case with flesh and
some such pht"t., to balance sicut et defniens, below: but it may soul together, and others again that the soul alone is in heaven.
not be t"ã.rr"ry (with Kroymann) to write it in the text'
Disceptatores appears to mean here those wÏo dispute 9r {eny
CHÀPTER XXV
its existence : for the tfue sense of the word see Cicero De Part.
Orat. 3. rc quid habes igitur de causa dicere? auditorum eaffi genere Thus we dispose of the Present subject. To have proved what
dßtingui: nam aut ourrultotu, est modo qui audit aut disceptator, í! est Christ's fleshìs, ought to have been enough to Prove also what it
rei sîntentiaeque moderator, ita ut aut delectetur aut statuat aliquid. In ís not: in spite of which, we have done more than was strictly
legal language a disceptator was a judge in a private suit. necessâry, controverting various erroneous opinions. Also, as
16 ipsum Christum unul:r' a reference to r Corinthians 8. ó, we observed at the beginning, the present work will serve as
and perhaps to the variant reading at r John 4. 3. preliminary matter for the discussion of our own resurrection'
*hi.h is to follow: for as it was Christ's flesh that rose again, so
t6 multiformis Christi argumentatotes could be the also will it be ours.
valentinians who conjecrured a fourfold christ. But the rest of
the sentence describes opinions or interpretations which more 3 citra...abundanti: I have marked this as parenthetic, so

properþ belong to othei forms of glosticism, from Cerinthus thet ut cufl, eo etc. completes the sense of suficere.
ä"*"tdt. All oithem began, or ended, by despising the flesh and 8 comrnonefaciat is Kroymann's excellent correction of the
denying its resurrection. MS. text.
zo ignobilem lacks anything to balance it: probably rcaá alium
ro resurrexetit is on Ciceronian principles syntactically correct,
nobilem alium ignobilem. and has better MS. support: resurrexitis what Tertullian would be
26 nec ipse esse etc., 'he can neither be, nor be seen to be, more likeþ to have written.
himself '.
28 Kroymann's insertion of inanem aftet uaginam is uncalled for'
The notå of Franciscus Junius, printed by Oehler, explains this
sentence perfectly: and there is probably t''o need to ask precisely
who we.e the persons responsible for the several iuggestions'
which are in any case outside the particular subject of the treatise,
assuming es they do that the flesh of Christ exists, and that it is
real. ¡uiius wrote: There are three possible opinions regarding
-T

INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE S

According to the pages of this edítion,

Genesis 53.2 39
2.7 rz4, r58 53.3 J3,55
3, r ór 53. I 164
3.f6 6t, t59 63.9 LXX 53
4.f 6r
r8. r II3 Jeremiah
18. 19 rr, 25, roo 17.9 LXX 53, 146, t48
19.I zs 3I. 15 92
zz. tB 75
Daniel
Exodus 2. 34 tz6
13.2 77 7. 13 53

Deuteronomy Zechan¡lt
32. 15 r42 r. f4 53
t2. ro 8r
Psalms 14. f4 124
2,7-r2 17r
8.6 5r, 55, tz6, Matthew
r49 t. t6 67
8.8 55 1.20 67,7r, t69
55, rz6, r49 r.23 7r, r57
22,9 69, r7t z. r-r8 7
22, ro 69 2. 17 92
4.4LXX f42 4.2-4 39
78.25 5.20 53
t32. rr 73,75 5. 37 77
7'17 35
Isaiah 8. z9 176
5,20 77,79, t9r ro. 32 19, ro8
7. 14 7, 59' 7r,i7, rz. I 53
79, r57, 12, 33 35
f73 rz, 46-5o rt7
8.14 tz6 tz, 48
g. S LXX 5r., r42 13. 54 37
II. I 73,75, r74 13. J5,56 29
4o. 18-25 roo t6. zt 39, r27
43. ro 79 16,27 57
45. 5,6 79 19. 3 29
53.2'r4 tz6 20.3O t76, r77
186 INDEX OF SCRIPTURÀL REFERBNCES INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES r87
Matthew (cont.) r'4. z6 I19 r Corinthians (cont.) r Timothy
2t. 33 jr r8. 38 176, r77 II.5 17r 2.5 53
25. 4r 49 20.36 II3 15, 4 17 4.ro r42
26.38 49 22.64 39 15. r7-f9 17
26. 4t 39 24.39 2t,157 f5. 27,28 J5 z Timothy
27. 30 39 r5. 45 59,75, r58 2.8 75
27, 56 3r Johtt rs. 47 35
f.. 12 65 r5.50 xlK Hebrews
Mark I. 13 63,65, t63, z. ¡6 r4r
f.24 t76 t64 Galatians
9. II 2f
3. II 176 f. 14 6t,65,67, r.8 23,79
3. 3r-35 rt7 79, 167 3. 8 176
r. 32-34 r3 r Peter
3. 33 2,7 3.16 75, 176
63, t6z, t63 67,77, t7o f, 23 55, r48, r58,
5'7 176 2.6 4.4
t67 167
6, z-4 29 3.7
57
8. 3r 39, f27 4.3 79 Philippians
8. ¡8 19, 57, ro8 4.24 Ø, t63 2.8 r5
ro. 47 f76 6.jr 49 3. 13 94 r John
14. 30 49 7.5 3r, t2o 3.20 r42 I. I rs7
14.38 39 7. 39 t63 t.2 47
I5. 19 39 8. 40 53 r Thessalonians 4.3 t8z
16. r 3r ro. r8 r4r J. 13
16. 19 57 tr., 5, f9,24, 39 3r
19. 37 8r
Luke
r. zÇ3o 7 Acts
I.3I 7r I. II 79
r. 35 6t, r43, t67, f. 14 r20
r.69, t7o 2 xvüi
r. 4f-44 7t 2,22 53
r. 42, 43 73' r73 2'30 73
2, t-f4 7,9r,92 3.19 xlx
z. zr-38 7 4.8 5, 83
2.22-24 92
2.34 r8o Romans
3'22 r3 r.3 75
3.23 29 r.3,4 r7o, 176
4'3t )oarx 6.6 55, r5r
4.34 176 8.3 57, r5r
4. 4r f76
6. 4l 35 r Connthrens
8. zo,2r 27, fil r.27 r5
9,22 39, r27 f'7
9.26 19, ro4, ro8 4.4 98
9.56 47 6. zo 15, ro5
to. 25 29 7, 23 r05
to. 27,28 JJ 8.6 79, t9z
fr.27 fr7, r2r ro. 16 r47
 -T

INDEX LOCORUM r89

De Ieiunio ü.4 II5
6 r42 ü.5 xl, xlü
INDEX LOCORUM r3 13I ii. 6 >orxvü, roocix,
t24
De Virgínibus Velanilís ü.9 xlü (år's), 85, 93,
6 f7f II3
r5 92 ii. rr rr5, r17, r59
Tertullianus [secundum ordinem librorum ab Oehlero dispositorum], ü. 19 142
De ldololatrìø Scorpíace
De Pallío ü. zz xl
r8 tz6 I r4r, 18r
f77 i, z3 r48
6 t72
i'27 t02
Apologetícum
De Pr ae s crip tione Haerc li cor um ì. zg 98
vü De Orulione lx
I I r57 6 tt4, r22 üi. 6 :oorix (brs)
97
t 135 23 17r 7 xxvr, Io5 tz6, r47, t49
2f 'Jt.7I
üi. 88, rro
ro8 92
4
86,97 De Patientía 3o rxv,x:o<i,87, l]r.9 IOr, rI2 Sq,,
9
IO I3I I r48 93, 94, 95, II5
r6 r29 J tz6 rr.4, r.82 UT. II :oo<i, ro4 (üls),
17 ro5, t36, r47 4 83 32 93, 95 I14
r8 6 t76 JJ 93 üi. 13 r24, f73
92
r9 34 :rxtli, tzz üi. 17 126, r49
94,97 De Bdptismo
2f vü, vüi, 93, 38 94 üi. 19 r42
3 f24
tzg (bis)
4 f39 Aibersus Marcìonem iv. r 174
25 r29
5-8 t66 sq. lx rv' 94,95
3r I3I 4
I3r 1 9r iv.6 13I
35 97, Ail Uxorcm 1. I lorv, 94, 95, iv.7 89, 9r (års),
39 98 r,I II3 97 r69
47 t2s i.z 86, rzo
r47 1,2 )crvt lV. IO r54, r74
48
rz9 (bîs) i.3 :oo<ix, xli, rv. r5 83
49 D e Exhoilatì one C as tí tatí s
r29, t6S 87' gg iv. 19 xl, rr7 (åís),
5o I f39 i.4 roo rrB s4., rzo
lr3 i.6 rorvi, 87, 99, LY.20 r04
Ail Nationes na (bß)
vrl
5 I3I iv. zr 89, r49
8 86
1. I 13I 1,7 xli, r38 iv. z6 rt7, fzr
Lt. 2 r25 i. rr 98, roz iv. 3z t22
De Monogamìa
tt4
i.t4 r04 iv. 4o-42 ro7
De Testímonio Anìmae
3
6 92
i¡5 )ooüx, 9I
vll d,
i. 16 95 v,2 94
t' 92 i. 19 >orvüi, :orix, v.4 >oo<, 176
2-4 n6 IO to7
90, 9r v.5 ro5
r6 tr4 L.2T v.ó
De Corcna Militis 93,94 9o
4 r4r De Pudícítia i. zz )oofl¡u v.8 f74
ro I3I r42
i,z4 xli v. ro t23
II 86,92 89
t.29 :o<ix, 86, ro5 v. 14 r50, rJ2
9
r3 r07 t7 r24
v.20 84, 89, r4r,
IS 174 11. I 84, roz r47, t48
2T 94, r47
 -T
r90 INDEX LOCORUM INDEX LOCORUM I9I
Adrersus Hetmogenem De Anima Cicero (cont.) Horatius
l>r, )Oal 3 93 De Inuentione Carmind
r9 93 9 )or1, r3o r.4. 19 x u. zg. 46
22 r77 t4 r05 L. 15, 20 xi
43 )oa(v r8 t72 r. 3r. r43 X
4S 13I 23 >oorü, rzz i. tg.79 x Irenaeus
24 r4r Topka Ailuersus Haereses

33 83 97 ix. 88
Aduersus Valentfuíanos 135 (úis), 13ó De Oratore i. praef. U6
¡8
ix, 88
45 177 i. rg.77 sqq. r. Í.7 r22
r20 t29 Pro Flacco I. T, T7
58
t4 r.22
32.78 [1. II. 12 r56
t6 II3 Aduenus Praxean De Lege Agraúa üi. r7. r t65
t7 ro7 Y111, I77 i. 17. 46 r09 üi.17.3 r42
25 146, 165
2 II5 iü. z. j r09 üi. r8. z r47
z6 r28 Í75 üi. z. 8 r09 t]i.. zo. z r47, 164
J
ro7, tz9 rt6, tz4 Pto Mílone tn.2I.2 I5I
7
8 t25 2r. 57 84 üi. 3r. r 155, r70
II tro, r24 Pro Murena ttt. 3L 2 f69
De Carne Christi iv. r4
r3 98, rrr 8. 18 8ó II3
)o<1
r4 II3 Philippica tY. 55.2 r47
I )odx, )ood,
v. r.3
r46 z6 r67 n, 17, 42 I2I 164
26, ?,7 tß, t69 x.7. 15 IIO Y.2f I5J
)o(v
vrl, I33, vrl,99, Io9, x.9. 18 IIO
3
rz4, 16z, Pro Roscío Comoedo
r45 Iustinus Martyr
4 83
176 4,ro 97
Apologia
>o<vü 3o 99, rr9 De Naturø Deorum
J
i. tg. r03
i. z6 )o(v
3r r46 49
6 84 i.¡¡ r6r
7 tx, rs2 Clemens Alexandrinus t, 44 r25
)oo<ü Aduersus Iuilaeos
8
t66 Sîrofiata i.s8 xxv
t4 r39 J
vü. s¡, g+ 179 Díølogus
r5 viü, r5r 9 rya (bß)
35 )o(v
83, r4r r4 126, t47
t7 Demosthenes 63 164
Phílìppíca
,{ppuleius
r. 40 r09
De Resunectione Cdmis Metamorphoses
Iuvenalis
vü, xi, xxi ix.4 r29 Diodorus Siculus Satira
4 84, 8J i*. zj r36 Bibliotheca vl. I 83
t r22 rv. 5r r8z
t2 13I ,{thenagoras
t7 r35, r48 Supplícaiío Epiphanius Novatianus
r8 13I 9 t25 Haercses De Trinitate
22 III De Resurteetíone )ooc. 30 179 IO 83, 9r
36 II4 xxi
40 r35 Hippoþtus
46 IJI Cicero Philosophumena Ovidius
47 r42 De Paflibus Orationís vi 88 Metamorphoses
49 t23 3. ro r8z vü. 38 87 í.8o sqq. 125
 -T

r92 INDEX LOCORÜM

Petronius Arbiter Historiae
Sati¡ae i. z6 89
78
tzB
r36
r8r
i.z7
ü. ¡s
IIO
IIO
INDEX VERBORUM LATINORUM
i.gz IIO
Qintilianus
Inst¡îut¡o Oratoría Tatianus
Oratìo ail Graecos Secwrdum capitula et lineas huius editionis.
rv. J. 15 96
v.6. z g6 4o 125 ex abundanti ü. z9; :ocv. 6 circulatorius coetru v. óo
xü. ¡. 6 85 accusare iv.3 circumferre xüi. 33
Theophilus adaequare vüi. 36; xvi. rB (u.1.) circumvenire v. 57
Ail Autolycum ad¿mate iv. zz coagulare iv. 17
Stobaeus
i.t4 725 adeo (:ideo) vü. ¡¡; >rvi. S coagulum iv. 5; xvi. 33;Àx. zo sq.
Eclogae
i. pag.73o ro3 admittere i. 16; vüi. ro coge¡e vrl.25
Virgilius adulterator xix.3 cogitatus xiv, r9
Ecloga
aedificatorius xvü. z9 commentator >ocü. 4
Tacitus x. 36 aemulatio iv. 44 commercium vü.49
Annales
aemulus xrrri. z7 comminius (adu.) xn.4
i.r r47 Pseudo-Iustinus aeonum genealogiae rociv. 9 commonefacere (coøj.) :orv. 8
vi. 5r 97 Quaestiones, ete, aliqui (:¿¡qris) ix. 3r communicare xüi. ra
xIN. I 89 r33 r55 aliter ii.24, z5; iv. 16; vi. zz compârare vD7.30,32
alteruter rüi. +, S compendium üi.4
ancepsdefensio :o<üi. 15 competere ü. z4; vi. 4o; vü. 3 3 ; vüi.
animalis x, xi passim;xü. 37; xiü. 3r; 8;xi.3r; xvüi. zó, z8;xix. 5
rrv. 15 conca¡nare )oa.3I
apostolicus ii. 15 conceptus (søús.) i. zr;i.z; >od. rr,
arbiter xü. zr; >o<iv. r9 13; loan. 7
arbitrium üi. r concþere vi. 47
arcanum semen xix. 6 condesertor i. r8
e¡gumentari vi. rz;vü.z6;rñ. r condicio vi.7z;viI.. ó8; ix. z4; xi. 38
argumentatio vi. zr; xi. r; xvü. r; condiscipulus i. 18
>orv. J conditio üi. z8; v.4r; xviü. ¡¡; >orü.
argumentetor :oriv. r7 J2
auctoritas ü. 14 configere ro<iv. z5
audientia vü. ó7 confiteri i. r8
avocator v. óz confundi v.20 sqq,
confusio v. zz
de calcaria in carbonariam vi. 4 congressio xvü. 4; >orv. 4
calor xix. 19 congruere xvüi. zr
capitulum vüi. r; xix. z congnrentius (adu.) xt. 3r
camalis vii. 78; x. x. passim; oi. lZ; conluctari üi.37
xüi. 3r; xvü.37; >orü.5 conscienti¿ üi. rr, 15, 16
cameus iv. 4z; v. 39; x, x, passim consequens est )o<ü. 3r
causa vi. z8 sqq.; x. 4; Åv. z sqq,; consonare >o<. 8
xix. 33 s4.; roci. zo; >ocü. 5 constantius (adu.) 13
censura iv.33 ',t. zo; xvü.
constare vü. 35; vüi. 5
census ü. 5; v. 38; vüi. zr; xvi. 3; contendere vü. r,58
xvü. a6 contradicibilis >orüi. 7
r3 ET
 -T

INDEX VERBORUM LÂTINORUM r95

t94 INDEX VERBORUM LÂTINORUM
contristare ü. rr ethnicus ßr. 24 sqq. impossibilis ä. z sq.; iv. r;v. z6 neevus xvi.25
contumelia iv. 43; v. r evecuare xír pa-ssim; xxi rz imprecari xü. z5 nature äi. 2,7i iv. g, 12' 42; vi. 50, 58;
convenire xi. r; xiv, 3z exaggeranter xix.24 impressius (adu.) w. 14 xiv. r8; *ti. tz, 19, zz
conversio ttt. 24, 34; iv. 37 examinare i. 8 inconveniens üi. z nâturalia þ1.) xü. t3
inconvertibilis üi. z3 (conp.) vä,
convertere ä. zt, z3 sqq'; ví' 6z sq.; excïdere ü, zo necessarius 55

ix. 9; xvi. 3r excludere xvü. 16 incorporalis À. t4, zr, zB noctibus (:noctu) ü. ó

convertibilis üi.25 excutere vü.62 inculcare v. 15 notitia xi. 33; xü. 15

corporalis i.8 exhibere ü. 14; üi. r8; iv. z4; v. 38; incnrsus x-tli. z4 nudus homo xiv. 3z
corporaliter xü.34 vi. j7; xi. 4; Ãi. 34 inducere v'ttt, zz; x' z7
existimatio üi. r3 s4. induere u, rg,4z; iv. 3z; xi. 38; xiv. obducere xix. 3
corporâre ü. zz; vi. 3t
exitus üi. 34; xvüi. 8 27i8/1.3 oblatio (r.1. obligatio) ü. ro
corporatio iv.2
corpulentia üi.39 expedire úv. 16 indignius (adj.) v.t obtinere iii. 3r; vi. z6
credens (saús.) xvüi. z8; xix. expiare xvü. r7 inferre v. S7;vi. z, z5; :ocü. ro opinio üi.8,45
5
explicabilis xvi. z7 informare xv, t8 otdo i, zz
exstructorius xvü. 3o infringere vi.7r originalia instrumenta ü. rz
decurrere üi.5
dedicator xvü. ro extere xv. 19 ingenium vii.39
defectus (adj.) x-r.32 ingerere v. 14 P^Î rlr.27,32
defendere xv.ü. zó fascinare ü. rz iniuria üi. rj paratura vüi.8
fetígarc i.7 inquietare i. z pârëre, pãrëre xvü. 35
defensio viü. 4
fìducia üi. rJ insolescere iv. 6 passio v. 2,8, 43 sqq.; tx. z9
definitive xvüi. z3
fìgere (:6¡uçfigere) v. z5 instruere vi. z5 peccatrix (adj. Jen.) x.ti Passím
deicere iv. r9
figulare ix. 5 instrumentum vi. 20 penes iv.46
deliniare vü.77
figura vü. 74; vtr1. 13; ix. intercþere üi. 5z percutere vü,6r
demutare vi. 64; íx. 4 9
deputare v¡. zg;ttv, z3 figurare xvü. r8 interfector v. rr perinde v. 44 et saepíus

desertor i. 17 ûlia uteri caro >oci. 18 interfìcere üi. 5o perseverare ili.3t,4z

fo¡ma vi. 36; x. 16; xvi. r introducere i. 19 personâ vü. 3o; xi. z7
desídëre üi.48
despumatio xix. zo formalis xix. 15 invehi iv. 8 phantasma i. zo; íií. 43; v' 9' 15'

destinare xv. rz f¡aternitas vü.2¡, ZB 5r sq.

frequentari vü.49 licentia haeretica i. 15 possessio xiü. rr

destruere i. 7; v, 18
deus inferior üi. licere üi. r; vi. 18; vü.34; xv' r praecedens erat vi. 38
39
genus vi. 5r, 66; vii. 78; xüi. 13, :6; linea xvü.4 praecinere vi. ro
dimidiare v.46
vi. r xvi. 8 liquere xvü.6 praefortis v,4o
discentes (søbs.)
disceptator xxiv. 15 gesterecarnem v. 4, 48i vi. 5o; vüi. ludibria (pl.) iv. t8 praeiudicare i. 6; vü. 2; #1' 7
praeiudicium vi. z
disciplina vi. 6 34i x. 14 sqq.
marun vi.7o praelatio vü.67
dispositio tti, 7z; z¡í,38; xvüi' 12 animam xüi. 33
angelum xrr. t sqq. materia vi. 13, sqq.)tt'i' 6, zo, 43; praenuntiare ü. 14
dispungere v.4z 55
gestire xi.34 v'tjl^,23, z6;ix.31xvi. rz; rocv. r praescribere iv. 33; vi. z6
distrahere i' 4
diversitas üi. 3o; vi. gloriosus xiv. 34 cum maxime vü. 55 praescrþtio ü, z8; xv. 13
43
grammaticus :o<. rz medicare xix. zr praesentia vü.38
divinitas vü. 36
dubitative nrüi. 3z merito i. 3; i. r7i iv, zt in praesentia vü. 38
habere (:debere) vi.34' 39 meritum vü. 67 mali vüi. 6
praeses

efiìgies üi. 34; xü. z8 habitus (søús.) vi.45 minorare xv. z9 pnestare (tratts.) ijií. 6l iv. z5 et
electus xix,6 homo äi. 19; xvii. z6; xttä. 9 sqq' ministrare xü. ró saepius

elementum iv. 4 honorare iv.9 miscere (hominem deo mixtum) xv. praestructio :c<v.9
praestruere i. I
eludere i. z3 34
imaginarius v. ro; xv, morari i. a praesumere üi. ro; iv. 40; x. rr
emendicare ix. 19 15
imago v. 5r; xvi. r5 mortalitas :u.t. 36, praetendere vüi. 5; ix. r
energema )oív. 12 46
erreticus vüi. rr imbuere xix. 8 multiformis :oriv. 16 Praeter (:5i¡¡s) v. 6o
 -T I

Í96 IND¡X VERBORUM L¡q,TINORUM INDBX VERBORUM LATINORUM r97

privilegium xv. r satelles xiv. rr torquere xv[.2 vacua ludibria v, ro
procedere vi. 18, z9; v:i, z4;x. tz scriptura vü. r5, zo; xvüi. 18;:ori. 14 tortuosltas >oa. r veneratio iv. 12
prodire :ocü. ro sementis xvü. zo tradux ix. rz; ro<. 3o; >o<ü. 9 veritas vi. zS;vid.. zi vüi, z; ix.6
produx ror.33 sensualis xü. 8 s4. transfigurabil-is vi. 5z vinitor xiv. zz
proferre üi, 53; iv. 17 sensus iv. 3J; v. 58; vrj. 79;xi 8 sqq.; v[tutes v.43
pronuntiatio vü.7 x]/1,27; xv[. 7; xrx. 25 uterus vi. 18; vü. 8o; nr, ú, saepíus viviûcare xvü. z3
propheticus :ocüi, r sententialiter xvüi. z3 utique üi.33 volutare iv. 43; 't:j. z6
proprietas v.4r; ix.4; xüi. ro; roci. sequens (:secundus) ;5--.t1¡. zz vulva xvü. ¡8; xix. 24sqq.;xxpassim;
32; )aûv. 4 sidereus vi.68; xv. 15 vacare v. 9; vii. 39; x.'tli. z4; xvüi. 6; )o.üi
provocare vü,6 simplex v. 56; xüi. zr; xvüi. r )oar. Io
tam proximi vü. 5z simplicitas vü. 44; rorü. 3r
pulsare :ociv, 9 simpliciter xix. 3r; :or. 15
Putahvus 1. 19 singularis xiv. rz
singularitas xüi. zo
quaerere 1,9 singulariter xix. ro
quaestio v:i.25, z8 soliditas üi. jj; xüi. zo
quaestiones i. 4; x. z+ solidus v. 4gi,ri. 7
qualitas i. ro; vi. 13, 67; ix, 8, ro; sollicitare vüi.6
lo1. II; )o11. IO,2J; xVU, 7;Ãx.34 sortn xr1. 12, 17
quo (:quanto) üi. r¡ species äi. 47;ix.7; xi.3r; xüi.3o,
quotidianus xiv. 37 37; xx. 3
spiritalis i. 9; .rr.
39; vi. 5o; xv. z;
ratio ä. 3o; vü, 4Si xt. 29i xü. zo; xvä. 16; xx.7,35
xiv. r; xvi. 4; xvü. 9, z6;xttä. tz¡, spi¡itus [dei] y. 37, 42 sqq.) vü. n,
Æ.47 z8 sqq.; xrv, z9; xv. 20; xvü. z3;
rationalis xü, t7 sq. x.vtil., Åx pøssim
recensere >o<i. 33 spiritus [hominis] vi. 7
receptrssrmus )o<, 19 sP[rtus sanctui )oax. 30
reformare iv. z7; tçt:i, t6 status iü. zo; ü. zt:, x-ti. 7
regeneratio iv. z8 subducere üi.54
regula vi. zo subire xi. z; xti. zg
religiosus iv.9 substantia i. 8; üi. Jo; v. 38; vi. 16, jo,
reluminare iv, z9 58, 66; vüi. 7,2r,27 sqq,; ix. t7;
renuntr¿tro r. rr xäi. zo, 24, 36; xv. 4, 14, 3o; xvi.
repercutere viìi.8 rz; xvü. 6; xvüi. 3r sqq.; xtx.
reprobare üi.8 17 sqq,
reputare iü. 15 suffigere v. 5
rescindere i passim; v. 8 sufundere v. z9
resistere üi.46 suggestus xvi.8
testimonium respondere i. 14 suggillatio >o<iv. r
respuere vü. r superficies rä. z8
retexere )Õ1,20 suscitatio :o<üi. 3
retractare i. ro; >ocüi. z6 suspendere >o<,37
retro ä. 20 et søep¡us sustinere ni. t3, t7; vlf^. 54
syllogismus xvii. r
saecularis iv,44
'saeculum v. 7 tantum ü. rd
salutiûcator xiv. 13 ad tempus vi. 5z