The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325
ANTE-NICENE FATHERS
VOLUME 3.
Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian
I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical
Edited by
Allan Menzies, D.D.
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
LATIN CHRISTIANITY:
ITS FOUNDER, TERTULLIAN
THREE PARTS: I. APOLOGETIC; II. ANTI-MARCION; III. ETHICAL.
——————————
AMERICAN EDITION.
Τὰ ἀρχαῖα ἔθη κρατείτω.
The Nicene Council
Preface.
————————————
We present a volume widely differing, in its contents, from those which have gone before; it contains the works of the great founder of Latin Christianity, the versatile and brilliant Tertullian. Not all his works, indeed, for they could not be contained in one of our books. This book, however, considerably overruns the promised number of pages, and gives three complete parts of Tertullian’s writings, according to the classification of our Editor-in-chief. The Fourth volume will begin with the fourth class of his works, those which exhibit our author’s ascetic ideas and the minor morals of the Primitive Christians, that collection being closed by the four treatises which were written in support of a defined and schismatical Montanism.
The Editor-in-chief has been in active correspondence with representative men of divers theological schools, hoping to secure their co-operation in editorial work. As yet, however, the result has not enabled us to announce more than one additional collaborator: the rapidity with which the successive volumes must be furnished proving an almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of securing as co-workers, divines actively engaged in professional duties and literary tasks. The sympathy and encouragement which have been expressed by all with whom a correspondence has been opened, have been most cheering. To the Rev. Dr. Riddle, of Hartford, well known as one of the most learned of the AmericaHærn Revisers of the New Testament, we are indebted for his consent to edit one of the concluding volumes of the Series, accompanying it with a Bibliographical Review of the entire Literature of the Patrologia of the Ante-Nicene period: supplying therein a compendious view of all the writers upon this period and of the latest critical editions of the Ante-Nicene authors themselves. The editor-in-chief will continue his annotations and the usual prefaces, in Professor Riddle’s volume, but will be relieved, in some degree, of the laborious and minute attention to details which earlier volumes have necessarily exacted.
It is needful to remind the reader that he possesses in this volume what has long been a desideratum among divines. The crabbed Latin of the great Tertullian has been thought to defy translation: and the variety and uncertain dates of his works have rendered classification and arrangement almost an equal difficulty. But here is the work achieved by competent hands, and now, for the first time, reduced to orderly and methodical plan. We have little doubt that the student on comparing our edition with that of the Edinburgh Series, will congratulate himself on the great gain of the arrangement; and we trust the original matter with which it is illustrated may be found not less acceptable.
Tertullian.
————————————
Part First.
Introductory Note.
————————————
[a.d. 145–220.]
When our Lord repulsed the woman of Canaan
(
Thus the North-African Church was loved before it was born: the Good Shepherd was gently leading those “that were with young.” Here was the charter of those Christians to be a Church, who then were Canaanites in the land of their father Ham. It is remarkable indeed that among these pilgrims and strangers to the West the first elements of Latin Christianity come into view. Even at the close of the Second Century the Church in Rome is an inconsiderable, though prominent, member of the great confederation of Christian Churches which has its chief seats in Alexandria and Antioch, and of which the entire Literature is Greek. It is an African presbyter who takes from Latin Christendom the reproach of theological and literary barrenness and begins the great work in which, upon his foundations, Cyprian and Augustine built up, with incomparable genius, that Carthaginian School of Christian thought by which Latin Theology was dominated for centuries. It is important to note (1.) that providentially not one of these illustrious doctors died in Communion with the Roman See, pure though it was and venerable at that time; and (2.) that to the works of Augustine the Reformation in Germany and Continental Europe was largely due; while (3.) the specialties of the Anglican Reformation were, in like proportion, due to the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian. The hinges of great and controlling destinies for Western Europe and our own America are to be found in the period we are now approaching.
The merest school-boy knows much of the history of Carthage, and how the North Africans became Roman citizens. How they became Christians is not so clear. A melancholy destiny has enveloped Carthage from the outset, and its glory and greatness as a Christian See were transient indeed. It blazed out all at once in Tertullian, after about a century of missionary labours had been exerted upon its creation: and having given a Minucius Felix, an Arnobius and a Lactantius to adorn the earliest period of Western Ecclesiastical learning, in addition to its nobler luminaries, it rapidly declined. At the beginning of the Third Century, at a council presided over by Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage, there were present not less than seventy bishops of the Province. A period of cruel persecutions followed, and the African Church received a baptism of blood.
Tertullian was born a heathen, and seems to have
been educated at Rome, where he probably practiced as a jurisconsult.
We may, perhaps, adopt most of the ideas of Allix, as conjecturally
probable, and assign his birth to a.d. 145. He
became a Christian about
It seems to be the fashion to treat of Tertullian as a Montanist, and only incidentally to celebrate his services to the Catholic Orthodoxy of Western Christendom. Were I his biographer I should reverse this course, as a mere act of justice, to say nothing of gratitude to a man of splendid intellect, to whom the filial spirit of Cyprian accorded the loving tribute of a disciple, and whose genius stamped itself upon the very words of Latin theology, and prepared the language for the labours of a Jerome. In creating the Vulgate, and so lifting the Western Churches into a position of intellectual equality with the East, the latter as well as St. Augustine himself were debtors to Tertullian in a degree not to be estimated by any other than the Providential Mind that inspired his brilliant career as a Christian.
In speaking of Tatian I laid the base for what I
wished to say of Tertullian. Let God only be their judge; let us
gratefully recognize the debt we owe to them. Let us read them, as we
read the works of King Solomon. We must, indeed, approve of the
discipline of the Primitive Age, which allowed of no compromises. The
Church was struggling for existence, and could not permit any man to
become her master. The more brilliant the intellect, the more
dangerous to the poor Church were its perversions of her
Testimony. Before the heathen tribunals, and in the
market-places, it would not answer to let Christianity appear
double-tongued. The orthodoxy of the Church, not less than her
children, was undergoing an ordeal of fire. It seems a miracle
that her Testimony preserved its unity, and that heresy was branded as
such by the instinct of the Faithful. Poor Tertullian was cut off by
his own act. The weeping Church might bewail him as David mourned for
Absalom, but like David, she could not give the Ark of God into other
hands than those of the loyal and the true. I have set the writings of
Tertullian in a natural and logical order Elucidation I.
Let it be borne in mind, that if this sad close of
Tertullian’s career cannot be extenuated, the later history of
Latin Christianity forbids us to condemn him, in the tones which
proceeded from the Virgin Church with authority, and which the law of
her testimony and the instinct of self-preservation forced her to
utter. Let us reflect that St. Bernard and after him the Schoolmen,
whom we so deservedly honour, separated themselves far more absolutely
than ever Tertullian did from the orthodoxy of Primitive Christendom.
The schism which withdrew the West from Communion with the original
seats of Christendom, and from Nicene Catholicity, was formidable
beyond all expression, in comparison with Tertullian’s
entanglements with a delusion which the See of Rome itself had
momentarily patronized. Since the Council of Trent, not a theologian of
the Latins has been free from organic heresies, compared with which the
fanaticism of our author was a trifling aberration. Since the late
Council of the Vatican, essential Montanism has become organized in the
Latin The notes of Dr.
Holmes were bracketted, and I have been forced to remove this feature,
as brackets are tokens in this edition of the contributions of American
editors. The perpetual recurrence of brackets in his translations has
led me to improve the page by parenthetical marks instead, which answer
as well and rarely can be mistaken for the author’s
parentheses, while these disfigure the printer’s work much
less. I have sometimes substituted italics for brackets, where an
inconsiderable word, like and or for, was bracketted by
the translator. In every case that I have noted, an intelligent reader
will readily perceive such instances; but a critic who may wish to
praise, or condemn, should carefully compare the Edinburgh pages with
our own. I found them so painful to the eye and so needlessly annoying
to the reader, that I have taken the responsibility of making what
seems to me a very great typographical improvement.
From Dr. Holmes, I append the following
Introductory Notice: (I.) Concerning Tertullian;
(II.) Concerning his Work against Marcion, its date, etc.; (III.)
Concerning Marcion; (IV.) Concerning Tertullian’s Bible; (V.)
Influence of his Montanism on his writings.
(I.) Quintus Septimius Florens
Tertullianus, as our author is called in the mss. of his works, is thus noticed by Jerome in his
Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum: We quote Bishop
Kaye’s translation of Jerome’s article; see his Account
of the Writings of Tertullian, pp. 5–8. Adv. Parmenianum,
i. Chap. ii. Eccl. Hist., ii.
2. Valesius, however, supposes
the historian’s words τῶν μάλιστα
ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης
λαμπρῶν to mean, that
Tertullian had obtained distinction among Latin writers. See De Præscript.
Hæretic. xxx. De Pœnitentia,
i. Hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus, cæci, sine Domini
lumine, naturâ tenus norunt; De Fuga in Persecutione,
vi. Nobis autem et via nationum patet, in quâ et inventi
sumus; Adv. Marcionem, iii. 21. Et nationes, quod sumus
nos; Apolog. xviii. Hæc et nos risimus
aliquando; de vestris fuimus; also De Spectac.
xix. [Kaye, p. 9. A fair view
of this point.] These notes of Bishop Kaye
may be found, in their fuller form, in his work on Tertullian, pp.
8–12.
(II.) Tertullian’s work against
Marcion, as it happens, is, as to its date, the best
authenticated—perhaps the only well
authenticated—particular connected with the author’s life.
He himself Book i., chap. xv. Jerome probably took this
date as the central period, when Tertullian “flourished,”
because of its being the only clearly authenticated one, and because
also (it may be) of the importance and fame of the Treatise against
Marcion. So Clinton, Fasti
Romani, i. 204; or 208, Pamelius, Vita Tertull. In his treatise, De
vera ætate ac doctrina script. Tertulliani, sections 28,
45.
De Præscript.
Hæret. xxx. Comp. Adv.
Marcionem, iv. 4. I., Adv.
Hæret. xlii. 1. Dr. Burton’s
Lectures on Eccl. Hist. of First Three Centuries, ii.
105–109.
(IV.) It is an interesting question as to what
edition of the Holy Scriptures Tertullian used in his very copious
quotations. It may at once be asserted that he did not cite from the
Hebrew, although some writers have claimed for him, among his varied
learning, a knowledge of the sacred language. Bp. Kaye observes, page
61, n. 1, that “he sometimes speaks as if he was acquainted with
Hebrew,” and refers to the Anti-Marcion iv. 39, the
Adv. Praxeam v., and the Adv. Judæos ix. Be this as
it may, it is manifest that Tertullian’s Scripture passages never
resemble the Hebrew, but in nearly every instance the Septuagint,
whenever, as is most frequently the case, that version differs from the
original. In the New Testament there is, as might be expected, a
tolerably close conformity to the Greek. There is, however, it must be
allowed, a sufficiently frequent variation from the letter of both the
Greek Testaments to justify Semler’s suspicion that Tertullian
always quoted from the old Latin version, Or versions. Tertullianus.
(V.) Whatever perverting effect Tertullian’s
secession to the sect of Montanus Vincentius Lirinensis, in
his celebrated Commonitorium, expresses the opinion of Catholic
churchmen concerning Tertullian thus: “Tertullian, among
the Latins, without controversy, is the chief of all our writers. For
who was more learned than he? Who in divinity or humanity more
practised? For, by a certain wonderful capacity of mind, he attained to
and understood all philosophy, all the sects of philosophers, all their
founders and supporters, all their systems, all sorts of histories and
studies. And for his wit, was he not so excellent, so grave, so
forcible, that he scarce ever undertook the overthrow of any position,
but either by quickness of wit he undermined, or by weight of reason he
crushed it? Further, who is able to express the praises which his style
of speech deserves, which is fraught (I know none like it) with that
cogency of reason, that such as it cannot persuade, it compels to
assent; whose so many words almost are so many sentences; whose so many
senses, so many victories? This know Marcion and Apelles, Praxeas and
Hermogenes, Jews, Gentiles, Gnostics, and divers others, whose
blasphemous opinions he hath overthrown with his many and great
volumes, as it had been thunderbolts. And yet this man after all, this
Tertullian, not retaining the Catholic doctrine—that is, the old
faith—hath discredited with his later error his worthy
writings,” etc.—Chap. xxiv. (Oxford trans. chap.
xviii.) Neander’s
introduction to his Antignostikus
should be read in connection with this topic. He powerfully delineates
the disposition of Tertullian and the character of Montanism, and
attributes his secession to that sect not to outward causes, but to
“his internal congeniality of mind.” But, inasmuch as
a man’s subjective development is very much guided by
circumstances, it is not necessary, in agreeing with Neander, to
disbelieve some such account as Jerome has given us of Tertullian
(Neander’s Antignostikus, etc.
Bohn’s trans., vol. ii. pp. 200–207).
To this introduction of Dr. Holmes must be added that of Mr. Thelwall, the translator of the Third volume in the Edinburgh Series, as follows:
To arrange chronologically the works (especially if numerous) of an author whose own date is known with tolerable precision, is not always or necessarily easy: witness the controversies as to the succession of St. Paul’s epistles. To do this in the case of an author whose own date is itself a matter of controversy may therefore be reasonably expected to be still less so; and such is the predicament of him who attempts to perform this task for Tertullian. I propose to give a specimen or two of the difficulties with which the task is beset; and then to lay before the reader briefly a summary of the results at which eminent scholars, who have devoted much time and thought to the subject, have arrived. Such a course, I think, will at once afford him means of judging of the absolute impossibility of arriving at definite certainty in the matter; and induce him to excuse me if I prefer furnishing him with materials from which to deduce his own conclusions, rather than venturing on an ex cathedra decision on so doubtful a subject.
I. The book, as Dr. Holmes has reminded
us, Introductory Notice
to the Anti-Marcion, pp. xiii., xiv.
2. Another book which promises to give some clue
to its date is the de Pallio. In the end of Chapter
Second. Eccl. Hist. illust.
from Tertullian’s Writings, p. 36 sqq. (ed. 3, Lond.
1845). See Kaye, as above. Antignostikus, p. 424 (Bohn’s tr., ed.
1851). See See
3. The date of the Apology, however, is
perhaps at once the most contested, and the most strikingly
illustrative of the difficulties to which allusion has been made.
It is not surprising that its date should have been more
disputed than that of other pieces, inasmuch as it is the best known,
and (for some reasons) the most interesting and famous, of all our
author’s productions. In fact, the dates assigned to it by
different authorities vary from Mosheim’s 198 to that suggested
by the very learned Allix, who assigns it to 217. Here, again, our limits
forbid a discussion; but the allusion to the Rhone having
“scarcely yet lost the stain of blood” which we find in the
ad. Natt. i. 17, compared with Apol. 35, seems to
favour the idea of those who date the ad. Natt.
earlier than the Apology, and consider the latter as a kind of
new edition of the former: while it would fix the date of the
ad. Natt. as not certainly earlier than 197, in which year (as
we have seen) Albinus died. The fatal battle took place on the banks of
the Rhone.
In c. 7. Viz. in the de
Monog.
These specimens must suffice, though it might be easy to add to them. There is, however, another classification of our author’s writings which has been attempted. Finding the haplessness of strict chronological accuracy, commentators have seized on the idea that peradventure there might be found at all events some internal marks by which to determine which of them were written before, which after, the writer’s secession to Montanism. It may be confessed that this attempt has been somewhat more successful than the other. Yet even here there are two formidable obstacles standing in our way. The first and greatest is, that the natural temper of Tertullian was from the first so akin to the spirit of Montanism, that, unless there occur distinct allusions to the “New Prophecy,” or expressions specially connected with Montanistic phraseology, the general tone of any treatise is not a very safe guide. The second is, that the subject-matter of some of the treatises is not such as to afford much scope for the introduction of the peculiarities of a sect which professed to differ in discipline only, not doctrine, from the church at large.
Still the result of this classification seems to
show one important feature of agreement between commentators, however
they may differ upon details; and that is, that considerably the larger
part of our author’s rather voluminous productions It looks strange to
see Tertullian’s works referred to as consisting of “about
thirty short treatises” in Murdock’s note on Moshiem. See
the ed. of the Eccl. Hist. by Dr. J. Seaton Reid, p. 65, n. 2,
Lond. and This last qualification is
very specially observable in Dr. Kaye. In his article on
Tertullian in Smith’s Dict. of Biog. and Myth.
1. Writings which were occasioned by the relation of the Christians to the heathen, and refer to their vindication of Christianity against the heathen; attacks on heathenism; the sufferings and conduct of Christians under persecution; and the intercourse of Christians with heathens:
2. Writings which relate to Christian and church life, and to ecclesiastical discipline:
3. The dogmatic and dogmatico-controversial treatises.
And under each head he subdivides into:
a. Pre-Montanist writings; b. Post-Montanist writings:
Neander.
I. Pre-Montanist.
1. De Pœnitentia.
2. De Oratione.
3. De Baptismo.
4. Ad Uxorem i.
5. Ad Uxorem ii.
6. Ad Martyres.
7. De Patientia.
8. De Spectaculis.
9. De Idololatria.
10. 11. Ad Nationes i. ii.
12. Apologeticus.
13. De Testimonio Animæ.
14. De Præscr. Hæreticorum.
15. De Cult. Fem. i.
16. De Cult. Fem. ii.
II. Montanist.
17–21. Adv. Marc. i. ii. iii. iv. v.
22. De Anima.
23. De Carne Christi.
24. De Res. Carn.
25. De Cor. Mil.
26. De Virg. Vel.
27. De Ex. Cast.
28. De Monog.
29. De Jejuniis.
30. De Pudicitia.
31. De Pallio.
32. Scorpiace.
33. Ad Scapulam.
34. Adv. Valentinianos.
35. Adv. Hermogenem.
36. Adv. Praxeam.
37. Adv. Judæos.
38. De Fuga in Persecutione.
Kaye.
I. Pre-Montanist (probably).
1. De Pœnitentia. Referred to
apparently in de Pudic. ad init.–Tr.
2. De Oratione.
3. De Baptismo.
4. Ad Uxorem i.
5. Ad Uxorem ii.
6. Ad Martyres.
7. De Patientia.
8. Adv. Judæos.
9. De Præscr. Hæreticorum. The de
Præscr. is ref. to in adv. Marc. i.; adv Prax.
2; de Carne Christi, 2; adv. Hermog. 1.
II. Montanist (certainly).
10. Adv. Marc. i.
11. Adv. Marc. ii. Ref. to in de
Res. Carn. 2, 14; Scorp. 5; de Anima, 21. The only
mark, as the learned Bishop’s remarks imply, for fixing the date
of publication as Montanistic, is the fact that Tertullian alludes, in
the opening sentences, to B. i. Hence B. ii. could not, in its present
form, have appeared till after B. i. Now B. i. contains evident
marks of Montanism: see the last chapter, for instance. But the writer
speaks (in the same passage) of B. ii. as being the treatise,
the ill fate of which in its unfinished condition he there
relates—at least such seems the legitimate sense of his
words—now remodelled. Hence, when originally
written, it may not have been Montanistic.—Tr.
12. De Anima. Ref. to in de
Res. Carn. 2, 17, 45; comp. cc. 18, 21.
13. Adv. Marc. iii.
14. Adv. Marc. iv. Ref. to in de
Carn. Chr. 7.
15. De Carne Christi. Ref. to in de
Res. Carn. 2.
16. De Resurrectione Carnis. See the beginning
and end of the de Carne Christi.—Tr. Ref. to in adv. Marc. v. 10.
17. Adv. Marc. v.
18. Adv. Praxeam.
19. Scorpiace. In c. 4 Tertullian speaks
as if he had already refuted all the heretics.
20. De Corona Militis.
21. De Virginibus Velandis.
22. De Exhortatione Castitatis.
23. De Fuga in Persecutione.
24. De Monogamia. Ref. to in de
Jej. c. 1.
25. De Jejuniis.
26. De Pudicitia.
III. Montanist (probably).
27. Adv. Valentinianos.
28. Ad Scapulam.
29. De Spectaculis. Ref. to in de
Idolol. 13; in de Cult. Fem. i. 8. In the de Cor. 6
is a reference to the Greek tract de Spectaculis by our
author.
30. De Idololatria.
31. De Cultu Feminarum i.
32. De Cultu Feminarum ii.
IV. Works respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced.
33. The Apology. Archdeacon Evans, in
his Biography of the Early Church (in the Theological Library),
suggests that the success which the Apology met with, or at
least the fame it brought its author, may have been the occasion of
Tertullian’s visit to Rome. He rejects entirely the supposition
that Tertullian was a presbyter of the Roman church; nor does he think
Eusebius’ words, καὶ
τῶν μάλιστα
ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης
λαμπρῶν (Eccl.
Hist. ii. 2. 47 ad fin., 48 ad init.), sufficiently
plain to be relied on. One thing does seem pretty plain, that the
rendering of them which Rufinus gives, and Valesius follows,
“inter nostros” (sc. Latinos) “Scriptores
admodum clarus,” cannot be correct. That we find a famous
Roman lawyer Tertullianus, or Tertyllianus, among the writers fragments
of whom are preserved in the Pandects, Neander reminds us; but (as he
says) it by no means follows, even if it could be proved that the date
of the said lawyer corresponded with the supposed date of our
Tertullian, that they were identical. Still it is worth bearing
in mind, especially as a similarity of language exists, or has been
thought to exist, between the jurist and the Christian author. And the
juridical language and tone of our author do seem to point to his
having—though Mr. Evans regards that as doubtful—been a
trained lawyer.—Tr.
34. Ad Nationes i.
35. Ad Nationes ii.
36. De Testimonio Animæ.
37. De Pallio.
38. Adv. Hermogenem.
Kaye, as above. Pref. to
2d ed. pp. xxi. xxii. incorporated in the 3d ed., which I always
quote. i.e., four years
after Kaye’s third. See Pref. 2d ed. p. xix.
n. 9. It being from that book
that the quotations are taken which make up the remainder of the tract,
as Semler, worthless as his theories are, has well shown.
The next point to which a brief reference must be made is the lost works of Tertullian, lists of these are given both by Oehler and by Kaye, viz.:
1. A Book on Aaron’s Robes: mentioned by Jerome, Epist. 128, ad Fabiolam de Veste Sacerdotali (tom. ii. p. 586, Opp. ed. Bened.).
2. A Book on the Superstition of the Age. “Sæculi”
or “of the world,” or perhaps “of
heathenism.”
3. A Book on the Submission of the Soul.
4. A Book on the Flesh and the Soul.
Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are known only by their titles, which are found in the Index to Tertullian’s works given in the Codex Agobardi; but the tracts themselves are not extant in the ms., which appears to have once contained—
5. A Book on Paradise, named in the Index, and referred to in de Anima 55, adv. Marc. iii. 12; and
6. A Book on the Hope of the Faithful: also named
in the Index, and referred to adv. Catal. Scrippt.
Eccles. c. 18. P. 952, tom. iii. Opp. ed.
Bened. De Ecclesiæ
dogmatibus, c. 55.
7. Six Books on Ecstasy, with a seventh in reply
to Apollonius: Referred to in Adv.
Marc. iv. 22. So Kaye thinks; but perhaps the reference is
doubtful. See, however, the passage in Dr. Holmes’ translation in
the present series, with his note thereon. De Scriptt. Eccles.
53, 24, 40. i.e., Rome. Antistes.
8. A Book in reply to the Apellesites (i.e. the
followers of Apelles A Marcionite at one time:
he subsequently set up a sect of his own. He is mentioned in the
adv. omn. Hær. c. 6.
9. A Book on the Origin Censu.
10. A Book on Fate: referred to by Fulgentius
Planciades, p. 562, Merc.; also referred to as either written, or
intended to be written, by Tertullian himself, de Anima, c. 20.
Jerome Catal. Scrippt.
Eccles. c. 58.
11. A Book on the Trinity. Jerome Catal. Scrippt.
Eccles. c. 70.
12. A Book addressed to a Philosophic Friend on
the Straits of Matrimony. Both Kaye and Oehler Oehler speaks more
decidedly than Kaye. Epist. ad Eustochium de
Custodia Virginitatis, p. 37, tom. iv. Opp. ed. Bened.; adv.
Jovin. i. p. 157, tom. iv. Opp. ed. Bened.
There are some other works which have been
attributed to Tertullian—on Circumcision; on Animals Clean and
Unclean; on the truth that God is a Judge—which Oehler likewise
rejects, believing that the expressions of Jerome refer only to
passages in the Anti-Marcion and other extant works. To Novatian
Jerome does ascribe a distinct work on Circumcision, In the Catal. Scrippt.
Eccles.
There were, moreover, three treatises at least written by Tertullian in Greek. They are:
1. A Book on Public Shows. See de Cor. c. 6.
2. A Book on Baptism. See de Bapt. c. 15.
3. A Book on the Veiling of Virgins. See de V. V. c. 1.
“Mendacem” is
his word. I know not whether he intends to charge Pamelius with wilful
fraud.
It remains briefly to notice the confessedly
spurious works which the editions of Tertullian generally have appended
to them. With these Kaye does not deal. The fragment, adv. omnes
Hæreses, Oehler attributes to Victorinus Petavionensis, i.e.,
Victorinus bishop of Pettaw, on the Drave, in Austrian Styria. It was
once thought he ought to be called Pictaviensis, i.e. of
Poictiers; but John Launoy Doctor of the Sorbonne,
said by Bossuet to have proved himself “a semi-Pelagian and
Jansenist!” born in 1603, in Normandy, died in 1678. Jer. de Vir.
Illust. c. 74. B. 470, d. 560.
The next fragment—“Of the Execrable Gods of the Heathens”—is of quite uncertain authorship. Oehler would attribute it “to some declaimer not quite ignorant of Tertullian’s writings,” but certainly not to Tertullian himself.
Lastly we come to the metrical fragments.
Concerning these, it is perhaps impossible to assign them to their
rightful owners. Oehler has not troubled himself much about them;
but he seems to regard the Jonah as worthy of more regard than
the rest, for he seems to have intended giving more labour to its
editing at some future time. Whether he has ever done so, or given us
his German version of Tertullian’s own works, which,
“si Deus adjuverit,” he distinctly promises in
his preface, I do not know. Perhaps the best thing to be done under the
circumstances is to give the judgment of the learned Peter Allix. It
may be premised that by the celebrated George Fabricius He must not be confounded
with the still more famous John Albert Fabricius of the next century,
referred to in p. xv. above. Whole of these metrical
fragments. Lardner,
Credibility, vol. iii. p. 169, under “Victorinus of
Pettaw,” ed. Kippis, Lond. 1838. See Lardner, as above. See Migne, who
prefixes this judgment of Rig. to the de Judicio
Domini.
I.
Apology.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, Late Scholar of Christ’s College, Cantab.]
————————————
The Apology. [Great diversity
exists among the critics as to the date of this Apology; see Kaye, pp.
xvi. 48, 65. Mosheim says, a.d. 198, Kaye
a.d. 204.]
Chapter I.
Rulers of the Roman
Empire, if, seated for the administration of justice on your lofty
tribunal, under the gaze of every eye, and occupying there all but the
highest position in the state, you may not openly inquire into and sift
before the world the real truth in regard to the charges made against
the Christians; if in this case alone you are afraid or ashamed to
exercise your authority in making public inquiry with the carefulness
which becomes justice; if, finally, the extreme severities inflicted on
our people in recently private judgments, stand in the way of our being
permitted to defend ourselves before you, you cannot surely forbid the
Truth to reach your ears by the secret pathway of a noiseless
book. Elucidation II.
Chapter II.
If, again, it is certain that we are the most
wicked of men, why do you treat us so differently from our fellows,
that is, from other criminals, it being only fair that the same crime
should get the same treatment? When the charges made against us are
made against others, they are permitted to make use both of their own
lips and of hired pleaders to show their innocence. They have full
opportunity of answer and debate; in fact, it is against the law to
condemn anybody undefended and unheard. Christians alone are forbidden
to say anything in exculpation of themselves, in defence of the truth,
to help the judge to a righteous decision; all that is cared about is
having what the public hatred demands—the confession of the name,
not examination of the charge: while in your ordinary judicial
investigations, on a man’s confession of the crime of murder, or
sacrilege, or incest, or treason, to take the points of which we are
accused, you are not content to proceed at once to sentence,—you
do not take that step till you thoroughly examine the circumstances of
the confession—what is the real character of the deed, how often,
where, in what way, when he has done it, who were privy to it, and who
actually took part with him in it. Nothing like this is done in our
case, though the falsehoods disseminated about us ought to have the
same sifting, that it might be found how many murdered children each of
us had tasted; how many incests each of us had shrouded in darkness;
what cooks, what dogs had been witness of our deeds. Oh, how great the
glory of the ruler who should bring to light some Christian who had
devoured a hundred infants! But, instead of that, we find that even
inquiry in regard to our case is forbidden. For the younger Pliny, when
he was ruler of a province, having condemned some Christians to death,
and driven some from their stedfastness, being still annoyed by their
great numbers, at last sought the advice of Trajan, [For chronological
dates in our author’s age, see Elucidation III. Tertullian
places an interval of 115 years, 6 months, and 15 days between Tiberius
and Antoninus Pius. See Answer to the Jews, cap. vii.
infra.] Another reading is
“ut Deo,” as God.
Chapter III.
What are we to think of it, that most people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name; that when they bear favourable testimony to any one, they mingle with it abuse of the name he bears? “A good man,” says one, “is Gaius Seius, only that he is a Christian.” So another, “I am astonished that a wise man like Lucius should have suddenly become a Christian.” Nobody thinks it needful to consider whether Gaius is not good and Lucius wise, on this very account that he is a Christian; or a Christian, for the reason that he is wise and good. They praise what they know, they abuse what they are ignorant of, and they inspire their knowledge with their ignorance; though in fairness you should rather judge of what is unknown from what is known, than what is known from what is unknown. Others, in the case of persons whom, before they took the name of Christian, they had known as loose, and vile, and wicked, put on them a brand from the very thing which they praise. In the blindness of their hatred, they fall foul of their own approving judgment! “What a woman she was! how wanton! how gay! What a youth he was! how profligate! how libidinous!—they have become Christians!” So the hated name is given to a reformation of character. Some even barter away their comforts for that hatred, content to bear injury, if they are kept free at home from the object of their bitter enmity. The wife, now chaste, the husband, now no longer jealous, casts out of his house; the son, now obedient, the father, who used to be so patient, disinherits; the servant, now faithful, the master, once so mild, commands away from his presence; it is a high offence for any one to be reformed by the detested name. Goodness is of less value than hatred of Christians. Well now, if there is this dislike of the name, what blame can you attach to names? What accusation can you bring against mere designations, save that something in the word sounds either barbarous, or unlucky, or scurrilous, or unchaste? But Christian, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned, is derived from anointing. Yes, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you “Chrestianus” (for you do not even know accurately the name you hate), it comes from sweetness and benignity. You hate, therefore, in the guiltless, even a guiltless name. But the special ground of dislike to the sect is, that it bears the name of its Founder. Is there anything new in a religious sect getting for its followers a designation from its master? Are not the philosophers called from the founders of their systems—Platonists, Epicureans, Pythagoreans? Are not the Stoics and Academics so called also from the places in which they assembled and stationed themselves? and are not physicians named from Erasistratus, grammarians from Aristarchus, cooks even from Apicius? And yet the bearing of the name, transmitted from the original institutor with whatever he has instituted, offends no one. No doubt, if it is proved that the sect is a bad one, and so its founder bad as well, that will prove that the name is bad and deserves our aversion, in respect of the character both of the sect and its author. Before, therefore, taking up a dislike to the name, it behoved you to consider the sect in the author, or the author in the sect. But now, without any sifting and knowledge of either, the mere name is made matter of accusation, the mere name is assailed, and a sound alone brings condemnation on a sect and its author both, while of both you are ignorant, because they have such and such a designation, not because they are convicted of anything wrong.
Chapter IV.
And so, having made these remarks as it were by way of
preface, that I might show in its true colours the injustice of the
public hatred against us, I shall now take my stand on the plea of our
blamelessness; and I shall not only refute the things which are
objected [A reference in
which Kaye sees no reason to doubt that the Apology was written during
the reign under the emperor. See Kaye’s Tertullian, p.
49.]
Chapter V.
To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to
which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be
consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus
Æmilius had experience of this in reference to his god
Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you
divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give
satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god
will have to propitiate the man. Ti [Elucidation IV.]
Chapter VI.
I would now have these most religious protectors
and vindicators of the laws and institutions of their fathers, tell me,
in regard to their own fidelity and the honour, and submission they
themselves show to ancestral institutions, if they have departed from
nothing—if they have in nothing gone out of the old
paths—if they have not put aside whatsoever is most useful and
necessary as rules of a virtuous life. What has become of the laws
repressing expensive and ostentatious ways of living? which forbade
more than a hundred asses to be expended on a supper, and more
than one fowl to be set on the table at a time, and that not a fatted
one; which expelled a patrician from the senate on the serious ground,
as it was counted, of aspiring to be too great, because he had acquired
ten pounds of silver; which put down the theatres as quickly as they
arose to debauch the manners of the people; which did not permit the
insignia of official dignities or of noble birth to be rashly or with
impunity usurped? For I see the Centenarian suppers must now bear the
name, not from the hundred asses, but from the hundred
sestertia As = 2-1/8 farthings.
Sestertium = £7, 16s. 3d. Slaves still bearing the
marks of the scourge. Anubis.
Chapter VII.
Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a
holy rite in which we kill a little child and then eat it; in which,
after the feast, we practise incest, the dogs—our pimps,
forsooth, overturning the lights and getting us the shamelessness of
darkness for our impious lusts. This is what is constantly laid to our
charge, and yet you take no pains to elicit the truth of what we have
been so long accused. Either bring, then, the matter to the light
of day if you believe it, or give it no credit as having never inquired
into it. On the ground of your double dealing, we are entitled to lay
it down to you that there is no reality in the thing which you dare not
expiscate. You impose on the executioner, in the case of Christians, a
duty the very opposite of expiscation: he is not to make them confess
what they do, but to make them deny what they are. We date the origin
of our religion, as we have mentioned before, from the reign of
Tiberius. Truth and the hatred of truth come into our world together.
As soon as truth appears, it is regarded as an enemy. It has as many
foes as there are strangers to it: the Jews, as was to be looked
for, from a spirit of rivalry; the soldiers, out of a desire to extort
money; our very domestics, by their nature. We are daily beset by foes,
we are daily betrayed; we are oftentimes surprised in our meetings and
congregations. Whoever happened withal upon an infant wailing,
according to the common story? Whoever kept for the judge, just as he
had found them, the gory mouths of Cyclops and Sirens? Whoever found
any traces of uncleanness in their wives? Where is the man who, when he
had discovered such atrocities, concealed them; or, in the act of
dragging the culprits before the judge, was bribed into silence? If we
always keep our secrets, when were our proceedings made known to the
world? Nay, by whom could they be made known? Not, surely,
by the guilty parties themselves; even from the very idea of the thing,
the fealty of silence being ever due to mysteries. The Samothracian and
Eleusinian make no disclosures—how much more will silence be kept
in regard to such as are sure, in their unveiling, to call forth
punishment from man at once, while wrath divine is kept in store for
the future? If, then, Christians are not themselves the
publishers of their crime, it follows of course it must be
strangers. And whence have they their knowledge, when it is also
a universal custom in religious initiations to keep the profane aloof,
and to beware of witnesses, unless it be that those who are so wicked
have less fear than their neighbors? Every one knows what sort of thing
rumour is. It is one of your own sayings, that “among all evils,
none flies so fast as rumour.” Why is rumour such an evil thing?
Is it because it is fleet? Is it because it carries information? Or is
it because it is in the highest degree mendacious?—a thing, not
even when it brings some truth to us, without a taint of falsehood,
either detracting, or adding, or changing from the simple fact? Nay
Chapter VIII.
See now, we set before you the reward of these
enormities. They give promise of eternal life. Hold it meanwhile as
your own belief. I ask you, then, whether, so believing, you think it
worth attaining with a conscience such as you will have. Come, plunge
your knife into the babe, enemy of none, accused of none, child of all;
or if that is another’s work, simply take your place beside a
human being dying before he has really lived, await the departure of
the lately given soul, receive the fresh young blood, saturate your
bread with it, freely partake. The while as you recline at table, take
note of the places which your mother and your sister occupy; mark them
well, so that when the dog-made darkness has fallen on you, you may
make no mistake, for you will be guilty of a crime—unless you
perpetrate a deed of incest. Initiated and sealed into things like
these, you have life everlasting. Tell me, I pray you, is eternity
worth it? If it is not, then these things are not to be credited.
Even although you had the belief, I deny the will; and even if you had
the will, I deny the possibility. Why then can others do it, if you
cannot? why cannot you, if others can? I suppose we are of a different
nature—are we Cynopæ or Sciapodes? Fabulous monsters.
Chapter IX.
That I may refute more thoroughly these charges, I will
show that in part openly, in [Another example of
what Christianity was doing for man as man.] [See Elucidation
VII., p. 58, infra in connection with usages in cap.
xxxix.]
Chapter X.
“You do not worship the gods,” you say;
“and you do not offer sacrifices for the emperors.” Well,
we do not offer sacrifice for others, for the same reason that we do
not for ourselves,—namely, that your gods are not at all the
objects of our worship. So we are accused of sacrilege and
treason. This is the chief ground of charge against us—nay, it is
the sum-total of our offending; and it is worthy then of being inquired
into, if neither prejudice nor injustice be the judge, the one of which
has no idea of discovering the truth, and the other simply and at once
rejects it. We do not worship your gods, because we know that there are
no such beings. This, therefore, is what you should do: you
should call on us to demonstrate their non-existence, and thereby prove
that they have no claim to adoration; for only if your gods were truly
so, would there be any obligation to render divine homage to them. And
punishment even were due to Christians, if it were made plain that
those to whom they refused all worship were indeed divine. But you say,
They are gods. We protest and appeal from yourselves to your knowledge;
let that judge us; let that condemn us, if it can deny that all these
gods of yours were but men. If even it venture to deny that, it will be
confuted by its own books of antiquities, from which it has got its
information about them, bearing witness to this day, as they plainly
do, both of the cities in which they were born, and the countries in
which they have left traces of their exploits, as well as where also
they are proved to have been buried. Shall I now, therefore, go
over them one by one, so numerous and so various, new and old,
barbarian, Grecian, Roman, foreign, captive and adopted, private and
common, male and female, rural and urban, naval and military? It were
useless even to hunt out all their names: so I may content myself with
a compend; and this not for your information, but that you may have
what you know brought to your recollection, for undoubtedly you act as
if you had forgotten all about them. No one of your gods is earlier
than Saturn: from him you trace all your deities, even those of higher
rank and better known. What, then, can be proved of the first, will
apply to those that follow. So far, then, as books give us information,
neither the Greek Diodorus or Thallus, neither Cassius Severus or
Cornelius Nepos, nor any writer upon sacred antiquities, have ventured
to say that Saturn was any but a man: so far as the question depends on
facts, I find none more trustworthy than those
Chapter XI.
And since, as you dare not deny that these deities of
yours once were men, you have taken it on you to assert that they were
made gods after their decease, let us consider what necessity there was
for this. In the first place, you must concede the existence of one
higher God—a certain wholesale dealer in divinity, who has made
gods of men. For they could neither have assumed a divinity which
was not theirs, nor could any but one himself possessing it have
conferred it on them. If there was no one to make gods, it is vain to
dream of gods being made when thus you have no god-maker. Most
certainly, if they could have deified themselves, with a higher state
at their command, they never would have been men. If, then, there be
one who is able to make gods, I turn back to an examination of any
reason there may be for making gods at all; and I find no other reason
than this, that the great God has need of their ministrations and aids
in performing the offices of Deity. But first it is an unworthy idea
that He should need the help of a man, and in fact a dead man, when, if
He was to be in want of this assistance from the dead, He might more
fittingly have created some one a god at the beginning. Nor do I
see any place for his action. For this entire
world-mass—whether self-existent and uncreated, as Pythagoras
maintains, or brought into being by a creator’s hands, as Plato
holds—was manifestly, once for all in its original construction,
disposed, and furnished, and ordered, and supplied with a government of
perfect wisdom. That cannot be imperfect which has made all perfect.
There was nothing waiting on for Saturn and his race to do. Men will
make fools of themselves if they refuse to believe that from the very
first rain poured down from the sky, and stars gleamed, and light
shone, and thunders roared, and Jove himself dreaded the lightnings you
put in his hands; that in like manner before Bacchus, and Ceres, and
Minerva, nay before the first man, whoever that was, every kind of
fruit burst forth plentifully from the bosom of the earth, for nothing
provided for the support and sustenance of man could be introduced
after his entrance on the stage of being. Accordingly, these
necessaries of life are said to have been discovered, not
created. But the thing you discover existed before; and that
which had a pre-existence must be regarded as belonging not to him who
discovered it, but to him who made it, for of course it had a being
before it could be found. But if, on account of his being the
discoverer of the vine, Bacchus is raised to godship, Lucullus, who
first introduced the cherry from Pontus into Italy, has not been fairly
dealt with; for as the discoverer of a new fruit, he has not, as though
he were its creator, been awarded divine honours. Wherefore, if
the universe existed from the beginning, thoroughly furnished with its
system working under certain laws for the performance of its functions,
there is, in this respect, an entire absence of all reason for electing
humanity to divinity; for the positions and powers which you have
assigned to your deities have been from the beginning precisely what
they would have been, although you had never deified them. But
you turn to another reason, telling us that the conferring
Chapter XII.
But I pass from these remarks, for I know and I am
going to show what your gods are not, by showing what they are. In
reference, then, to these, I see only names of dead men of ancient
times; I hear fabulous stories; I recognize sacred rites founded on
mere myths. As to the actual images, I regard them as simply
pieces of matter akin to the vessels and utensils in common use among
us, or even undergoing in their consecration a hapless change from
these useful articles at the hands of reckless art, which in the
transforming process treats them with utter contempt, nay, in the very
act commits sacrilege; so that it might be no slight solace to us in
all our punishments, suffering as we do because of these same gods,
that in their making they suffer as we do themselves. You put
Christians on crosses and stakes: [Inconsistent this
with Gibbon’s minimizing theory of the number of the
Christian martyrs.] Elucidation VIII.
Chapter XIII.
“But they are gods to us,” you say.
And how is it, then, that in utter inconsistency with this, you are
convicted of impious, sacrilegious, and irreligious conduct to them,
neglecting those you imagine to exist, destroying those who are the
objects of your fear, making mock of those whose honour you avenge? See
now if I go beyond the truth. First, indeed, seeing you worship, some
one god, and some another, of course you give offence to those you do
not worship. You cannot continue to give preference to one without
slighting another, for selection implies rejection. You despise,
therefore, those whom you thus reject; for in your rejection of them,
it is plain you have no dread of giving them offence. For, as we have
already shown, every god depended on the decision of the senate for his
godhead. No god was he whom man in his own counsels did not wish to be
so, and thereby condemned. The family deities you call Lares, you
exercise a domestic authority over, pledging them, selling them,
changing them—making sometimes a cooking-pot of a Saturn, a
firepan of a Minerva, as one or other happens to be worn down, or
broken in its long sacred use, or as the family head feels the pressure
of some more sacred home necessity. In like manner, by public law you
disgrace your state gods, putting them in the auction-catalogue, and
making them a source of revenue. Men seek to get the Capitol, as they
seek to get the herb market, under the voice of the crier, under the
auction spear, under the registration of the quæstor. Deity is
struck off and farmed out to the highest bidder. But indeed lands
burdened with tribute are of less value; men under the assessment of a
poll-tax are less noble; for these things are the marks of servitude.
In the case of the gods, on the other hand, the sacredness is great in
proportion to the tribute which they yield; nay, the more sacred is a
god, the larger is the tax he pays. Majesty is made a source of gain.
Religion goes about the taverns begging. You demand a price for the
privilege of standing on temple ground, for access to the sacred
services; there is no gratuitous knowledge of your divinities
permitted—you must buy their favours with a price. What honours
in any way do you render to them that you do not render to the dead?
You have temples in the one case just as in the other; you have altars
in the one case as in the other. Their statues have the same dress, the
same insignia. As the dead man had his age, his art, his occupation, so
it is with the deity. In what respect does the funeral feast differ
from the feast of Jupiter? or the bowl of the gods from the ladle of
the manes? or the undertaker from the soothsayer, as in fact this
latter personage also attends upon the dead? With perfect propriety you
give divine honours to your departed emperors, as you worship them in
life. The gods will count themselves indebted to you; nay, it will be
matter of high rejoicing among them that their masters are made their
equals. But when you adore Larentina, a public prostitute—I
could have wished that it might at least have been Lais or
Phryne—among your Junos, and Cereses, and Dianas; when you instal
in your Pantheon Simon Magus, [Confirming the statement
of Justin Martyr. See Vol. I., p. 187, note 1, and p. 193, this
Series.]
Chapter XIV.
I wish now to review your sacred rites; and I pass no
censure on your sacrificing, when you offer the worn-out, the scabbed,
the corrupting; when you cut off from the fat and the sound the useless
parts, such as the head and the hoofs, which in your house you would
have assigned to the slaves or the dogs; when of the tithe of Hercules
you do not lay a third upon his altar (I am disposed rather to praise
your wisdom in rescuing something from being lost); but turning to your
books, from which you get your training in wisdom and the nobler duties
of life, what utterly ridiculous things I find!—that for Trojans
and Greeks the gods fought among themselves like pairs of gladiators;
that Venus was wounded by a man, because she would rescue her son
Æneas when he was in peril of his life from the same Diomede; that
Mars was almost wasted away by a thirteen months’ imprisonment;
that Jupiter was saved by a monster’s aid from suffering the same
violence at the hands of the other gods; that he now laments the fate
of Sarpedon, now foully makes love to his own sister, recounting (to
her) former mistresses, now for a long time past not so dear as she.
After this, what poet is not found copying the example of his chief, to
be a disgracer of the gods? One gives
Chapter XV.
Others of your writers, in their wantonness, even
minister to your pleasures by vilifying the gods. Examine those
charming farces of your Lentuli and Hostilii, whether in the jokes and
tricks it is the buffoons or the deities which afford you merriment;
such farces I mean as Anubis the Adulterer, and Luna of the masculine
gender, and Diana under the lash, and the reading the will of Jupiter
deceased, and the three famishing Herculeses held up to ridicule. Your
dramatic literature, too, depicts all the vileness of your gods.
The Sun mourns his offspring Phaethon. Atys or Attis. Paris. Pluto. [“Sacred hats and
purple robes and incense fumes” have been associated with the
same crimes, alas! in widely different relations.]
Chapter XVI.
For, like some others, you are under the delusion
that our god is an ass’s head. [Caricatures of the
Crucifixion are extant which show how greedily the heathen had accepted
this profane idea.] [A premonition of the
Labarum.] [As noted by Clement of
Alexandria. See p. 535, Vol. II., and note.] Onocoites. If with Oehler,
Onochoietes, the meaning is “asinarius sacerdos”
(Oehler). Referring evidently to
the Scriptures; and showing what the Bible was to the early
Christians.
Chapter XVII.
The object of our worship is the One God, [Kaye, p. 168. Remarks
on natural religion.] [Though we are not by
nature good, in our present estate; this is elsewhere demonstrated by
Tertullian, as see cap. xviii.]
Chapter XVIII.
But, that we might attain an ampler and more
authoritative knowledge at once of Himself, and of His counsels and
will, God has added a written revelation for the behoof of every one
whose heart is set on seeking Him, that seeking he may find, and
finding believe, and believing obey. For from the first He sent
messengers into the world,—men whose stainless righteousness made
them worthy to know the Most High, and to reveal Him,—men
abundantly endowed with the Holy Spirit, that they might proclaim that
there is one God only who made all things, who formed man from the dust
of the ground (for He is the true Prometheus who gave order to the
world by arranging the seasons and their course),—these have
further set before us the proofs He has given of His majesty in His
judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him for securing
His favour, as well as the retribution in store for the ignoring,
forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all to adjudge
His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the doom of fire
at once without ending and without break, raising up again all the dead
from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with the object of
awarding either recompense. Once these things were with us, too, the
theme of ridicule. We are of your stock and nature: men are made, not
born, Christians. The preachers of whom we have spoken are called
prophets, from the office which belongs to them of predicting the
future. Their words, as well as the miracles which they performed, that
men might have faith in their divine authority, we have still in the
literary treasures they have left, and which are open to all. Ptolemy,
surnamed Philadelphus, the most learned of his race, a man of vast
acquaintance with all literature, emulating, I imagine, the book
enthusiasm of Pisistratus, among other remains of the past which either
their antiquity or something of peculiar interest made famous, at the
suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus, who was renowned above all
grammarians of his time, and to whom he had committed the management of
these things, applied to the Jews for their writings—I mean the
writings peculiar to them and in their tongue, which they alone
possessed, for from themselves, as a people dear to God for their
fathers’ sake, their prophets had ever sprung, and to them they
had ever spoken. Now in ancient times the people we call Jews bare the
name of Hebrews, and so both their writings and their speech were
Hebrew. But that the understanding of their books might not be wanting,
this also the Jews supplied to Ptolemy; for they gave him seventy-two
interpreters—men whom the philosopher Menedemus, the well-known
asserter of a Providence, regarded with respect as sharing in his
views. The same account is given by Aristæus. So the king left
these works unlocked to all, in the Greek language. [Kaye, p. 291. See
Elucidation I. Also Vol. II., p. 334.]
Chapter XIX.
Their high antiquity, first of all, claims authority for these writings. With you, too, it is a kind of religion to demand belief on this very ground. Well, all the substances, all the materials, the origins, classes, contents of your most ancient writings, even most nations and cities illustrious in the records of the past and noted for their antiquity in books of annals,—the very forms of your letters, those revealers and custodiers of events, nay (I think I speak still within the mark), your very gods themselves, your very temples and oracles, and sacred rites, are less ancient than the work of a single prophet, in whom you have the thesaurus of the entire Jewish religion, and therefore too of ours. If you happen to have heard of a certain Moses, I speak first of him: he is as far back as the Argive Inachus; by nearly four hundred years—only seven less—he precedes Danaus, your most ancient name; while he antedates by a millennium the death of Priam. I might affirm, too, that he is five hundred years earlier than Homer, and have supporters of that view. The other prophets also, though of later date, are, even the most recent of them, as far back as the first of your philosophers, and legislators, and historians. It is not so much the difficulty of the subject, as its vastness, that stands in the way of a statement of the grounds on which these statements rest; the matter is not so arduous as it would be tedious. It would require the anxious study of many books, and the fingers busy reckoning. The histories of the most ancient nations, such as the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Phœnicians, would need to be ransacked; the men of these various nations who have information to give, would have to be called in as witnesses. Manetho the Egyptian, and Berosus the Chaldean, and Hieromus the Phœnician king of Tyre; their successors too, Ptolemy the Mendesian, and Demetrius Phalereus, and King Juba, and Apion, and Thallus, and their critic the Jew Josephus, the native vindicator of the ancient history of his people, who either authenticates or refutes the others. Also the Greek censors’ lists must be compared, and the dates of events ascertained, that the chronological connections may be opened up, and thus the reckonings of the various annals be made to give forth light. We must go abroad into the histories and literature of all nations. And, in fact, we have already brought the proof in part before you, in giving those hints as to how it is to be effected. But it seems better to delay the full discussion of this, lest in our haste we do not sufficiently carry it out, or lest in its thorough handling we make too lengthened a digression.
Chapter XX.
To make up for our delay in this, we bring under your notice something of even greater importance; we point to the majesty of our Scriptures, if not to their antiquity. If you doubt that they are as ancient as we say, we offer proof that they are divine. And you may convince yourselves of this at once, and without going very far. Your instructors, the world, and the age, and the event, are all before you. All that is taking place around you was fore-announced; all that you now see with your eye was previously heard by the ear. The swallowing up of cities by the earth; the theft of islands by the sea; wars, bringing external and internal convulsions; the collision of kingdoms with kingdoms; famines and pestilences, and local massacres, and widespread desolating mortalities; the exaltation of the lowly, and the humbling of the proud; the decay of righteousness, the growth of sin, the slackening interest in all good ways; the very seasons and elements going out of their ordinary course, monsters and portents taking the place of nature’s forms—it was all foreseen and predicted before it came to pass. While we suffer the calamities, we read of them in the Scriptures; as we examine, they are proved. Well, the truth of a prophecy, I think, is the demonstration of its being from above. Hence there is among us an assured faith in regard to coming events as things already proved to us, for they were predicted along with what we have day by day fulfilled. They are uttered by the same voices, they are written in the same books—the same Spirit inspires them. All time is one to prophecy foretelling the future. Among men, it may be, a distinction of times is made while the fulfilment is going on: from being future we think of it as present, and then from being present we count it as belonging to the past. How are we to blame, I pray you, that we believe in things to come as though they already were, with the grounds we have for our faith in these two steps?
Chapter XXI.
But having asserted that our religion is supported by
the writings of the Jews, the oldest which exist, though it is
generally known, and we fully admit that it dates from a comparatively
recent period—no further [That is, by the
consummation of her marriage with Joseph.] [Language common among
Christians, and adopted afterwards into the Creed.] Elucidation V. Proculus was a Roman
senator who affirmed that Romulus had appeared to him after his
death. [Chapter l. at close.
“The blood of Christians is the seed of the Church.”]
Chapter XXII.
And we affirm indeed the existence of certain spiritual
essences; nor is their name unfamiliar. The philosophers acknowledge
there are demons; Socrates himself waiting on a demon’s will. Why
not? since it is said an evil spirit attached itself specially to him
even from his childhood—turning his mind no doubt from what was
good. The poets are all acquainted with demons too; even the ignorant
common people make frequent use of them in cursing. In fact, they call
upon Satan, the demon-chief, in their execrations, as though from some
instinctive soul-knowledge of him. Plato also admits the existence of
angels. The dealers in magic, no less, come forward as witnesses to the
existence of both kinds of spirits. We are instructed, moreover, by our
sacred books how from certain angels, who fell of their own free-will,
there sprang a more wicked demon-brood, condemned of God along with the
authors of their race, and that chief we have referred to. It will for
the present be enough, however, that some account is given of their
work. Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the
very first, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction. They inflict,
accordingly, upon our bodies diseases and other grievous calamities,
while by violent assaults they hurry the soul into sudden and
extraordinary excesses. Their marvellous subtleness and tenuity give
them access to both parts of our nature. As spiritual, they can do no
harm; for, invisible and intangible, we are not cognizant of their
action save by its effects, as when some inexplicable, unseen poison in
the breeze blights the apples and the grain while in the flower, or
kills them in the bud, or destroys them when they have reached
maturity; as though by the tainted atmosphere in some unknown way
spreading abroad its pestilential exhalations. So, too, by an influence
equally obscure, demons and angels breathe into the soul, and rouse up
its corruptions with furious passions and vile excesses; or with cruel
lusts accompanied by various errors, of which the worst is that by
which these deities are commended to the favour of deceived and deluded
human beings, that they may get their proper food of flesh-fumes and
blood when that is offered up to idol-images. What is daintier food to
the spirit of evil, than turning men’s minds away from the true
God by the illusions of a false divination? And here I explain how
these illusions are managed. Every spirit is possessed of wings. This
is a common property of both angels and demons. So they are everywhere
in a single moment; the whole world is as one place to them; all that
is done over the whole extent of it, it is as easy for them to know as
to report. Their swiftness of motion is taken for divinity, because
their nature is unknown. Thus they would have themselves thought
Herodotus, I. 47.
[See Wilberforce’s Five Empires, p. 67.] [Castor and Pollux.
Imitated in saint worship.]
Chapter XXIII.
Moreover, if sorcerers call forth ghosts, and even
make what seem the souls of the dead to appear; if they put boys to
death, in order to get a response from the oracle; if, with their
juggling illusions, they make a pretence of doing various miracles; if
they put dreams into people’s minds by the power of the angels
and demons whose aid they have invited, by whose influence, too, goats
and tables are made to divine,—how much more likely is this power
of evil to be zealous in doing with all its might, of its own
inclination, and for its own objects, what it does to serve the ends of
others! Or if both angels and demons do just what your gods do, where
in that case is the pre-eminence of deity, which we must surely think
to be above all in might? Will it not then be more reasonable to hold
that these spirits make themselves gods, giving as they do the very
proofs which raise your gods to godhead, than that the gods are the
equals of angels and demons? You make a distinction of places, I
suppose, regarding as gods in their temple those whose divinity you do
not recognize elsewhere; counting the madness which leads one man to
leap from the sacred houses, to be something different from that which
leads another to leap from an adjoining house; looking on one who cuts
his arms and secret parts as under a different furor from another who
cuts his throat. The result of the frenzy is the same, and the manner
of instigation is one. But thus far we have been dealing only in
words: we now proceed to a proof of facts, in which we shall show
that under different names you have real identity. Let a person
be brought before your tribunals, who is plainly under demoniacal
possession. The wicked spirit, bidden to speak by a follower of
Christ, [This testimony must be
noted as something of which Tertullian confidently challenges
denial.]
Chapter XXIV.
This whole confession of these beings, in which they
declare that they are not gods, and in which they tell you that there
is no God but one, the God whom we adore, is quite sufficient to clear
us from the crime of treason, chiefly against the Roman religion. For
if it is certain the gods have no existence, there is no religion in
the case. If there is no religion, because there are no gods, we are
assuredly not guilty of any offence against religion. Instead of that,
the charge recoils on your own head: worshipping a lie, you are really
guilty of the crime you charge on us, not merely by refusing the true
religion of the true God, but by going the further length of
persecuting it. But now, granting that these objects of your worship
are really gods, is it not generally held that there is one higher and
more potent, as it were the world’s chief ruler, endowed with
absolute power and majesty? For the common way is to apportion deity,
giving an imperial and supreme domination to one, while its offices are
put into the hands of many, as Plato describes great Jupiter in the
[Observe our
author’s assertion that in its own nature, worship must be a
voluntary act, and note this expression libertatem
religionis.]
Chapter XXV.
I think I have offered sufficient proof upon the
question of false and true divinity, having shown that the proof rests
not merely on debate and argument, but on the witness of the very
beings whom you believe are gods, so that the point needs no further
handling. However, having been led thus naturally to speak of the
Romans, I shall not avoid the controversy which is invited by the
groundless assertion of those who maintain that, as a reward of their
singular homage to religion, the Romans have been raised to such
heights of power as to have become masters of the world; and that so
certainly divine are the beings they worship, that those prosper beyond
all others, who beyond all others honour them. [See
Augustine’s City of God, III. xvii. p. 95, Ed.
Migne.] Her image was taken from
Pessinus to Rome. [Familiar reference to
Virgil, Æneid, I. 15.]
Chapter XXVI.
Examine then, and see if He be not the dispenser of kingdoms, who is Lord at once of the world which is ruled, and of man himself who rules; if He have not ordained the changes of dynasties, with their appointed seasons, who was before all time, and made the world a body of times; if the rise and the fall of states are not the work of Him, under whose sovereignty the human race once existed without states at all. How do you allow yourselves to fall into such error? Why, the Rome of rural simplicity is older than some of her gods; she reigned before her proud, vast Capitol was built. The Babylonians exercised dominion, too, before the days of the Pontiffs; and the Medes before the Quindecemvirs; and the Egyptians before the Salii; and the Assyrians before the Luperci; and the Amazons before the Vestal Virgins. And to add another point: if the religions of Rome give empire, ancient Judea would never have been a kingdom, despising as it did one and all these idol deities; Judea, whose God you Romans once honoured with victims, and its temple with gifts, and its people with treaties; and which would never have been beneath your sceptre but for that last and crowning offence against God, in rejecting and crucifying Christ.
Chapter XXVII.
Enough has been said in these remarks to confute the
charge of treason against your re
Chapter XXVIII.
But as it was easily seen to be unjust to compel freemen against their will to offer sacrifice (for even in other acts of religious service a willing mind is required), it should be counted quite absurd for one man to compel another to do honour to the gods, when he ought ever voluntarily, and in the sense of his own need, to seek their favour, lest in the liberty which is his right he should be ready to say, “I want none of Jupiter’s favours; pray who art thou? Let Janus meet me with angry looks, with whichever of his faces he likes; what have you to do with me?” You have been led, no doubt, by these same evil spirits to compel us to offer sacrifice for the well-being of the emperor; and you are under a necessity of using force, just as we are under an obligation to face the dangers of it. This brings us, then, to the second ground of accusation, that we are guilty of treason against a majesty more august; for you do homage with a greater dread and an intenser reverence to Cæsar, than Olympian Jove himself. And if you knew it, upon sufficient grounds. For is not any living man better than a dead one, whoever he be? But this is not done by you on any other ground than regard to a power whose presence you vividly realize; so that also in this you are convicted of impiety to your gods, inasmuch as you show a greater reverence to a human sovereignty than you do to them. Then, too, among you, people far more readily swear a false oath in the name of all the gods, than in the name of the single genius of Cæsar.
Chapter XXIX.
Let it be made clear, then, first of all, if those to
whom sacrifice is offered are really able to protect either emperor or
anybody else, and so adjudge us guilty of treason, if angels and
demons, spirits of most wicked nature, do any good, if the lost save,
if the condemned give liberty, if the dead (I refer to what you know
well enough) defend the living. For surely the first thing they would
look to would be the protection of their statues, and images, and
temples, which rather owe their safety, I think, to the watch kept by
Cæsar’s guards. Nay, I think the very materials of which
these are made come from Cæsar’s mines, and there is not a
temple but depends on Cæsar’s will. Yes, and many gods have
felt the displeasure of the Cæsar. It makes for my argument if
they are also partakers of his favour, when he bestows on them some
gift or privilege. How shall they who are thus in Cæsar’s
power, who belong entirely to him, have Cæsar’s protection
in their hands, so that you can imagine them able to give to Cæsar
what they more readily get from him? This, then, is the ground on which
we are charged with treason against the imperial majesty, to wit, that
we do not put
Chapter XXX.
For we offer prayer for the safety of our princes
to the eternal, the true, the living God, whose favour, beyond all
others, they must themselves desire. They know from whom they
have obtained their power; they know, as they are men, from whom they
have received life itself; they are convinced that He is God alone, on
whose power alone they are entirely dependent, to whom they are second,
after whom they occupy the highest places, before and above all the
gods. Why not, since they are above all living men, and the living, as
living, are superior to the dead? They reflect upon the extent of their
power, and so they come to understand the highest; they acknowledge
that they have all their might from Him against whom their might is
nought. Let the emperor make war on heaven; let him lead heaven captive
in his triumph; let him put guards on heaven; let him impose taxes on
heaven! He cannot. Just because he is less than heaven, he is great.
For he himself is His to whom heaven and every creature appertains. He
gets his sceptre where he first got his humanity; his power where he
got the breath of life. Thither we lift our eyes, with hands
outstretched, because free from sin; with head uncovered, for we have
nothing whereof to be ashamed; finally, without a monitor, because it
is from the heart we supplicate. Without ceasing, for all our emperors
we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the
empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a
faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man
or Cæsar, an emperor would wish. These things I cannot ask from
any but the God from whom I know I shall obtain them, both because He
alone bestows them and because I have claims upon Him for their gift,
as being a servant of His, rendering homage to Him alone, persecuted
for His doctrine, offering to Him, at His own requirement, that costly
and noble sacrifice of prayer [Once more this
reflection on the use of material incense, which is common to early
Christians, as in former volumes noted.] [A reference to
kneeling, which see the de Corona cap. 3, infra.
Christians are represented as standing at prayer, in the delineations
of the Catacombs. But, see Nicene Canon, xx.]
Chapter XXXI.
But we merely, you say, flatter the emperor, and
feign these prayers of ours to escape persecution. Thank you for your
mistake, for you give us the opportunity of proving our allegations. Do
you, then, who think that we care nothing for the welfare of
Cæsar, look into God’s revelations, examine our sacred
books, which we do not keep in hiding, and which many accidents put
into the hands of those who are not of us. Learn from them that a large
benevolence is enjoined upon us, even so far as to supplicate God for
our enemies, and to beseech blessings on our persecutors.
Chapter XXXII.
There is also another and a greater necessity for our
offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete
stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we
know that a mighty shock im [Cap. xxxix.
infra. And see Kaye, pp. 20, 348. A subject of which more
hereafter.]
Chapter XXXIII.
But why dwell longer on the reverence and sacred
respect of Christians to the emperor, whom we cannot but look up to as
called by our Lord to his office? So that on valid grounds I
might say Cæsar is more ours than yours, for our God has appointed
him. Therefore, as having this propriety in him, I do more than you for
his welfare, not merely because I ask it of Him who can give it, or
because I ask it as one who deserves to get it, but also because, in
keeping the majesty of Cæsar within due limits, and putting it
under the Most High, and making it less than divine, I commend him the
more to the favour of Deity, to whom I make him alone inferior. But I
place him in subjection to one I regard as more glorious than
himself. Never will I call the emperor God, and that either
because it is not in me to be guilty of falsehood; or that I dare not
turn him into ridicule; or that not even himself will desire to have
that high name applied to him. If he is but a man, it is his interest
as man to give God His higher place. Let him think it enough to bear
the name of emperor. That, too, is a great name of God’s
giving. To call him God, is to rob him of his title. If he is not a
man, emperor he cannot be. Even when, amid the honours of a triumph, he
sits on that lofty chariot, he is reminded that he is only human. A
voice at his back keeps whispering in his ear, “Look behind thee;
remember thou art but a man.” And it only adds to his exultation,
that he shines with a glory so surpassing as to require an admonitory
reference to his condition. [A familiar story of
Alexander is alluded to.]
Chapter XXXIV.
Augustus, the founder of the empire, would not even have the title Lord; for that, too, is a name of Deity. For my part, I am willing to give the emperor this designation, but in the common acceptation of the word, and when I am not forced to call him Lord as in God’s place. But my relation to him is one of freedom; for I have but one true Lord, the God omnipotent and eternal, who is Lord of the emperor as well. How can he, who is truly father of his country, be its lord? The name of piety is more grateful than the name of power; so the heads of families are called fathers rather than lords. Far less should the emperor have the name of God. We can only profess our belief that he is that by the most unworthy, nay, a fatal flattery; it is just as if, having an emperor, you call another by the name, in which case will you not give great and unappeasable offence to him who actually reigns?—an offence he, too, needs to fear on whom you have bestowed the title. Give all reverence to God, if you wish Him to be propitious to the emperor. Give up all worship of, and belief in, any other being as divine. Cease also to give the sacred name to him who has need of God himself. If such adulation is not ashamed of its lie, in addressing a man as divine, let it have some dread at least of the evil omen which it bears. It is the invocation of a curse, to give Cæsar the name of god before his apotheosis.
Chapter XXXV.
This is the reason, then, why Christians are counted
public enemies: that they pay no vain, nor false, nor foolish
honours to the emperor; that, as men believing in the true religion,
they prefer to celebrate their festal days with a good conscience,
instead of with the common wantonness. It is, forsooth, a notable
homage to bring fires and couches out before the public, to have
feasting from street to street, to turn the city into one great tavern,
to make mud with wine, to run in troops to acts of violence, to deeds
of shamelessness to lust allurements! What! is public joy manifested by
public disgrace? Do things unseemly at other times beseem the festal
days of princes? Do they who observe the rules of virtue out of
reverence for Cæsar, for [Note this reference to
a shameless custom of the heathen in Rome and elsewhere.] [See cap. l. and
Note on cap. xl. infra.] Commodus. To murder Pertinax. Tigerius and Parthenius
were among the murderers of Commodus.
Chapter XXXVI.
If it is the fact that men bearing the name of
Romans are found to be enemies of Rome, why are we, on the ground that
we are regarded as enemies, denied the name of Romans? We may be
at once Romans and foes of Rome, when men passing for Romans are
discovered to be enemies of their country. So the affection, and
fealty, and reverence, due to the emperors do not consist in such
tokens of homage as these, which even hostility may be zealous in
performing, chiefly as a cloak to its purposes; but in those ways which
Deity as certainly enjoins on us, as they are held to be necessary in
the case of all men as well as emperors. Deeds of true heart-goodness
are not due by us to emperors alone. We never do good with respect of
persons; for in our own interest we conduct ourselves as those who take
no payment either of praise or premium [Cap. ix. p. 25,
note 1 supra. Again, Christian democracy, “honouring
all men.”]
Chapter XXXVII.
If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as
I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are
forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer
injury at our hands? In regard to this, recall your own experiences.
How often you inflict gross cruelties on Christians, partly because it
is your own inclination, and partly in obedience to the laws! How
often, too, the hostile mob, paying no regard to you, takes the law
into its own hand, and assails us with stones and flames! With the very
frenzy of the Bacchanals, they do not even spare the Christian dead,
but tear them, now sadly changed, no longer entire, from the rest of
the tomb, from the asylum we might say of death, cutting them in
pieces, rending them asunder. Yet, banded together as we are, ever so
ready to sacrifice our lives, what single case of revenge for injury
are you able to point to, though, if it were held right among us to
repay evil by evil, a single night with a torch or two could achieve an
ample vengeance? But away with the idea of a sect divine avenging
itself by human fires, or shrinking from the sufferings in which it is
tried. If we desired, indeed, to act the part of open enemies, not
merely of secret avengers, would there be any lacking in strength,
whether of numbers or resources? The Moors, the Marcomanni, the
Parthians themselves, or any single people, however great, inhabiting a
distinct territory, and confined within its own boundaries, surpasses,
forsooth, in numbers, one spread over all the world! We are but of
yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities,
islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes,
companies, palace, senate, forum,—we have left nothing to you but
the temples of your gods. For what wars should we not be fit, not
eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to
the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain
than to slay? Without arms even, and raising no insurrectionary banner,
but simply in enmity to you, we could carry on the contest with you by
an ill-willed severance alone. For if such multitudes of men were to
break away from you, and betake themselves to some remote corner of the
world, why, the very loss of so many citizens, whatever sort they were,
would cover the empire with shame; nay, in the very forsaking,
vengeance would be inflicted. Why, you would be horror-struck at the
solitude in which you would find yourselves, at such an all-prevailing
silence, and that stupor as of a dead world. You would have to seek
subjects to govern. You would have more enemies than citizens
remaining. For now it is the immense number of Christians which makes
your enemies so few,—almost all the inhabitants of your various
cities being followers of Christ. [Elucidation VI.]
Chapter XXXVIII.
Ought not Christians, therefore, to receive not merely a
somewhat milder treatment, but to have a place among the law-tolerated
societies, seeing they are not chargeable with any such crimes as are
commonly dreaded from societies of the illicit class? For, unless I
mistake the matter, the prevention of such associations is based on a
prudential regard to public order, that the state may not be divided
into parties, which would naturally lead to disturbance in the
electoral assemblies, the councils, the curiæ, the special
conventions, even in the public shows by the hostile collisions of
rival parties; especially when now, in pursuit of gain, men have begun
to consider their violence an article to be bought and sold. But as
those in whom all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead, we
have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings; nor
is there aught more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state. We
ac
Chapter XXXIX.
I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the
peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the
evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. [Elucidation VII.] [Chap. xxxii.
supra p. 43.] [An argument for Days of
Public Thanksgiving, Fasting and the like.] [On ordinary Sundays,
“they laid by in store,” apparently: once a month they
offered.] [A precious testimony,
though the caviller asserts that afterwards the heathen used this
expression derisively.] [Or,
perhaps—“One is prompted to stand forth and bring to God,
as every one can, whether from the Holy Scriptures, or of his own
mind”—i.e. according to his taste.]
Chapter XL.
On the contrary, they deserve the name of
faction who conspire to bring odium on good men and virtuous, who cry
out against innocent blood, offering as the justification of their
enmity the baseless plea, that they think the Christians the cause of
every public disaster, of every affliction with which the people are
visited. If the Tiber rises as high as the city walls, if the
Nile does not send its waters up over the fields, if the heavens give
no rain, if there is an earthquake, if there is famine or pestilence,
straightway the cry [Christianos ad
leonem. From what class, chiefly, see cap. xxxv.
supra. Elucidation VIII.]
Chapter XLI.
You, therefore, are the sources of trouble in human
affairs; on you lies the blame of public adversities, since you are
ever attracting them—you by whom God is despised and images are
worshipped. It should surely seem the more natural thing to believe
that it is the neglected One who is angry, and not they to whom all
homage is paid; or most unjustly they act, if, on account of the
Christians, they send trouble on their own devotees, whom they are
bound to keep clear of the punishments of Christians. But this, you
say, hits your God as well, since He permits His worshippers to suffer
on account of those who dishonour Him. But admit first of all His
providential arrangings, and you will not make this retort. For He who
once for all appointed an eternal judgment at the world’s close,
does not precipitate the separation, which is essential to judgment,
before the end. Meanwhile He deals with all sorts of men alike,
so that all together share His favours and reproofs. His will is, that
outcasts and elect should have adversities and prosperities in common,
that we should have all the same experience of His goodness and
severity. Having learned these things from His own lips, we love His
goodness, we fear His wrath, while both by you are treated with
contempt; and hence the sufferings of life, so far as it is our lot to
be overtaken by them, are in our case gracious admonitions, while in
yours they are divine punishments. We indeed are not the least put
about: for, first, only one thing in this life greatly concerns us, and
that is, to get quickly out of it; and next, if any adversity befalls
us, it is laid to the door of your transgressions. Nay, though we are
likewise involved in troubles because of our close connection with you,
we are rather glad of it, because we recognize in it divine
foretellings, which, in fact, go to confirm the confidence and faith of
our hope. But if all the
Chapter XLII.
But we are called to account as harm-doers on
another [Elucidation IX. See
Kaye, p. 361.] [The occupation of a
soldier was regarded as lawful therefore. But see, afterwards, the
De Corona cap. xi.] [An interesting
fact as to the burial-rites of Early Christians. As to incense, see
cap. xxx. supra. p. 42.] An index of the growth
of Christianity.
Chapter XLIII.
I will confess, however, without hesitation, that there are some who in a sense may complain of Christians that they are a sterile race: as, for instance, pimps, and panders, and bath-suppliers; assassins, and poisoners, and sorcerers; soothsayers, too, diviners, and astrologers. But it is a noble fruit of Christians, that they have no fruits for such as these. And yet, whatever loss your interests suffer from the religion we profess, the protection you have from us makes amply up for it. What value do you set on persons, I do not here urge who deliver you from demons, I do not urge who for your sakes present prayers before the throne of the true God, for perhaps you have no belief in that—but from whom you can have nothing to fear?
Chapter XLIV.
Yes, and no one considers what the loss is to the common
weal,—a loss as great as it is real, no one estimates the injury
entailed upon the state, when, men of virtue as we are, we are put to
death in such numbers; when so many of the truly good suffer the last
penalty. And here we call your own acts to witness, you who are daily
presiding at the trials of prisoners, and passing sentence upon crimes.
Well, in your long lists of those ac [An appeal so defiant
that its very boldness confirms this tribute to the character of our
Christian fathers, p. 42.]
Chapter XLV.
We, then, alone are without crime. Is there ought wonderful in that, if it be a very necessity with us? For a necessity indeed it is. Taught of God himself what goodness is, we have both a perfect knowledge of it as revealed to us by a perfect Master; and faithfully we do His will, as enjoined on us by a Judge we dare not despise. But your ideas of virtue you have got from mere human opinion; on human authority, too, its obligation rests: hence your system of practical morality is deficient, both in the fulness and authority requisite to produce a life of real virtue. Man’s wisdom to point out what is good, is no greater than his authority to exact the keeping of it; the one is as easily deceived as the other is despised. And so, which is the ampler rule, to say, “Thou shalt not kill,” or to teach, “Be not even angry?” Which is more perfect, to forbid adultery, or to restrain from even a single lustful look? Which indicates the higher intelligence, interdicting evil-doing, or evil-speaking? Which is more thorough, not allowing an injury, or not even suffering an injury done to you to be repaid? Though withal you know that these very laws also of yours, which seem to lead to virtue, have been borrowed from the law of God as the ancient model. Of the age of Moses we have already spoken. But what is the real authority of human laws, when it is in man’s power both to evade them, by generally managing to hide himself out of sight in his crimes, and to despise them sometimes, if inclination or necessity leads him to offend? Think of these things, too, in the light of the brevity of any punishment you can inflict—never to last longer than till death. On this ground Epicurus makes light of all suffering and pain, maintaining that if it is small, it is contemptible; and if it is great, it is not long-continued. No doubt about it, we, who receive our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin,—we alone make real effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges,—even God, I mean, and not the proconsul.
Chapter XLVI.
We have sufficiently met, as I think, the accusation of
the various crimes on the ground of which these fierce demands are made
for Christian blood. We have made a full exhibition of our case;
and we have shown you how we are able to prove that our statement is
correct, from the trustworthiness, I mean, and antiquity of our sacred
writings, and from the confession likewise of the powers of spiritual
wickedness themselves. Who will venture to undertake our
refutation; not with skill of words, but, as we have managed our
demonstration, on the basis of reality? But while the truth we hold is
made clear to all, unbelief meanwhile, at the very time it is convinced
of the worth of Christianity, which has now become well known for its
benefits as well as from the intercourse of life, takes up the notion
that it is not really a thing divine, but rather a kind of
philosophy. These are the very things, it says, the philosophers
counsel and profess—innocence, justice, patience, sobriety,
chastity. Why, then, are we not permitted an equal liberty and impunity
for our doctrines as they have, with whom, in respect of what we teach,
we are compared? or why are not they, as so like us, not pressed to the
same offices, for declining which our lives are imperilled? For who
compels a philosopher to sacrifice or take an oath, or put out useless
lamps at midday? Nay, they openly overthrow your gods, and in their
writings they attack your superstitions; and you applaud them for it.
Many of them even, with your countenance, bark out against your rulers,
and are rewarded with statues and salaries, instead of being given to
the wild beasts. And very right it should be so. For they are called
philosophers, not Christians. This name of philosopher has no power to
put demons to the rout. Why are they not able to do that too? since
philosophers count demons inferior to gods. Socrates used to say,
“If the demon grant permission.” Yet [Tertullian’s
exposition of this enigmatical fact (see the Phædo) is
better than divers other ingenious theories.] [
Chapter XLVII.
Unless I am utterly mistaken, there is nothing so old as
the truth; and the already proved antiquity of the divine writings is
so far of use to me, that it leads men more easily to take it in that
they are the treasure-source whence all later wisdom has been taken.
And were it not necessary to keep my work to a moderate size, I might
launch forth also into the proof of this. What poet or sophist has not
drunk at the fountain of the prophets? Thence, accordingly, the
philosophers watered their arid minds, so that it is the things they
[See Irenæus, vol.
i. p. 377 this Series.] [Elucidation X.] True, in the sense that
a shadow cannot be projected by a body not yet existent.
Chapter XLVIII.
Come now, if some philosopher affirms, as [i.e.,
Caius, used (like John Doe with us) in Roman Law.] Know thyself. [Juvenal,
xi. 27, on which see great wealth of reference in J.E.B. Mayor’s
Juvenal (xiii. Satires), and note
especially, Bernard, Serm. De Divers xl. 3. In Cant.
Cantic. xxxvi. 5–7.] [Our author’s
philosophy may be at fault, but his testimony is not to be
mistaken.]
Chapter XLIX.
These are what are called presumptuous speculations in our case alone; in the philosophers and poets they are regarded as sublime speculations and illustrious discoveries. They are men of wisdom, we are fools. They are worthy of all honour, we are folk to have the finger pointed at; nay, besides that, we are even to have punishments inflicted on us. But let things which are the defence of virtue, if you will, have no foundation, and give them duly the name of fancies, yet still they are necessary; let them be absurd if you will, yet they are of use: they make all who believe them better men and women, under the fear of never-ending punishment and the hope of never-ending bliss. It is not, then, wise to brand as false, nor to regard as absurd, things the truth of which it is expedient to presume. On no ground is it right positively to condemn as bad what beyond all doubt is profitable. Thus, in fact, you are guilty of the very presumption of which you accuse us, in condemning what is useful. It is equally out of the question to regard them as nonsensical; at any rate, if they are false and foolish, they hurt nobody. For they are just (in that case) like many other things on which you inflict no penalties—foolish and fabulous things, I mean, which, as quite innocuous, are never charged as crimes or punished. But in a thing of the kind, if this be so indeed, we should be adjudged to ridicule, not to swords, and flames, and crosses, and wild beasts, in which iniquitous cruelty not only the blinded populace exults and insults over us, but in which some of you too glory, not scrupling to gain the popular favour by your injustice. As though all you can do to us did not depend upon our pleasure. It is assuredly a matter of my own inclination, being a Christian. Your condemnation, then, will only reach me in that case, if I wish to be condemned; but when all you can do to me, you can do only at my will, all you can do is dependent on my will, and is not in your power. The joy of the people in our trouble is therefore utterly reasonless. For it is our joy they appropriate to themselves, since we would far rather be condemned than apostatize from God; on the contrary, our haters should be sorry rather than rejoice, as we have obtained the very thing of our own choice.
Chapter L.
In that case, you say, why do you complain of our
persecutions? You ought rather to be grateful to us for giving you the
sufferings you want. Well, it is quite true that it is our desire to
suffer, but it is in the way that the soldier longs for war. No one
indeed suffers willingly, since suffering necessarily implies fear and
danger. Yet the man who objected to the conflict, both fights
with all his strength, and when victorious, he rejoices in the battle,
because he reaps from it glory and spoil. It is our battle to be
summoned to your tribunals that there, under fear of execution, we may
battle for the truth. But the day is won when the object of the
struggle is gained. This victory of ours gives us the glory of
pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal. But we are overcome. Yes,
when we have obtained our wishes. Therefore we conquer in
dying; [Vicimus cum
occidimur.] [Elucidation XI.] [Elucidation XII.]
————————————
I.
(Arrangement, p. 4, supra.)
The arrangement I have
adopted in editing these Edinburgh Translations of Tertullian is a
practical one. It will be found logical and helpful to the student, who
is referred to the Prefatory pages of this volume for an Elucidation of
the difficulties, with which any arrangement of these treatises is
encumbered. For, first, an attempt to place them in
chronological order is out of the question; Kaye, p. 36. Also,
p. 8, supra.
If we bear in mind, however, a few guiding facts, we shall see that difficulties are less than might appear, assuming our object to be a practical one. (1.) Only four of these essays were written against Orthodoxy; (2.) five more are reckoned as wholly uncertain, which amounts to saying that they are not positively heretical. (3.) Again, five are colourless, as to Montanism, and hence should be reputed Orthodox. (4.) Of others, written after the influences of Montanism had, more or less, tainted his doctrine, the whole are yet valuable and some are noble defences of the Catholic Faith. (5.) Finally eight or ten of his treatises were written while he was a Catholic, and are precious contributions to the testimony of the Primitive Church.
From these facts, we may readily conclude that the
mass of Tertullian’s writings is Orthodox. Some of them are
to be read with caution; others, again, must be rejected for their
heresy; but yet all are most instructive historically, and as defining
even by errors “the faith once delivered to the Saints.” I
propose to note those which require caution as we pass them in review.
Those written against the Church are classed by themselves, at the end
of the list, and all the rest may be read with confidence. A most
interesting inquiry arises in connection with the quotations from
Scripture to be found in our author. Did a Latin version exist in his
day, or does he translate from the Greek of the New Testament and the
LXX? A paradoxical writer (Semler) contends
that Tertullian “never used a Greek ms.” (see Kaye, p. 106.) But Tertullian’s
rugged Latin betrays everywhere his familiarity with Greek idioms and
forms of thought. He wrote, also, in Greek, and there is no reason to
doubt that he knew the Greek Scriptures primarily, if he knew any Greek
whatever. Possibly we owe to Tertullian the primordia of
the Old African Latin Versions, some of which seem to have contained
the disputed text
II.
(Address to Magistrates, cap. i., p. 17.)
The Apology comes first in order, on logical grounds. It
is classed with our author’s orthodox works by Neander, and
pronounced colourless by Kaye. It is the noblest of his
III.
(History of Christians, cap. ii., p. 18.)
The following Chronological outline borrowed from
the Benedictines and from Bishop Kaye, will prove serviceable
here. Kaye (following
L’Art de verifier les Dates) pp. 11
and 456.
Tertullian born (circa) a.d. 150.
Tertullian converted (surmise) 185.
Tertullian married (say) 186.
Tertullian ordained presbyter (circa) 192.
Tertullian lapsed (circa) 200.
Tertullian deceased (extreme surmise) 240.
The Imperial history of his period may be thus arranged:
Birth of Caracalla a.d. 188.
Birth of Geta 189.
Reign of Severus 193.
Defeat of Niger 195.
Caracalla made a Cæsar 196.
Capture of Byzantium 196.
Defeat of Albinus 197.
Geta made a Cæsar 198.
Caracalla called Augustus 198.
Caracalla associated in the Empire 198.
War against the Parthians 198.
Severus returns from the war 203.
Celebration of the Secular Games 204.
Plautianus put to death (circa) 205.
Geta called Augustus 208.
War in Britain 208.
Wall of Severus 210.
Death of Severus 211.
IV.
(Tiberius, capp. v. and xxiv., pp. 22 and 35.)
A fair examination of what has been said on this
subject, pro and con, may be found in Kaye’s
Tertullian, My references are to the
Third Edition, London, Rivingtons, 1845.
V.
(The darkness at the Crucifixion, cap. xxi., p. 35.)
Kaye disappoints us (p. 150) in his slight notice
of this most interesting subject. Without attempting to discuss the
story of Phlegon and other points which afford Gibbon an opportunity
for misplaced sneering, such as even a Pilate would have rebuked, while
it may be well to recall the exposition of Milman, In his edition of The
Decline and Fall, Vol. I., p. 589, American reprint.
VI.
(Numbers of the Faithful, cap. xxxvii., p. 45.)
Kaye, as usual, gives this vexed question a candid
survey. pp. 85–88.
VII.
(Christian usages, cap. xxxix., p. 46.)
A candid review of the matters discussed in this chapter
will be found in Kaye (pp. 146, 209.) The important fact is there
clearly stated that “the primitive Christians scrupulously
complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem in
abstaining from things strangled and from blood” ( Ep. ad Faust.
xxxii. 13. and see Conybeare and Howson.
On the important question as to the cessation of
miracles Kaye takes a somewhat original position. But see his
interesting discussion and that of the late Professor Hey, in
Kaye’s Tertullian, pp. 80–102, 151–161. I do
not think writers on these subjects have sufficiently distinguished
between miracles properly so called, and providences
vouchsafed in answer to prayer. There was no miracle in the case
of the Thundering Legion, assuming the story to be true; and I dare to
affirm that marked answers to prayer, by providential
interpositions,
VIII.
(Multitudes, cap. xl., p. 47.)
Note the words—“multitudes to a
single beast.” Can it be possible that Tertullian would use such
language to the magistrates, if he knew that such sentences were of
rare occurrence? The disposition of our times to minimize the
persecutions of our Christian forefathers calls upon us to note such
references, all the more important because occurring obiter and
mentioned as notorious. Note also, the closing chapter of this Apology,
and reference to the outcries of the populace, in Cap. xxxv. Compare Kaye on Mosheim,
p. 107.
IX.
(Christian manners, cap. xlii., p. 49.)
A study of the manners of Christians, in the
Ante-Nicene Age, as sketched by the unsparing hand of Tertullian, will
convince any unprejudiced mind of the mighty power of the Holy Ghost,
in framing such characters out of heathen originals. When, under
Montanistic influences our severely ascetic author complains of the
Church’s corruptions, and turns inside-out the whole estate of
the faithful, we see all that can be pressed on the other side; but,
this very important chapter must be borne in mind, together with the
closing sentence of chap. xliv., as evidence that whatever might be
said by a rigid disciplinarian, the Church, as compared with our
day, was still a living embodiment of
X.
(Paradise, cap. xlvii., p. 52.)
See Kaye, p. 248. Our author seems not always
consistent with himself in his references to the Places of departed
spirits. Kaye thinks he identifies Paradise with the Heaven of the Most
High, in one place (the De Exhort. Cast., xiii.) where he
probably confuses the Apostle’s ideas, in
1. The Inferi, or Hades, where the soul of Dives was in one continent and that of Lazarus in another, with a gulf between. Our author places “Abraham’s bosom” in Hades.
2. Paradise. In Hades, but in a superior and more glorious region. This more blessed abode was opened to the souls of the martyrs and other greater saints, at our Lord’s descent into the place of the dead. After the General Resurrection and Judgment, there remain:
1. Gehenna, for the lost, prepared for the devil and his angels.
2. The Heaven of Heavens, the eternal abode of the righteous, in the vision of the Lord and His Eternal Joy.
Tertullian’s variations on this subject will force
us to recur to it hereafter; but, here it may be noted that the
confusions of Latin Christianity received their character in this
particular, from the genius of our author. Augustine caught from him a
certain indecision
XI.
(The Leo and the Leno, cap. l., p. 55.)
Here we find the alliterative and epigrammatic genius of Tertullian anticipating a similar poetic charm in Augustine. The Christian maid or matron preferred the Leo to the leno; to be devoured rather than to be debauched. Our author wrests a tribute to the chastity of Christian women from the cruelty of their judges, who recognizing this fact, were accustomed as a refinement of their injustice to give sentence against them, refusing the mercy of a horrible death, by committing them to the ravisher: “damnando Christianam ad lenonem potius quam ad leonem.”
XII.
(The Seed of the Church, cap. l., p. 55.)
Kaye has devoted a number of his pages pp. 129–140. Even under Commodus,
vol. ii. p. 598, this series.
On Idolatry.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Wide Scope of the Word Idolatry.
The principal crime of the
human race, the highest guilt charged upon the world, the whole
procuring cause of judgment, is idolatry. [This solemn sentence
vindicates the place I have given to the De Idololatria in the
order adopted for this volume. After this and the Apology come
three treatises confirming its positions, and vindicating the
principles of Christians in conflict with Idolatry, the great generic
crime of a world lying in wickedness. These three are the De
Spectaculis, the De Corona and the Ad Scapulam. The
De Spectaculis was written after this treatise, in which indeed
it is mentioned (Cap. xiii.), but logically it follows, illustrates and
enforces it. Hence my practical plan: which will be concluded by
a scheme (conjectural in part) of chronological order in which
precision is affirmed by all critics to be impossible, but, by which we
may reach approximate accuracy, with great advantage. The De
Idololatria is free from Montanism. But see Kaye, p. xvi.] Lit., “has
not perished,” as if the perishing were already complete; as, of
course, it is judicially as soon as the guilt is incurred,
though not actually. i.e., in idolatry. A play on the
word: we should say, “an adulterator.” Oehler refers to
Chapter II.—Idolatry in Its More Limited Sense. Its Copiousness.
But let the universal names of crimes withdraw to the
specialities of their own works; let idolatry remain in that which it
is itself. Sufficient to itself is a name so inimical to God, a
substance of crime so copious, which
Chapter III.—Idolatry: Origin and Meaning of the Name.
Idol in ancient times there was none. Before the
artificers of this monstrosity had bubbled into being, “Boiled
out,” “bubbled out.” Or, brass. i.e., a little form. Idolatry, namely. [Capitalized to mark its
emphatic sense, i.e., the People of God = the Jews.] See
Chapter IV.—Idols Not to Be Made, Much Less Worshipped. Idols and Idol-Makers in the Same Category.
God prohibits an idol as much to be made as
to be worshipped. In so far as the making what may be
worshipped is the prior act, so far is the prohibition to make
(if the worship is unlawful) the prior prohibition. For this
cause—the eradicating, namely, of the material of
idolatry—the divine law proclaims, “Thou shalt make no
idol;” Compare de
Oratione, c. 23, and de Virg. Vel. c. 7. “Sanguinis
perditionis:” such is the reading of Oehler and others. If it be
correct, probably the phrase “perdition of blood” must be
taken as equivalent to “bloody perdition,” after the Hebrew
fashion. Compare, for similar instances, “In fanis.”
This is Oehler’s reading on conjecture. Other readings
are—infamis, infamibus, insanis, infernis.
Chapter V. Cf. chaps. viii. and
xii.
We will certainly take more pains in answering the
excuses of artificers of this kind, who ought never to be admitted into
the house of God, if any have a knowledge of that Discipline. i.e., the Discipline of
the house of God, the Church. Oehler reads, “eam
disciplinam,” and takes the meaning to be that no artificer of
this class should be admitted into the Church, if he applies for
admittance, with a knowledge of the law of God referred to in the
former chapters, yet persisting in his unlawful craft. Fr. Junius would
read, “ejus disciplinam.” i.e., If laws of your
own, and not the will and law of God, are the source and means of your
life, you owe no thanks and no obedience to God, and therefore need not
seek admittance into His house (Oehler). i.e., thieves who
frequented the public baths, which were a favorite resort at Rome. The Marcionites. [The argument
amounts to this, that symbols were not idols: yet
even so, God only could ordain symbols that were innocent.
The Nehushtan of King Hezekiah
teaches us the “peril of Idolatry” ( [On which see Dr.
Smith, Dict. of the Bible, ad vocem
“Serpent.”] i.e., the
Jewish people, who are generally meant by the expression
“the People” in the singular number in Scripture. We shall
endeavour to mark that distinction by writing the word, as here, with a
capital. See On the principle that
the exception proves the rule. As Oehler explains it: “By the
fact of the extraordinary precept in that particular case, God gave an
indication that likeness-making had before been forbidden and
interdicted by Him.” [Elucidation I.]
Chapter VI.—Idolatry Condemned by Baptism. To Make an Idol Is, in Fact, to Worship It.
If no law of God had prohibited idols to be made
by us; if no voice of the Holy Spirit uttered general menace no less
against the makers than the worshippers of idols; from our sacrament
itself we would draw our interpretation that arts of that kind are
opposed to the faith. For how have we renounced the devil and
his angels, if we make them? What divorce have we declared from
them, I say not with whom, but dependent on whom, we
live? What discord have we entered into with those to whom we are under
obligation for the sake of our maintenance? Can you have denied with
the tongue what with the hand you confess? unmake by word what by deed
you make? preach one God, you who make so many? preach the true God,
you who make false ones? “I make,” says one,
“but I worship not;” as if there were some cause for
which he dare not worship, besides that for which he ought not
also to make,—the offence done to God, namely, in either
case. Nay, you who make, that they may be able to be
worshipped, do worship; and you worship, not with the spirit of
some worthless perfume, but with your own; nor at the expense of a
beast’s soul, but of your own. To them you immolate your
ingenuity; to them you make your sweat a libation; to them you kindle
the torch of your forethought. More are you to them than a priest,
since it is by your means they have a priest; your
diligence is their divinity. i.e., Unless you
made them, they would not exist, and therefore [would not
be regarded as divinities; therefore] your diligence gives them their
divinity.
Chapter VII.—Grief of the Faithful at the Admission of Idol-Makers into the Church; Nay, Even into the Ministry.
A whole day the zeal of faith will direct its
pleadings to this quarter: bewailing that a Christian should come from
idols into the Church; should come from an adversary workshop into the
house of God; should raise to God the Father hands which are the
mothers of idols; should pray to God with the hands which, out of
doors, are prayed to in opposition to God; should apply to the
Lord’s body those hands which confer bodies on demons. Nor is
this sufficient. Grant that it be a small matter, if from other hands
they receive what they contaminate; but even those very hands deliver
to others what they have contaminated. Idol-artificers are chosen even
into the ecclesiastical order. Oh wickedness! Once did the Jews lay
brands on Christ; these mangle His body daily. Oh hands to be cut
off! Now let the saying, “If thy hand make thee do evil, amputate
it,”
Chapter VIII.—Other Arts Made Subservient to Idolatry. Lawful Means of Gaining a Livelihood Abundant.
There are also other species of very many arts
which, although they extend not to the making of idols, yet,
with the same criminality, furnish the adjuncts without which
idols have no power. For it matters not whether you erect or equip: if
you have embellished his temple, altar, or niche; if you have pressed
out gold-leaf, or have wrought his insignia, or even his house:
work of that kind, which confers not shape, but
authority, is more important. If the necessity of
main See chaps. v. and
xii. See chap. ii.,
“The expansiveness of idolatry.” Abacum. The word has
various meanings; but this, perhaps, is its most general use: as, for
instance, in Horace and Juvenal. Alterius = ἑτέρον which in the New Testament
is = to “neighbour” in Quæstum. Another
reading is “questum,” which would require us to translate
“plaint.” “Quorum manus non
ignorantium,” i.e., “the hands of whom not
unwitting;” which may be rendered as above, because in English,
as in the Latin, in adjective “unwitting” belongs to the
“whose,” not to the “hands.”
Chapter IX.—Professions of Some Kinds Allied to Idolatry. Of Astrology in Particular.
We observe among the arts “Ars”
in Latin is very generally used to mean “a scientific
art.” [See See i.e., by naming the
stars after them. Comp. chap. iv., and the
references there given. The idea seems founded on an ancient reading
found in the Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX. in See Tac.
Ann. ii. 31, etc. (Oehler.) See Because the names of the
heathen divinities, which used to be given to the stars, were in many
cases only names of dead men deified. Or, heathenish. Or, sect. See See See See See
Chapter X.—Of Schoolmasters and Their Difficulties.
Moreover, we must inquire likewise touching
schoolmasters; nor only of them, but also all other professors of
literature. Nay, on the contrary, we must not doubt that they are in
affinity with manifold idolatry: first, in that it is necessary
for them to preach the gods of the nations, to express their names,
genealogies, honourable distinctions, all and singular; and
further, to observe the solemnities and festivals of the same,
as of them by whose means they compute their revenues. What
schoolmaster, without a table of the seven idols, i.e., the seven
planets. See i.e., because
“he does not nominally eat,” etc. [Note the
Christian Schoolmaster, already distinguished as such, implying
the existence and the character of Christian schools. Of which, learn
more from the Emperor Julian, afterwards.] i.e., the name of
gods. i.e., the name of
God. i.e., on an
idol, which, as Isaiah says, is “vanity.”
Chapter XI.—Connection Between Covetousness and Idolatry. Certain Trades, However Gainful, to Be Avoided.
If we think over the rest of faults, tracing them
from their generations, let us begin with covetousness, “a root
of all evils,” [The aversion of the
early Christian Fathers passim to the ceremonial use of incense
finds one explanation here.] i.e., the demons, or
idols, to whom incense is burned. i.e., from one
possessed. i.e., The demon, in
gratitude for the incense which the man daily feeds him with, ought to
depart out of the possessed at his request.
Chapter XII.—Further Answers to the Plea, How Am I to Live?
In vain do we flatter ourselves as to the
necessities of human maintenance, if—after faith sealed i.e., in baptism. See above, chaps.
v. and viii. [One is reminded here of the famous pleasantry of Dr.
Johnson; see Boswell.] See i.e., any dear
relations.
Chapter XIII.—Of the Observance of Days Connected with Idolatry.
But why speak of sacrifices and priesthoods? Of
spectacles, moreover, and pleasures of that kind, we have already
filled a volume of their own. The treatise De
Spectaculis [soon to follow, in this volume.] See i.e., Lazarus,
“Apud
inferos,” used clearly here by Tertullian of a place
of happiness. Augustine says he never finds it so used in Scripture.
See Ussher’s “Answer to a Jesuit” on the Article,
“He descended into hell.” [See Elucid. X. p. 59,
supra.] i.e., if you
are unknown to be a Christian:
“dissimulaberis.” This is Oehler’s reading;
but Latinius and Fr. Junis would read “Dissimulaveris,”
="if you dissemble the fact” of being a Christian, which perhaps
is better. So Mr. Dodgson renders
very well.
Chapter XIV.—Of Blasphemy. One of St. Paul’s Sayings.
But, however, the majority (of Christians) have by
this time induced the belief in their mind that it is pardonable if at
any time they do what the heathen do, for fear “the Name be
blasphemed.” Now the blasphemy which must quite be shunned by us
in every way is, I take it, this: If any of us lead a heathen into
blasphemy with good cause, either by fraud, or by injury, or by
contumely, or any other matter of worthy complaint, in which “the
Name” is deservedly impugned, so that the Lord, too, be
deservedly angry. Else, if of all blasphemy it has been
said, “By your means My Name is blasphemed,” [This play on the words
is literally copied from the original—“quæ tunc
me testatur Christianum, cum propter ea me
detestatur.”] St. Paul. i.e., by sinning
(Oehler), for “the wages of sin is death.” There seems to be a play
on the word “convivere” (whence “convivium,”
etc.), as in Cic. de Sen. xiii. [This is
noteworthy. In the earlier days sabbaths (Saturdays) were not
unobserved, but, it was a concession pro tempore, to Hebrew
Christians.] i.e., perhaps your
own birthdays. [See cap. xvi. infra.] Oehler seems to
think it means, “all other Christian festivals beside
Sunday.” [“An Easter
Day in every week.”—Keble.] i.e., a space of
fifty days, see
Chapter XV.—Concerning Festivals in Honour of Emperors, Victories, and the Like. Examples of the Three Children and Daniel.
But “let your works shine,” saith
He; See chap. ix. p. 152,
note 4. See The word is the
same as that for “the mouth” of a river, etc. Hence Oehler
supposes the “entrances” or “mouths”
here referred to to be the mouths of fountains, where
nymphs were supposed to dwell. Nympha is supposed to be
the same word as Lympha. See Hor. Sat. i. 5, 97; and
Macleane’s note. [He seems to refer to
some Providential event, perhaps announced in a dream, not necessarily
out of the course of common occurrences.]
Chapter XVI.—Concerning Private Festivals.
Touching the ceremonies, however, of private and
social solemnities—as those of the white toga, of espousals, of
nuptials, of name-givings—I should think no danger need be
guarded against from the breath of the idolatry which is mixed up with
them. For the causes are to be considered to which the ceremony is due.
Those above-named I take to be clean in themselves, because neither
manly garb, nor the marital ring or union, descends from honours done
to any idol. In short, I find no dress cursed by God, except a
woman’s dress on a man: Tertullian should have
added, “and a man’s on a woman.” See Because it was called
toga virilis—“the manly
toga.” [
Chapter XVII.—The Cases of Servants and Other Officials. What Offices a Christian Man May Hold.
But what shall believing servants or
children This is Oehler’s
reading; Regaltius and Fr. Junius would read “liberti” =
freedmen. I admit that in this instance I prefer their reading; among
other reasons it answers better to “patronis”
="patrons.” Majores. Of course the
word may be rendered simply “ancients;” but I have kept the
common meaning “forefathers.” “The judge
condemns, the legislator fore-condemns.”—Rigaltius (Oehler.)
Chapter XVIII.—Dress as Connected with Idolatry.
But we must now treat of the garb only and
apparatus of office. There is a dress proper to every one, as well for
daily use as for office and dignity. That famous purple, therefore, and
the gold as an ornament of the neck, were, among the Egyptians and
Babylonians, ensigns of dignity, in the same way as bordered, or
striped, or palm-embroidered togas, and the golden wreaths of
provincial priests, are now; but not on the same terms. For they used
only to be conferred, under the name of honour, on such as
deserved the familiar friendship of kings (whence, too, such used to be
styled the “purpled-men” Or,
“purpurates.” [Not us
Christians, but us Roman citizens.] Or,
“white-men.” Or,
“consistency.” i.e.,
Official character. Or, “free”
or “good” “birth.” Or,
“during.” i.e., the dress
was the sign that they had obtained it. I have departed from
Oehler’s reading here, as I have not succeeded in finding that
the “stola” was a boy’s garment;
and, for grammatical reasons, the reading of Gelenius and Pamelius
(which I have taken) seems best. See St. Paul in his epistle
glories in the title, “Paul, a slave,” or
“bondman,” “of Christ Jesus.” See See In baptism. i.e., From your
birth and means, you will be expected to fill offices which are in some
way connected with idolatry. i.e., Martyrdom
(La Cerda, quoted by Oehler). For the idea of being “a
magistrate in the heavens,” [sitting on a throne] compare such
passages as
Chapter XIX.—Concerning Military Service.
In that last section, decision may seem to have
been given likewise concerning military service, which is between
dignity and power. Elucidation II.
“Sacramentum” in Latin is, among other meanings, “a
military oath.” “Virgam.”
The vine switch, or rod, in the Roman army was a mark of the
centurion’s (i.e., captain’s) rank. To fasten the ephod;
hence the buckle worn by soldiers here referred to would probably be
the belt buckle. Buckles were sometimes given as military rewards
(White and Riddle). As soldiers with
belts. See
Chapter XX.—Concerning Idolatry in Words.
But, however, since the conduct according to the
divine rule is imperilled, not merely by deeds, but likewise by words,
(for, just as it is written, “Behold the man and his
deeds;” Neither Oehler nor any
editor seems to have discovered the passage here referred to. Because Scripture calls
idols “vanities” and “vain things.” See
Mehercule. Medius
Fidius. I have given the rendering of the latter, which seems
preferred by Paley (Ov. Fast. vi. 213, note), who considers it
= me dius (i.e., Deus) fidius
juvet. Smith (Lat. Dict. s.v.) agrees with him,
and explains it, me deus fidius servet. White and
Riddle (s.v.) take the me (which appears to
be short) as a “demonstrative” particle or prefix,
and explain, “By the God of truth!” “As true as
heaven,” “Most certainly.”
Chapter XXI.—Of Silent Acquiescence in Heathen Formularies.
But it is a mark of timidity, when some other man
binds you in the name of his gods, by the making of an oath, or by some
other form of attestation, and you, for fear of discovery, i.e., for fear of being
discovered to be a Christian (Oehler). See
Chapter XXII.—Of Accepting Blessing in the Name of Idols.
Equally, one who has been initiated into Christ
will not endure to be blessed in the name of the gods of the nations,
so as not always to reject the unclean benediction, and to cleanse it
out for himself by converting it Godward. To be blessed in the
name of the gods of the nations is to be cursed in the name of God. If
I have given an alms, or shown any other kindness, and the recipient
pray that his gods, or the Genius of the colony, may be propitious to
me, my oblation or act will immediately be an honour to idols, in whose
name he returns me the favour of blessing. But why should he not know
that I have done it for God’s sake; that God may rather be
glorified, and demons may not be honoured in that which I have done for
the sake of God? If God sees that I have done it for His sake, He
equally sees that I have been unwilling to show that I did it
for His sake, and have in a manner made His precept i.e., the precept which
enjoins me to “do good and lend.” Elucidation III.
Chapter XXIII.—Written Contracts in the Name of Idols. Tacit Consent.
But there is a certain species of that class,
doubly sharpened in deed and word, and mischievous on either side,
although it flatter you, as if it were free of danger in each; while it
does not seem to be a deed, because it is not laid hold of as a
word. In borrowing money from heathens under pledged Or,
“mortgaged.” This is, perhaps, the
most obscure and difficult passage in the entire treatise. I have
followed Oehler’s reading, and given what appears to be his
sense; but the readings are widely different, and it is doubtful
whether any is correct. I can scarcely, however, help thinking that the
“se negant” here, and the “tamen non
negavi” below, are to be connected with the “puto
autem nec negare” at the end of the former chapter; and
that the true rendering is rather: “And [by so doing] deny
themselves,” i.e., deny their Christian name and faith.
“Doubtless a time of persecution,” such as the present time
is—or “of prosecution,” which would make very good
sense—“and the place of the tribunal, and the person of the
presiding judge, require them to know themselves,” i.e.,
to have no shuffling or disguise. I submit this rendering with
diffidence; but it does seem to me to suit the context better, and to
harmonize better with the “Yet I have not denied,” i.e., my
name and faith, which follows, and with the “denying
letters” which are mentioned at the end of the
chapter.—Tr. Mr. Dodgson renders
“conceiveth;” and the word is certainly capable of that
meaning. See Oehler understands
“the lighter crime” or “charge” to be
“swearing;” the “heavier,” to be “denying
the Lord Christ.” See This is how Mr. Dodgson
renders, and the rendering agrees with Oehler’s punctuation. [So
obscure however, is Dodgson’s rendering that I have slightly
changed the punctuation, to clarify it, and subjoin Oehler’s
text.] But perhaps we may read thus: “He speaks in his pen; he is
heard in his waxen tablet: the hand is clearer than every sound; the
letter is more vocal than every mouth.” [Oehler reads thus:
“Cum manibus suis a corde dictat et nomen filii sine ore
pronuntiat: loquitur in stilo, auditur in cera manus omni sono
clarior, littera omni ore vocalior.” I see no difficulty
here.] Elucidation IV.
Chapter XXIV.—General Conclusion.
Amid these reefs and inlets, amid these shallows
and straits of idolatry, Faith, her sails filled by the Spirit of God,
navigates; safe if cautious, secure if intently watchful. But to such
as are washed overboard is a deep whence is no out-swimming; to such as
are run aground is inextricable shipwreck; to such as are engulphed is
a whirlpool, where there is no breathing—even in idolatry. All
waves thereof whatsoever suffocate; every eddy thereof sucks down unto
Hades. Let no one say, “Who will so safely foreguard himself? We
shall have to go out of the world!” i.e., cease to be
Christians (Rigalt., referred to by Oehler). [General references to
Kaye (3d edition), which will be useful to those consulting that
author’s Tertullian, for Elucidations of the De
Idololatria, are as follows: Preface, p. xxiii. Then,
pp. 56, 141, 206, 231, 300, 360, 343, 360 and 362.]
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(The Second Commandment, p. 64.)
Tertullian’s
teaching agrees with that of Clement of Alexandria See vol. II., p. 186,
this series.
II.
(Military service, cap. xix., p. 73.)
This chapter must prepare us for a much more sweeping condemnation of the military profession in the De Spectaculis and the De Corona; but Neander’s judgment seems to me very just. The Corona, itself, is rather Montanistic than Montanist, in the opinion of some critics, among whom Gibbon is not to count for much, for the reasons given by Kaye (p. 52), and others hardly less obvious. Surely, if this ascetic opinion and some similar instances were enough to mark a man as a heretic, what are we to say of the thousand crotchets maintained by good Christians, in our day?
(Passive idolatry, cap. xxii., pp. 74, 75.)
Neander’s opinion as to the freedom of De Idololatria from Montanistic taint, is mildly questioned by Bp. Kaye, chiefly on the ground of the agreement of this chapter with the extravagances of the Scorpiace. He thinks “the utmost pitch” of such extravagance is reached in the positions here taken. But Neander’s judgment seems to me preferable. Lapsers usually give tokens of the bent of their minds, and unconsciously betray their inclinations before they themselves see whither they are tending. Thus they become victims of their own plausible self-deceptions.
IV.
(Tacit consents and reservations, cap. xxiii., p. 75.)
It cannot be doubted that apart from the specific case which Tertullian is here maintaining, his appeal to conscience is maintained by reason, by the Morals of the Fathers and by Holy Scripture. Now compare with this the Morality which has been made dogmatic, among Latins, by the elevation of Liguori to the dignities of a “Saint” and a “Doctor of the Church.” Even Cardinal Newman cannot accept it without reservations, so thoroughly does it commit the soul to fraud and hypocrisy. See Liguori, Opp. Tom. II., pp. 34–44, and Meyrick, Moral Theology of the Church of Rome, London, 1855. Republished, with an Introduction, by the Editor of this Series, Baltimore, 1857. Also Newman, Apologia, p. 295 et seqq.
III.
The Shows, or De Spectaculis.
[It is the opinion
of Dr. Neander that this treatise proceeded from our author before his
lapse: but Bp. Kaye (p. xvi.) finds some exaggerated expressions in it,
concerning the military life, which savour of Montanism. Probably they
do, but had he written the tract as a professed Montanist, they would
have been much less ambiguous, in all probability. At all events, a
work so colourless that doctors can disagree about even its shading,
must be regarded as practically orthodox. Exaggerated expressions
are but the characteristics of the author’s genius. We find the
like in all writers of strongly marked individuality. Neander
dates this treatise circa a.d. 197. That
it was written at Carthage is the conviction of Kaye and Dr. Allix; see
Kaye, p. 55.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.
Ye Servants of God, about to draw near to God,
that you may make solemn consecration of yourselves to Him, [He speaks of
Catechumens, called elsewhere Novitioli. See Bunsen, Hippol.
III. Church and House-book, p. 5.] [Here he addresses the
Fideles or Communicants, as we call
them.]
Chapter II.
Then, again, every one is ready with the
argument [Kaye (p. 366), declares
that all the arguments urged in this tract are comprised in two
sentences of the Apology, cap. 38.] [For the demonology of
this treatise, compare capp. 10, 12, 13, 23, and see Kaye’s full
but condensed statement (pp. 201–204), in his account of the
writings, etc.]
Chapter III.
Fortified by this knowledge against heathen views,
let us rather turn to the unworthy reasonings of our own people; for
the faith of some, either too simple or too scrupulous, demands direct
authority from Scripture for giving up the shows, and holds out that
the matter is a doubtful one, because such abstinence is not clearly
and in words imposed upon God’s servants. Well, we never find it
expressed with the same precision, “Thou shalt not enter circus
or theatre, thou shalt not look on combat or show;” as it is
plainly laid down, “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not worship
an idol; thou shalt not commit adultery or fraud.”
Chapter IV.
Lest any one think that we are dealing in mere
argumentative subtleties, I shall turn to that highest authority of our
“seal” itself. When entering the water, we make profession
of the Christian faith in the words of its rule; we bear public
testimony that we have renounced the devil, his pomp, and his angels.
Well, is it not in connection with idolatry, above all, that you have
the devil with his pomp and his angels? from which, to speak
briefly—for I do not wish to dilate—you have every unclean
and wicked spirit. If, therefore, it shall be made plain that the
entire apparatus of the shows is based upon idolatry, beyond all doubt
that will carry with it the conclusion that our renunciatory testimony
in the laver of baptism has reference to the shows, which, through
their idolatry, have been given over to the devil, and his pomp, and
his angels. We shall set forth, then, their several origins, in what
nursing-places they have grown to manhood; next the titles of some of
them, by what names they are called; then their apparatus, with what
superstitions they are observed; (then their places, to what patrons
they are dedicated;) then the arts which minister to them, to what
authors they are traced. If any of these shall be found to have had no
connection with an idol-god, it will be held as free at once from the
taint of idolatry, and as not coming within the range of our baptismal
abjuration. [Neander argues
with great force that in referring to Scripture and not at all to the
“new Prophecy,” our author shows his orthodoxy. We may add
“ that highest authority” to which he appeals in
this chapter.]
Chapter V.
In the matter of their origins, as these are somewhat
obscure and but little known to many among us, our investigations must
go back to a remote antiquity, and our authorities be none other than
books of heathen literature. Various authors are extant who have
published works on the subject. The origin of the games as given by
them is this. Timæus tells us that immigrants from Asia, under the
leadership of Tyrrhenus, who, in a contest about his native kingdom,
had succumbed to his brother, settled down in Etruria. Well, among
other superstitious observances under the name of religion, they set up
in their new home public shows. The Romans, at their own request,
obtain from them skilled performers—the proper seasons—the
name too, for it is said they are called Ludi, from Lydi.
And though Varro derives the name of Ludi from Ludus,
that is, from play, as they called the Luperci also Ludii,
because they ran about making sport; still that sporting of young men
belongs, in his view, to festal days and temples, and objects of
religious veneration. However, it is of little consequence the origin
of the name, when it is certain that the thing springs from idolatry.
The Liberalia, under the general designation of Ludi, clearly declared
the glory of Father Bacchus; for to Bacchus these festivities were
first consecrated by grateful peasants, in return for the boon he
conferred on them, as they say, making known the pleasures of wine.
Chapter VI.
To the testimony of antiquity is added that of
later games instituted in their turn, and betraying their origin from
the titles which they bear even at the present day, in which it is
imprinted as on their very face, for what idol and for what religious
object games, whether of the one kind or the other, were designed. You
have festivals bearing the name of the great Mother [Cybele.]
Chapter VII.
The two kinds of public games, then, have one origin; and they have common names, as owning the same parentage. So, too, as they are equally tainted with the sin of idolatry, their foundress, they must needs be like each other in their pomp. But the more ambitious preliminary display of the circus games to which the name procession specially belongs, is in itself the proof to whom the whole thing appertains, in the many images the long line of statues, the chariots of all sorts, the thrones, the crowns, the dresses. What high religious rites besides, what sacrifices precede, come between, and follow. How many guilds, how many priesthoods, how many offices are set astir, is known to the inhabitants of the great city in which the demon convention has its headquarters. If these things are done in humbler style in the provinces, in accordance with their inferior means, still all circus games must be counted as belonging to that from which they are derived; the fountain from which they spring defiles them. The tiny streamlet from its very spring-head, the little twig from its very budding, contains in it the essential nature of its origin. It may be grand or mean, no matter, any circus procession whatever is offensive to God. Though there be few images to grace it, there is idolatry in one; though there be no more than a single sacred car, it is a chariot of Jupiter: anything of idolatry whatever, whether meanly arrayed or modestly rich and gorgeous, taints it in its origin.
Chapter VIII.
To follow out my plan in regard to places: the circus is
chiefly consecrated to the Sun, whose temple stands in the middle of
it, and whose image shines forth from its temple summit; for they have
not thought it proper to pay sacred honours underneath a roof to an
object they have itself in open space. [Very admirable
reflections on this chapter may be found in Kaye, pp. 362–3.]
Chapter IX.
Now as to the kind of performances peculiar to the circus exhibitions. In former days equestrianism was practised in a simple way on horseback, and certainly its ordinary use had nothing sinful in it; but when it was dragged into the games, it passed from the service of God into the employment of demons. Accordingly this kind of circus performances is regarded as sacred to Castor and Pollux, to whom, Stesichorus tells us, horses were given by Mercury. And Neptune, too, is an equestrian deity, by the Greeks called Hippius. In regard to the team, they have consecrated the chariot and four to the sun; the chariot and pair to the moon. But, as the poet has it, “Erichthonius first dared to yoke four horses to the chariot, and to ride upon its wheels with victorious swiftness.” Erichthonius, the son of Vulcan and Minerva, fruit of unworthy passion upon earth, is a demon-monster, nay, the devil himself, and no mere snake. But if Trochilus the Argive is maker of the first chariot, he dedicated that work of his to Juno. If Romulus first exhibited the four-horse chariot at Rome, he too, I think, has a place given him among idols, at least if he and Quirinus are the same. But as chariots had such inventors, the charioteers were naturally dressed, too, in the colours of idolatry; for at first these were only two, namely white and red,—the former sacred to the winter with its glistening snows, the latter sacred to the summer with its ruddy sun: but afterwards, in the progress of luxury as well as of superstition, red was dedicated by some to Mars, and white by others to the Zephyrs, while green was given to Mother Earth, or spring, and azure to the sky and sea, or autumn. But as idolatry of every kind is condemned by God, that form of it surely shares the condemnation which is offered to the elements of nature.
Chapter X.
Let us pass on now to theatrical exhibitions, which we
have already shown have a common
Chapter XI.
In fulfilment of our plan, let us now go on to consider the combats. Their origin is akin to that of the games (ludi). Hence they are kept as either sacred or funereal, as they have been instituted in honour of the idol-gods of the nations or of the dead. Thus, too, they are called Olympian in honour of Jupiter, known at Rome as the Capitoline; Nemean, in honour of Hercules; Isthmian, in honour of Neptune; the rest mortuarii, as belonging to the dead. What wonder, then, if idolatry pollutes the combat-parade with profane crowns, with sacerdotal chiefs, with attendants belonging to the various colleges, last of all with the blood of its sacrifices? To add a completing word about the “place”—in the common place for the college of the arts sacred to the Muses, and Apollo, and Minerva, and also for that of the arts dedicated to Mars, they with contest and sound of trumpet emulate the circus in the arena, which is a real temple—I mean of the god whose festivals it celebrates. The gymnastic arts also originated with their Castors, and Herculeses, and Mercuries.
It remains for us to examine the
“spectacle” most noted of all, and in highest favour. It is
called a dutiful service (munus), from its being an office, for
it bears the name of “officium” as well as
“munus.” The ancients thought that in this solemnity
they rendered offices to the dead; at a later period, with a cruelty
more refined, they somewhat modified its character. For formerly,
in the belief that the souls of the departed were appeased by human
blood, they were in the habit of buying captives or slaves of wicked
disposition, and immolating them in their funeral obsequies. Afterwards
they thought good to throw the veil of pleasure over their
iniquity. [The authority of
Tertullian, in this matter, is accepted by the critics, as of historic
importance.] [Though this was
probably written at Carthage, his reference to the Flavian theatre in
this place is plain from the immediate comparison with the
Capitol.] [To the infernal deities
and first of all to Pluto. See vol. I. note 6, p. 131, this
Series.]
Chapter XIII.
We have, I think, faithfully carried out our plan
of showing in how many different ways the sin of idolatry clings to the
shows, in respect of their origins, their titles, their equipments,
their places of celebration, their arts; and we may hold it as a thing
beyond all doubt, that for us who have twice [Bunsen,
Hippol. Vol. III. pp. 20–22.]
Chapter XIV.
Having sufficiently established the charge of idolatry,
which alone ought to be reason enough for our giving up the shows, let
us now ex abundanti look at the subject in another way, for the
sake of those especially who keep themselves comfortable in the thought
that the abstinence we urge is not in so many words enjoined, as if in
the condemnation of the lusts of the world there was not involved a
sufficient declaration against all these amusements. For as there is a
lust of money, or rank, or eating, or impure enjoyment, or glory, so
there is also a lust of pleasure. But the show is just a sort of
pleasure. I think, then, that under the general designation of lusts,
pleasures are included; in like manner, under the general idea of
pleasures,
Chapter XV.
Having done enough, then, as we have said, in
regard to that principal argument, that there is in them all the taint
of idolatry—having sufficiently dealt with that, let us now
contrast the other characteristics of the show with the things of God.
God has enjoined us to deal calmly, gently, quietly, and peacefully
with the Holy Spirit, because these things are alone in keeping with
the goodness of His nature, with His tenderness and sensitiveness, and
not to vex Him with rage, ill-nature, anger, or grief. Well, how shall
this be made to accord with the shows? For the show always leads to
spiritual agitation, since where there is pleasure, there is keenness
of feeling giving pleasure its zest; and where there is keenness of
feeling, there is rivalry giving in turn its zest to that. Then,
too, where you have rivalry, you have rage, bitterness, wrath and
grief, with all bad things which flow from them—the whole
entirely out of keeping with the religion of Christ. For even suppose
one should enjoy the shows in a moderate way, as befits his rank, age
or nature, still he is not undisturbed in mind, without some unuttered
movings of the inner man. No one partakes of pleasures such as these
without their strong excitements; no one comes under their excitements
without their natural lapses. These lapses, again, create passionate
desire. If there is no desire, there is no pleasure, and he is
chargeable with trifling who goes where nothing is gotten; in my view,
even that is foreign to us. Moreover, a man pronounces his own
condemnation in the very act of taking his place among those with whom,
by his disinclination to be like them, he confesses he has no sympathy.
It is not enough that we do no such things ourselves, unless we break
all connection also with those who do. “If thou sawest a
thief,” says the Scripture, “thou consentedst with
him.”
Chapter XVI.
Since, then, all passionate excitement is forbidden us, we are debarred from every kind of spectacle, and especially from the circus, where such excitement presides as in its proper element. See the people coming to it already under strong emotion, already tumultuous, already passion-blind, already agitated about their bets. The prætor is too slow for them: their eyes are ever rolling as though along with the lots in his urn; then they hang all eager on the signal; there is the united shout of a common madness. Observe how “out of themselves” they are by their foolish speeches. “He has thrown it!” they exclaim; and they announce each one to his neighbour what all have seen. I have clearest evidence of their blindness; they do not see what is really thrown. They think it a “signal cloth,” but it is the likeness of the devil cast headlong from on high. And the result accordingly is, that they fly into rages, and passions, and discords, and all that they who are consecrated to peace ought never to indulge in. Then there are curses and reproaches, with no cause of hatred; there are cries of applause, with nothing to merit them. What are the partakers in all this—not their own masters—to obtain of it for themselves? unless, it may be, that which makes them not their own: they are saddened by another’s sorrow, they are gladdened by another’s joy. Whatever they desire on the one hand, or detest on the other, is entirely foreign to themselves. So love with them is a useless thing, and hatred is unjust. Or is a causeless love perhaps more legitimate than a causeless hatred? God certainly forbids us to hate even with a reason for our hating; for He commands us to love our enemies. God forbids us to curse, though there be some ground for doing so, in commanding that those who curse us we are to bless. But what is more merciless than the circus, where people do not spare even their rulers and fellow-citizens? If any of its madnesses are becoming elsewhere in the saints of God, they will be seemly in the circus too; but if they are nowhere right, so neither are they there.
Chapter XVII.
Are we not, in like manner, enjoined to put away from us
all immodesty? On this ground, again, we are excluded from the
theatre, which is immodesty’s own peculiar abode, where nothing
is in repute but what elsewhere is disreputable. So the best path to
the highest favour of its god is the vileness [The ludi
Atellani were so called from Atella, in Campania, where a vast
amphitheatre delighted the inhabitants. Juvenal, Sat. vi. 71. The like
disgrace our times.]
Chapter XVIII.
But if you argue that the racecourse is mentioned in Scripture, I grant it at once. But you will not refuse to admit that the things which are done there are not for you to look upon: the blows, and kicks, and cuffs, and all the recklessness of hand, and everything like that disfiguration of the human countenance, which is nothing less than the disfiguration of God’s own image. You will never give your approval to those foolish racing and throwing feats, and yet more foolish leapings; you will never find pleasure in injurious or useless exhibitions of strength; certainly you will not regard with approval those efforts after an artificial body which aim at surpassing the Creator’s work; and you will have the very opposite of complacency in the athletes Greece, in the inactivity of peace, feeds up. And the wrestler’s art is a devil’s thing. The devil wrestled with, and crushed to death, the first human beings. Its very attitude has power in it of the serpent kind, firm to hold—tortures to clasp—slippery to glide away. You have no need of crowns; why do you strive to get pleasures from crowns?
Chapter XIX.
We shall now see how the Scriptures condemn the
amphitheatre. If we can maintain that it is right to indulge in the
cruel, and the impious, and the fierce, let us go there. If we are what
we are said to be, let us regale ourselves there with human blood. It
is good, no doubt, to have the guilty punished. Who but the criminal
himself will deny that? And yet the innocent can find no pleasure in
another’s sufferings: he rather mourns that a brother has
sinned so heinously as to need a punishment so dreadful. But who is my
guarantee that it is always the guilty who are adjudged to the wild
beasts, or to some other doom, and that the guiltless never suffer from
the revenge of the judge, or the weakness of the defence, or the
pressure of the rack? How much better, then, is it for me to remain
ignorant of the punishment inflicted on the wicked, lest I am obliged
to know also of the good coming to untimely ends—if I may speak
of goodness in the case at all! At any rate, gladiators not chargeable
with crime are offered in sale for the games, that they may become the
victims of the public pleasure. Even in the case of those who are
judicially condemned to the amphitheatre, what a monstrous thing it is,
that, in undergoing their punishment, they, from some less serious
delinquency, advance to the criminality of manslayers! But I mean these
remarks for heathen. As to Christians, I shall not insult them by
adding another word as to the aversion with which they should regard
this sort of exhibition; though no one is more able than myself to set
forth fully the whole subject, unless it be one who is still in the
habit [See Kaye, p. 11. This
expression is thought to confirm the probability of Tertullian’s
original Gentilism.]
Chapter XX.
How vain, then—nay, how desperate—is the reasoning of persons, who, just because they decline to lose a pleasure, hold out that we cannot point to the specific words or the very place where this abstinence is mentioned, and where the servants of God are directly forbidden to have anything to do with such assemblies! I heard lately a novel defence of himself by a certain play-lover. “The sun,” said he, “nay, God Himself, looks down from heaven on the show, and no pollution is contracted.” Yes, and the sun, too, pours down his rays into the common sewer without being defiled. As for God, would that all crimes were hid from His eye, that we might all escape judgment! But He looks on robberies too; He looks on falsehoods, adulteries, frauds, idolatries, and these same shows; and precisely on that account we will not look on them, lest the All-seeing see us. You are putting on the same level, O man, the criminal and the judge; the criminal who is a criminal because he is seen, and the Judge who is a Judge because He sees. Are we set, then, on playing the madman outside the circus boundaries? Outside the gates of the theatre are we bent on lewdness, outside the course on arrogance, and outside the amphitheatre on cruelty, because outside the porticoes, the tiers and the curtains, too, God has eyes? Never and nowhere is that free from blame which God ever condemns; never and nowhere is it right to do what you may not do at all times and in all places. It is the freedom of the truth from change of opinion and varying judgments which constitutes its perfection, and gives it its claims to full mastery, unchanging reverence, and faithful obedience. That which is really good or really evil cannot be ought else. But in all things the truth of God is immutable.
Chapter XXI.
The heathen, who have not a full revelation of the truth, for they are not taught of God, hold a thing evil and good as it suits self-will and passion, making that which is good in one place evil in another, and that which is evil in one place in another good. So it strangely happens, that the same man who can scarcely in public lift up his tunic, even when necessity of nature presses him, takes it off in the circus, as if bent on exposing himself before everybody; the father who carefully protects and guards his virgin daughter’s ears from every polluting word, takes her to the theatre himself, exposing her to all its vile words and attitudes; he, again, who in the streets lays hands on or covers with reproaches the brawling pugilist, in the arena gives all encouragement to combats of a much more serious kind; and he who looks with horror on the corpse of one who has died under the common law of nature, in the amphitheatre gazes down with most patient eyes on bodies all mangled and torn and smeared with their own blood; nay, the very man who comes to the show, because he thinks murderers ought to suffer for their crime, drives the unwilling gladiator to the murderous deed with rods and scourges; and one who demands the lion for every manslayer of deeper dye, will have the staff for the savage swordsman, and rewards him with the cap of liberty. Yes and he must have the poor victim back again, that he may get a sight of his face—with zest inspecting near at hand the man whom he wished torn in pieces at safe distance from him: so much the more cruel he if that was not his wish.
Chapter XXII.
What wonder is there in it? Such inconsistencies as these are just such as we might expect from men, who confuse and change the nature of good and evil in their inconstancy of feeling and fickleness in judgment. Why, the authors and managers of the spectacles, in that very respect with reference to which they highly laud the charioteers, and actors, and wrestlers, and those most loving gladiators, to whom men prostitute their souls, women too their bodies, slight and trample on them, though for their sakes they are guilty of the deeds they reprobate; nay, they doom them to ignominy and the loss of their rights as citizens, excluding them from the Curia, and the rostra, from senatorial and equestrian rank, and from all other honours as well as certain distinctions. What perversity! They have pleasure in those whom yet they punish; they put all slights on those to whom, at the same time, they award their approbation; they magnify the art and brand the artist. What an outrageous thing it is, to blacken a man on account of the very things which make him meritorious in their eyes! Nay, what a confession that the things are evil, when their authors, even in highest favour, are not without a mark of disgrace upon them!
Seeing, then, man’s own reflections, even in
spite of the sweetness of pleasure, lead him to think that people such
as these should be condemned to a hapless lot of infamy, losing all the
advantages connected with the possession of the dignities of life, how
much more does the divine righteousness inflict punishment on those who
give themselves to these arts! Will God have any pleasure in the
charioteer who disquiets so many souls, rouses up so many furious
passions, and creates so many various moods, either crowned like a
priest or wearing the colours of a pimp, decked out by the devil that
he may be whirled away in his chariot, as though with the object of
taking off Elijah? Will He be pleased with him who applies the razor to
himself, and completely changes his features; who, with no respect for
his face, is not content with making it as like as possible to Saturn
and Isis and Bacchus, but gives it quietly over to contumelious blows,
as if in mockery of our Lord? The devil, forsooth, makes it part, too,
of his teaching, that the cheek is to be meekly offered to the smiter.
In the same way, with their high shoes, he has made the tragic actors
taller, because “none can add a cubit to his
stature.”
Chapter XXIV.
In how many other ways shall we yet further show that nothing which is peculiar to the shows has God’s approval, or without that approval is becoming in God’s servants? If we have succeeded in making it plain that they were instituted entirely for the devil’s sake, and have been got up entirely with the devil’s things (for all that is not God’s, or is not pleasing in His eyes, belongs to His wicked rival), this simply means that in them you have that pomp of the devil which in the “seal” of our faith we abjure. We should have no connection with the things which we abjure, whether in deed or word, whether by looking on them or looking forward to them; but do we not abjure and rescind that baptismal pledge, when we cease to bear its testimony? Does it then remain for us to apply to the heathen themselves. Let them tell us, then, whether it is right in Christians to frequent the show. Why, the rejection of these amusements is the chief sign to them that a man has adopted the Christian faith. If any one, then, puts away the faith’s distinctive badge, he is plainly guilty of denying it. What hope can you possibly retain in regard to a man who does that? When you go over to the enemy’s camp, you throw down your arms, desert the standards and the oath of allegiance to your chief: you cast in your lot for life or death with your new friends.
Chapter XXV.
Seated where there is nothing of God, will one be
thinking of his Maker? Will there be peace in his soul when there is
eager strife there for a charioteer? Wrought up into a frenzied
excitement, will he learn to be modest? Nay, in the whole thing he will
meet with no greater temptation than that gay attiring of the men and
women. The very intermingling of emotions, the very agreements and
disagreements with each other in the bestowment of their favours, where
you have such close communion, blow up the sparks of passion. And then
there is scarce any other object in going to the show, but to see and
to be seen. When a tragic actor is declaiming, will one be giving
thought to prophetic appeals? Amid the measures of the effeminate
player, will he call up to himself a psalm? And when the athletes are
hard at struggle, will he be ready to proclaim that there must be no
striking again? And with his eye fixed on the bites of bears, and the
sponge-nets of the net-fighters, can he be moved by compassion? May God
avert from His people any such passionate eagerness after a cruel
enjoyment! For how monstrous it is to go from God’s church
to the devil’s—from [De Cælo in
Cænum: (sic) Oehler.]
Chapter XXVI.
Why may not those who go into the temptations of
the show become accessible also to evil spirits? We have the case of
the woman—the Lord Himself is witness—who went to the
theatre, and came back possessed. In the outcasting, [The exorcism. For
the exorcism in Baptism, see Bunsen, Hippol. iii.
19.] See Neander’s
explanation in Kaye, p. xxiii. But, let us observe the entire
simplicity with which our author narrates a sort of incident known to
the apostles.
Chapter XXVII.
We ought to detest these heathen meetings and
assemblies, if on no other account than that there God’s name is
blasphemed—that there the cry “To the lions!” is
daily raised against us
[Observe—“daily raised.” On this precarious condition
of the Christians, in their daily life, see the calm statement of Kaye,
pp. 110, 111.
Chapter XXVIII.
With such dainties as these let the devil’s
guests be feasted. The places and the times, the inviter too, are
theirs. Our banquets, our nuptial joys, are yet to come. We cannot sit
down in fellowship with them, as neither can they with us. Things
in this matter go by their turns. Now they have gladness and we
are troubled. “The world,” says Jesus, “shall
rejoice; ye shall be sorrowful.”
Chapter XXIX.
Even as things are, if your thought is to spend this
period of existence in enjoyments, how are you so ungrateful as to
reckon insufficient, as not thankfully to recognize the many and
exquisite pleasures God has bestowed upon you? For what more delightful
[See cap. 26,
supra. On this claim to such powers still remaining in the
church. See Kaye, p. 89.]
Chapter XXX.
But what a spectacle is that fast-approaching
advent [Kaye, p. 20. He
doubtless looked for a speedy appearance of the Lord: and note the
apparent expectation of a New Jerusalem, on earth, before the
Consummation and Judgment.] [This New
Jerusalem gives Bp. Kaye (p. 55) “decisive proof” of
Montanism, especially as compared with the Third Book against Marcion.
I cannot see it, here.] Viz., the theatre and
amphitheatre. [This concluding chapter, which Gibbon delights to
censure, because its fervid rhetoric so fearfully depicts the
punishments of Christ’s enemies, “appears to Dr. Neander to
contain a beautiful specimen of lively faith and Christian
confidence.” See Kaye, p. xxix.]
IV.
The Chaplet, or De Corona. [Kaye, apparently
accepting the judgment of Dr. Neander, assigns this treatise to
a.d. 204. The bounty here spoken of, then, must
be that dispensed in honour of the victories over the Parthians, under
Severus.]
————————————
Chapter I.
Very lately it happened
thus: while the bounty of our most excellent emperors
“Emperors.” The Emperor Severus associated his two
sons with him in the possession of the imperial power; Caracalla in the
year 198, Geta in 208.—Tr. [A touch of our
author’s genius, inspired by the Phrygian enthusiasm for
martyrdom. The ground on which a martyr treads begins to be holy, even
before the sacrifice, and in loosing his shoe the victim consecrates
the spot and at the same time pays it homage.] [The name of Christ: and
the Antiochian name of Christians.] [Gibbon will have it
that the De Corona was written while Tertullian was orthodox,
but this reference to the Montanist notion of “New
Prophecy” seems to justify the decision of critics against
Gibbon, who, as Kaye suggests (p. 53) was anxious to make Christianity
itself responsible for military insubordination and for offences
against Imperial Law.]
I affirm that not one of the Faithful has ever a
crown upon his head, except at a time of trial. That is the case with
all, from catechumens to confessors and martyrs, [Kaye (p. 231)
notes this as a rare instance of classing Catechumens among
“the Faithful.”] [This is said not
absolutely but in contrast with extreme license; but it shows the
Supremacy of Scripture. Compare De Monogam, cap. 4.]
Chapter III.
And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro
through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by
anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no
passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without
doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything
come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in
pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let
us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should
not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be
admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written
instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the
countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To
deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. [Elucidation I.,
and see Bunsen’s Church and House Book, pp.
19–24.] [There is here an
allusion to the Roman form of recognizing a lawful child. The father,
taking up the new-born infant, gave him adoption into the family, and
recognised him as a legitimate son and heir.] [Men and women, rich and
poor.] i.e., of the Cross.
Chapter IV.
If, for these and other such rules, you insist
upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none.
Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom
as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will
support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself
perceive, or learn from some one who has. Meanwhile you will believe
that there is some reason to which submission is due. I add still one
case more, as it will be proper to show you how it was among the
ancients also. Among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have
the head veiled, that they may thereby be recognised. I ask in this
instance for the law. I put the apostle aside. If Rebecca at once drew
down her veil, when in the distance she saw her betrothed, this modesty
of a mere private individual could not have made a law, or it will have
made it only for those who have the reason which she had. Let virgins
alone be veiled, and this when they are coming to be married, and not
till they have recognised their destined husband. If Susanna also, who
was subjected to unveiling on her trial, Vulgate, [Observe it must (1.) be
based on Apostolic grounds; (2.) must not be a novelty, but derived
from a time “to which the memory of men runneth not
contrary.”] [I slightly amend the
translation to bring out the force of an objection to which our author
gives a Montanistic reply.] [See luminous remarks in
Kaye, pp. 371–373.] [This teacher, i.e.,
right reason, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. He is here
foisting in a plea for the “New Prophecy,” apparently, and
this is one of the most decided instances in the treatise.]
Chapter V.
The argument for Christian practices becomes all
the stronger, when also nature, which is the first rule of all,
supports them. Well, she is the first who lays it down that a crown
does not become the head. But I think ours is the God of nature, who
fashioned man; and, that he might desire, (appreciate, become partaker
of) the pleasures afforded by His creatures, endowed him with certain
senses, (acting) through members, which, so to speak, are their
peculiar instruments. The sense of hearing he has planted in the ears;
that of sight, lighted up in the eyes; that of taste, shut up in the
mouth; that of smell, wafted into the nose; that of touch, fixed in the
tips of the fingers. By means of these organs of the outer man doing
duty to the inner man, the enjoyments of the divine gifts are conveyed
by the senses to the soul. Kaye [p. 187,] has
some valuable remarks on this testimony to the senses in Christian
Philosophy, and compares Cicero, I. Tusc. cap. xx. or
xlvi.]
Chapter VI.
Demanding then a law of God, you have that common
one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to
which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the
woman’s veil he says, “Does not even Nature teach
you?” [Plays were
regarded as pomps renounced in Baptism.]
Chapter VII.
Let these dealers in crowns then recognize in the
meantime the authority of Nature, on the ground of a common sense as
human beings, and the certifications of their peculiar religion, as,
according to the last chapter, worshippers of the God of nature; and,
as it were, thus over and above what is required, let them consider
those other reasons too which forbid us wearing crowns, especially on
the head, and indeed crowns of every sort. For we are obliged to turn
from the rule of Nature, which we share with mankind in general, that
we may maintain the whole peculiarity of our Christian discipline, in
relation also to other kinds of crowns which seem to have been provided
for different uses, as being composed of different substances, lest,
because they do not consist of flowers, the use of which nature has
indicated (as it does in the case of this military laurel one itself),
they may be thought not to come under the prohibition of our sect,
since they have escaped any objections of nature. I see, then, that we
must go into the matter both with more research, and more fully, from
its beginnings on through its successive stages of growth to its more
erratic developments. For this we need to turn to heathen literature,
for things belonging to the heathen must be proved from their own
Chapter VIII.
Hold fast in the meantime this persuasion, while I
examine a question which comes in our way. For I already hear it is
said, that many other things as well as crowns have been invented by
those whom the world believes to be gods, and that they are
notwithstanding to be met with both in our present usages and in those
of early saints, and in the service of God, and in Christ Himself, who
did His work as man by no other than these ordinary instrumentalities
of human life. Well, let it be so; nor shall I inquire any further back
into the origin of this things. Let Mercury have been the first who
taught the knowledge of letters; I will own that they are requisite
both for the business and commerce of life, and for performing our
devotion to God. Nay, if he also first strung the chord to give forth
melody, I will not deny, when listening to David, that this invention
has been in use with the saints, and has ministered to God. Let
Æsculapius have been the first who sought and discovered cures:
Esaias
Chapter IX.
In short, what patriarch, what prophet, what
Levite, or priest, or ruler, or at a later period what apostle, or
preacher of the gospel, or bishop, do you ever find the wearer of a
crown? [But see Eusebius,
Hist. B. v., cap. 24, whose story is examined by Lardner,
Cred., vol. iv., p. 448.]
Chapter X.
So, when you allege that the ornaments of the
heathen deities are found no less with God, with the object of claiming
among these for general use the head-crown, you already lay it down for
yourself, that we must not have among us, as a thing whose use we are
to share with others, what is not to be found in the service of God.
Well, what is so unworthy of God indeed as that which is worthy of an
idol? But what is so worthy of an idol as that which is also worthy of
a dead man? For it is the privilege of the dead also to be thus
crowned, as they too straightway become idols, both by their dress and
the service of deification, which (deification) is with us a second
idolatry. Wanting, then, the sense, it will be theirs to use the thing
for which the sense is wanting, just as if in full possession of the
sense they wished to abuse it. When there ceases to be any
reality in the use, there is no distinction between using and abusing.
Who can abuse a thing, when the precipient nature with which he wishes
to carry out his purpose is not his to use it? The apostle, moreover,
forbids us to abuse, while he would more naturally have taught us not
to use, unless on the ground that, where there is no sense for things,
there is no wrong use of them. But the whole affair is
meaningless, and is, in fact, a dead work so far as concerns the idols;
though, without doubt, a living one as respects the demons [Compare De
Idololatria, cap. xv., p. 70, supra.] [He seems to know no use
for incense except for burials and for fumigation.] [Kaye (p. 362)
defends our author against Barbeyrac’s animadversions, by the
maxim, “put yourself in his place” i.e. among the
abominations of Paganism.]
Chapter XI.
To begin with the real ground of the military
crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all
for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely
accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we
believe it lawful for a human oath [He plays on this word
Sacramentum. Is the military sacrament to be added
to the Lord’s?] [Vexillum. Such words as
these prepared for the Labarum.] “Outside of the
military service.” By substituting ex militia for the
corresponding words extra militiam, as has been proposed by
Rigaltius, the sentence acquires a meaning such that desertion from the
army is suggested as one of the methods by which a soldier who has
become a Christian may continue faithful to Jesus. But the words
extra militiam are a genuine part of the text. There is no good
ground, therefore, for the statement of Gibbon: “Tertullian
(de Corona Militis, c. xi.) suggests to them the expedient
of deserting; a counsel which, if it had been generally known, was not
very proper to conciliate the favour of the emperors toward the
Christian sect.”—Tr. “The
faithful,” etc.; i.e., the kind of occupation which any one has
cannot be pleaded by him as a reason for not doing all that Christ has
enjoined upon His people.—Tr. [He was not yet quite a
Montanist.]
Chapter XII.
But I first say a word also about the crown
itself. This laurel one is sacred to Apollo or Bacchus—to the
former as the god of archery, to the latter as the god of triumphs. In
like manner Claudius teaches; when he tells us that soldiers are wont
too to be wreathed in myrtle. For the myrtle belongs to Venus, the
mother of the Æneadæ, the mistress also of the god of war,
who, through Ilia and the Romuli is Roman. But I do not believe
that Venus is Roman as well as Mars, because of the vexation the
concubine gave her. i.e., Ilia. [Such considerations may
account for our author’s abandonment of what he says in the
Apology; which compare in capp. xlii. and xxxix.] [Et apud barbaros enim
Christus. See Kaye’s argument, p. 87.]
Chapter XIII.
For state reasons, the various orders of the
citizens also are crowned with laurel crowns; but the magistrates
besides with golden ones, as at Athens, and at Rome. Even to those are
preferred the Etruscan. This appellation is given to the crowns which,
distinguished by their gems and oak leaves of gold, they put on, with
mantles having an embroidery of palm branches, to conduct the chariots
containing the images of the gods to the circus. There are also
provincial crowns of gold, needing now the larger heads of images
instead of those of men. But your orders, and your magistracies, and
your very place of meeting, the church, are Christ’s. You belong
to Him, for you have been enrolled in the books of life. [A suggestive
interpretation of the baptismal vow, of which see Bunsen,
Hippol., Vol. III., p. 20.]
Chapter XIV.
Much less may the Christian put the service of
idolatry on his own head—nay, I might have said, upon Christ,
since Christ is the Head of the Christian man—(for his head) is
as free as even Christ is, under no obligation to wear a covering, not
to say a band. But even the head which is bound to have the veil, I
mean woman’s, as already taken possession of by this very thing,
is not open also to a band. She has the burden of her own humility to
bear. If she ought not to appear with her head uncovered on account of
the angels, [A very striking
collocation of
Chapter XV.
Keep for God His own property untainted; He will
crown it if He choose. Nay, then, He does even choose. He calls us to
it. To him who conquers He says, “I will give a crown of
life.”
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Usages, p. 94.)
Here a reference to Bunsen’s Hippolytus, vol. III., so often referred to in the former volume, will be useful. A slight metaphrase will bring out the sense, perhaps, of this most interesting portrait of early Christian usages.
In baptism, we use trine immersion, in honour of
the trinal Name, after renouncing the devil and his angels and the
pomps and vanities of his kingdom. See Kaye, pp.
408–415.
II.
(Traditions, cap. iv., p. 95.)
The traditions here argued for respect things in their nature indifferent. And as our author asserts the long continuance of such usages to be their chief justification, it is evident that he supposed them common from the Sub-apostolic age. There is nothing here to justify amplifications and traditions which, subsequently, came in like a flood to change principles of the Faith once delivered to the Saints. Even in his little plea for Montanistic revelations of some possible novelties, he pre-supposes that reason must be subject to Scripture and Apostolic Law. In a word, his own principle of “Prescription” must be honoured even in things indifferent; if novel they are not Catholic.
To Scapula. [See Elucidation I.
Written late in our author’s life, this tract contains no trace
of Montanism, and shows that his heart was with the common cause of all
Christians. Who can give up such an Ephraim without recalling the words
of inspired love for the erring?—
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.
We are not in any great perturbation or alarm about the persecutions we suffer from the ignorance of men; for we have attached ourselves to this sect, fully accepting the terms of its covenant, so that, as men whose very lives are not their own, we engage in these conflicts, our desire being to obtain God’s promised rewards, and our dread lest the woes with which He threatens an unchristian life should overtake us. Hence we shrink not from the grapple with your utmost rage, coming even forth of our own accord to the contest; and condemnation gives us more pleasure than acquittal. We have sent, therefore, this tract to you in no alarm about ourselves, but in much concern for you and for all our enemies, to say nothing of our friends. For our religion commands us to love even our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us, aiming at a perfection all its own, and seeking in its disciples something of a higher type than the commonplace goodness of the world. For all love those who love them; it is peculiar to Christians alone to love those that hate them. Therefore mourning over your ignorance, and compassionating human error, and looking on to that future of which every day shows threatening signs, necessity is laid on us to come forth in this way also, that we may set before you the truths you will not listen to openly.
Chapter II.
We are worshippers of one God, of whose existence
and character Nature teaches all men; at whose lightnings and thunders
you tremble, whose benefits minister to your happiness. You think that
others, too, are gods, whom we know to be devils. However, it is
a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should
worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion
neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of
religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force
should lead us—the sacrificial victims even being required of a
willing mind. You will render no real service to your gods by
compelling us to sacrifice. For they can have no desire of offerings
from the unwilling, unless they are animated by a spirit of contention,
which is a thing altogether undivine. Accordingly the true God bestows
His blessings alike on wicked men and on His own elect; upon which
account He has appointed an eternal judgment, when both thankful and
unthankful will have to stand before His bar. Yet you have never
detected us—sacrilegious wretches though you reckon us to
be—in any theft, far less in any sacrilege. But the robbers of
your temples, all of them swear by your gods, and worship them; they
are not Christians, and yet it is they who are found guilty of
sacrilegious deeds. We have not time to unfold in how many other ways
your gods are mocked and despised by their own votaries. So, too,
treason is falsely laid to our charge, though no one has ever been able
to find followers of Albinus, or Niger, or Cassius, among Christians;
while the very men who had sworn by the genii of the emperors, who had
offered and vowed sacrifices for their safety, who had often pronounced
condemnation on Christ’s disciples, are till this day found
traitors to the imperial throne. A Christian is enemy to none, least of
all to the Emperor of Rome, whom he knows to be appointed by his God,
and so cannot but love and honour; and whose well-being moreover, he
must needs desire, with that of the empire over which he reigns so long
as the world shall stand—for so long as that shall Rome
continue. [Kaye points out our
author’s inconsistencies on this matter. If Caractacus ever
made the speech ascribed to him (Bede, or Gibbon, cap. lxxi.) it would
confirm the opinion of those who make him a convert to Christ:
“Quando cadet Roma, cadet et mundus.” Elucidation II.] [On this sort of
Demonology see Kaye, pp. 203–207, with his useful references. See
De Spectaculis, p. 80, supra.]
Chapter III.
However, as we have already remarked, it cannot but
distress us that no state shall bear unpunished the guilt of shedding
Christian blood; as you see, indeed, in what took place during the
presidency of Hilarian, for when there had been some agitation about
places of sepulture for our dead, and the cry arose, “No
areæ—no burial-grounds for the Christians,” it
came that their own areæ, [An obvious play on the
ambiguity of this word.] [Notes of the time when
this was written. See Kaye, p. 57.] [Christians remembered
Herod ( [Notes of the time when
this was written. See Kaye, p. 57.]
Chapter IV.
We who are without fear ourselves are not seeking
to frighten you, but we would save all men if possible by warning them
not to fight with God. [Our author uses the
Greek (μὴ
θεομαχεῖν) but not
textually of [Another note of
time. a.d. 211. See Kaye, as
before.] [Compare Vol. I., p.
187, this Series.]
Chapter V.
Your cruelty is our glory. Only see you to it,
that in having such things as these to endure, we do not feel ourselves
constrained to rush forth to the combat, if only to prove that we have
no dread of them, but on the contrary, even invite their
infliction. When Arrius Antoninus was driving things hard in
Asia, the whole Christians of the province, in one united band,
presented themselves before his judgment-seat; on which, ordering a few
to be led forth to execution, he said to the rest, “O miserable
men, if you wish to die, you have precipices or halters.” If we
should take it into our heads to do the same thing here, what will you
make of so many thousands, of such a multitude of men and women,
persons of every sex and every age and every rank, when they present
themselves before you? How many fires, how many swords will be
required? What will be the anguish of Carthage itself, which you will
have to decimate, [Compare De Fuga,
cap. xii. It is incredible that our author could exaggerate in
speaking to the chief magistrate of Carthage.]
We have no master but God. He is
before you, and cannot be hidden from you, but to Him you can do no
injury. But those whom you regard as masters are only men, and one day
they themselves must die. Yet still this community will be undying, for
be assured that just in the time of its seeming overthrow it is built
up into greater power. For all who witness the noble patience of its
martyrs, as struck with misgivings, are inflamed with desire to examine
into the matter in question; [Mosheim’s strange
oversight, in neglecting to include such considerations, in accounting
for the growth of the church, is justly censured by Kaye, p. 124.]
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Scapula, cap. i., p. 105.)
Scapula was Proconsul of Carthage, and though its date is conjectural (a.d. 217), this work gives valuable indices of its time and circumstances. It was composed after the death of Severus, to whom there is an allusion in chapter iv., after the destruction of Byzantium (a.d. 196), to which there is a reference in chapter iii.; and Dr. Allix suggests, after the dark day of Utica (a.d. 210) which he supposes to be referred to in the same chapter. Cincius Severus, who is mentioned in chapter iv., was put to death by Severus, a.d. 198.
II.
(Caractacus, cap. ii., note 2, p. 105.)
Mr. Lewin (St. Paul, ii. 397), building on the fascinating theory of Archdeacon Williams, thinks St. Paul’s Claudia (Qu. Gladys?) may very well have been the daughter of Caradoc, with whose noble character we are made acquainted by Tacitus. (Annals xii. 36.) And Archdeacon Williams gives us very strong reason to believe he was a Christian. He may very well have lived to behold the Coliseum completed. What more natural then, in view of the cruelty against Christians there exercised, for the expressions with which he is credited? In this case his words contain an eloquent ambiguity, which Christians would appreciate, and which may have been in our author’s mind when he says—“quousque sæculum stabit.” To those who looked for the Second Advent, daily, this did not mean what the heathen might suppose.
Bede’s version of the speech (See Du Cange, II., 407., ) is this: “Quandiu stabit Colyseus—stabit et Roma: Quando cadet Colysevs—cadet et Roma: Quando cadet Roma—cadet et mundus.”
Ad Nationes. [As a
recapitulation I insert this here to close this class of
argument for the reasons following.] This treatise resembles The
Apology, both in its general purport as a vindication of
Christianity against heathen prejudice, and in many of its expressions
and statements. So great is the resemblance that this shorter work has
been thought by some to have been a first draft of the longer and
perfect one. Tertullian, however, here addresses his expostulations to
the general public, while in The Apology it is the rulers and
magistrates of the empire whom he seeks to influence. [Dr. Allix
conjectures the date of this treatise to be about a.d. 217. See Kaye, p. 50.]
Book I.
[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]
————————————
Chapter I. Compare The
Apology, c. i.
One proof of that
ignorance of yours, which condemns Revincit.
“Condemnat” is Tertullian’s word in The
Apology, i. Defendit.
“Excusat” in Apol. Non licet rectius
suspicari. Non lubet propius
experiri. At quin. Nisi si. Emendari pudet. Excusari piget. Redundantiæ
nostræ. Bona fide. Pro extremitatibus
temporum. Or perhaps, “to
maintain evil in preference to good.” Certe. Pristinorum. In
the corresponding passage (Apol. i.) the phrase is,
“nisi plane retro non fuisse,” i.e.,
“except that he was not a Christian long
ago.” Cessat.
Chapter II. Comp. c. ii. of
The Apology.
In this case you actually Ipsi. Gratis reum. Sane. Neque spatium
commodetis. Quanquam confessis. Receptoribus,
“concealers” of the crime. Porro. Elogia. Immo. We have for once
departed from Oehler’s text, and preferred Rigault’s:
“Perducerentur infantarii et coci, ipsi canes
pronubi, emendata esset res.” The sense is evident
from The Apology, c. vii.: “It is said that we are guilty
of most horrible crimes; that in the celebration of our sacrament we
put a child to death, which we afterward devour, and at the end of our
banquet revel in incest; that we employ dogs as ministers of our impure
delights, to overthrow the candles, and thus to provide darkness, and
remove all shame which might interfere with these impious lusts”
(Chevalier’s translation). These calumnies were very common, and
are noticed by Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Eusebius, Athenagoras,
and Origen, who attributes their origin to the Jews. Oehler
reads infantariæ, after the Agobardine codex and
editio princeps, and quotes Martial (Epigr. iv.
88), where the word occurs in the sense of an inordinate love of
children. Nam et plerique fidem
talium temperant.
Chapter III. Comp. The
Apology, cc. i. and ii.
Since, therefore, you who are in other cases most
scrupulous and persevering in investigating charges of far less serious
import, relinquish your care in cases like ours, which are so horrible,
and of such surpassing sin that impiety is too mild a word for
them, by declining to hear confession, which should always be an
important process for those who conduct judicial proceedings; and
failing to make a full inquiry, which should be gone into by such as
sue for a condemnation, it becomes evident that the crime laid to our
charge consists not of any sinful conduct, but lies wholly in our
name. If, indeed, Adeo si. Si accommodarent. Porro. Hæc ratio est. Reprobentur. Impunitate. i.e., the name
“Christians.” By the “suo
loco,” Tertullian refers to The Apology. Præscribitur
vobis. Præsidi. Ego. Χρηστός means both
“pleasant” and “good;” and the heathen founded
this word with the sacred name Χριστός. Detinetis. Et utique.
Chapter IV. See The
Apology, c. iii.
But the sect, you say, is punished in the name of
its founder. Now in the first place it is, no doubt, a fair and usual
custom that a sect should be marked out by the name of its founder,
since philosophers are called Pythagoreans and Platonists after their
masters; in the same way physicians are called after Erasistratus, and
grammarians after Aristarchus. If, therefore, a sect has a bad
character because its founder was bad, it is punished Plectitur. Tradux. Retinere. At nunc. Elatrent. Libertatem suam,
“their liberty of speech.” Denique. Porro. Gravem,
“earnest.” Comp. The
Apology, c. iii. Pro. i.e., the Christian. De commercio. Unum atque alium.
The sense being plural, we have so given it all
through. Captivitatis (as if
theirs was a self-inflicted captivity at home). Omnem uxorem patientiam
obtulisse (comp. Apology, middle of c. xxxix.). In ergastulum. Radiant. He means the
religion of Christ, which he in b. ii. c. ii. contrasts with
“the mere wisdom” of the philosophers.
Compare The
Apology, cc. ii. xliv. xlvi.
As to your saying of us that we are a most
shameful set, and utterly steeped in luxury, avarice, and depravity, we
will not deny that this is true of some. It is, however, a sufficient
testimonial for our name, that this cannot be said of all, not even of
the greater part of us. It must happen even in the healthiest and
purest body, that a mole should grow, or a wart arise on it, or
freckles disfigure it. Not even the sky itself is clear with so
perfect Colata,
“filtered” [or
“strained”—Shaks.] Ut non alicujus
nubiculæ flocculo resignetur. This picturesque language defies
translation. Malitiæ. Dum retorquetis. Inter crimen et
nomen. Inter dici et esse. Status nominis. Denuo.
Chapter
VI. Compare The
Apology, c. iv.
Whenever these statements and answers of ours,
which truth suggests of its own accord, press and restrain your
conscience, which is the witness of its own ignorance, you betake
yourselves in hot haste to that poor altar of refuge, Ad arulam quandam. Istam. Cessat,
“loiters.” Requiratur. Lege. Ordo. Genus. Literally,
“holding the inquiry makes for the laws.” Per defectionem
agnoscendi. Sibi debet. Justitiæ
suæ. Merito. Despuuntur.
Chapter VII. Comp. The
Apology, cc. vii, viii.
Whence comes it to pass, you will say to us, that such a character could have been attributed to you, as to have justified the lawmakers perhaps by its imputation? Let me ask on my side, what voucher they had then, or you now, for the truth of the imputation? (You answer,) Fame. Well, now, is not this—
“Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius
ullum?” Æneid. iv.
174. “Fame, than which never plague that
runs Its way more swiftly
wins.”—Conington.
Now, why a plague, “A plague” =
malum. Quid? quod “Yea
more.” Ambitione. Traduces. Prodigiam. The word is
“indicem” in The Apology. Disciplina ejus
illuxit. Damnatio invaluit. Æmula sibi. Divinitatem
consecutæ. See above, c. ii.
note. i.e., What is the
value of such evidence? We have inserted this
phrase as the sentence is strongly ironical. Deferre, an
infinitive of purpose, of which construction of our author
Oehler gives examples. Fructus. Si etiam sibi
credat. Quidem. Talia factitare. We read
“quo,” and not “quod,” because. Conversatio. This refers to a calumny
which the heathen frequently spread about the Christians. Detrectem or simply
“treat of,” “refer to,” like the simple verb
“tractare.” The irony of all this
passage is evident. Diversum opus. Subjiciuntur “are
stealthily narrated.” Inducunt. It is difficult to see
what this “tacent igitur” means without referring to
the similar passage in The Apology (end of c. viii.), which
supplies a link wanted in the context. “At all
events,” says he, “they know this afterward, and yet submit
to it, and allow it. They fear to be punished, while, if they
proclaimed the truth, they would deserve universal
approbation.” Tertullian here states what the enemies of
the Christians used to allege against them. After discovering the
alleged atrocities of their secret assemblies, they kept their
knowledge forsooth to themselves, being afraid of the consequences of a
disclosure, etc. We have for convenience
treated “protrahunt” (q.d. “nor do they
report them”) as a neuter verb. Even worse than
Thyestean atrocities would be believed of them. Miseræ atque
miserandæ. Viderimus. See below, in c.
xix. Animam. Rudem, “hardly
formed.” Extraneam. Immo idcirco. Quanto constare. “An alii ordines
dentium Christianorum, et alii specus faucium?” (literally,
“Have Christians other sets of teeth, and other caverns of
jaws?”) This seems to refer to voracious animals like the shark,
whose terrible teeth, lying in several rows, and greediness to swallow
anything, however incongruous, that comes in its way, are well-known
facts in natural history. Positione.
Chapter VIII. Compare The
Apology, c. viii.
We are indeed said to be the “third
race” of men. What, a dog-faced race? Cynopæ. This
class would furnish the unnatural “teeth,” and
“jaws,” just referred to. Sciapodes with
broad feet producing a large shade; suited for the
“incestuous lust” above mentioned. Literally, “which
come up from under ground.” Tertullian got this
story from Herodotus, ii. 2. Ipsius animæ
organo. Faucibus. Utpote linguatuli. This is one of the
passages which incidentally show how widely spread was
Christianity. De Superstitione.
Chapter
IX. Comp. The
Apology, cc. xl. xli. [And Augustine, Civ. Dei.
iii.]
But why should I be astonished at your vain
imputations? Under the same natural form, malice and folly have
always been associated in one body and growth, and have ever opposed us
under the one instigator of error. By the “manceps
erroris” he means the devil. Libitina. Christianorum
meritum, which with “sit” may also, “Let the
Christians have their due.” In The Apology the cry is,
“Christianos ad leonem.” We insert this after
Oehler. Tertullian’s words are, “Quasi modicum habeant aut
aliud metuere qui Deum verum.” See above, c. vii. Sæculum
digessit. Aliter vobis
renuntiata. Absolutum est.
Chapter X. Comp. The
Apology, cc. xii. xiii. xiv. xv.
Pour out now all your venom; fling against this
name of ours all your shafts of calumny: I shall stay no longer to
refute them; but they shall by and by be blunted, when we come to
explain our entire discipline. See The
Apology (passim), especially cc. xvi.–xxiv.,
xxx.–xxxvi., and xxxix. Admentationibus. Plane. Traditum. Vel. Perinde a vobis. Quibus est. Adsolaverunt,
“thrown to the ground;” “floored.” Sectam.
[Rather—“A Christian secession.”] Perhibetis. Domestica consecratione,
i.e., “for family worship.” Addicitur. Conducitur. Eadem. Exactione, “as
excise duty for the treasury.” Immo. “In money,”
stipibus. “ Victims.
” Plus refigitur.
It was not enough that you had insolently made a
profit of your gods, if we would test the amount of your contempt; and
you are not content to have withheld honour from them, you must also
depreciate the little you do render to them by some indignity or other.
What, indeed, do you do by way of honouring your gods, which you do not
equally offer to your dead? You build temples for the gods, you erect
temples also to the dead; you build altars for the gods, you build them
also for the dead; you inscribe the same superscription over both; you
sketch out the same lineaments for their statues—as best suits
their genius, or profession, or age; you make an old man of Saturn, a
beardless youth of Apollo; you form a virgin from Diana; in Mars you
consecrate a soldier, a blacksmith in Vulcan. No wonder, therefore, if
you slay the same victims and burn the same odours for your dead as you
do for your gods. What excuse can be found for that insolence which
classes the dead of whatever sort Utut mortuos. Tensæ. Plane. Rigaltius has the
name Proculus in his text; but Tertullian refers not merely to
that case but to a usual functionary, necessary in all cases of
deification. Oehler reads
“ei” (of course for “ii”); Rigalt. reads
“ii.” Denotatior ad. Gulæ,
“Depraved taste.” Prope religionem
convenire, “to have approximated to.” Quatenus. Credunt, one would
expect “creduntur” (“are supposed”), which is
actually read by Gothofredus. Or,
“circumstances” (casibus). Fortasse periturum. Traducit, perhaps
“degrades.” Ut dei præfarentur.
Oehler explains the verb “præfari” to mean
“auctorem esse et tanquam caput.” Denique. Stili. Tertullian gives the
comic plural “Juppiteres.” Ingenia. Because appropriating to
themselves the admiration which was due to the gods. Cujuslibet dei. Sustinetis modulari. It is best to add the
original of this almost unintelligible passage:
“Plane religiosiores estis in gladiatorum cavea, ubi super
sanguinem humanum, supra inquinamenta pœnarum proinde saltant dei
vestri argumenta et historias nocentibus erogandis, aut in ipsis
deis nocentes puniuntur.” Some little light may
be derived from the parallel passage of the Apology (c. xv.),
which is expressed somewhat less obscurely. Instead of the words in
italics, Tertullian there substitutes these: “Argumenta et
historias noxiis ministrantes, nisi quod et ipsos deos vestros
sæpe noxii induunt”—“whilst furnishing the
proofs and the plots for (executing) criminals, only that the said
criminals often act the part of your gods themselves.”
Oehler refers, in illustration of the last clause, to the instance of
the notorious robber Laureolus, who personated Prometheus; others,
again, personated Laureolus himself: some criminals had to play the
part of Orpheus; others of Mutius Scævola. It will be observed
that these executions were with infamous perverseness set off with
scenic show, wherein the criminal enacted some violent death in
yielding up his own life. The indignant irony of the whole passage, led
off by the “plane religiosiores estis,” is evident. Censentur. Factitant. i.e., the gods
themselves. Redimitis. Redimitis.
Chapter XI. Comp. The
Apology, c. xvi.
In this matter we are (said to be) guilty not
merely of forsaking the religion of the community, but of introducing a
monstrous superstition; for some among you have dreamed that our god is
an ass’s head,—an absurdity which Cornelius Tacitus first
suggested. In the fourth book of his histories, In The
Apology (c. xvi.) the reference is to “the fifth book.”
This is correct. Book v. c. 3, is meant. In vobis, for “in
vos” ex pari transferendorum.
Chapter XII. Comp. The
Apology, c. xvi.
As for him who affirms that we are “the
Crucis antistites. Erit. Consacraneus. Viderint. Viderit. Stipite crucis. Solo staticulo. The use
of wood in the construction of an idol is mentioned afterward. Omne robur. Antemna. See our
Anti-Marcion, p. 156. Ed. Edinburgh. De isto patibulo. Plasta. In primo. Statumini. Comp. The
Apology, c. xii.: “Every image of a god has been first
constructed on a cross and stake, and plastered with cement. The body
of your god is first dedicated upon a gibbet.” Veneramini. Tropæum, for
“tropæorum.” We have given the sense rather than the
words of this awkward sentence. Suggestus.
Comp. The
Apology, c. xvi.
Others, with greater regard to good manners, it
must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians,
because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or
because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do
less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes
worshipping the heavenly bodies likewise, move your lips in the
direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have even
admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected
its day, Sunday. Saturday. Ex diebus. On the “Cœna
pura,” see our Anti-Marcion, p. 386, note
4. See Tertullian, in his
tract de Jejun. xvi., speaks of the Jews praying (after the loss
of their temple, and in their dispersion) in the open air,
“per omne litus.”
Chapter XIV. Comp. The
Apology, c. xvi.
Report has introduced a new calumny respecting our
God. Not so long ago, a most abandoned wretch in that city of
yours, In ista civitate,
Rome. This is explained
in the passage of The Apology (xvi.): “He had for money
exposed himself with criminals to fight with wild
beasts.” Decutiendus, from a
jocular word, “decutire.” This curious word is
compounded of ὅνος, an ass, and
κοιᾶσθαι, which
Hesychius explains by ἰερᾶσθαι, to
act as a priest. The word therefore means, “asinarius
sacerdos,” “an ass of a priest.” Calumnious enough;
but suited to the vile occasion, and illustrative of the ribald
opposition which Christianity had to encounter. We take Rigaltius’
reading, “seminarium.” Tanquam hesternum.
Chapter XV. Comp. The
Apology, c. ix.
Since we are on a par in respect of the gods, it
follows that there is no difference between us on the point of
sacrifice, or even of worship, Sacri. He refers in this
passage to his Apology, especially c. ix. Tabellis. Unius ætatis. This
Oehler explains by “per unam jam totam hanc
ætatem.” Genere. Pignora, scil.
amoris. See
Apology, c. ix. Si forte. Parum scilicet? Elicitis. Infantem totum
præcocum.
Chapter
XVI. Comp. The
Apology, c. ix.
I am now come to the hour for extinguishing the
lamps, and for using the dogs, and practising the deeds of darkness.
And on this point I am afraid I must succumb to you; for what similar
accusation shall I have to bring against you? But you should at once
commend the cleverness with which we make our incest look modest, in
that we have devised a spurious night, Adulteram noctem. Ceterum. Plane. Trucidatus oculos. Errores. Sive stativo vel
ambulatorio titulo. Compagines generis. Comitum. Græculus. “Aliquis” is
here understood. Utitur Græco, i.e.,
cinædo, “for purposes of lust.” Or, “is sent into
the country, and put into prison.” Aliquid recordantur. Publicæ
eruptionis. Intentatis. Vestris non sacramentis,
with a hyphen, “your non-mysteries.”
Chapter XVII. Comp. The
Apology, c. xxxv.
As to your charges of obstinacy and presumption,
whatever you allege against us, even in these respects, there are not
wanting points in which you will bear a comparison with us. Our first
step in this contumacious conduct concerns that which is ranked by you
immediately after Secunda. Severus, in
a.d. 198. These titles were borne
by Caracalla. Or,
“topic”—hoc loco. i.e., whether among the
Christians or the heathen. A cavil of the
heathen. Sane. Galliæ. Vesaniæ. Conveniam. Recognoscam. Festivos libellos. A concilio. Ex fide. Literally, “we
make faces.” Comp. The
Apology, c. xxxiii., p. 37, supra, and Minucius Felix,
Octavius, c. xxiii. [Vol. IV. this Series.]
Chapter XVIII. Comp., The
Apology, c. 50 [p. 54, infra.]
The rest of your charge of obstinacy against us
you sum up in this indictment, that we boldly refuse neither your
swords, nor your crosses, nor your wild beasts, nor fire, nor tortures,
such is our obduracy and contempt of death. But (you are inconsistent
in your charges); for in former times amongst your own ancestors all
these terrors have come in men’s intrepidity A virtute
didicerunt. With the “piget
prosequi” to govern the preceding oblique clause, it is
unnecessary to suppose (with Oehler) the omission here of some verb
like “erogavit.”
Novitatem…dedicavit. Tertullian refers to
Cleopatra’s death also in his tract ad Mart. c. iv.
[See this Vol. infra.] This case is again
referred to in this treatise (p. 138), and in ad Mart c.
iv. [See this Volume, infra.] Eradicatæ
confessionis. [See p. 55, supra.] Non invenitur. Eadem voce. Utique. The ironical
tone of Tertullian’s answer is evident. Gladio ad lanistas
auctoratis. We follow Oehler
in giving the clause this negative turn; he renders it:
“Tretet nicht aus Furcht vor dem Tode ins
Kriegsheer ein.” Alicui. Jam evasit. Auctoravit. Vestiendum incendiale
tunica. Inter venatorios:
“venatores circi” (Oehler). “Doubtless
the stripes which the Spartans endured with such firmness, aggravated
by the presence of their nearest relatives, who encouraged them,
conferred honour upon their family.”—Apology, c. 50.
[See p. 55, supra.]
Chapter XIX. Compare The
Apology, cc. xlvii. xlviii. xlix. [This Vol.,
supra.]
Here end, I suppose, your tremendous charges of
obstinacy against the Christians. Now, since we are amenable to them in
common with yourselves, it only remains that we compare the grounds
which the respective parties have for being personally derided. All our
obstinacy, however, is with you a foregone conclusion, Præstruitur. Præsumimus. Est. Interim. Traditum. The heathen hell,
Tartarus or Orcus. Reciprocatione. Distributione.
Chapter XX.—Truth and Reality Pertain to Christians Alone. The Heathen Counselled to Examine and Embrace It.
How long therefore, O most unjust heathen, will
you refuse to acknowledge us, and (what is more) to execrate your own
(worthies), since between us no distinction has place, because we are
one and the same? Since you do not (of course) hate what you yourselves
are, give us rather your right hands in fellowship, unite your
salutations, Compingite oscula. Eunuchs (Rigalt.). As the Christians were
held to be; coming after (1) the heathen, (2) the Jews. See above, c.
viii., and Scorpiace, c. x. Eunuchs (Rigalt.). An oft-quoted proverb in
ancient writers. It occurs in Hesiod (Opp. et Dies) 25. Literally, “cease
henceforth, O, simulated confession.” Omnia ista. This seems to be the
force of the “agnitione,” which Oehler renders
“auditione.” Satisfacitis. Jactetis. Quorum reatum. Memineritis. Si potestis. Si putatis.
In this part of his work
the author reviews the heathen mythology, and exposes the absurdity of
the polytheistic worship in the various classes of the gods, according
to the distribution of Varro.
Chapter I.—The Heathen Gods from Heathen Authorities. Varro Has Written a Work on the Subject. His Threefold Classification. The Changeable Character of that Which Ought to Be Fixed and Certain.
Our defence requires that
we should at this point discuss with you the character of your gods, O
ye heathen, fit objects of our pity, Miserandæ. Literally,
“unwilling to know.” i.e., it does not know
that it is error. Nescit. Agnoscit. Liceret. Discuti, or, in the
logical sense, “be tested.” Nunciatio (legally, this
is “an information lodged against a wrong.”) Excidere, “falls
through.” Sed enim. Quidni? Receptorum. Necessitatem, answering
to the “leges dominantium.” Adulterinam. St. Augustine, in his
de Civit. Dei, makes similar use of Varro’s work on the
heathen gods, Liber Divinarum. Scopum, perhaps
“mark.” Insinuatores. Volutetur. Adoptionibus. Adoptatio. Passiva, “a
jumble.” Argumentationibus. Historia. This
word seems to refer to the class of mythical divinity above
mentioned. It therefore means “fable” or “absurd
story” (see above). Adoptivum.
Chapter II.—Philosophers Had Not Succeeded in Discovering God. The Uncertainty and Confusion of Their Speculations.
But the authority of the physical philosophers is
maintained among you Patrocinatur. Mancipium. Porro. Deum omnium notititam et
veritatem adsecutus, i.e., “following the God of all as knowledge
and truth.” Nutat. Passivæ fidei. Solummodo. Otiosum. “A
nobody.” Nisi ut sint
expedire. Aliquot commeatus. Quasi certus. Istos deos. Non tenebat. De mundo deo
didicimus.
Chapter III.—The Physical Philosophers Maintained the Divinity of the Elements; The Absurdity of the Tenet Exposed.
From these developments of opinion, we see that
your Istud. Ad præsentem
speciem, the physical class. Or, classification. Ut jam hinc
præjudicatum sit. Ad illam agnatorum
speciem. Scitum. Non-deum. “Quod,” with
a subj. mood. Mundus iste. Summaliter. Humanitas. Duritia. Censetur. i.e., “iste
mundus.” Mundi, i.e., the
universe; see above. The best reading is
“vobis credi;” this is one of Tertullian’s
“final infinitives.” Compare Augustine,
de Civit. Dei, vii. 6, 23, 24, 28. Formam. Ratione. Motatorem. Alia sane vanitate.
Chapter IV.—Wrong Derivation of the Word Θεός. The Name Indicative of the True Deity. God Without Shape and Immaterial. Anecdote of Thales.
Some affirm that the gods (i.e.
θεοί) were so
called because the verbs θέειν and σείσθαι signify
to run and to be moved. This seems to mean:
“because θέειν has also the sense of
σείεσθαι (motion
as well as progression).”
“Dominatione” is Oehler’s reading, but he approves of
“denominatione” (Rigault’s reading); this would
signify “designation of godhead.” Opinione. Rescinditur. Interpretatorium. Reprehensum. Docete. Sine capite. Scilicet. Aciem. Majorem orbem. Another
reading has “majorem orbe,” q.d. “as
larger than the world.” Morositatis. Cecidit turpiter. Scilicet. Habituros.
Chapter V.—The Physical Theory Continued. Further Reasons Advanced Against the Divinity of the Elements.
Why, then, do we not resort to that far more
reasonable Humaniorem. Conjectura. Suffragio. Sationem. Temperamento. Fœderata. Circulorum
conditionibus. Tanquam. Jure. Domina. Scilicet. Vi suavitatis. Lanis. Caput facti. Invenitur. Servitutis artem.
“Artem” Oehler explains by “artificiose
institutum.” We subjoin
Oehler’s text of this obscure sentence: “Non in ista
investigatione alicujus artificis intus et domini servitutis artem
ostendimus elementorum certis ex operis” (for
“operibis,” not unusual in Tertullian) “eorum quas
facis potestatis?” Aut. De licentia passivitatis
libertas approbetur. Meminerunt. Num non. Universa negotiatio
mundialis.
Chapter VI.—The Changes of the Heavenly Bodies, Proof that They are Not Divine. Transition from the Physical to the Mythic Class of Gods.
Come now, do you allow that the Divine Being not
only has nothing servile in His course, but exists in unimpaired
integrity, and ought not to be diminished, or suspended, or destroyed?
Well, then, all His blessedness Felicitas. These are the
moon’s monthly changes. Tertullian refers to the
Magian method of watching eclipses, the ἐνοπτρομαντεία. Instead of “non
valet,” there is the reading “non volet,” “God
would not consent,” etc. Viderint igitur
“Let them look to themselves,” “never mind
them.” Alias. Ista. Sedenim. Mortalitas.
Chapter VII.—The Gods of the Mythic Class. The Poets a Very Poor Authority in Such Matters. Homer and the Mythic Poets. Why Irreligious.
But to pass to the mythic class of gods,
which we attributed to the poets, See above, c. i. [Note
19, p. 129.] See The
Apology, especially cc. xxii. and xxiii. Pejerantes. Lancinatis. Repercutitus. Vulgo. Sapere. The
infinitive of purpose is frequent in our author. Distribuendis. An allusion to
Antinous, who is also referred to in The Apology, xiii.
[“Court-page.” See, p. 29, Supra.] Inhoneste
institutos. By the
“legibus” Tertullian refers to the divine honours
ordered to be paid, by decrees of the Senate, to deceased emperors.
Comp. Suetonius, Octav. 88; and Pliny, Paneg. 11
(Oehler). Ultro siletur. Ejusmodi. Insuper. Denique. Ingenuitatis. Initiatricem. Sane. Fides. Polluuntur. Relationibus. Comp. The
Apology, ix. [See, p. 25, Supra.] Comp. Minucius
Felix, Octav. xxi.; Arnobius, adv. Nat. v. 6, 7;
Augustine, Civ. Dei, vi. 7. This is the force
of the subjunctive verb. By divine
scandals, he means such as exceed in their atrocity even human
scandals.
Chapter VIII.—The Gods of the Different Nations. Varro’s Gentile Class. Their Inferiority. A Good Deal of This Perverse Theology Taken from Scripture. Serapis a Perversion of Joseph.
There remains the gentile class of gods
amongst the several nations: See above, c. i. [p.
129.] Municipes. “Their
local worshippers or subjects.” Perceperint. Literally, “Have
men heard of any Nortia belonging to the Vulsinensians?” Deos decuriones,
in allusion to the small provincial senates which in the later
times spread over the Roman colonies and municipia. Privatas. Compare Suidas,
s. v. Σαράπις;
Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. As Serapis was Joseph in disguise,
so was Joseph a type of Christ, according to the ancient Christians,
who were fond of subordinating heathen myths to Christian
theology. Tertullian is not the
only writer who has made mistakes in citing from memory Scripture
narratives. Comp. Arnobius. Suggestu. Modialis. Super caput esse, i.e.,
was entrusted to him. Canem dicaverunt. Compressa. Isis; comp. The
Apology, xvi. [See p. 31, supra.] Consecrasse. Recontrans.
Chapter IX.—The Power of Rome. Romanized Aspect of All the Heathen Mythology. Varro’s Threefold Distribution Criticised. Roman Heroes (Æneas Included,) Unfavourably Reviewed.
Such are the more obvious or more remarkable
points which we had to mention in connection with Varro’s
threefold distribution of the gods, in order that a sufficient answer
might seem to be given touching the physical, the poetic, and the
gentile classes. Since, however, it is no longer to the philosophers,
nor the poets, nor the nations that we owe the substitution of all
(heathen worship for the true religion) although they transmitted the
superstition, but to the dominant Romans, who received the tradition
and gave it wide authority, another phase of the widespread error of
man must now be encountered by us; nay, another forest must be felled
by our axe, which has obscured the childhood of the degenerate
worship Vitii pueritatem. Recipere (with a
dative). Ignotis
Deis. Comp. Ut bulbi. This is the
passage which Augustine quotes (de Civit. Dei, vii. 1) as
“too facetious.” Adventicii,
“coming from abroad.” Touching these
gods of the vanquished nations, compare The Apology, xxv.;
below, c. xvii.; Minucius Felix, Octav. xxv. Diligentem. See Homer,
Il. v. 300. Invenitur. Referred to also above,
i. 18. The obscure
“formam et patrem” is by Oehler rendered
“pulchritudinem et generis nobilitatem.” The word is
“eorum” (possessive of “principum”), not
“suæ.” Dejerant adversus. What Tertullian himself
thinks on this point, see his de Corona, xi. Cleobis and Biton; see
Herodotus i. 31. See Valerius Maximus, v.
4, 1. We need not stay
to point out the unfairness of this statement, in contrast with the
exploits of Æneas against Turnus, as detailed in the last
books of the Æneid. Usque in. We have thus rendered
“quiritatem est,” to preserve as far as one could the
pun on the deified hero of the Quirites. We insert the
Latin, to show the pun on Sterculus; see The Apology, c.
xxv. [See p. 40, supra.] Curaria quam
consecrari. Bona Dea, i.e., the
daughter of Faunus just mentioned. See Livy, viii. 20,
xxxii. 1; Ovid, Fasti, vi. 213, etc. Compare also Augustine,
de Civ. Dei, xviii. 19. [Tom, vii. p. 576.]
Chapter X.—A Disgraceful Feature of the Roman Mythology. It Honours Such Infamous Characters as Larentina.
I hasten to even more abominable cases. Your
writers have not been ashamed to publish that of Larentina. She
was a hired prostitute, whether as the nurse of Romulus, and therefore
called Lupa, because she was a prostitute, or as the mistress of
Hercules, now deceased, that is to say, now deified. They Compare Augustine, de
Civ. Dei, vi. 7. [Tom. vii. p. 184.] Æditum ejus. That is, when he mounted
the pyre. Herculi functam.
“Fungi alicui” means to satisfy, or yield to. The well-known Greek
saying, ῎Αλλος
οὗτος
῾Ηρακλῆς. Pluto; Proserpine, the
daughter of Ceres, is meant. Oehler once preferred to read,
“Hebe, quæ mortuo placuit,” i.e., “than Hebe,
who gratified Hercules after death.” Tertullian often refers
indignantly to this atrocious case. Subigitis.
Chapter XI.—The Romans Provided Gods for Birth, Nay, Even Before Birth, to Death. Much Indelicacy in This System.
And you are not content to assert the divinity of
such as were once known to you, whom you heard and handled, and whose
portraits have been painted, and actions recounted, and memory retained
amongst you; but men insist upon consecrating with a heavenly
life Efflagitant cœlo et
sanciunt, (i.e., “they insist on deifying.”) Comp. Augustine, de
Civ. Dei, vi. 9. A name of Juno, in
reference to her office to mothers, “quia eam sanguinis fluorem
in conceptu retinere putabant.” Comp. August. de Civ. Dei,
iii. 2. Comp. August. de Civ.
Dei, vii. 2, 3. Comp. August. de Civ.
Dei, iv. 11. Such as Lucina, Partula,
Nona, Decima, Alemona. Or, Prorsa. “Quæ
infantes in cunis (in their cradle) tuetur.” Comp.
August. de Civ. Dei, iv. 11. Educatrix; Augustine
says: “Ipse levet de terra et vocetur dea
Levana” (de Civ. Dei, iv. 11). From the old word
ruma, a teat. Comp. August. de Civ.
Dei, iv. 9, 11, 36. See also
Tertullian’s de Anima, xxxix.; and Augustine’s de
Civ. Dei, iv. 21, where the god has the masculine name of
Statilinus. See Augustine, de
Civ. Dei, vi. 9 and vii. 3. Ibid. iv. 21,
vii. 3. Ibid. iv. 21. Ibid. iv. 11,
vii. 22. Ibid. iv. 11.
[N.B.—Augustine’s borrowing from our author.] Arnobius, adv.
Nationes, iv. 3. Augustine, de Civ.
Dei. [iv. 11 and 16] mentions Agenoria. On Fortuna
Barbata, see Augustine, de Civ. Dei, iv. 11,
where he also names Consus and Juventa. Tertullian, in
Apol. xxv. sarcastically says, “Sterculus, and Mutunus,
and Larentina, have raised the empire to its present
height.” Arnobius, adv.
Nationes, iv. 7, 11; August. de Civ. Dei, vi. 9. For these three gods,
see Augustine, de Civ. Dei, vi. 9; and Arnobius, adv.
Nationes, iv. 7.
Chapter XII. Agrees with The
Apology, c. x.
Now, how much further need I go in recounting your
gods—because I want to descant on the character of such as you
have adopted? It is quite uncertain whether I shall laugh at your
absurdity, or upbraid you for your blindness. For how many, and indeed
what, gods shall I bring forward? Shall it be the greater ones, or the
lesser? The old ones, or the novel? The male, or the female? The
unmarried, or such as are joined in wedlock? The clever, or the
unskilful? The rustic or the town ones? The national or the foreign?
For the truth is, Bona fide. Censum. There is here an
omitted clause, supplied in The Apology, “but rather to
recall it to your memory.” Ab ipsa ratione. Signatur. Undeunde. Tantam proceritatem. Insolescere, i.e., at
the commencement of puberty. Lapilliscere, i.e., to
indicate maturity. The nominative
“cœlum” is used. It is not very clear
what is the force of “sed et pepererit,” as read by Oehler;
we have given the clause an impersonal turn. “Certe” is
sometime “certo” in our author. Distulit. That is, to rain and
cloud. Abalienato. The word is
“cœlum” here. Eleganter. i.e., as
representing Time. So Augustine, de Civ.
Dei, iv. 10; Arnobius, adv. Nationes, iii. 29; Cicero, de
Nat. Deor. ii. 25. As if from
“sero,” satum. Translatio. Utrumque corporale. Mentitis
argumentationibus. Census. See his
Histories, v. 2, 4. Antiquitatem canos,
“hoary antiquity.” Jano sive Jane. Depalaverat,
“marked out with stakes.” Cœlitem. Magis proximis quoniam
illius ætatis. Prosapia. Qualitas.
[n.b. Our author’s use of
Præscriptio.] Comparantur. Monumenta liquent.
Chapter
XIII. Comp. The
Apology, c. xi. [p. 27. Supra.]
Manifest cases, indeed, like these have a force
peculiarly their own. Men like Varro and his fellow-dreamers
admit into the ranks of the divinity those whom they cannot assert to
have been in their primitive condition anything but men; (and this they
do) by affirming that they became gods after their death. Here, then, I
take my stand. If your gods were elected Allecti. This is not so terse
as Tertullian’s “nomen et numen.” Præstare. Mancipem. In cunabulis
temporalitatis. The ill-fame of the
Cretans is noted by St. Paul,
“Nulli subigebant arva
coloni;” Virgil,
Georg. i. 125.
“No swains would bring the fields beneath
their sway;” Sewell.
and without the importunity of any one the earth would bear
all crops spontaneously. Ipsa. Jupiter’s, of
course. The law which
prescribed the penalty of the paracide, that he be sewed up in a
sack with an ape, a serpent, and a cock, and be thrown into the
sea. In duos culleos
dividi. De quo. De fugitivo. Abusui nundinare. The “operam
ejus”=ingenia et artificia (Oehler). Percontationi
alienæ. In the case of
Europa. In the case of
Danäe. Similitudines actuum
ipsas. In the case of
Ganymede. In the case of
Leda. Quos. Plebs. Morata. Proseminatoribus. Alibi. Optimum. There would seem to be
a jest here; “æquus” is not only just but
equal, i.e., “on a par with” others—in
evil, of course, as well as good.
Chapter XIV.—Gods, Those Which Were Confessedly Elevated to the Divine Condition, What Pre-Eminent Right Had They to Such Honour? Hercules an Inferior Character.
But since they will have it that those who have
been admitted from the human state to the honours of deification should
be kept separate from others, and that the distinction which Dionysius
the Stoic drew should be made between the native and the
factitious Inter nativos et
factos. See above, c. ii., p. 131. Summa
responsionis. Famulatoria
mendicitas. Vaccula. Subegisse oculis,
“reduced to his own eyesight.” Byrsæ. Magis obtinendus
divinitati deputatur. Fascias. Hylas. Rather murders of
children and other kindred. Æsculapius. Tertullian does
not correctly quote Pindar (Pyth. iii. 54–59), who notices
the skilful hero’s love of reward, but certainly ascribes to him
the merit of curing rather than killing: Αλλὰ
κέρδει καὶ
σοφία
δέδεται
ἔτραπεν καὶ
κᾀκεῖνον
ἁγάνορι
μισθῷ χρυσὸς
ἐν χερσὶν
φανεὶς ἂνδῤ
ἐκ θανάτου
κομίσαι ἢδη
ἀλωκότα·
χερσὶ δ᾽ ἄρα
Κρονίων
ῥίψαις δἰ
ἄμφοῖν
ἀμπνοὰν
στέρνων
καθέλεν
ὠκέως, αἴθων
δὲ κεραυνὸς
ἐνέσκιμψεν
μόρον—“Even wisdom has
been bound by love of gain, and gold shining in the hand by a
magnificent reward induced even him to restore from death a man already
seized by it; and then the son of Saturn, hurling with his hands a bolt
through both, speedily took away the breath of their breasts, and the
flashing bolt inflicted death” (Dawson Turner). Tertullian does
not follow the legend which is usually received. He wishes to see
no good in the object of his hatred, and so takes the worst view, and
certainly improves upon it. The “bestia” is
out of reason. [He doubtless followed some copy now lost.] Quasi non et ipsi. Ariadne. Amentia.
Chapter XV.—The Constellations and the Genii Very Indifferent Gods. The Roman Monopoly of Gods Unsatisfactory. Other Nations Require Deities Quite as Much.
It would be tedious to take a survey of all those,
too, whom you have buried amongst the constellations, and audaciously
minister to as gods. Deis ministratis. The constellation
Virgo. Jovis exoletus,
Ganymede, or Aquarius. He makes a
similar postponement above, in c. vii., to The Apology, cc.
xxii. xxiii. Divini. Et tristitiæ
arbitros. Transvolem. Diva arquis. Perhaps another form
of Diana.
Men sacrifice Faciunt = ῥίζουσι. This seems to be the
meaning of an almost unintelligible sentence, which we subjoin:
“Geniis eisdem illi faciunt qui in isdem locis aras vel ædes
habent; præterea aliis qui in alieno loco aut mercedibus
habitant.” Oehler, who makes this text, supposes that in each
clause the name of some god has dropped out. Numinum janitorum. Ceteris. Immo cum. Proveniunt. Prædes.
Chapter XVI.—Inventors of Useful Arts Unworthy of Deification. They Would Be the First to Acknowledge a Creator. The Arts Changeable from Time to Time, and Some Become Obsolete.
Well, but Sedenim. We insert this clause
at Oehler’s suggestion. Ministerium. The incident,
which was closely connected with the third Punic war, is described
pleasantly by Pliny, Hist. Nat. xv. 20. Præconium. Artifices.
“Antiquitas” is here opposed to “novitas,” and
therefore means “the arts of old times.” In æmulis.
“In,” in our author, often marks the instrument.
Chapter XVII. Compare The
Apology, xxv. xxvi., pp. 39, 40.
In conclusion, without denying all those whom
antiquity willed and posterity has believed to be gods, to be
the guardians of your religion, there yet remains for our consideration
that very large assumption of the Roman superstitions which we have to
meet in opposition to you, O heathen, viz. that the Romans have become
the lords and masters of the whole world, because by their religious
offices they have merited this dominion to such an extent that they are
within a very little of excelling even their own gods in power. One
cannot wonder that Sterculus, and Mutunus, and Larentina, have
severally The verb is in
the singular number.
“Hic illius arma,
Hic currus fuit, hoc regnum des gentibus esse,
Si qua fata sinant, jam tunc tenditque
fovetque.” Æneid, i.
16–20.
“Here were her arms, her chariot here,
Here goddess-like, to fix one day
The seat of universal sway,
Might fate be wrung to yield assent,
E’en then her schemes, her cares were
bent.” Conington.
Still the unhappy (queen of gods) had no power against
the fates! And yet the Romans did not accord as much honour to the
fates, although they gave them Carthage, as they did to Larentina. But
surely those gods of yours have not the power of conferring empire. For
when Jupiter reigned in Crete, and Saturn in Italy, and Isis in Egypt,
it was even as men that they reigned, to whom also were assigned many
to assist them. Operati plerique. Dediticius. Apollo; comp.
The Apology, c. xiv., p. 30. See Herodot. i.
50. Veluti tueri. Religiositas. Superstitio. Frugi. Temeraria. Læsis. Morabantur. We have
taken this word as if from “mores” (character). Tertullian
often uses the participle “moratus” in this sense. Et depropitiorum. Volutavit. Compare The
Apology, c. xxvi. We have treated this
“tanquam” and its clause as something more than a mere
simile. It is, in fact, an integral element of the supremacy which the
entire sentence describes as conferred on the Romans by the
Almighty. That is, the
Christians, who are well aware of God’s purposes as declared
in prophecy. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians what the order of
the great events subsequent to the Roman power was to be: the
destruction of that power was to be followed by the development and
reign of Antichrist; and then the end of the world would
come.
Appendix.
A Fragment Concerning the Execrable Gods of the Heathen.
————————————
So great blindness has fallen on the Roman race,
that they call their enemy Lord, and preach the filcher of blessings as
being their very giver, and to him they give thanks. They call those
(deities), then, by human names, not by their own, for their own names
they know not. That they are dæmons Dæmons. Gr.
δαίμων, which some hold to
= δαήμων,
“knowing,” “skilful,” in which case it would
come to be used of any superhuman intelligence; others, again, derive
from δαίω,
“to divide, distribute,” in which case it would mean a
distributor of destinies; which latter derivation and meaning Liddell
and Scott incline to. Actum: or
“career.”
As for him whom they call Jupiter, and think to be
the highest god, when he was born the years (that had elapsed) from the
foundation of the world Mundi. i.e., till his
time. Pareretur. As the word
seems to be used here with reference to his father, this, although not
by any means a usual meaning, would seem to be the sense. [As in the
equivalent Greek.] A Cretibus, hominibus
natis. The force seems to be in the absurdity of supposing that,
1st, there should be human beings (hominibus) born, (as
Jupiter is said to have been “born,”) already existing at
the time of the “birth” of “the highest god;”
2ndly, that these should have had the power to do him so
essential service as to conceal him from the search of his own father,
likewise a mighty deity, by the simple expedient of rattling their
arms. See Hom. Il. ii.
446–9; but Homer says there were 100 such tassels. Oehler’s
“virginis” must mean
“virgines.” So Scott:
“He drave my cows last Fastern’s
night.”—Lay of Last Minstrel. See Latitatio. i.e., Western:
here=Italian, as being west of Greece. Latina. See Virg.
Æn. viii. 319–323: see also Ov. Fast. i.
234–238. Oehler does not mark
this as a question. If we follow him, we may render, “this can
find belief.” Above, it seemed necessary to introduce the
parenthetical words to make some sense. The Latin is throughout very
clumsy and incoherent. Orbis.
These, then, are the actions of theirs, which we
will treat of first—nativity, lurking, ignorance, parricide,
adulteries, obscenities—things committed not by a god, but by
most impure and truculent human beings; beings who, had they been
living in these days, would have lain under the impeachment of all
laws—laws which are far more just and strict than their
actions. “He drave his father by dint of arms.” The
Falcidian and Sempronian law would bind the parricide in a sack with
beasts. “He violated his sisters.” The Papinian law would
punish the outrage with all penalties, limb by limb. “He invaded
others’ wedlock.” The Julian law would visit its adulterous
violator capitally. “He defiled freeborn boys.” The
Cornelian law would condemn the crime of transgressing the sexual bond
with novel severities, sacrilegiously guilty as it is of a novel
union. Lex Cornelia
transgressi fœderis ammissum novis exemplis novi coitus sacrilegum
damnaret. After consulting Dr. Holmes, I have rendered, but not without
hesitation, as above. “Fœdus” seems to have been
technically used, especially in later Latin, of the marriage
compact; but what “lex Cornelia” is meant I have
sought vainly to discover, and whether “lex Cornelia transgressi
fœderis” ought not to go together I am not sure. For
“ammissum” (=admissum) Migne’s
ed. reads “amissum,” a very different word. For
“sacrilegus” with a genitive, see de Res.
Carn, c. xlii. med. Quid putatur (Oehler)
putatus (Migne). Or,
“feeling”—“sensu.” The Dioscuri, Castor
and Pollux. Perhaps
Ægipana (marginal reading of the ms. as
given in Oehler and Migne). i.e., Bacchus. Oehler reads
“vide etem;” but Migne’s
“viventem” seems better: indeed,
Oehler’s is probably a misprint. The punctuation of this treatise
in Oehler is very faulty throughout, and has been disregarded.
“Immensum,” rendered “incomprehensible” in the
“Athanasian Creed.
Elucidation.
————————————
This Fragment is noted as spurious, by Oehler who
attributes it to somebody only moderately acquainted with
Tertullian’s style and teaching. See page 14,
supra.
An Answer to the Jews. [This treatise
was written while our author was a Catholic. This seems to me the
best supported of the theories concerning it. Let us accept Pamelius,
for once and date it a.d. 198. Dr. Allix
following Baronius, will have it as late as a.d. 208. Neander thinks the work, after the quotation from
Isaiah in the beginning of chapter ninth, is not our
author’s, but was finished by another hand, clumsily annexing
what is said on the same chapter of Isaiah in the Third Book against
Marcion. It is only slightly varied. Bp. Kaye admits the very striking
facts instanced by Neander, in support of this theory, but demolishes,
with a word any argument drawn from thence that the genuine work was
written after the author’s lapse. This treatise is sufficiently
annotated by Thelwall, and covers ground elsewhere gone over in this
Series. My own notes are therefore very few.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Occasion of Writing. Relative Position of Jews and Gentiles Illustrated.
It happened very recently a dispute was held between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte. Alternately with contentious cable they each spun out the day until evening. By the opposing din, moreover, of some partisans of the individuals, truth began to be overcast by a sort of cloud. It was therefore our pleasure that that which, owing to the confused noise of disputation, could be less fully elucidated point by point, should be more carefully looked into, and that the pen should determine, for reading purposes, the questions handled.
For the occasion, indeed, of claiming Divine grace
even for the Gentiles derived a pre-eminent fitness from this fact,
that the man who set up to vindicate God’s Law as his own was of
the Gentiles, and not a Jew “of the stock of the
Israelites.” Comp. See See This promise may be
said to have been given “to Abraham,” because (of course)
he was still living at the time; as we see by comparing Or, “nor did He
make, by grace, a distinction.” Or, “nor did He
make, by grace, a distinction.” See Sæculi. Comp. Comp.
Chapter II.—The Law Anterior to Moses.
Stand we, therefore, foot to foot, and determine we the sum and substance of the actual question within definite lists.
For why should God, the founder of the universe,
the Governor of the whole world, Mundi. Comp. See Condita. Semetipsos. ? Each
other. Semetipsos. ? Each
other. Excidendo; or,
perhaps, “by self-excision,” or “mutual
excision.”
Therefore, in this general and primordial law of
God, the observance of which, in the case of the tree’s fruit, He
had sanctioned, we recognise enclosed all the precepts specially
of the posterior Law, which germinated when disclosed at their
proper times. For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of
the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His
province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form,
righteous creatures. For what wonder if He extends a discipline who
institutes it? if He advances who begins? In short, before the Law of
Moses, Or, “the Law
written for Moses in stone-tables.” See Comp. Or, “credited
him with.” See Or, perhaps,
“has not yet tasted.” Æternitatis
candidatus. Comp. ad Ux. l. i. c. vii., and note 3 there. See above. i.e., nephew. See
See
Chapter III.—Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law.
But Abraham, (you say,) was circumcised. Yes, but
he pleased God before his circumcision; See Acceperat. So
Tertullian renders, as it appears to me, the ἔλαβε of St. Paul in There is, if the
text be genuine, some confusion here. Melchizedek does not appear
to have been, in any sense, “subsequent” to Abraham, for he
probably was senior to him; and, moreover, Abraham does not
appear to have been “already circumcised” carnally
when Melchizedek met him. Comp. Tertullian
writes Seffora; the LXX. in loco, Σεπφώρα Again an error;
for these words precede the others. These are found in
So Tertullian.
In Jer. ibid. “Israel and…Judah.” Perhaps an allusion to
See i.e., of
beating swords into ploughs, etc. Comp. Especially
spiritually. Comp. Obsequia. See de
Pa. c. iv. note 1. See Comp. Sæculi. Or, perhaps,
“not affected, as a body, with human sufferings;” in
allusion to such passages as See
Chapter IV.—Of the Observance of the Sabbath.
It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary.
For the Jews say, that from the beginning God
sanctified the seventh day, by resting on it from all His works which
He made; and that thence it was, likewise, that Moses said to the
People: “Remember the day of the
sabbaths, to sanctify it: every servile work ye shall not do
therein, except what pertaineth unto life.” Comp. See This is not said by
Isaiah; it is found in substance in I am not acquainted
with any such passage. Oehler refers to
But the Jews are sure to say, that ever since this
precept was given through Moses, the observance has been binding.
Manifest accordingly it is, that the precept was not eternal nor
spiritual, but temporary, Or,
“temporal.” See See
Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law.
Chapter V.—Of Sacrifices.
So, again, we show that sacrifices of earthly
oblations and of spiritual sacrifices This tautology is due
to the author, not to the translator:
“sacrificia…spiritalium sacrificiorum.” See See See Comp. Tollite = Gr.
ἄρατε. Perhaps ="away with.” See See Or,
“foretold.” Comp. See See
Chapter VI.—Of the Abolition and the Abolisher of the Old Law.
Therefore, since it is manifest that a sabbath
temporal was shown, and a sabbath eternal foretold; a circumcision
carnal foretold, and a circumcision spiritual pre-indicated; a law
temporal and a law eternal formally declared; sacrifices carnal and
sacrifices spiritual foreshown; it follows that, after all these
precepts had been given carnally, in time preceding, to the people
Israel, there was to supervene a time whereat the precepts of the
ancient Law and of the old ceremonies would cease, and the
promise Or, “sending
forth”—promissio. The tautology is again
due to the author. Comp. Comp. See ch. iii.
above.
And, indeed, first we must inquire whether there
be expected a giver of the new law, and an heir of the new testament,
and a priest of the new sacrifices, and a purger of the new
circumcision, and an observer of the eternal sabbath, to suppress the
old law, and institute the new testament, and offer the new sacrifices,
and repress the ancient ceremonies, and suppress Here again the
repetition is the author’s. Cum suo sibi sabbato.
Unless the meaning be—which the context seems to
forbid—“together with a sabbath of His own:”
the Latinity is plainly incorrect.
Chapter VII.—The Question Whether Christ Be Come Taken Up.
Therefore upon this issue plant we foot to foot,
whether the Christ who was constantly announced as to come be already
come, or whether His coming be yet a subject of hope. For proof of
which question itself, the times likewise must be examined by us when
the prophets announced that the Christ would come; that, if we succeed
in recognising that He has come within the limits of those times, we
may without doubt believe Him to be the very one whose future coming
was ever the theme of prophetic song, upon whom we—the
nations, to wit—were ever announced as destined to believe; and
that, when it shall have been agreed that He is come, we may
undoubtedly likewise believe that the new law has by Him been given,
and not disavow the new testament in Him and through Him drawn up for
us. For that Christ was to come we know that even the Jews do not
attempt to disprove, inasmuch as it is to His advent that they are
directing their hope. Nor need we inquire at more length
concerning that matter, since in days bygone all the prophets
have prophesied of it; as Isaiah: “Thus saith the Lord God to my
Christ (the) Lord, The reference is to
See See See See [Dr. Allix thinks
these statements define the Empire after Severus, and hence accepts the
date we have mentioned, for this treatise.] Comp.
Chapter VIII.—Of the Times of Christ’s Birth and Passion, and of Jerusalem’s Destruction.
Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the
predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of
the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.
For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are
exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is
destroyed unto ruin.” See Comp.
In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning
Him, as to show both when and in what time He was to set the nations
free; and how, after the passion of the Christ, that city had to be
exterminated. For he says thus: “In the first year under Darius,
son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the
kingdom of the Chaldees, I Daniel understood in the books the number of
the years.…And while I was yet speaking in my prayer, behold, the
man Gabriel, whom I saw in the vision in the beginning, flying; and he
touched me, as it were, at the hour of the evening sacrifice, and made
me understand, and spake with me, and said, Daniel I am now come out to
imbue thee with understanding; in the beginning of thy supplication
went out a word. And I am come to announce to thee, because thou art a
man Vir desideriorum; Gr.
ἀνὴρ
ἐπιθυμιῶν; Eng.
ver. “a man greatly beloved.” Elsewhere Tertullian has
another rendering—“miserabilis.” See de Jej.
cc. vii, ix. Or,
“abbreviated;” breviatæ sunt; Gr. συνετμήθνσαν.
For this rendering, and the interpretations which in ancient and modern
days have been founded on it, see G. S. Faber’s Dissert. on the
prophecy of the seventy weeks, pp. 5, 6, 109–112. (London, 1811.)
The whole work will repay perusal. These words are
given, by Oehler and Rig., on the authority of Pamelius. The
mss. and early editions are without
them. Also supplied by
Pamelius. See
Observe we, therefore, the limit,—how, in
truth, he predicts that there are to be lxx hebdomads, within
which if they receive Him, “it shall be built into height and
entrenchment, and the times shall be renewed.” But God,
foreseeing what was to be—that they will not merely not receive
Him, but will both persecute and deliver Him to death—both
recapitulated, and said, that in lx and ii and an half of an hebdomad
He is born, and an holy one of holy ones is anointed; but that when vii
hebdomads
Hebdomades is preferred to Oehler’s
-as, a reading which he follows apparently on slender
authority. There is no trace of
these last words in Tischendorf’s LXX. here; and only in his
footnotes is the “pinnacle” mentioned. Or,
“speech.” The reference seems to be to
Let us see, therefore, how the years are filled up until the advent of the Christ:—
For Darius reigned…xviiii So Oehler; and I print
all these numbers uniformly—as in the former part of the present
chapter—exactly in accordance with the Latin forms, for the sake
of showing how easily, in such calculations, errors may creep in.
Artaxerxes reigned…xl and i years (41).
Then King Ochus (who is also called Cyrus) reigned…xxiiii years (24).
Argus…one year.
Another Darius, who is also named Melas…xxi years (21).
Alexander the Macedonian…xii years (12)
Then, after Alexander, who had reigned over both
Medes and Persians, whom he had reconquered, and had established his
kingdom firmly in Alexandria, when withal he called that (city) by his
own name; Comp.
Soter…xxxv years (35).
To whom succeeds Philadelphus, reigning…xxx and viii years (38).
To him succeeds Euergetes…xxv years (25).
Then Philopator…xvii years (17).
After him Epiphanes…xxiiii years (24).
Then another Euergetes…xxviiii years (29).
Then another Soter,…xxxviii years (38).
Ptolemy…xxxvii years (37).
Cleopatra,…xx years v months (20 5–12).
Yet again Cleopatra reigned jointly with Augustus…xiii years (13).
After Cleopatra, Augustus reigned other…xliii years (43).
For all the years of the empire of Augustus were…lvi years (56).
Let us see, moreover, how in the forty-first year of the
empire of Augustus, when he has been reigning for xx and viii years
after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ is born. (And the same
Augustus survived, after Christ is born, xv years; and the remaining
times of years to the day of the birth of Christ will Diluuntur. So
Oehler has amended for the reading of the mss.
and edd., “tribuuntur.” Comp. Pusey on Daniel,
pp. 178, 179, notes 6, 7, 8, and the passages therein referred to. And
for the whole question of the seventy weeks, and of the LXX. version of
Daniel, comp. the same book, Lect. iv. and Note E (2d thousand, 1864).
See also pp. 376–381 of the same book; and Faber (as above), pp.
293–297. Or rather, our Lord
Himself. See Comp. the very obscure
passage in de Pu. c. vi., towards the end, on which this
expression appears to cast some light.
Accordingly, showing, (as we have done,) both the
number of the years, and the time of the lx two and an half fulfilled
hebdomads, on completion of which, (we have shown) that Christ is come,
that is, has been born, let us see what (mean) other “vii and an
half hebdomads,” which have been subdivided in the abscision
of Or, “in
abscision from.”
For, after Augustus who survived after the birth of Christ, are made up…xv years (15).
To whom succeeded Tiberius Cæsar, and held the empire…xx years, vii months, xxviii days (20 etc.).
(In the fiftieth year of his empire Christ suffered, being about xxx years of age when he suffered.)
Again Caius Cæsar, also called Caligula,…iii years, viii months, xiii days (3 etc.).
Nero Cæsar,…xi years, ix months, xiii days (11 etc.).
Galba…vii months, vi days. (7 etc.).
Otho…iii days.
Vitellius,…viii mos., xxvii days (8 mos.).
Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war; and there are made lii years, vi months. For he reigned xi years. And thus, in the day of their storming, the Jews fulfilled the lxx hebdomads predicted in Daniel.
Therefore, when these times also were completed,
and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place
“libations and sacrifices,” which thenceforward have not
been able to be in that place celebrated; for “the
unction,” too, And, without
“unction”—i.e. without a priesthood, the head
whereof, or high priest, was always anointed—no
“sacrifices” were lawful. See i.e., March 25. Comp. See Comp.
Chapter IX.—Of the Prophecies of the Birth and Achievements of Christ.
Begin we, therefore, to prove that the
Birth “A
virgin,” Eng. ver.; ἡ παρθένος,
LXX.; “the virgin,” Lowth. See See See See
Accordingly the Jews say: Let us challenge that
prediction of Isaiah, and let us institute a comparison whether, in the
case of the Christ who is already come, there be applicable to Him,
firstly, the name which Isaiah foretold, and (secondly) the signs of
it i.e., of the
predicted name. [Here compare Against Marcion, Book III. (vol.
vii. Edin. series) Cap. xii. p. 142. See my note (1) on Chapter First;
and also Kaye, p. xix.]
Well, then, Isaiah foretells that it behoves Him
to be called Emmanuel; and that subsequently He is to take the power of
Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the
Assyrians. “Now,” say they, “that (Christ) of yours,
who is come, neither was called by that name, nor engaged in
warfare.” But we, on the contrary, have thought they ought to be
admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as
well. For subjoined is withal the interpretation of
Emmanuel—“God with us” In Or, “to call
him.” See adv. Marc.
l. iii. c. xiii., which, with the preceding chapter, should be compared
throughout with the chapter before us. Comp. Or,
“accept.” See Of course he
ought to have said, “they say.” Strictly, Tertullian
ought to have said “they call,” having above said
“Divine scriptures;” as above on the preceding page. See Orbis. Oehler refers to
See Or we may supply here
[“Isaiah”]. Or,
“he.”
Moreover, this our interpretation will be
supported while (we find that) elsewhere as well the Scriptures
designate Christ a warrior, as we gather from the names of certain
weapons, and words of that kind. But by a comparison of the remaining
senses the Jews shall be convicted. “Gird thee,” says
David, “the sword upon the thigh.” See Comp. Comp. See Traductionem (comp.
“But if the Christ,” say they,
“who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who
is come called Jesus Christ?” Well, each name will meet in the
Christ of God, in whom is found likewise the appellation I can find no
authority for “appellatus” as a substantive, but such forms
are familiar with Tertullian. Or perhaps we may render: “in that
He is found to have been likewise called Jesus.” Auses; Αὐσή in LXX. Nave; Ναυή in LXX. Jehoshua, Joshua,
Jeshua, Jesus, are all forms of the same name. But the change
from Oshea or Hoshea to Jehoshua appears to have been made when he was
sent to spy the land. See If Oehler’s
“in sæculo desertæ” is to be retained, this
appears to be the construction. But this passage, like others above
noted, is but a reproduction of parts of the third book in answer to
Marcion; and there the reading is “in sæculi
desertis”="in the desert places of the world,” or “of
heathendom.” See See See especially
Or,
“Joshua.” Comp. Comp. Oehler and others read
“celavit”; but the correction of Fr.
Junius and Rig., “celabit,” is
certainly more agreeable to the LXX. and the Eng. ver. See Comp. reference 8, p.
232; and See Sacramentum.
And that the virgin of whom it behoved Christ to
be born (as we have above mentioned) must derive her lineage of the
seed of David, the prophet in subsequent passages evidently asserts.
“And there shall be born,” he says, “a rod from the
root of Jesse”—which rod is Mary—“and a flower
shall ascend from his root: and there shall rest upon him the Spirit of
God, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of discernment
and piety, the spirit of counsel and truth; the spirit of God’s
fear shall fill Him.” See See See
I demand, again—granting that He who was
ever predicted by prophets as destined to come out of Jesse’s
race, was withal to exhibit all humility, patience, and
tranquillity—whether He be come? Equally so (in this case as in
the former), the man who is shown to bear that character will be the
very Christ who is come. For of Him the prophet says, “A man set
in a plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity;” who “was
led as a sheep for a victim; and, as a lamb before him who sheareth
him, opened not His mouth.” See See See See See
Chapter X.—Concerning the Passion of Christ, and Its Old Testament Predictions and Adumbrations.
Concerning the last step, plainly, of His passion
you raise a doubt; affirming that the passion of the cross was not
predicted with reference to Christ, and urging, besides, that it is not
credible that God should have exposed His own Son to that kind of
death; because Himself said, “Cursed is every one who
shall have hung on a tree.” Comp. See Oehler’s
pointing is disregarded. See
And, of course, it had been meet that the
mystery Sacramentum. See
Accordingly, to begin with, Isaac, when led by his
father as a victim, and himself bearing his own
“wood,” Lignum = ξύλον; constantly
used for “tree.” Comp.
Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of
Christ
“Christum figuratus” is
Oehler’s reading, after the two mss. and
the Pamelian ed. of 1579; the rest read
“figurans” or
“figuravit.” Manifested
e.g., in his two dreams. See Comp. Or,
“Judah.” This is an error. It
is not “his father,” Jacob, but Moses, who thus blesses
him. See
He, again, will be the “bull”
elsewhere too in the same scripture. Not strictly
“the same;” for here the reference is to
i.e., Simeon and
Levi. i.e., the scribes and
Pharisees. Perfecerunt
iniquitatem ex sua secta. There seems to be a play on the word
“secta” in connection with the outrage committed by Simeon
and Levi, as recorded in See What the sense of this
is it is not easy to see. It appears to have puzzled Pam. and Rig. so
effectually that they both, conjecturally and without authority,
adopted the reading found in adv. Marc. l. iii. c. xviii. (from
which book, as usual, the present passage is borrowed), only altering
illis to ipsis.
But, to come now to Moses, why, I wonder, did he
merely at the time when Joshua was battling against Amalek, pray
sitting with hands expanded, when, in circumstances so critical,
he ought rather, surely, to have com See Their sin was
“speaking against God and against Moses” ( Comp. Comp. Comp. de Idol.
c. v.; adv. Marc. l. iii. c. xviii.
Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of
the prophet in the Psalms, “God hath reigned from the
tree,” A ligno. Oehler refers
us to Lignarium aliquem
regem. It is remarkable, in connection herewith, that our Lord is
not only called by the Jews “the carpenter’s
son” (
Similarly, again, Isaiah says: “For a child
is born to us, and to us is given a son.” See Lignum. See i.e., when they laid
on Him the crossbeam to carry. See See It is
Now, if the hardness of your heart shall persist
in rejecting and deriding all these interpretations, we will prove that
it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied,
in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had
not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means
of the cross i.e., perhaps, because
of the extreme ignominy attaching to that death, which prevented its
being expressly named. See Oehler’s
“esset” appears to be a mistake for “esse.” The change from
singular to plural is due to the Latin, not to the translator. See See Comp.
Chapter XI.—Further Proofs, from Ezekiel. Summary of the Prophetic Argument Thus Far.
For, again, it is for these deserts of yours that
Ezekiel announces your ruin as about to come: and not only in this
age Sæculo. Comp. Or possibly, simply,
“sealed”—obsignatus. Inter mediam elam et
inter medium altaris: i.e., probably ="between the porch and the
altar,” as the Eng. ver. has. So Oehler points, and
Tischendorf in his edition of the LXX. points not very differently. I
incline to read: “Because they have filled up the measure of
their impieties, and, behold (are) themselves, as it were, grimacing, I
will,” etc. Comp. “Quæ fuit
super eam” (i.e. super domum) “in subdivali
domûs” is Oehler’s reading; but it differs from the
LXX. The ms. which Oehler usually follows omits
“Tau;” so do the LXX. Et in his dixit ad
audientem. But the LXX. reading agrees almost verbatim
with the Eng. ver. Or rather in
Deuteronomy. See Or,
“sole.” In ligno. There
are no such words in the LXX. If the words be retained, “thy
life” will mean Christ, who is called “our Life”
in
And so, since prophecy has been fulfilled through His advent—that is, through the nativity, which we have above commemorated, and the passion, which we have evidently explained—that is the reason withal why Daniel said, “Vision and prophet were sealed;” because Christ is the “signet” of all prophets, fulfilling all that had in days bygone been announced concerning Him: for, since His advent and personal passion, there is no longer “vision” or “prophet;” whence most emphatically he says that His advent “seals vision and prophecy.” And thus, by showing “the number of the years, and the time of the lxii and an half fulfilled hebdomads,” we have proved that at that specified time Christ came, that is, was born; and, (by showing the time) of the “seven and an half hebdomads,” which are subdivided so as to be cut off from the former hebdomads, within which times we have shown Christ to have suffered, and by the consequent conclusion of the “lxx hebdomads,” and the extermination of the city, (we have proved) that “sacrifice and unction” thenceforth cease.
Sufficient it is thus far, on these points, to
have meantime traced the course of the ordained path of Christ, by
which He is proved to be such as He used to be announced, even on the
ground of that agreement of Scriptures, which has enabled us to speak
out, in opposition to the Jews, on the ground Or, “in
accordance with.” i.e., Would they
have happened? and, by happening, have been their own
proof?
Chapter XII.—Further Proofs from the Calling of the Gentiles.
Look at the universal nations thenceforth emerging
from the vortex of human error to the Lord God the Creator and His
Christ; and if you dare to deny that this was prophesied, forthwith
occurs to you the promise of the Father in the Psalms, which says,
“My Son art Thou; to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me,
and I will give Thee Gentiles as Thine heritage, and as
Thy possession the bounds of the earth.” Dispositionem; Gr.
διαθήκην. Comp.
Chapter XIII.—Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation of Judea.
Therefore, since the sons of Israel affirm See Comp. Comp. the
“failing eyes” in the passage from Deuteronomy given
in c. xi., if “eyes” is to be taken as the subject here. If
not, we have another instance of the slipshod writing in which this
treatise abounds.
Now, if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not
come, when He begins to come whence will He be anointed? As His name
“Christ” or “Messiah” implies. Comp. i.e., in Jerusalem or
Judea. The Jews. Comp.
A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is
already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and
is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come
accordingly as the predictions prophesied. For, after His advent, we
read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated;
and we recognise that so it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus,
that “the city and the holy place are simultaneously exterminated
together with the leader,” See i.e., displaced,
dislocated. See c. x. above. See “Lignum,”
as before. See See c. xi. above, and
the note there. Sacramento. See Sæculi. See See See See ὑδατος ζωῆς
in the LXX. here (ed. Tischendorf, who quotes the Cod. Alex. as
reading, however, ὑδατος
ζῶντος). Comp. Comp. The τὴν
διασπορὰν
τῶν
῾Ελλήνων of
See
Again, the mystery of this
“tree” Hujus ligni
sacramentum. Lignum. Helisæo. Comp.
The careless
construction of leaving the nominative “Elisha” with no
verb to follow it is due to the original, not to the translator. See This conclusion they
had drawn before, and are not said to have drawn, consequently, upon
this occasion. See Sacramento.
“Sæculi,” or perhaps here
“heathendom.” For a similar
argument, see Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo? l. i.
c. iii. sub fin. Sæculo. Mortis necem. Comp.
This “wood,” again, Isaac the son of
Abraham personally carried for his own sacrifice, when God had enjoined
that he should be made a victim to Himself. But, because these had been
mysteries Sacramenta. See See See Oehler refers to
See For this sense of the
word “approve,” comp. See See Comp. Comp. See See See See See See See
Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as
destined to suffer these calamities on Christ’s account,
and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into
dispersion and
Chapter XIV.—Conclusion. Clue to the Error of the Jews.
Learn now (over and above the immediate question)
the clue to your error. We affirm, two characters of the
Christ demonstrated by the prophets, and as many advents of His
forenoted: one, in humility (of course the first), when He has to
be led “as a sheep for a victim; and, as a lamb voiceless before
the shearer, so He opened not His mouth,” not even in His aspect
comely. For “we have announced,” says the
prophet, “concerning Him, (He is) as a little child, as a
root in a thirsty land; and there was not in Him attractiveness or
glory. And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His
mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of
men,” See See See See See See reference 3 above,
with Comp. Or, “worldly
kingdoms.” See See See c. ix.
med. See c. ix.
med. See See See Sacramento. The reading which
Oehler follows, and which seems to have the best authority, is
“verissimus sacerdos Patris, Christus Ipsius,” as in the
text. But Rig., whose judgment is generally very sound, prefers,
with some others, to read, “verus summus sacerdos Patris Christus
Jesus;” which agrees better with the previous allusion to
“the mystery of His name withal:” comp. c. ix. above,
towards the end. See Comp. Or
“Josedech,” as Tertullian here writes, and as we find in
Or,
“Jeshua.” See See See Comp. This appears to be an
error. See Unless Oehler’s
“fruerentur” is an error for “fruentur” ="will
enjoy.”
Therefore, since the vaticinations of the
first advent obscured it with manifold figures,
and debased it with every dishonour, while the second (was foretold as) manifest and wholly worthy of God,
it has resulted therefrom, that, by fixing their gaze on that one alone
which they could easily understand and believe (that is, the
second, which is in honour and glory), they
have been (not undeservedly) deceived as to the more obscure—at
all events, the more unworthy—that is, the first. And thus to the present moment they affirm that
their Christ is not come, because He is not come in majesty; while they
are ignorant of Or,
“ignore.”
Enough it is, meantime, to have thus far followed
the stream downward of the order of Christ’s course, whereby He
is proved such as He was habitually announced: in order that, as a
result of this harmony of the Divine Scriptures, we may understand; and
that the events which used to be predicted as destined to take place
after Christ may be believed to have been accomplished as the result of
a divine arrangement. For unless He come after whom they had to
be accomplished, by no means would the events, the future occurrence
whereof was predictively assigned to His advent, have come to
pass. Therefore, if you see universal nations thenceforth
emerging from the profundity of human error to God the Creator and His
Christ (which you dare not assert to have not been prophesied, because,
albeit you were so to assert, there would forthwith—as we have
already premised See cc. xi. xii.
above. Orbem. Or, “unto
eternity.” Comp. See Oehler’s
pointing is discarded. The whole passage, from “which you dare
not assert” down to “ignorant,” appears to be
parenthetical; and I have therefore marked it as such.
VIII.
The Soul’s Testimony. [The tract De
Testimonio Animæ is cast into an apologetic form and very
properly comes into place here. It was written in Orthodoxy and
forms a valuable preface to the De Anima, of which we cannot say
that it is quite free from errors. As it refers to the Apology, we
cannot place it before that work, and perhaps we shall not greatly err
if we consider it a sequel to the Apology. If it proves to others the
source of as much enjoyment as it affords to me, it will be treasured
by them as one of the most precious testimonies to the Gospel,
introducing Man to himself.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.
If, with the object of
convicting the rivals and persecutors of Christian truth, from their
own authorities, of the crime of at once being untrue to themselves and
doing injustice to us, one is bent on gathering testimonies in its
favour from the writings of the philosophers, or the poets, or other
masters of this world’s learning and wisdom, he has need of a
most inquisitive spirit, and a still greater memory to carry out the
research. Indeed, some of our people, who still continued their
inquisitive labours in ancient literature, and still occupied memory
with it, have published works we have in our hands of this very sort;
works in which they relate and attest the nature and origin of their
traditions, and the grounds on which opinions rest, and from which it
may be seen at once that we have embraced nothing new or
monstrous—nothing for which we cannot claim the support of
ordinary and well-known writings, whether in ejecting error from our
creed, or admitting truth into it. But the unbelieving hardness of the
human heart leads them to slight even their own teachers, otherwise
approved and in high renown, whenever they touch upon arguments which
are used in defence of Christianity. Then the poets are fools, when
they describe the gods with human passions and stories; then the
philosophers are without reason, when they knock at the gates of
truth. He will thus far be reckoned a wise and sagacious man who
has gone the length of uttering sentiments that are almost Christian;
while if, in a mere affectation of judgment and wisdom, he sets himself
to reject their ceremonies, or to convicting the world of its sin, he
is sure to be branded as a Christian. We will have nothing, then, to do
with the literature and the teaching, perverted in its best results,
which is believed in its errors rather than its truth. We shall lay no
stress on it, if some of their authors have declared that there is one
God, and one God only. Nay, let it be granted that there is nothing in
heathen writers which a Christian approves, that it may be put out of
his power to utter a single word of reproach. For all are not
familiar with their teachings; and those who are, have no assurance in
regard to their truth. Far less do men assent to our writings, to
which no one comes for guidance unless he is already a Christian.
I call in a new testimony, yea, one which is better known than all
literature, more discussed than all doctrine, more public than all
publications, greater than the whole man—I mean all which is
man’s. Stand forth, O soul, whether thou art a divine and eternal
substance, as most philosophers believe if it be so, thou wilt be the
less likely to lie,—or whether thou art the very opposite of
divine, because indeed a mortal thing, as Epicurus alone
thinks—in that case there will be the less temptation for thee to
speak falsely in this case: whether thou art received from heaven, or
sprung from earth; whether thou art formed of numbers, or of atoms;
whether thine existence begins with that of the body, or thou art put
into it at a later stage; from whatever source, and in whatever way,
thou makest man a rational being, in the highest degree capable of
thought and knowledge,—stand forth and give thy witness. But I
call thee not as when, fashioned in schools, trained in libraries, fed
in Attic academies and porticoes, thou belchest wisdom. I address
thee simple, rude, uncultured and untaught, such as they have thee who
have thee only; that very thing of the road, the street, the work-shop,
wholly. I want thine inexperience, since in thy small experience no one
feels any confidence. I demand of thee the things thou bringest with
thee into man, which thou knowest either from
Chapter II.
We give offence by proclaiming that there is one
God, to whom the name of God alone belongs, from whom all things come,
and who is Lord of the whole universe. [The student of
Plato will recall such evidence, readily. See The Laws, in
Jowett’s Translation, vol. iv. p. 416. Also Elucidation
I.]
Chapter III.
But when we say that there are demons—as
though, in the simple fact that we alone expel them from the
men’s bodies, [The existence of
demoniacal possessions in heathen countries is said to be probable,
even in our days. The Fathers unanimously assert the effectual
exorcisms of their days.] [e.g.
Horace, Epodes, Ode V.] [Satanan, in
omni vexatione…pronuntias. Does he mean that they
used this word? Rather, he means the demon is none other
than Satan.] [I have been obliged,
somewhat, to simplify the translation here.]
Chapter IV.
Even now, as the matter refers to thy opinion on a
point the more closely belonging to thee, in so far as it bears on thy
personal well-being, we maintain that after life has passed away thou
still remainest in existence, and lookest forward to a day of judgment,
and according to thy deserts art assigned to misery or bliss, in either
way of it for ever; that, to be capable of this, thy former substance
must needs return to thee, the matter and the memory of the very same
human being: for neither good nor evil couldst thou feel if thou wert
not endowed again with that sensitive bodily organization, and there
would be no grounds for judgment without the presentation of the very
person to whom the sufferings of judgment were due. That Christian
view, though much nobler than the Pythagorean, as it does not transfer
thee into beasts; though more complete than the Platonic, since it
endows thee again with a body; though more worthy of honour than the
Epicurean, as it preserves thee from annihilation,—yet, because
of the name connected with it, it is held to be nothing but vanity and
folly, and, as it is called, a mere presumption. But we are not ashamed
of ourselves if our presumption is found to have thy support.
Well, in the first place, when thou speakest of one who is dead, thou
sayest of him, “Poor man”—poor, surely, not because
he has been taken from the good of life, but because he has been given
over to punishment and condemnation. But at another time thou speakest
of the dead as free from trouble; thou professest to think life a
burden, and death a blessing. Thou art wont, too, to speak of the dead
as in repose, [This whole passage is
useful as a commentary on classic authors who use these poetical
expressions. Cœlo Musa beat (Hor. Ode viii. B. 4.) but the
real feeling comes out in such expressions as one finds in
Horace’s odes to Sextius, (B. i. Ode 4.), or to Postumus, B. ii.
Od. 14.] [The tombs, by
the roadside, of which the traveller still sees specimens, used to be
scenes of debauchery when the dead were honoured in this way.
Now, the funeral honours (See De Corona, cap. iii.) which
Christians substituted for these were Eucharistic alms and oblations:
thanking God for their holy lives and perpetuating relations with them
in the Communion of Saints.] [Butler, Analogy, Part
I. chap. i.] [Horace, Book III. Ode
30.]
Chapter V.
These testimonies of the soul are simple as true,
commonplace as simple, universal as commonplace, natural as universal,
divine as natural. I don’t think they can appear frivolous
or feeble to any one, if he reflect on the majesty of nature, from
which the soul derives its authority. [This appeal to the
universal conscience and consciousness of mankind is unanswerable, and
assures us that counter-theories will never prevail. See Bossuet,
De la Connoisance de Dieu et de Soi-même. Œuvres, Tom. V. pp. 86 et. seqq.
Ed. Paris, 1846.] [Compare the heathen
ideas in Plato: e.g. the story Socrates tells in the Gorgias, (near the
close) about death and Judgment.]
Chapter VI.
Believe, then, your own books, and as to our Scriptures so much the more believe writings which are divine, but in the witness of the soul itself give like confidence to Nature. Choose the one of these you observe to be the most faithful friend of truth. If your own writings are distrusted, neither God nor Nature lie. And if you would have faith in God and Nature, have faith in the soul; thus you will believe yourself. Certainly you value the soul as giving you your true greatness,—that to which you belong; which is all things to you; without which you can neither live nor die; on whose account you even put God away from you. Since, then, you fear to become a Christian, call the soul before you, and put her to the question. Why does she worship another? why name the name of God? Why does she speak of demons, when she means to denote spirits to be held accursed? Why does she make her protestations towards the heavens, and pronounce her ordinary execrations earthwards? Why does she render service in one place, in another invoke the Avenger? Why does she pass judgments on the dead? What Christian phrases are those she has got, though Christians she neither desires to see nor hear? Why has she either bestowed them on us, or received them from us? Why has she either taught us them, or learned them as our scholar? Regard with suspicion this accordance in words, while there is such difference in practice. It is utter folly—denying a universal nature—to ascribe this exclusively to our language and the Greek, which are regarded among us as so near akin. The soul is not a boon from heaven to Latins and Greeks alone. Man is the one name belonging to every nation upon earth: there is one soul and many tongues, one spirit and various sounds; every country has its own speech, but the subjects of speech are common to all. God is everywhere, and the goodness of God is everywhere; demons are everywhere, and the cursing of them is everywhere; the invocation of divine judgment is everywhere, death is everywhere, and the sense of death is everywhere, and all the world over is found the witness of the soul. There is not a soul of man that does not, from the light that is in itself, proclaim the very things we are not permitted to speak above our breath. Most justly, then, every soul is a culprit as well as a witness: in the measure that it testifies for truth, the guilt of error lies on it; and on the day of judgment it will stand before the courts of God, without a word to say. Thou proclaimedst God, O soul, but thou didst not seek to know Him: evil spirits were detested by thee, and yet they were the objects of thy adoration; the punishments of hell were foreseen by thee, but no care was taken to avoid them; thou hadst a savour of Christianity, and withal wert the persecutor of Christians.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Recognition of the Supreme God, cap. ii., p. 176.)
The passage referred to in the note, begins thus in Jowett’s rendering: “The Ruler of the Universe has ordered all things with a view to the preservation and perfection of the whole etc.” So, in the same book: “Surely God must not be supposed to have a nature which he himself hates.” Again: “Let us not, then, deem God inferior to human workmen, who in proportion to their skill finish and perfect their works…or that God, the wisest of beings, who is willing and able to extend his care to all things, etc.” Now, it is a sublime plan which our author here takes up, (making only slight reference to the innumerable citations which were behind his apostrophe to the soul if any one should dispute it) to bid the soul stand forth and confess its consciousness of God.
(Dæmons, cap. vi. p. 176.)
Those who would pursue the subject of Demonology, which Tertullian opens in this admirable treatise, should follow it up in a writer whom Tertullian greatly influenced, in many particulars, even when he presents a remarkable contrast. The Ninth Book of the City of God is devoted to inquiries which throw considerable light on some of the startling sayings of our author as to the heathen systems, and their testimony to the Soul’s Consciousness of God and of the great enemy of God and the inferior spirit of Evil.
A Treatise on the Soul. [It is not safe
to date this treatise before a.d. 203, and
perhaps it would be unsafe to assign a later date. The note of the
translator, which follows, relieves me from any necessity to add more,
just here.]
[Translated by Peter Holmes, D.D.]
————————————
Chapter I.—It is Not to the
Philosophers that We Resort for Information About the Soul But to
God. In this treatise
we have Tertullian’s speculations on the origin, the nature, and
the destiny of the human soul. There are, no doubt, paradoxes startling
to a modern reader to be found in it, such as that of the soul’s
corporeity; and there are weak and inconclusive arguments. But after
all such drawbacks (and they are not more than what constantly occur in
the most renowned speculative writers of antiquity), the reader will
discover many interesting proofs of our author’s character for
originality of thought, width of information, firm grasp of his
subject, and vivacious treatment of it, such as we have discovered in
other parts of his writings. If his subject permits Tertullian less
than usual of an appeal to his favourite Holy Scripture, he still makes
room for occasional illustration from it, and with his characteristic
ability; if, however, there is less of his sacred learning in it, the
treatise teems with curious information drawn from the secular
literature of that early age. Our author often measures swords with
Plato in his discussions on the soul, and it is not too much to say
that he shows himself a formidable opponent to the great philosopher.
See Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, pp. 199, 200.
Having discussed with
Hermogenes the single point of the origin of the soul, so far as his
assumption led me, that the soul consisted rather in an
adaptation Suggestu. [Kaye, pp.
60 and 541.] Flatu “the
breath.” Utique. Consternata. Consternata. Externata.
“Externatus = ἐκτὸς
φρενῶν. Gloss. Philox. Pietatis. Fidei sacramento. The allusion is
to the inconsistency of the philosopher, who condemned the gods
of the vulgar, and died offering a gift to one of them. Vivicomburio.
Chapter II.—The Christian Has Sure and Simple Knowledge Concerning the Subject Before Us.
Of course we shall not deny that philosophers have
sometimes thought the same things as ourselves. The testimony of truth
is the issue thereof. It sometimes happens even in a storm, when the
boundaries of sky and sea are lost in confusion, that some harbour is
stumbled on (by the labouring ship) by some happy chance; and sometimes
in the very shades of night, through blind luck alone, one finds access
to a spot, or egress from it. In nature, however, most conclusions are
suggested, as it were, by that common intelligence wherewith God has
been pleased to endow the soul of man. This intelligence has been
caught up by philosophy, and, with the view of glorifying her own art,
has been inflated (it is not to be wondered at that I use this
language) with straining after that facility of language which is
practised in the building up and pulling down of everything, and which
has greater aptitude for persuading men by speaking than by teaching.
She assigns to things their forms and conditions; sometimes makes them
common and public, sometimes appropriates them to private use; on
certainties she capriciously stamps the character of uncertainty; she
appeals to precedents, as if all things are capable of being compared
together; she describes all things by rule and definition, allotting
diverse properties even to similar objects; she attributes nothing to
the divine permission, but assumes as her principles the laws of
nature. I could bear with her pretensions, if only she were herself
true to nature, and would prove to me that she had a mastery over
nature as being associated with its creation. She thought, no doubt,
that she was deriving her mysteries from sacred sources, as men deem
them, because in ancient times most authors were supposed to be (I will
not say godlike, but) actually gods: as, for instance, the Egyptian
Mercury, Mentioned below, c.
xxxiii.; also Adv. Valent. c. xv. See his
Phædrus, c. lix. (p. 274); also Augustin, De. Civ.
Dei, viii. 11; Euseb. Præp. Evang. ix. 3. Or
spurious; not to be confounded with our so-called
Apocrypha, which were in Tertullian’s days called
Libri Ecclesiastici. Here is a touch of
Tertullian’s Montanism. Subornant.
Chapter III.—The Soul’s Origin Defined Out of the Simple Words of Scripture.
Would to God that no “heresies had been ever
necessary, in order that they which are approved may be made
manifest!” Compare
Tertullian’s Adv. Hermog. c. viii. Linguatam civitatem.
Comp. Honor. Vigor. Another reading
has “rigor” (ακληρότης),
harshness. Tenor. Stupor. Mœror. Furor. Flatu. Titulus.
Chapter IV.—In Opposition to Plato, the Soul Was Created and Originated at Birth.
After settling the origin of the soul, its
condition or state comes up next. For when we acknowledge that
the soul originates in the breath of God, it follows that we attribute
a beginning to it. This Plato, indeed, refuses to assign to it,
for he will have the soul to be unborn and unmade. See his
Phædrus, c. xxiv. Capit itaque et
facturam provenisse poni. Or,
“inspiration.”
Chapter V.—Probable View of the Stoics, that the Soul Has a Corporeal Nature.
Suppose one summons a Eubulus to his assistance,
and a Critolaus, and a Zenocrates, and on this occasion Plato’s
friend Aristotle. They may very possibly hold themselves ready for
stripping the soul of its corporeity, unless they happen to see other
philosophers opposed to them in their purpose—and this, too, in
greater numbers—asserting for the soul a corporeal nature. Now I
am not referring merely to those who mould the soul out of manifest
bodily substances, as Hipparchus and Heraclitus (do) out of fire; as
Hippon and Thales (do) out of water; as Empedocles and Critias (do) out
of blood; as Epicurus (does) out of atoms, since even atoms by their
coherence form corporeal masses; as Critolaus and his Peripatetics (do)
out of a certain indescribable quintessence, Ex quinta nescio qua
substantia. Comp. Cicero’s Tuscul. i. 10. Consitum. De Nat. Rer. i.
305.
“Tangere enim et tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res.”
“For nothing but body is capable of touching or of being touched.”
(Such severance, however, is quite natural between the soul and the body); for when the body is deserted by the soul, it is overcome by death. The soul, therefore, is endued with a body; for if it were not corporeal, it could not desert the body.
Chapter VI.—The Arguments of the Platonists for the Soul’s Incorporeality, Opposed, Perhaps Frivolously.
These conclusions the Platonists disturb more by
subtilty than by truth. Every body, they say, has necessarily either an
animate nature Animale, “having
the nature of soul.” Inanimale. Accedit. We follow
Oehler’s view of this obscure passage, in preference to
Rigaltius’. See Tertullian’s
Ad Nationes (our translation), p. 33,
Supra.. Quinionem.
Chapter VII.—The Soul’s Corporeality Demonstrated Out of the Gospels.
So far as the philosophers are concerned, we have said
enough. As for our own teachers, indeed, our reference to them is ex
abundanti—a surplusage of authority: in the Gospel itself
they will be found to have the Ad inferna. [See
p. 59, supra.] Diversorio. Compare De Resur.
Carnis, xvii. There is, however, some variation in
Tertullian’s language on this subject. In his Apol.
xlviii. he speaks as if the soul could not suffer when separated from
the body. See also his De Testimonio Animæ,
ch. iv., p. 177, supra; and see Bp. Kaye, p. 183.
Chapter VIII.—Other Platonist Arguments Considered.
Besides, it would be a harsh and absurd proceeding to
exempt anything from the class of corporeal beings, on the ground that
it is not exactly like the other constituents of that class. And where
individual creatures possess various properties, does not this variety
in works of the same class indicate the greatness of the Creator, in
making them at the same time different and yet like, amicable yet
rivals? Indeed, the philosophers themselves agree in saying that
the universe consists of harmonious oppositions, according to
Empedocles’ (theory of) friendship and enmity. Thus, then,
although corporeal essences are opposed to incorporeal ones, they yet
differ from each other in such sort as to amplify their species by
their variety, without changing their genus, remaining all alike
corporeal; contributing to God’s glory in their manifold
existence by reason of their variety; so various, by reason of their
differences; so diverse, in that some of them possess one kind of
perception, others another; some feeding on one kind of aliment, others
on another; some, again, possessing visibility, while others are
invisible; some being weighty, others light. They are in the habit of
saying that the soul must be pronounced incorporeal on this account,
because the bodies of the dead, after its departure from them, become
heavier, whereas they ought to be lighter, being deprived of the weight
of a body—since the soul is a bodily substance. But what,
says Soranus (in answer to this argument), if men should deny that the
sea is a bodily substance, because a ship out of the water becomes a
heavy and motionless mass? How much truer and stronger, then, is the
soul’s corporeal essence, which carries about the body, which
eventually assumes so great a weight with the nimblest motion! Again,
even if the soul is invisible, it is only in strict accordance with the
condition of its own corporeality, and suitably to the property of its
own essence, as well as to the nature of even those beings to which its
destiny made it to be invisible. The eyes of the owl cannot endure the
sun, whilst the eagle is so well able to face his glory, that the noble
character of its young is determined by the unblinking strength of
their gaze; while the eaglet, which turns away its eye from the
sun’s ray, is expelled from the nest as a degenerate creature! So
true is it, therefore, than to one eye an object is invisible, which
may be quite plainly seen by another,—without implying any
incorporeality in that which is not endued with an equally strong power
(of vision). The sun is indeed a bodily substance, because it is
(composed of) fire; the object, however, which the eaglet at once
admits the existence of, the owl denies, without any prejudice,
nevertheless, to the testimony of the eagle. There is the selfsame
difference in respect of the soul’s corporeality, which is
(perhaps) invisible to the flesh, but perfectly visible to the spirit.
Thus John, being “in the Spirit”
Chapter IX.—Particulars of the Alleged Communication to a Montanist Sister.
When we aver that the soul has a body of a quality
and kind peculiar to itself, in this special condition of it we shall
be already supplied with a decision respecting all the other accidents
of its corporeity; how that they belong to it, because we have shown it
to be a body, but that even they have a quality peculiar to themselves,
proportioned to the special nature of the body (to which they belong);
or else, if any accidents (of a body) are remarkable in this instance
for their absence, then this, too, results from the peculiarity of the
condition of the soul’s corporeity, from which are absent sundry
qualities which are present to all other corporeal beings. And yet,
notwithstanding all this, we shall not be at all inconsistent if we
declare that the more usual characteristics of a body, such as
invariably accrue to the corporeal condition, belong also to the
soul—such as form Habitum. Illud trifariam
distantivum (Τριχῶς
διαστηματικόν)
Fr. Junius. Effigiem. See his
Phædo, pp. 105, 106. Structile. Sacramenta. Cerauniis gemmis. Tradux. Dupliciter unus.
Chapter X.—The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato. The Identity of Spirit and Soul.
It is essential to a firm faith to declare with
Plato See his
Phædo, p. 80; Timæus, § 12, p. 35
(Bekker, pp. 264, 265). We have here
combined two readings, effigies (Oehler’s) and
hæreses (the usual one). Aliam. This is the force of
the subjunctive fiat. Arterias. Aliunde spirabit,
aliunde vivet. “In the nature of man, life and breath are
inseparable,” Bp. Kaye, p. 184. Sexcentos. Odit. Aurium cæci.
Chapter XI.—Spirit—A Term Expressive of an Operation of the Soul, Not of Its Nature. To Be Carefully Distinguished from the Spirit of God.
But the nature of my present inquiry obliges me to
call the soul spirit or breath, because to breathe is ascribed to
another substance. We, however, claim this (operation) for the soul,
which we acknowledge to be an indivisible simple substance, and
therefore we must call it spirit in a definitive sense—not
because of its condition, but of its action; not in respect of its
nature, but of its operation; because it respires, and not
because it is spirit Proprie “by
reason of its nature.” See the tract Adv.
Valentin., c. xxv. infra. Compare Adv.
Hermog. xxxii. xxxiii.; also Irenæus, v. 12, 17. [See Vol. I.
p. 527, this Series.] Tertullian’s
reading of
Chapter XII.—Difference Between the Mind and the Soul, and the Relation Between Them.
In like manner the mind also, or animus,
which the Greeks designate ΝΟΥΣ, is taken by us in no other
sense than as indicating that faculty or apparatus Suggestum. Comp. The
Apology, c. xlviii.; August. De Civ. Dei, xiii.
17. Comp. Adv.
Valentin. vii. infra. Addicit. Alterum animi
genus. Concretum. Substantiæ
officium.
Chapter XIII.—The Soul’s Supremacy.
It next remains to examine where lies the
supremacy; in other words, which of the two is superior to the other,
so that with which the supremacy clearly lies shall be the essentially
superior substance; Substantiæ
massa. Faciem operis. Fontem
materiæ.
Chapter XIV.—The Soul Variously Divided by the Philosophers; This Division is Not a Material Dissection.
Being thus single, simple, and entire in itself,
it is as incapable of being composed and put together from external
constituents, as it is of being divided in and of itself, inasmuch as
it is indissoluble. For if it had been possible to construct it and to
destroy it, it would no longer be immortal. Since, however, it is not
mortal, it is also incapable of dissolution and division. Now, to be
divided means to be dissolved, and to be dissolved means to die. Yet
(philosophers) have divided the soul into parts: Plato, for instance,
into two; Zeno into three; Panætius, into five or six; Soranus,
into seven; Chrysippus, into as many as eight; and Apollophanes, into
as many as nine; whilst certain of the Stoics have found as many as
twelve parts in the soul. Posidonius makes even two more than these: he
starts with two leading faculties of the soul,—the
directing faculty, which they designate ἡγεμονικόν;
and the rational faculty, which they call λογικόν,—and
ultimately subdivided these into seventeen This is
Oehler’s text; another reading has twelve, which one would
suppose to be the right one. Ubique ipsa.
Chapter XV.—The Soul’s Vitality and Intelligence. Its Character and Seat in Man.
In the first place, (we must determine) whether
there be in the soul some supreme principle of vitality and
intelligence Sapientialis. Consecratum. In eo thesauro. Not Suidas’
philosopher of that name, but a renowned physician mentioned by Galen
and Pliny (Oehler). Lorica. The Egyptian
hierophants.
“Namque homini sanguis circumcordialis est
sensus.” The original, as
given in Stobæus, Eclog. i. p. 1026, is this
hexameter: Αἶμα
γὰρ
ἀνθρώποις
περικάρδιόν
ἐστι
νόημα.
“Man has his (supreme) sensation in the blood around his heart.”
Even Protagoras Or probably that
Praxagoras the physician who is often mentioned by Athenæus
and by Pliny (Pamel.).
Chapter XVI.—The Soul’s Parts. Elements of the Rational Soul.
That position of Plato’s is also quite in keeping
with the faith, in which he divides the soul into two parts—the
rational and the irrational. To this definition we take no
exception, except that we would not ascribe this twofold distinction to
the nature (of the soul). It is the rational element which we must
believe to be its natural condition, impressed upon it from its very
first creation by its Author, who is Himself essentially rational. For
how should that be other than rational, which God produced on His own
prompting; nay more, which He expressly sent forth by His own
afflatus or breath? The irrational element, however, we must
understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the
instigation of the serpent—the very achievement of (the first)
transgression—which thenceforward became inherent in the soul,
and grew with its growth, assuming the manner by this time of a natural
development, happening as it did immediately at the beginning of
nature. But, inasmuch as the same Plato speaks of the rational
element only as existing in the soul of God Himself, if we were to
ascribe the irrational element likewise to the nature which our soul
has received from God, then the irrational element will be equally
derived from God, as being a natural production, because God is the
author of nature. Now from the devil proceeds the incentive to sin. All
sin, however, is irrational: therefore the irrational proceeds from the
devil, from whom sin proceeds; and it is ex
Chapter XVII.—The Fidelity of the Senses, Impugned by Plato, Vindicated by Christ Himself.
Then, again, when we encounter the question (as to
the veracity of those five senses which we learn with our alphabet;
since from this source even there arises some support for our heretics.
They are the faculties of seeing, and hearing, and smelling, and
tasting, and touching. The fidelity of these senses is impugned with
too much severity by the Platonists, Academici. Coimplicitam
“entangled” or “embarrassed.” See the
Timæus pp. 27, 28. Vel. Sensus istos. Deliberetur.
Chapter XVIII.—Plato Suggested Certain Errors to the Gnostics. Functions of the Soul.
I turn now to the department of our intellectual
faculties, such as Plato has handed it over to the heretics, distinct
from our bodily functions, having obtained the knowledge of them before
death. Said ironically, as if
rallying Plato for inconsistency between his theory here and the
fact. Supermundiales
“placed above this world.” Imaginibus. See above, c. xii. p.
192. Above, c. xi. p.
191. Intelligere sentire
est. Oehler has
“anima;” we should rather have expected
“animo,” which is another reading. “Animo”
this time. Subjunctive verb,
“fuerit.” Dementit. The opposite opinion
was held by Tertullian’s opponents, who distinguished between the
mind and the soul. They said, that when a man was out of his mind, his
mind left him, but that his soul remained. (Lactantius, De Opif.
xviii.; Instit. Div. vii. 12; La Cerda). See his
treatise, Against Marcion. Facies. Timæus,
pp. 29, 30, 37, 38.
Chapter XIX.—The Intellect Coeval with the Soul in the Human Being. An Example from Aristotle Converted into Evidence Favourable to These Views.
Nor must we fail to notice those writers who
deprive the soul of the intellect even for a short period of time.
They do this in order to prepare the way of introducing the
intellect—and the mind also—at a subsequent time of life,
even at the time when intelligence appears in a man. They maintain that
the stage of infancy is supported by the soul alone, simply to promote
vitality, without any intention of acquiring knowledge also, because
not all things have knowledge which possess life. Trees, for instance,
to quote Aristotle’s example, His De Anima,
ii. 2, 3. Innixa et innexa. Amabit. Animationem. The
possession and use of an “anima.” Intellectuam. Spiritu. The mental
instinct, just mentioned. Hebetes.
Chapter XX.—The Soul, as to Its Nature Uniform, But Its Faculties Variously Developed. Varieties Only Accidental.
And here, therefore, we draw our conclusion, that
all the natural properties of the soul are inherent in it as parts of
its substance; and that they grow and develope along with it, from the
very moment of its own origin at birth. Just as Seneca says, whom
we so often find on our side: Sæpe noster. Licebit. Fetu. Tertullian perhaps
mentions this “demus” of Athens as the birthplace of Plato
(Oehler). Si et alia. Tertullian wrote a
work De Fato, which is lost. Fulgentius, p. 561, gives a
quotation from it.
Chapter XXI.—As Free-Will Actuates an Individual So May His Character Change.
Now, if the soul possessed this uniform and simple
nature from the beginning in Adam, previous to so many mental
dispositions (being developed out of it), it is not rendered multiform
by such various development, nor by the triple i.e., the carnal, the
animal, and the spiritual. Comp. Adv. Valentin. xxv., and De
Resur. Carnis, lv. See Adv.
Hermog. xiii. See Adv.
Valentin. xxix. See our
Anti-Marcion, ii. 5–7. In his work against
this man, entitled De Censu Animæ, not now extant.
Chapter XXII.—Recapitulation. Definition of the Soul.
Hermogenes has already heard from us what are the
other natural faculties of the soul, as well as their vindication and
proof; whence it may be seen that the soul is rather the offspring of
God than of matter. The names of these faculties shall here be simply
repeated, that they may not seem to be forgotten and passed out of
sight. We have assigned, then, to the soul both that freedom of
the will which we just now mentioned, and its dominion over the works
of nature, and its occasional gift of divination, independently of that
endowment of prophecy which accrues to it expressly from the grace of
God. We shall therefore now quit this subject of the soul’s
disposition, in order to set out fully in order its various
qualities. Tertullian had shown
that “the soul is the breath or afflatus of
God,” in ch. iv. and xi. above. He demonstrated its
“immortality” in ch. ii.–iv., vi., ix., xiv.;
and he will repeat his proof hereafter, in ch. xxiv., xxxviii., xlv.,
li., liii., liv. Moreover, he illustrates the soul’s
“corporeity” in ch. v.–viii.; its
“endowment with form or figure,” in ch. ix.; its
“simplicity in substance” in ch. x. and xi.; its
“inherent intelligence,” in ch. xii.; its varied
development, in ch. xiii.–xv. The soul’s
“rationality,” “supremacy,” and
“instinctive divination,” Tertullian treated of in
his treatise De Censu Animæ against Hermogenes
(as he has said in the text); but he has treated somewhat of the
soul’s “rational nature” in the sixteenth chapter
above; in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters he referred to the
soul’s “supremacy or hegemony;” whilst we have
had a hint about its “divining faculty,” even in
infants, in ch. xix. The propagation of souls from the one archetypal
soul is the subject of the chapter before us, as well as of the five
succeeding ones (La Cerda).
Some suppose that they came down from heaven, with as firm a belief as they are apt to entertain, when they indulge in the prospect of an undoubted return thither. Saturninus, the disciple of Menander, who belonged to Simon’s sect, introduced this opinion: he affirmed that man was made by angels. A futile, imperfect creation at first, weak and unable to stand, he crawled upon the ground like a worm, because he wanted the strength to maintain an erect posture; but afterwards having, by the compassion of the Supreme Power (in whose image, which had not been fully understood, he was clumsily formed), obtained a slender spark of life, this roused and righted his imperfect form, and animated it with a higher vitality, and provided for its return, on its relinquishment of life, to its original principle. Carpocrates, indeed, claims for himself so extreme an amount of the supernal qualities, that his disciples set their own souls at once on an equality with Christ (not to mention the apostles); and sometimes, when it suits their fancy, even give them the superiority—deeming them, forsooth, to have partaken of that sublime virtue which looks down upon the principalities that govern this world. Apelles tells us that our souls were enticed by earthly baits down from their super-celestial abodes by a fiery angel, Israel’s God and ours, who then enclosed them firmly within our sinful flesh. The hive of Valentinus fortifies the soul with the germ of Sophia, or Wisdom; by means of which germ they recognise, in the images of visible objects, the stories and Milesian fables of their own Æons. I am sorry from my heart that Plato has been the caterer to all these heretics. For in the Phædo he imagines that souls wander from this world to that, and thence back again hither; whilst in the Timæus he supposes that the children of God, to whom had been assigned the production of mortal creatures, having taken for the soul the germ of immortality, congealed around it a mortal body,—thereby indicating that this world is the figure of some other. Now, to procure belief in all this—that the soul had formerly lived with God in the heavens above, sharing His ideas with Him, and afterwards came down to live with us on earth, and whilst here recollects the eternal patterns of things which it had learnt before—he elaborated his new formula, μαθήσεις ἀναμνήσεις, which means that “learning is reminiscence;” implying that the souls which come to us from thence forget the things amongst which they formerly lived, but that they afterwards recall them, instructed by the objects they see around them. Forasmuch, therefore, as the doctrines which the heretics borrow from Plato are cunningly defended by this kind of argument, I shall sufficiently refute the heretics if I overthrow the argument of Plato.
Chapter XXIV.—Plato’s Inconsistency. He Supposes the Soul Self-Existent, Yet Capable of Forgetting What Passed in a Previous State.
In the first place, I cannot allow that the soul
is capable of a failure of memory; because he has conceded to it so
large an amount of divine quality as to put it on a par with God. He
makes it unborn, which single attribute I might apply as a
sufficient attestation of its perfect divinity; he then adds that the
soul is immortal, incorruptible, incorporeal—since he believed
God to be the same—invisible, incapable of delineation, uniform,
supreme, rational, and intellectual. What more could he attribute to
the soul, if he wanted to call it God? We, however, who allow no
appendage to God Nihil Deo
appendimus. Exorbitationis. In his, now lost,
treatise, De Censu Animæ. Above, in ch. xix. xx.
pp. 200, 201. Or, “which has
been too short for calculation.”
Chapter XXV.—Tertullian Refutes, Physiologically, the Notion that the Soul is Introduced After Birth.
I shall now return to the cause of this digression, in
order that I may explain how all souls are derived from one, when and
where and in what manner they are produced. Now, touching this subject,
it matters not whether the question be started by the philosopher, by
the heretic, or by the crowd. Those who profess the truth care nothing
about their opponents, especially such of them as begin by maintaining
that the soul is not conceived in the womb, nor is formed and produced
at the time that the flesh is moulded, but is impressed from without
upon the infant before his complete vitality, but after the process of
parturition. They say, moreover, that the human seed having been duly
deposited ex concubiterin the womb, and having been by
natural impulse quickened, it becomes condensed into the mere substance
of the flesh, which is in due time born, warm from the furnace of the
womb, and then released from its heat. (This flesh) resembles the case
of hot iron, which is in that state plunged into cold water; for, being
smitten by the cold air (into which it is born), it at once receives
the power of animation, and utters vocal sound. This view is
entertained by the Stoics, along with Ænesidemus, and occasionally
by Plato himself, when he tells us that the soul, being quite a
separate formation, originating elsewhere and externally to the womb,
is inhaled “Inhaled”
is Bp. Kaye’s word for adduci, “taken up.” Educi. Vivacitas. Ciborum vanitates. Rapiens. Anima. Anulocultro. [To be
seen in the Museum at Naples.] Or, “the whole
business (totem facinus) is despatched.” So Plato,
Cratylus, p. 399, c. 17. Censentur. Liberi aliqui. See Pliny,
Natural History, vii. 9. See above, ch. x. See above, ch. v.
Chapter XXVI.—Scripture Alone Offers Clear Knowledge on the Questions We Have Been Controverting.
Now there is no end to the uncertainty and Of the Scriptures.
Chapter XXVII.—Soul and Body Conceived, Formed and Perfected in Element Simultaneously.
How, then, is a living being conceived? Is the
substance of both body and soul formed together at one and the same
time? Or does one of them precede the other in natural formation? We
indeed maintain that both are conceived, and formed, and perfectly
simultaneously, as well as born together; and that not a moment’s
interval occurs in their conception, so that, a prior place can be
assigned to either. Comp. De Resurr.
Carnis, xlv. So Plato,
Phædo, p. 64. Materiæ. Lupanaria. See above, c. xxv. p.
206.
Chapter XXVIII.—The Pythagorean Doctrine of Transmigration Sketched and Censured.
What, then, by this time means that ancient
saying, mentioned by Plato, Phædo, p.
70. [Hermes. See
Bacon, De Aug. i. p. 99.] De posteris
defunctis. De posteris
defunctis. From καταβάλλειν,
to knock down. From πάρεδος, sitting
by one. From πυθωνικός, an attribute of Pythius Apollo; this class were sometimes
called ἐγγαστρίμυθοι,
ventriloquists.
Chapter XXIX.—The Pythagorean Doctrine Refuted by Its Own First Principle, that Living Men are Formed from the Dead.
It is indeed, manifest that dead men are formed from
living ones; but it does not follow from that, that living men are
formed from dead ones. For from the beginning the living came first in
the order of things, and therefore also from the beginning the dead
came afterwards in order. But these proceeded from no other source
except from the living. The living had their origin in any other source
(you please) than in the dead; whilst the dead had no source whence to
derive their beginning, except from the living. Visualitatis. Insipientiam.
“Imbecility” is the meaning here, though the word takes the
more general sense in the next clause. Deferatur.
Chapter XXX.—Further Refutation of the Pythagorean Theory. The State of Contemporary Civilisation.
But what must we say in reply to what follows?
For, in the first place, if the living come from the dead, just as the
dead proceed from the living, then there must always remain unchanged
one and the selfsame number of mankind, even the number which
originally introduced (human) life. The living preceded the dead,
afterwards the dead issued from the living, and then again the living
from the dead. Now, since this process was evermore going on with the
same persons, therefore they, issuing from the same, must always have
remained in number the same. For they who emerged (into life) could
never have become more nor fewer than they who disappeared (in death).
We find, however, in the records of the Antiquities of Man, A probable allusion to
Varro’s work, De Antiqq. Rerum Humanarum. An allusion to
Plato’s notion that, at the end of a thousand years, such a
restoration of the dead, took place. See his Phædrus, p.
248, and De Republ. x. p. 614.
Chapter XXXI.—Further Exposure of Transmigration, Its Inextricable Embarrassment.
Again, if this recovery of life from the dead take
place at all, individuals must of course resume their own
individuality. Therefore the souls which animated each several body
must needs have returned separately to their several bodies. Now,
whenever two, or three, or five souls are re-enclosed (as they
constantly are) in one womb, it will not amount in such cases to life
from the dead, because there is not the separate restitution which
individuals ought to have; although at this rate, (no doubt,) the law
of the primeval creation is signally kept, Signatur. Rigaltius
reads “singulatur,” after the Codex Agobard.,
as meaning, “The single origin of the human race is in
principle maintained,” etc. Temere. Recensentur.
Chapter XXXII.—Empedocles Increased the Absurdity of Pythagoras by Developing the Posthumous Change of Men into Various Animals.
But the fact is, Empedocles, who used to Hujus. Alias. This is the
force of the objective nouns, which are all put in the plural
form.
Chapter XXXIII.—The Judicial Retribution of These Migrations Refuted with Raillery.
Forasmuch as this doctrine is vindicated even on the
principle of judicial retribution, on the pretence that the souls of
men obtain as their partners the kind of animals which are suited to
their life and deserts,—as if they ought to be, according to
their several characters, either slain in criminals destined to
execution, or reduced to hard work in menials, or fatigued and wearied
in labourers, or foully disgraced in the unclean; or, again, on the
same principle, reserved for honour, and love, and care, and attentive
regard in characters most eminent in rank and virtue, usefulness, and
tender sensibility,—I must here also remark, that if souls
undergo a transformation, they will actually not be able to accomplish
and experience the destinies which they shall deserve; and the aim and
purpose of judicial recompense will be brought to nought, as there will
be wanting the sense and consciousness of merit and retribution. And
there must be this want of consciousness, if souls lose their
condition; and there must ensue this loss, if they do not continue in
one stay. But even if they should have permanency enough to remain
unchanged until the judgment,—a point which Mercurius
Ægyptius recognised, when he said that the soul, after its
separation from the body, was not dissipated back into the soul of the
universe, but retained permanently its distinct individuality,
“in order that it might render,” to use his own words,
“an account to the Father of those things which it has done in
the body;” Or, “that he may
be punished even in his sepulture.” In
administratione.
Chapter XXXIV.—These Vagaries Stimulated Some Profane Corruptions of Christianity. The Profanity of Simon Magus Condemned.
No tenet, indeed, under cover of any heresy has as yet
burst upon us, embodying any such extravagant fiction as that the souls
of human beings pass into the bodies of wild beasts; but yet we have
deemed it necessary to attack and refute this conceit, as a consistent
sequel to the preceding opinions, in order that Homer in the peacock
might be got rid of as effectually as Pythagoras in Euphorbus; and in
order that, by the demolition of the metempsychosis and
metensomatosis by the same blow, the ground might be cut
away which has furnished no inconsiderable support to our heretics.
There is the (infamous) Simon of Samaria in the Acts of the Apostles,
who chaffered for the Holy Ghost: after his condemnation by Him,
and a vain remorse that he and his money must perish together,
Chapter XXXV.—The Opinions of Carpocrates, Another Offset from the Pythagorean Dogmas, Stated and Confuted.
However, it is not for you alone, (Simon), that
the transmigration philosophy has fabricated this story. Carpocrates
also makes equally good use of it, who was a magician and a fornicator
like yourself, only he had not a Helen. For Carpocrates,
see Irenæus, i. 24; Eusebius, H. E. iv. 7; Epiphan.
Hær. 27. Morâ
resurrectionis. For the force of this phrase, as apparently
implying a doctrine of purgatory, and an explanation of
Tertullian’s teaching on this point, see Bp. Kaye on
Tertullian, pp. 328, 329. [See p. 59, supra.] Spero.
Chapter XXXVI.—The Main Points of Our Author’s Subject. On the Sexes of the Human Race.
For the discussion of these questions we
abandoned, if I remember rightly, ground to which we must now return.
We had established the position that the soul is seminally placed in
man, and by human agency, and that its seed from the very beginning is
uniform, as is that of the soul also, to the race of man; (and this we
settled) owing to the rival opinions of the philosophers and the
heretics, and that ancient saying mentioned by Plato (to which we
referred above). In ch. xxviii. at the
beginning. See above, ch.
xxiii. [Also p. 246, infra.]
Chapter XXXVII.—On the Formation and State of the Embryo. Its Relation with the Subject of This Treatise.
Now the entire process of sowing, forming, and
completing the human embryo in the womb is no doubt regulated by some
power, which ministers herein to the will of God, whatever may be the
method which it is appointed to employ. Even the superstition of Rome,
by carefully attending to these points, imagined the goddess
Alemona to nourish the fœtus in the womb; as well as (the
goddesses) Nona and Decima, called after the most
critical months of gestation; and Partula, to manage and direct
parturition; and Lucina, to bring the child to the birth and
light of day. We, on our part, believe the angels to officiate herein
for God. The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from
the moment that its form is completed. The law of Moses, indeed,
punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch
as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, Causa hominis. The
ogdoad, or number eight, mystically representing
“heaven,” where they do not marry. Beyond the
hebdomad comes the resurrection, on which see
Chapter XXXVIII.—On the Growth of the Soul. Its Maturity Coincident with the Maturity of the Flesh in Man.
Now we have already See above, in ch.
xx. See above, in ch.
xxiv.
Chapter XXXIX.—The Evil Spirit Has Marred the Purity of the Soul from the Very Birth.
All these endowments of the soul which are
bestowed on it at birth are still obscured and depraved by the
malignant being who, in the beginning, regarded them with envious eye,
so that they are never seen in their spontaneous action, nor are they
administered as they ought to be. For to what individual of the human
race will not the evil spirit cleave, ready to entrap their souls from
the very portal of their birth, at which he is invited to be present in
all those superstitious processes which accompany childbearing? Thus it
comes to pass that all men are brought to the birth with idolatry for
the midwife, whilst the very wombs that bear them, still bound with the
fillets that have been wreathed before the idols, declare their
offspring to be consecrated to demons: for in parturition they invoke
the aid of Lucina and Diana; for a whole week a table is spread in
honour of Juno; on the last day the fates of the horoscope Fata Scribunda.
Chapter XL.—The Body of Man Only Ancillary to the Soul in the Commission of Evil.
Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its
nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is
unclean all the while that it remains without this
regeneration;
Chapter XLI.—Notwithstanding the Depravity of Man’s Soul by Original Sin, There is Yet Left a Basis Whereon Divine Grace Can Work for Its Recovery by Spiritual Regeneration.
There is, then, besides the evil which supervenes on the
soul from the intervention of the evil spirit, an antecedent, and in a
certain sense natural, evil which arises from its corrupt origin. For,
as we have said before, the corruption of our nature is another nature
having a god and father of its own, namely the author of (that)
corruption. Still there is a portion of good in the soul, of that
original, divine, and genuine good, which is its proper nature.
For that which is derived from God is rather obscured than
extinguished. It can be obscured, indeed, because it is not God;
extinguished, however, it cannot be, because it comes from God. As
therefore light, when intercepted by an opaque body, still remains,
although it is not apparent, by reason of the interposition of so dense
a body; so likewise the good in the soul, being weighed down by the
evil, is, owing to the obscuring character thereof, either not seen at
all, its light being wholly hidden, or else only a stray beam is there
visible where it struggles through by an accidental outlet. Thus some
men are very bad, and some very good; but yet the souls of all form but
one genus: even in the worst there is something good, and in the best
Deo commendo =
God be wi’ ye. De Test. c. ii. p. 176,
supra.
Chapter XLII.—Sleep, the Mirror of Death, as Introductory to the Consideration of Death.
It now remains (that we discuss the subject) of death, in order that our subject-matter may terminate where the soul itself completes it; although Epicurus, indeed, in his pretty widely known doctrine, has asserted that death does not appertain to us. That, says he, which is dissolved lacks sensation; and that which is without sensation is nothing to us. Well, but it is not actually death which suffers dissolution and lacks sensation, but the human person who experiences death. Yet even he has admitted suffering to be incidental to the being to whom action belongs. Now, if it is in man to suffer death, which dissolves the body and destroys the senses, how absurd to say that so great a susceptibility belongs not to man! With much greater precision does Seneca say: “After death all comes to an end, even (death) itself.” From which position of his it must needs follow that death will appertain to its own self, since itself comes to an end; and much more to man, in the ending of whom amongst the “all,” itself also ends. Death, (says Epicurus) belongs not to us; then at that rate, life belongs not to us. For certainly, if that which causes our dissolution have no relation to us, that also which compacts and composes us must be unconnected with us. If the deprivation of our sensation be nothing to us, neither can the acquisition of sensation have anything to do with us. The fact, however, is, he who destroys the very soul, (as Epicurus does), cannot help destroying death also. As for ourselves, indeed, (Christians as we are), we must treat of death just as we should of the posthumous life and of some other province of the soul, (assuming) that we at all events belong to death, if it does not pertain to us. And on the same principle, even sleep, which is the very mirror of death, is not alien from our subject-matter.
Chapter XLIII.—Sleep a Natural Function as Shown by Other Considerations, and by the Testimony of Scripture.
Let us therefore first discuss the question of
sleep, and afterwards in what way the soul encounters Decurrat. So Bp. Kaye, p.
195. Marcorem, “the
decay.” Adulatur.
Chapter XLIV.—The Story of Hermotimus, and the Sleeplessness of the Emperor Nero. No Separation of the Soul from the Body Until Death.
With regard to the case of Hermotimus, they say that he used to be deprived of his soul in his sleep, as if it wandered away from his body like a person on a holiday trip. His wife betrayed the strange peculiarity. His enemies, finding him asleep, burnt his body, as if it were a corpse: when his soul returned too late, it appropriated (I suppose) to itself the guilt of the murder. However the good citizens of Clazomenæ consoled poor Hermotimus with a temple, into which no woman ever enters, because of the infamy of this wife. Now why this story? In order that, since the vulgar belief so readily holds sleep to be the separation of the soul from the body, credulity should not be encouraged by this case of Hermotimus. It must certainly have been a much heavier sort of slumber: one would presume it was the nightmare, or perhaps that diseased languor which Soranus suggests in opposition to the nightmare, or else some such malady as that which the fable has fastened upon Epimenides, who slept on some fifty years or so. Suetonius, however, informs us that Nero never dreamt, and Theopompus says the same thing about Thrasymedes; but Nero at the close of his life did with some difficulty dream after some excessive alarm. What indeed would be said, if the case of Hermotimus were believed to be such that the repose of his soul was a state of actual idleness during sleep, and a positive separation from his body? You may conjecture it to be anything but such a licence of the soul as admits of flights away from the body without death, and that by continual recurrence, as if habitual to its state and constitution. If indeed such a thing were told me to have happened at any time to the soul—resembling a total eclipse of the sun or the moon—I should verily suppose that the occurrence had been caused by God’s own interposition, for it would not be unreasonable for a man to receive admonition from the Divine Being either in the way of warning or of alarm, as by a flash of lightning, or by a sudden stroke of death; only it would be much the more natural conclusion to believe that this process should be by a dream, because if it must be supposed to be, (as the hypothesis we are resisting assumes it to be,) not a dream, the occurrence ought rather to happen to a man whilst he is wide awake.
Chapter XLV.—Dreams, an Incidental Effect of the Soul’s Activity. Ecstasy.
We are bound to expound at this point what is the
opinion of Christians respecting dreams, as incidents of sleep, and as
no slight or trifling excitements of the soul, which we have declared
to be always occupied and active owing to its perpetual movement, which
again is a proof and evidence of its divine quality and immortality.
When, therefore, rest accrues to human bodies, it being their own
especial comfort, the soul, disdaining a repose which is not natural to
it, never rests; and since it receives no help from the limbs of the
body, it uses its own. Imagine a gladiator without his
instruments or arms, and a charioteer without his team, but still
gesticulating the entire course and exertion of their respective
employments: there is the fight, there is the struggle; but the effort
is a vain one. Nevertheless the whole procedure seems to be gone
through, although it evidently has not been really effected. There is
the act, but not the effect. This power we call ecstasy, in
which the sensuous soul stands out of itself, in a way which even
resembles madness. We had better give
Tertullian’s own succinct definition: “Excessus sensûs
et amentiæ instar.” Prudentes. Sapere.
Chapter XLVI.—Diversity of Dreams and Visions. Epicurus Thought Lightly of Them, Though Generally Most Highly Valued. Instances of Dreams.
We now find ourselves constrained to express an
opinion about the character of the dreams by which the soul is excited.
And when shall we arrive at the subject of death? And on such a
question I would say, When God shall permit: that admits of no long
delay which must needs happen at all events. Epicurus has given it as
his opinion that dreams are altogether vain things; (but he says this)
when liberating the Deity from all sort of care, and dissolving the
entire order of the world, and giving to all things the aspect of
merest chance, casual in their issues, fortuitous in their nature.
Well, now, if such be the nature of things, there must be some chance
even for truth, because it is impossible for it to be the only thing to
be exempted from the fortune which is due to all things. Homer has
assigned two gates to dreams, See the
Odyssey, xix. 562, etc. [Also, Æneid, vi.
894.] See i. 107, etc. See an account of her
vision and its interpretation in Herodot. iv. 124.
Chapter XLVII.—Dreams Variously Classified. Some are God-Sent, as the Dreams of Nebuchadnezzar; Others Simply Products of Nature.
We declare, then, that dreams are inflicted on us
mainly by demons, although they sometimes turn out true and favourable
to us. When, however, with the deliberate aim after evil, of which we
have just spoken, they assume a flattering and captivating style, they
show themselves proportionately vain, and deceitful, and obscure, and
wanton, and impure. And no wonder that the images partake of the
character of the realities. But from God—who has promised,
indeed, “to pour out the grace of the Holy Spirit upon all flesh,
and has ordained that His servants and His handmaids should see visions
as well as utter prophecies”
Chapter XLVIII.—Causes and Circumstances of Dreams. What Best Contributes to Efficient Dreaming.
They say that dreams are more sure and clear when
they happen towards the end of the night, because then the vigour of
the soul emerges, and heavy sleep departs. As to the seasons of the
year, dreams are calmer in spring, since summer relaxes, and winter
somehow hardens, the soul; while autumn, which in other respects is
trying to health, is apt to enervate the soul by the lusciousness of
its fruits. Then, again, as regards the position of one’s
body during sleep, one ought not to lie on his back, nor on his right
side, nor so as to wrench Conresupinatis. See his
Timæus, c. xxxii. p. 71.
Chapter XLIX.—No Soul Naturally Exempt from Dreams.
As for those persons who suppose that infants do not
dream, on the ground that all the functions of the soul throughout life
are accomplished according to the capacity of age, they ought to
observe attentively their Who mentions
this story of the Atlantes in iv. 184. In ch. xliv. p.
223.
Chapter L.—The Absurd Opinion of Epicurus and the Profane Conceits of the Heretic Menander on Death, Even Enoch and Elijah Reserved for Death.
We have by this time said enough about sleep, the
mirror and image of death; and likewise about the occupations of sleep,
even dreams. Let us now go on to consider the cause of our departure
hence—that is, the appointment and course of death—because
we must not leave even it unquestioned and unexamined, although it is
itself the very end of all questions and investigations. According to
the general sentiment of the human race, we declare death to be
“the debt of nature.” So much has been settled by the voice
of God; Scaturigo
dæmonica. It is difficult to say
what Tertullian means by his “comicum credo.” Is it a
playful parody on the heretic’s name, the same as the comic
poet’s (Menander)?
Chapter LI.—Death Entirely Separates the Soul from the Body.
But the operation of death is plain and obvious:
it is the separation of body and soul. Some, however, in reference to
the soul’s immortality, on which they have so feeble a hold
through not being taught of God, maintain it with such beggarly
arguments, that they would fain have it supposed that certain souls
cleave to the body even after death. It is indeed in this sense that
Plato, although he despatches at once to heaven such souls as he
pleases, See below, ch.
liv. Ch. x. p. 614. Vernaculam
ecclesiæ.
Chapter LII.—All Kinds of Death a Violence to Nature, Arising from Sin.—Sin an Intrusion Upon Nature as God Created It.
Such, then, is the work of death—the
separation of the soul from the body. Putting out of the question
fates and fortuitous circumstances, it has been, according to
men’s views, distinguished in a twofold form—the ordinary
and the extraordinary. The ordinary they ascribe to nature, exercising
its quiet influence in the case of each individual decease; the
extraordinary is said to be contrary to nature, happening in every
violent death. As for our own views, indeed, we know what was
man’s origin, and we boldly assert and persistently maintain that
death happens not by way of natural consequence to man, but owing to a
fault and defect which is not itself natural; although it is easy
enough, no doubt, to apply the term natural to faults and
circumstances which seem to have been (though from the emergence of an
external cause Ex accidentia. In mortem directo
institutus est. [See p. 227, supra.]
Chapter LIII.—The Entire Soul Being Indivisible Remains to the Last Act of Vitality; Never Partially or Fractionally Withdrawn from the Body.
But where at last will the soul have to lodge, when it
is bare and divested of the body? We must certainly not hesitate to
follow it thither, in the order of our inquiry. We must, however, first
of all fully state what belongs to the topic before us, in order that
no one, because we have mentioned the various issues of death, may
expect from us a special description of these, which ought rather to be
left to medical men, who are the proper judges of the incidents which
appertain to death, or its causes, and the actual conditions of the
human body. Of course, with the view of preserving the truth of the
soul’s immortality, whilst treating this topic, I shall have, on
mentioning death, to introduce phrases about dissolution of such a
purport as seems to intimate that the soul escapes by degrees, and
piece by piece; for it withdraws (from the body) with all the
circumstances of a decline, seeming to suffer consumption, and suggests
to us the idea of being annihilated by the slow process of its
departure. But the entire reason of this phenomenon is in the body, and
arises from the body. For whatever be the kind of death (which operates
on man), it undoubtedly produces the destruction either of the matter,
or of the region, or of the passages of vitality: of the matter, such
as the gall and the blood; of the region, such as the heart and the
liver; of the passages, such as the veins and the ar We have made
Tertullian’s “cervicum messis” include both these
modes of instantaneous death. Phædo, p.
62, c. 6.
Chapter LIV.—Whither Does the Soul Retire When It Quits the Body? Opinions of Philosophers All More or Less Absurd. The Hades of Plato.
To the question, therefore, whither the soul is
withdrawn, we now give an answer. Almost all the philosophers, who hold
the soul’s immortality, notwithstanding their special views on
the subject, still claim for it this (eternal condition), as
Pythagoras, and Empedocles, and Plato, and as they who indulge it with
some delay from the time of its quitting the flesh to the conflagration
of all things, and as the Stoics, who place only their own souls, that
is, the souls of the wise, in the mansions above. Plato, it is true,
does not allow this destination to all the souls, indiscriminately, of
even all the philosophers, but only of those who have cultivated their
philosophy out of love to boys. So great is the privilege which
impurity obtains at the hands of philosophers! In his system,
then, the souls of the wise are carried up on high into the ether:
according to Arius, An Alexandrian
philosopher in great repute with the Emperor Augustus. Phædo, pp.
112–114.
Chapter LV.—The Christian Idea of the Position of Hades; The Blessedness of Paradise Immediately After Death. The Privilege of the Martyrs.
By ourselves the lower regions (of Hades) are not
supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world,
but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed
recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death
spent three days in the heart of the earth, See Irenæus,
adv. Hæres. v. [Vol. I. p. 566, this Series.] Paracletus. The souls of the
martyrs were, according to Tertullian, at once removed to Paradise (Bp.
Kaye, p. 249). De
Paradiso. [Compare, p. 216, note 9,
supra.]
Chapter LVI.—Refutation of the Homeric View of the Soul’s Detention from Hades Owing to the Body’s Being Unburied. That Souls Prematurely Separated from the Body Had to Wait for Admission into Hades Also Refuted.
There arises the question, whether this takes place
immediately after the soul’s de Ab inferis. Iliad, xxiii.
72, etc. Enormitate. We have treated
this particle as a conjunction but it may only be an intensive particle
introducing an explanatory clause: “even those which were
pure,” etc. [a better rendering.]
Chapter LVII.—Magic and Sorcery Only Apparent in Their Effects. God Alone Can Raise the Dead.
It is either a very fine thing to be detained in
these infernal regions with the Aori, or souls which were
prematurely hurried away; or else a very bad thing indeed to be there
associated with the Biaeothanati, who suffered violent deaths. I
may be permitted to use the actual words and terms with which magic
rings again, that inventor of all these odd opinions—with its
Ostanes, and Typhon, and Dardanus, and Damigeron, and Nectabis, and
Berenice. There is a well-known popular bit of writing, Litteratura. Oehler takes
these descriptive clauses as meant of Satan, instead of being
synonymes of magic, as the context seems to require. Æque. Above, in ch. xxxix.
p. 219. Aliquem ex
parentibus. One who fought with
wild beasts in the public games, only without the weapons allowed to
the gladiator. See above in ch.
xxviii. p. 209, supra. Si forte. Non frustra. In iv. 172.
Chapter LVIII.—Conclusion. Points Postponed. All Souls are Kept in Hades Until the Resurrection, Anticipating Their Ultimate Misery or Bliss.
All souls, therefore, are shut up within Hades: do
you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no: moreover,
there are already experienced there punishments and consolations; and
there you have a poor man and a rich. And now, having postponed some
stray questions Nescio quid.
“Operienda” is Oehler’s text; another reading gives
“opperienda,” q.d., “the soul must
wait for the restored body.” This
“etiam” is “otium” in the Agobardine
ms., a good reading; q.d. “a most
iniquitous indifference to justice,” etc. Comp. The
Apology, last chapter. Xen.
Cyropæd. p. 6. Quid nunc si. Conscientia. Morâ
resurrectionis. See above, on this opinion of Tertullian, in ch.
xxxv. [A symptom of
Montanism.]
Tertullian.
————————————
Part Second.
Introduction, by the American Editor.
————————————
The Second Class of
Tertullian’s works, according to the logical method I have
endeavoured to carry out, is that which includes his treatises against
the heresies of his times. In these, the genius of our author is
brilliantly illustrated, while, in melancholy fact, he is demonstrating
the folly of his own final lapse and the wickedness of that schism and
heresy into which he fell away from Truth. Were it not that history
abounds in like examples of the frailty of the human intellect and of
the insufficiency of “man that walketh to direct his
steps,” we should be forced to a theory of mental decay to
account for inconsistencies so gross and for delusions so besotted.
“Genius to madness is indeed allied,” and who knows
but something like that imbecility which closed the career of
Swift “From
Marlboro’s eyes the tears of dotage flow, And Swift expires a driveller and a
show.”
“God of our fathers what is man?
Nor do I name of men the common rout,
That, wandering loose about,
Grow up and perish as the summer fly,
Heads without name, no more remembered,
But such as thou hast solemnly elected,
With gifts and graces eminently adorned,
To some great work, thy glory
And people’s safety, which in part they effect.”
And here, I must venture a remark on the ambiguity
of the expressions concerning our author’s Montanism. In the
treatise against Marcion, written late in his career, Tertullian
identifies himself with the Church and strenuously defends its faith
and its apostolic order. In only rare instances does his weakness
for the “new prophecy” crop out, and then, it is only as
one identifies himself with a school within the church. Precisely so
Fenelon maintained his milder Montanism, without a thought of deserting
the Latin Church. Afterwards Fenelon drew back, but at last poor
Tertullian fell away. So with the Jansenists. They credited the
miracles and the convulsions (or ecstasies) of their
school, See the story of the
Abbé Paris, Guettée, Histoire de
L’Eglise de France, Tom. xii. p. 12. Also,
Parton, Voltaire, Vol. I. pp. 236, 261, etc. See opp. Tom. viii. p.
46, Ed. Migne.
“A clear distinction must be made between those works which Tertullian, when already a Montanist, wrote specifically in defence of Montanism against the church, and those which he composed, as a Montanist indeed, yet not in defence of Montanism against the church, but rather, in defence of the common doctrines of the church—and of Montanus, in opposition to other heretics.”
Now in arranging the works of this second class, the Prescription comes logically first, because, written in Orthodoxy, it forcibly upholds the Scriptural Rule of Faith, the Catholic touchstone of all professed verity. It is also a necessary Introduction to the great work against Marcion which I have placed next in order; giving it the precedence to which it is entitled in part on chronological ground, in part because of the general purity of its material with the exhibition it presents of the author’s mental processes and of his very gradual decline from Truth.
Very fortunate were the Edinburgh Editors in securing for this work and some others, the valuable labours of Dr. Holmes, of whom I have elsewhere given some biographical particulars. The merit and fulness of his annotations are so marked, that I have been spared a great deal of work, such as I was forced to bestow on the former volumes of this American Edition. But on the other hand these pages have given me much patient study and toil as an editor, because of the “shreds and patches” in which Tertullian comes to us, in the Edinburgh Series; and because of some typographical peculiarities, exceptional in that Series itself, and presenting complications, when transferred to a new form of mechanical arrangement. For example, apart from some valuable material which belongs to the General Preface, and which I have transferred accordingly, the following dislocations confronted me to begin with: The Marcion is presented to us in Volume VII. apart from the other writings of Tertullian. At the close of Vol. XI. we reach the Ad Nationes, of which Dr. Holmes is the translator, another hand (Mr. Thelwall’s) having been employed on former pages of that volume. It is not till we reach Volume XV. that Tertullian again appears, but this volume is wholly the work of Dr. Holmes. Finally, in Volume XVIII., we meet Tertullian again, (Mr. Thelwall the able translator), but, here is placed the “Introduction” to all the works of Tertullian, which, of course, I have, transferred to its proper place. I make these explanations by no means censoriously, but to point out at once the nature of my own task, and the advantage that accrues to the reader, by the order in which the works of the great Tertullian appear in this edition, enabling him to compare different or parallel passages, all methodically arranged in consecutive pages, without a minute’s search, or delay.
Now, as to typographical difficulties to which I
have referred, Dr. Holmes marks all his multiplied and useful notes
with brackets, which are almost always superfluous, and which
in Take e.g. the heading
to chapter xxiv. of the De Præscriptione. It reads
thus: “St. Peter’s further vindication. St. Paul was not
at all superior to St. Peter in teaching. Nothing was imparted to the
former, in the “third heaven,” to enable him to add to the
faith—however foolishly the heretics may boast of him as if they
had, forsooth, been favoured with some of the secrets so imparted to
him in paradise.” If the reader will turn to the chapter
referred to, he will observe an instance of condensation by which
nothing is forfeited that is requisite to a heading, though
redundancies are dropped.
I.
The Prescription Against
Heretics. Of the various forms
of the title of this treatise, de Præscriptione
Hæreticorum, de Præscriptionibus
Hæreticorum, de Præscriptionibus adversus
Hæreticos, the first is adopted by Oehler after the oldest
authorities, such as the Liber Argobardinus and the Codex
Paterniacensis (or Seletstadiensis), and the Editio Princeps of
Rhenanus. The term præscriptio is a legal one,
meaning a demurrer, or formal objection. The genitive
hæreticorum is used in an objective sense, as if
adversus hæreticos. Tertullian himself, in de Carne
Christi, ii. says, “Sed plenius ejusmodi
præscriptionibus adversus omnes hæreses alibi jam usi
sumus.” The title therefore means, “On the Church’s
Prescriptive Rule against Heresies of all kinds.” [Elucidation
I.]
[Translated by the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., F.R.A.S., Etc., Etc.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Introductory. Heresies Must Exist, and Even Abound; They are a Probation to Faith.
The character of the times
in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition,
that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which
abound) Istas. Plerique, “the
majority.” The Holy Ghost having
foretold that they should exist. (Rigalt.)
Chapter II.—Analogy Between Fevers and Heresies. Heresies Not to Be Wondered At: Their Strength Derived from Weakness of Men’s Faith. They Have Not the Truth. Simile of Pugilists and Gladiators in Illustration.
Taking the similar case Denique has in
Tertullian sometimes the meaning of proinde. Causam
“purpose,” “final cause.”
Chapter III.—Weak People Fall an Easy Prey to Heresy, Which Derives Strength from the General Frailty of Mankind. Eminent Men Have Fallen from Faith; Saul, David, Solomon. The Constancy of Christ.
It is usual, indeed, with persons of a weaker
character, to be so built up (in confidence) by certain individuals who
are caught by heresy, as to topple over into ruin themselves. How comes
it to pass, (they ask), that this woman or that man, who were the most
faithful, the most prudent, and the most approved Usitatissimi,
“most experienced.” Demutare. [Here the word
martyr means no more than a witness or confessor, and may
account for what are called exaggerated statements as to the
number of primitive martyrs. See Kaye p. 128.] Obtinere. Fidem, “The
Creed.” Major. A vestigiis ejus. Minus.
Chapter IV.—Warnings Against Heresy Given Us in the New Testament. Sundry Passages Adduced. These Imply the Possibility of Falling into Heresy.
But let us rather be mindful of the sayings of the Lord,
and of the letters of the apostles; Adulteri
evangelizatores, the spurious preachers of the gospel. [ Hoc scil.
“tempore.” Oehler’s
“persecutionem” ought of course to be
“persecutionum.” Exorbitaverint. Juvat.
Chapter V.—Heresy, as Well as Schism and Dissension, Disapproved by St. Paul, Who Speaks of the Necessity of Heresies, Not as a Good, But, by the Will of God, Salutary Trials for Training and Approving the Faith of Christians.
Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms,
which undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies
likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course
confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he
tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded
on his knowledge that “there must be heresies
also.” Depravare. Capitulum. Objurget.
Chapter VI.—Heretics are Self-Condemned. Heresy is Self-Will, Whilst Faith is Submission of Our Will to the Divine Authority. The Heresy of Apelles.
On this point, however, we dwell no longer, since
it is the same Paul who, in his Epistle to the Galatians, counts
“heresies” among “the sins of the
flesh,” Taxat. Opera. Αἱρέσεις
. Instituendas. Suscipiendas. [A remarkable word is
subjoined by the Apostle (ἐξέστραπται) which signifies turned inside out, and so self-condemned, as
exhibiting his inward contentiousness and pravity. Nihil, any
doctrine. Disciplinam, including
both the principles and practice of the Christian religion. Anathema. See
Concerning
Philumene, see below, chap. xxv.; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 13;
Augustine, de Hæres, chap. xlii. ; Jerome, Epist.
adv. Ctesiph. (Works, ed. Ben.) iv. 477, and in his
Commentary on Galatians, ii. See also Tertullian, Against
Marcion, p. 139, Edinb. Edition. Præstigiis.
Chapter VII.—Pagan Philosophy the Parent of Heresies. The Connection Between Deflections from Christian Faith and the Old Systems of Pagan Philosophy.
These are “the doctrines” of men and
“of demons” Denique. Subornantur. Formeæ,
“Ideæ” (Oehler). See Tertullian’s
treatises, adversus Valentinum, xxv., and de Anima,
xxi.; also Epiphanius, Hær. xxxi . 23. Volutatur. Retractatus. “De
enthymesi;” for this word Tertullian gives animationem (in
his tract against Valentinus, ix.), which seems to mean, “the
mind in operation.” (See the same treatise, x. xi.) With regard
to the other word, Jerome (on Sententiis. Molestam. Tractaverit, in
the sense of conclusively settling. Because in the
beginning of the church the apostles taught in Solomon’s porch,
Viderint.
I come now to the point which (is urged both by
our own brethren and by the heretics). Our brethren adduce it as
a pretext for entering on curious inquiries, Curiositatem. Scrupulositatem,
“hair-splitting.” See our
translation of the Anti-Marcion, iv. 18 (infra), and
Tertullian’s treatise, de Bapt. x. Sermo. Suggillationis.
“They have,” says He, “Moses and
Elias,” Penes. Or, “were for
the first time.” Competit. Destinati. Multo magis
vacabat. Ultro. Doctrina. In personas, i.e.,
Judæorum (Oehler). Proprietatem
admonitionis. “That is, not a
specific command” primarily meant for us, but a principle
“to be applied by us” (Dodgson).
Chapter IX.—The Research After Definite Truth Enjoined on Us. When We Have Discovered This, We Should Be Content.
I now purposely Sponte. Expetit. Certare. Sensus. Cum. See Oehler’s
note. Gubernaculo. See
Irenæus, ii. 46, for a similar view (Rigalt.). Surely
Dodgson’s version, if intelligible in itself even, incorrectly
represents Tertullian’s sense. Dissoluta. Porro. [Not to be contented
with Truth, once known, is a sin preceding that against the Holy
Spirit, and this state of mind explains the judicial blindness
inflicted on Lapsers, as asserted by St. Paul, Constabit. Penes nos. Ne.
Chapter X.—One Has Succeeded in Finding Definite Truth, When He Believes. Heretical Wits are Always Offering Many Things for Vain Discussion, But We are Not to Be Always Seeking.
Now the reason of this saying is comprised in
three points: in the matter, in the time, in the limit. In modo. This is,
“the matter.” “The
time.” “The
limit.” Invenisti. Fixisti,
“determined.” Fossam. Statio,
“resting-place.” Dum convenero. This is the rendering
of Oehler’s text, “et velut si nusquam. There are
other readings of this obscure passage, of which as we add the two most
intelligible. The Codex Agobardinus has, “et velim
si nunquam;” that is, “and I would that I were
nowhere,” with no fixed belief—in such wise as never to
have had the truth; not, as must now be, to have forfeited it.
(Dodgson). This seems far-fetched, and inferior to the reading of
Pamelius and his mss.: “et
velint me sic esse nusquam;”—or (as Semler puts it)
“velint sic nusquam;” i.e., “and they (the heretics)
would wish me to be nowhere”—without the fixed faith of the
Catholic. This makes good sense. [Semler is here mentioned, and if
anybody wishes to understand what sort of editor he was, he may be
greatly amused by Kaye’s examination of some of his positions,
pp. 64–84. Elucidation II.] Oportet. Necesse est. Observe
these degrees of obligation.
Chapter XI.—After We Have Believed, Search Should Cease; Otherwise It Must End in a Denial of What We Have Believed. No Other Object Proposed for Our Faith.
There is impunity in erring, if there is no
delinquency; although indeed to err it is itself an act of
delinquency. Quamvis et errare
delinquere est. Vagatur. Anus illa. Viderit.
Chapter XII.—A Proper Seeking After Divine Knowledge, Which Will Never Be Out of Place or Excessive, is Always Within the Rule of Faith.
As for us, although we must still seek, and
that always, yet where ought our search to be made?
Amongst the heretics, where all things are foreign Extranea. Although Tertullian
calls her “anus,” St. Luke’s word is γυνή not γραῦς. Instrui potest. Unde destruitur. Idque dumtaxat.
Chapter XIII.—Summary of the Creed, or Rule of Faith. No Questions Ever Raised About It by Believers. Heretics Encourage and Perpetuate Thought Independent of Christ’s Teaching.
Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that
we may from this point Jam hinc. Primo omnium
demissum. Literally, “sent down.” See on this
procession of the Son of God to create the world, Bishop
Bull’s Defence of the Nicene Creed, etc., by the
translator of this work, pp. 445 and following. Ereptum, having been
taken away. Vicariam.
[Scott’s Christian Life, Vol. III. p. 64.] [See Bunsen
(Hippol. III. Notes, etc., p. 129.) for a castigated form of the Latin
Creed, as used in Rome. Observe it lacks the word Catholic. But
a much better study of these formulas may be found in Dupin’s
comparative Table. First Cent. pp. 9–12.]
Chapter XIV.—Curiosity Ought Not Range Beyond the Rule of Faith. Restless Curiosity, the Feature of Heresy.
So long, however, as its form exists in its proper
order, you may seek and discuss as Omnem libidinem
effundas, “pour out the whole desire for.” Doctor, literally,
“teacher.” See This seems to be the
more probable meaning of novissime in this rather obscure
sentence. Oehler treats it adverbially as “postremo,”
and refers to a similar use of the word below in chap. xxx. Dr. Routh
(and, after him, the translator in The Library of the Fathers,
Tertullian, p. 448) makes the word a noun, “thou newest of
novices,” and refers to Tertullian’s work, against
Praxeas, chap. xxvii., for a like use. This seems to us too harsh
for the present context. Sciet. See Exercitatio. Exercitatio. De peritiæ
studio. Non obstrepant. Interim. Dubitationem. Insinuent. Tractatus. Or, “by
instilling an anxiety into us” (Dodgson). Jam debemus. Refutare. Nondum tenent. Ut defendant. Nec sibi sunt. Patrocinantur. Ipsi. Scilicet.
Chapter XV.—Heretics Not
to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures, in Fact,
Do Not Belong to Them. [See
Marcion, B. I. Cap. xxii. infra, note.]
We are therefore come to (the gist of) our
position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were
preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just
completed),—so that we may now join issue on the contention to
which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward Obtendunt. Audacia. De Scripturis.
But as this preposition is often the sign of the instrument in
Tertullian, this phrase may mean “out of,” or
“by means of the Scriptures.” See the last
chapter.
If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.
I might be thought to have laid down this position
to remedy distrust in my case, De consilio
diffidentiæ. Constitutionis,
“prima causarum conflictio,”—a term of the law
courts. Obsequium. Plane, ironical.
Chapter XVII.—Heretics, in Fact, Do Not Use, But Only Abuse, Scripture. No Common Ground Between Them and You.
Now this heresy of yours Ista hæresis. Aliquatenus. Stilus. “De” has
often the sense of “propter” in our author. Literally, “O
most skilled.” Quid promovebis.
Chapter XVIII.—Great Evil Ensues to the Weak in Faith, from Any Discussion Out of the Scriptures. Conviction Never Comes to the Heretic from Such a Process.
But with respect to the man for whose sake you
enter on the discussion of the Scriptures, Or, “from the
Scriptures.” Æquo gradu. Statu certe pari. Incertior. Habent. Proinde.
Chapter XIX.—Appeal, in Discussion of Heresy, Lies Not to the Scriptures. The Scriptures Belong Only to Those Who Have the Rule of Faith.
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the
Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory
will either be impossible, Nulla. Parum certa. Conlatio scripturarum,
or, “a polemical comparison of the Scriptures.” Quibus competat fides
ipsa cujus sint Scripturæ. Disciplina [or, where
was the guide-post set?]
Chapter XX.—Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They Founded Churches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic, Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.
Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a
moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever
He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what
faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the
Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was,
what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was
administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and
this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to
His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His
side, Traducem fidei. Mutuantur
“borrowing.” Omne genus. Censeatur or,
“for its origin.” Communicatio
pacis. Contesseratio.
[ Jura,
“rights.” That is, of the faith,
or Christian creed.
Chapter XXI.—All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles, Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has No Such Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso Facto False.
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule.
Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is)
that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ
appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Perinde. Matricibus.
Præjudicandam. [This then is
Præscription.] De mendacio. Censeatur. Ex hoc ipso,
“from this very circumstance.”
Chapter XXII.—Attempt to Invalidate This Rule of Faith Rebutted. The Apostles Safe Transmitters of the Truth. Sufficiently Taught at First, and Faithful in the Transmission.
But inasmuch as the proof is so near at
hand, Expedita. Susam rursus
convertun. Magistros. Reprobans. Itaque, ironical. Plane. See
Tertullian’s Anti-Marcion, iv. 5, and v. 2 (Trans.
pp. 187 and 377). Nec ecclesiam se
dicant defendere. Incunabulis, infant
nursing. Traductiones.
Chapter XXIII.—The Apostles Not Ignorant. The Heretical Pretence of St. Peter’s Imperfection Because He Was Rebuked by St. Paul. St. Peter Not Rebuked for Error in Teaching.
Now, with the view of branding Suggillandam. Ut credunt contra
Scripturas. Atquin. Scilicet. The same verse. [Note
Peter’s restriction to Jews.]
Chapter XXIV.—St. Peter’s Further Vindication. St. Paul Not Superior to St. Peter in Teaching. Nothing Imparted to the Former in the Third Heaven Enabled Him to Add to the Faith. Heretics Boast as If Favoured with Some of the Secrets Imparted to Him.
I have not the good fortune, Non mihi tam bene
est. Immo. Non mihi tam male
est. Ut committam. Superiorem,
“that which Peter had preached.” Viderint. Et in martyrio. Nulli hominum. Nescio quid illud. Emanavit. Et.
Chapter XXV.—The Apostles Did Not Keep Back Any of the Deposit of Doctrine Which Christ Had Entrusted to Them. St. Paul Openly Committed His Whole Doctrine to Timothy.
But here is, as we have said, Above, in chap.
xxii. [Note the Gnostic madness of such a plea. Kaye, p. 235 and
Elucidation IV.] Ut alterius
doctrinæ deputetur. Nescis quid. Remotiore. Apud
conscientiam. [Clement of Alexandria is to be interpreted by
Tertullian, with whom he does not essentially differ. For
Clement’s Esoteric Doctrine (See Vol. II. pp. 302, 313, etc.) is
defined as perfecting the type of the Christian by the strong
meat of Truth, of which the entire deposit is presupposed as
common to all Christians. We must not blame Clement for the abuse of
his teaching by perverters of Truth itself.]
Chapter XXVI.—The Apostles Did in All Cases Teach the Whole Truth to the Whole Church. No Reservation, Nor Partial Communication to Favourite Friends.
Besides which, it must have followed, that, for
the man to whom he committed the ministration of the gospel, he would
add the injunction that it be not ministered in all places, Passim. Inconsiderate. Literally, “the
violence of neither Jew nor Gentile.” Domesticos. [All this
interprets Clement and utterly deprives the Trent System of its appeal
to a secret doctrine, against our Præscription.] Catholice, or,
“which they were bringing before the public in catholic
way.”
Chapter XXVII.—Granted that the Apostles Transmitted the Whole Doctrine of Truth, May Not the Churches Have Been Unfaithful in Handing It On? Inconceivable that This Can Have Been the Case.
Since, therefore, it is incredible that the
apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which
they had to declare, Plenitudinem
prædicationis. Scrupulositatis.
Chapter XXVIII.—The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in the Churches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has Been True and Honest in the Main.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle
was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such
respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent
with this view by Christ, [Tertullian knows no
other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit. They who attribute
infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the
Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.] Audeat.
Chapter XXIX.—The Truth Not Indebted to the Care of the Heretics; It Had Free Course Before They Appeared. Priority of the Church’s Doctrine a Mark of Its Truth.
In whatever manner error came, it reigned of
course Utique, ironical. Perperam. Virtutes,
“potestatem edendi miracula” (Oehler). Charismata. Ministeria. Another
reading has mysteria, “mysteries” or
“sacraments.”
Chapter XXX.—Comparative Lateness of Heresies. Marcion’s Heresy. Some Personal Facts About Him. The Heresy of Apelles. Character of This Man; Philumene; Valentinus; Nigidius, and Hermogenes.
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of
Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus
then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those
men lived not so long ago,—in the reign of Antoninus for the most
part, Fere. [Kaye, p. 226.] See adv.
Marcion, iv. 4. infra. Enim, profecto
(Oehler). Stemma. The
reading of the Cod. Agobard. is “stigma,” which
gives very good sense. Vetus. Sanctissimi.
This may be an ironical allusion to Marcion’s repudiation
of marriage. Impegit. In chap. vi. p. 246
above. Energemate. Oehler
defines this word, “vis et efficacia dæmonum, quibus
agebatur.” [But see Lardner, Credib. viii. p. 540.] Sine dubio. Alterius fuisse. One
reading is anterius; i.e., “demonstrates the
priority” of the book he alters. Frequentiores. Nescio qui. Ambulant. Compare de Carne
Christi, chap. ii. [Elucidation IV.] Christ; so Routh. We add Oehler’s
reading of this obscure passage: “Sic enim apostolus descripsit,
sic enim apostolos solet facere, dare præterea illis virtutem
eadem signa edendi quæ et ipse.” [“It is worthy
of remark” (says Kaye, p. 95), “that he does not appeal
to any instance of the exercise of miraculous powers in his own
day.”]
Chapter XXXI.—Truth First, Falsehood Afterwards, as Its Perversion. Christ’s Parable Puts the Sowing of the Good Seed Before the Useless Tares.
Let me return, however, from this
digression Ab excessu. Disputandam. Another
reading has deputandam, i.e., “to attribute.” Posteritatem. Nulla constantia de
conscientia, “no conscientious ground of confidence”
(Dodgson).
Chapter XXXII.—None of the Heretics Claim Succession from the Apostles. New Churches Still Apostolic, Because Their Faith is that Which the Apostles Taught and Handed Down. The Heretics Challenged to Show Any Apostolic Credentials.
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold
enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they
may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they
existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the
original records Origines, “the
originals” (Dodgson). Ille. A touch of irony
occurs in the phrase “primus ille episcopus.” Deferunt. Fastos. [Linus and Cletus must
have died or been martyred, therefore, almost as soon as appointed. Our
author had seen these registers, no doubt.] Confingant. Probabuntur. Another
reading is provocabuntur, “will be challenged.” [Not
to one particular See, but to all the Apostolic churches: Quod
ubique.] Pro consanguinitate
doctrinæ. That is, the
succession of bishops from the apostles, and the identity of doctrine
with the apostolic. Sacramenti.
Chapter XXXIII.—Present Heresies (Seedlings of the Tares Noted by the Sacred Writers) Already Condemned in Scripture. This Descent of Later Heresy from the Earlier Traced in Several Instances.
Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines
themselves, which, existing as they did Traducentur. Semina sumpsisse. Comp. Tertull. De
Resur. Carnis, xxxvi. Æque tangit. Nescio qui. Charite. Sermonem. De qua prima
ogdoade. [See Irenæus, Vol. I. p. 316, etc. this
Series.] Non natam, literally,
“as being unbegotten.” Deo non nato. Comparat. Gaiana. So Oehler; the
common reading being “Caiana.” Comp. Epiphanius, i.
30. Referred to perhaps in
Chapter XXXIV.—No Early Controversy Respecting the Divine Creator; No Second God Introduced at First. Heresies Condemned Alike by the Sentence and the Silence of Holy Scripture.
These are, as I suppose, the different kinds of
spurious doctrines, which (as we are informed by the apostles
themselves) existed in their own day. And yet we find amongst so
many various perversions of truth, not one school Institutionem. Nescio quem. Igneum,
“consisted of fire.” “The
ectroma, or fall of Sophia from the Pleroma, from whom the
Creator was fabled to be descended” (Dodgson). Scilicet. Universæ. Utique. Nominarentur et
ipsæ. Nominatione, i.e. by
the apostles.
Prædicationis. Fine. Præcedente. Præjudicarentur.
[i.e. by Præscription.] i.e., in the days of
the apostles, and by their mouth.
Chapter XXXV.—Let Heretics Maintain Their Claims by a Definite and Intelligible Evidence. This the Only Method of Solving Their Questions. Catholics Appeal Always to Evidence Traceable to Apostolic Sources.
Challenged and refuted by us, according to these
definitions, let all the heresies boldly on their part also advance
similar rules to these against our doctrine, whether they be later than
the apostles or contemporary with the apostles, provided they be
different from them; provided also they were, by either a general or a
specific censure, precondemned by them. For since they deny the truth
of (our doctrine), they ought to prove that it also is heresy,
refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves
refuted; and at the same time to show us where we must seek the truth,
which it is by this time evident has no existence amongst them.
Our system Res. Indicium proprietatis,
a proof of its being their own.
Chapter XXXVI.—The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith.
Come now, you who would indulge a better
curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run
over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones Cathedræ. Suis locis
præsident. Authenticæ.
This much disputed phrase may refer to the autographs or
the Greek originals (rather than the Latin translations), or
full unmutilated copies as opposed to the garbled ones of the
heretics. The second sense is probably the correct one. [Note, those
near by may resort to this ancient and glorious church; not as any
better than Corinth, or Philippi, or having any higher Apostolic
throne. See Irenæus, Vol. I. p. 415, (note) and Elucid. p.
460.] Compare our
Anti-Marcion, iv. 5, p. 186. The
Baptist’s.
[Observe—“even with us in Africa.” If this implies
noteworthy love, it proves that there was no organic relation requiring
such particular fellowship, even in the West.] Miscet. We have taken
Oehler’s hint in favour of “martyrio.” The usual
reading “martyrium” (meaning “she exhorts to
martyrdom”) is stiff, and unsuited to the context. De. Or, “they
were not of it, because they were opposed to it,”
i.e., the discipline or teaching. Nucleo. Necessariæ. Papavere.
“Ego cum aliis papaver ficus interpretor de
seminalibus ficus, non de ipso fructu” (Oehler). Frutice. We again follow
Oehler’s hint, who would like to read “de grano
veritatis.” The texts are obscure, and vary much here. Silvestres.
Chapter XXXVII.—Heretics Not Being Christians, But Rather Perverters of Christ’s Teaching, May Not Claim the Christian Scriptures. These are a Deposit, Committed to and Carefully Kept by the Church.
Since this is the case, in order that the truth
may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to
the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles,
the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our
position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be
allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the
Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For
as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not
from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere
choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of
heretics. “That is, in
following out their own choice (αἳρεσις) of
opinions, they both receive and admit the name of
heretics,” αἱρετικοί, “self-choosers” (Dodgson). [In Theology,
technically, one must be a baptized Christian in order to be a
heretic. The Mohammedans, e.g., are not heretics but
pagans. But, our author speaks rhetorically.] Capiunt. Compare
Chapter XXXVIII.—Harmony of the Church and the Scriptures. Heretics Have Tampered with the Scriptures, and Mutilated, and Altered Them. Catholics Never Change the Scriptures, Which Always Testify for Them.
Where diversity of doctrine is found,
there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the
expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it
was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging
the instruments of doctrine. By the instrumenta
doctrinæ he here means the writings of the New Testament. [Our author insists on
the precise agreement of Catholic Tradition with Holy Scripture. See
valuable remarks on Schleiermacher, in Kaye, pp. 279–284.] We add the original of
this sentence, which is obscured by its terseness: “Quid de
proprio intulimus, ut aliquid contrarium ei et in Scripturis
deprehensum detractione vel adjectione vel transmutatione
remediaremus?” That is, teaching the
same faith and conversation (De la Cerda). Domestica. Integro
instrumento. Callidiore
ingenio. That is, cutting out
whatever did not fall in with it (Dodgson). Non comparentium
rerum. [Note, he says above “of them, the
Scriptures, we, Catholics, have our being.”
Præscription does not undervalue Scripture as the food and
life of the Church, but supplies a short and decisive method with
innovaters.]
Chapter XXXIX.—What St. Paul Calls Spiritual Wickednesses Displayed by Pagan Authors, and by Heretics, in No Dissimilar Manner. Holy Scripture Especially Liable to Heretical Manipulation. Affords Material for Heresies, Just as Virgil Has Been the Groundwork of Literary Plagiarisms, Different in Purport from the Original.
These were the ingenious arts of “spiritual
wickednesses,” See Instruendis. Oehler reads “ex
Vergilio,” although the Codex Agobard. as
“ex Virgilio.” Denique.
[“Getica lyra.”] Otis. Nec periclitor dicere.
[Truly, a Tertullianic paradox; but compare 2 Pet. iii. 16. N.B.
Scripture the test of heresy.]
Chapter XL.—No Difference in the Spirit of Idolatry and of Heresy. In the Rites of Idolatry, Satan Imitated and Distorted the Divine Institutions of the Older Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures Corrupted by Him in the Perversions of the Various Heretics.
The question will arise, By whom is to be
interpreted
“Interpretur” is here a passive verb. Res. Sacramentorum
divinorum. The form, however, of this phrase seems to point not
only to the specific sacraments of the gospel, but to the
general mysteries of our religion. Compare
Tertullian’s treatises, de Bapt. v. and de Corona,
last chapter. Expositionem. “Et sub gladio
redimit coronam” is the text of this obscure sentence,
which seems to allude to a pretended martyrdom. Compare
Tertullian’s tract, de Corona, last chapter. The Flamen
Dialis. See Tertullian’s tract, ad
Uxorem, i. 7. [Corruptio optimi
pessima. Compare the surprising parallels of M. Huc between debased
Christianity and the paganism of Thibet, etc. Souvenirs d’un voyage, etc. Hazlitt’s
translation, 1867.] Morositatem Illam. [He refers to the minute and vexatious
ordinances complained of by St. Peter ( Gestiit. Attemperare. i.e., the Scriptures
of the New Testament.
Chapter XLI.—The Conduct of Heretics: Its Frivolity, Worldliness, and Irregularity. The Notorious Wantonness of Their Women.
I must not omit an account of the conduct Conversationis. See Lenocinium.
“Pandering” is Archdeacon Dodgson’s word. Miscent. Edocti. Repromittere. Compare
Tertullian’s tract, de Bapt. I. and de Veland.
Virg. viii. [Also, Epiphan. iv. p. 453, Ed. Oehler.] Temerariæ. They were constantly
changing their ministers. It was a saying of the heretics, “Alius
hodie episcopus, cras alius” (Rigalt.). Sæculo
obstrictos. Promereri est.
Chapter XLII.—Heretics Work to Pull Down and to Destroy, Not to Edify and Elevate. Heretics Do Not Adhere Even to Their Own Traditions, But Harbour Dissent Even from Their Own Founders.
But what shall I say concerning the ministry of the
word, since they make it their business not to convert the heathen, but
to subvert our people? This is rather the glory which they catch
at, to compass the fall of those who stand, not the raising of those
who are down. Accordingly, since the very work which they purpose to
themselves comes not from the building up of their own society, but
from the demolition of the truth, they undermine our edifices, that
they may erect their own. Only Non parent. Enim. [e.g. The Trent
system of Unity, alas! is of this sort.] Hence the
saying, “Wasps make combs, so Marcionites make churches”
(see our Anti-Marcion, p. 187); describing the strangeness and
uselessness of the societies, not (as Gibbon said) their number
(Dodgson). Sua in vilitate.
Another reading, pronounced corrupt by Oehler, has “quasi sibi
latæ vagantur,” q.d. “All for themselves,
as it were, they wander” etc. (Dodgson).
Chapter XLIII.—Loose Company Preferred by Heretics. Ungodliness the Effect of Their Teaching the Very Opposite of Catholic Truth, Which Promotes the Fear of God, Both in Religious Ordinances and Practical Life.
It has also been a subject of remark, how
extremely frequent is the intercourse which heretics hold with
magicians, with mountebanks, with astrologers, with philosophers; and
the reason is, Scilicet. Attonita, as if in
fear that it might go wrong (Rigalt.). In contrast to the
opposite fault of the heresies exposed above. Deliberata,
where the character was well weighed previous to admission to
the eucharist. Apparitio, the
duty and office of an apparitor, or attendant on men of higher
rank, whether in church or state.
Chapter XLIV.—Heresy Lowers Respect for Christ, and Destroys All Fear of His Great Judgment. The Tendency of Heretical Teaching on This Solemn Article of the Faith. The Present Treatise an Introduction to Certain Other Anti-Heretical Works of Our Author.
These evidences, then, of a stricter discipline
existing among us, are an additional proof of truth, from which no man
can safely turn aside, who bears in mind that future judgment, when
“we must all stand before the judgment-seat of
Christ,” Scævis. Futuris. It seems to us, that
this is the force of the strong irony, indicated by the
“credo,” which pervades this otherwise unintelligible
passage. Dodgson’s version seems untenable:
“Let them (the heretics) acknowledge that the fault is with
themselves rather than with those who prepared us so long
beforehand.” Christ and His
apostles, as before, in continuation of the strong irony. This must be the force
of a sentence which is steeped in irony: “Scilicet cum vos
non crederetis.” We are indebted to Oehler for restoring the
sentence thus. Recogitavi. Turpe. Capit. Exorbitant. Cavent. This sense comes from
the “repellendas” and the “a collatione
Scripturarum.” Specialiter. He did
this, indeed, in his treatises against Marcion, Hermogenes, the
Valentinians, Praxeas, and others. [These are to follow in this Series.
Kaye (p. 47) justly considered this sentence as proving the De
Præscript, a preface to all his treatises against particular
heresies.] Elucidation V.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Prescription, Chap. I., p. 243, Supra.)
In adopting this expression from the Roman Law,
Tertullian has simply puzzled beginners to get at his idea. Nor do they
learn much when it is called a demurrer, which, if I comprehend
the word as used in law-cases, is a rejoinder to the testimony of the
other party, amounting to—“Well, what of it? It does not
prove your case.” Something like this is indeed in
Tertullian’s use of the term præscription; but Dr.
Holmes furnishes what seems to me the best explanation, (though he only
half renders it,) “the Prescriptive Rule against Heresies.”
In a word, it means, “the Rule of Faith asserted against
Heresies.” And his practical point is, it is useless to discuss
Scripture with convicted (
(Semler, cap. x., note 15, p. 248.)
The extent to which Bp. Kaye has stretched his notice of this critic is to be accounted for by the fact that, for a time, the German School of the last century exerted a sad influence in England. In early life Dr. Pusey came near to being led away by it, and Hugh James Rose was raised up to resist it. Semler lived (at Halle and elsewhere) from a.d. 1725 to 1791. Kahnis in his invaluable manual, named below, thus speaks of his Patristic theories: “The history of the Kingdom of God became, under his hands, a world of atoms, which crossed each other as chaotically as the masses of notes which lay heaped up in the memory of Semler.…Under his pragmatical touches the halo of the martyrs faded, etc.” Internal Hist. of German Protestantism (since circa 1750, ) by Ch. Fred. Aug. Kahnis, D.D. (Lutheran) Professor at Leipzig. Translated. T. and F. Clark, Edinburgh, 1856.
III.
(Peter, cap. xxii. note 6, p. 253.)
In the treatise of Cyprian, De Unitate, we
shall have occasion to speak fully on this interesting point. The
reference to Kaye may suffice, here. But, since the inveterate
confusion of all that is said of Peter with all that is claimed by a
modern bishop for himself promotes a false view of this passage, it may
be well to note (1) that St. Peter’s name is expounded by himself
(
IV.
(The Apostles, cap. xxv. p. 254.)
Nothing less than a new incarnation of Christ and a new commission to new apostles can give us anything new in religion. This præscription is our Catholic answer to the Vatican oracles of our own time. These give us a new revelation, prefacing the Gospels (1) by defining the immaculate conception of Mary in the womb of her mother; and (2) adding a new chapter to the Acts of the Apostles, in defining the infallibility of a single bishop.
Clearly, had Tertullian known anything of this last dogma of Latin Novelty, he would not have taken the trouble to write this treatise. He would have said to heretics, We can neither discuss Scripture nor Antiquity with you. Rome is the touchstone of dogma, and to its bishop we refer you.
V.
(Truth and Peace, cap. xliv. p. 265.)
The famous appeal of Bishop Jewel, known as
“the Challenge at Paul’s Cross,” which he made in a
sermon preached there on Passion Sunday, a.d.
1560, is an instance of “Præscription against
heresies,” well worthy of being recalled, in a day which has seen
Truth and Peace newly sacrificed to the ceaseless innovations of Rome.
It is as follows:—“If any learned man of all our
adversaries, or, if all the learned men that be alive, be able to
bring It must be remembered
that an appeal to Scripture lies behind Tertullian’s
Præscription: only he will not discuss Holy Scripture with
heretics.
1. There was any private mass in the whole world at that time, for the space of six hundred years after Christ; or that—
2. There was then any communion ministered unto the people under one kind; or that—
3. The people had their common prayers, then, in a strange tongue that they understood not; or that—
4. The bishop of Rome was then called an universal bishop, or the head of the universal Church; or that—
5. The people was then taught to believe that Christ’s body is really, substantially, corporally, carnally or naturally in the Sacrament; or that—
6. His body is, or may be, in a thousand places or more, at one time; or that—
7. The priest did then hold up the Sacrament over his head; or that—
8. The people did then fall down and worship it with godly honour; or that—
9. The Sacrament was then, or now ought to be, hanged up under a canopy; or that—
10. In the Sacrament after the words of consecration there remaineth only the accidents and shews, without the substance of bread and wine; or that—
11. The priest then divided the Sacrament in three parts and afterwards received himself, alone; or that—
12. Whosoever had said the Sacrament is a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ’s body, had therefore been judged a heretic; or that—
13. It was lawful, then, to have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or five masses said in one Church, in one day; or that—
14. Images were then set up in churches to the intent the people might worship them; or that—
15. The lay people was then forbidden to read the word of God, in their own tongue:
“If any man alive be able to prove any of these articles, by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of the Scriptures, or of the old doctors, or of any old General Council, or by any Example of the Primitive Church; I promise, then, that I will give over and subscribe unto him.”
All this went far beyond the concession of præscription which makes little of any one saying of any one Father, and demands the general consent of Antiquity; but, it is needless to say that Jewel’s challenge has remained unanswered for more than three hundred years, and so it will be to all Eternity.
With great erudition Jewel enlarged his propositions and maintained all his points. See his works, vol. I., p. 20 et seqq. Cambridge University Press, 1845.
II.
The Five Books Against Marcion.
[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]
Introductory Notes.
————————————
Dedication.
To the Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of Chester.
My Dear Lord,
I am gratified to have your permission to dedicate this volume to your Lordship. It is the fruit of some two years’ leisure labour. Every man’s occupation spares to him some λείψανα χρόνου; and thirty years ago you taught me, at Oxford, how to husband these opportunities in the pleasant studies of Biblical and Theological Science. For that and many other kindnesses I cannot cease to be thankful to you.
But, besides this private motive, I have in your
Lordship’s own past course an additional incentive for resorting
to you on this occasion. You, until lately, presided over the
theological studies of our great University; and you have given great
encouragement to patristic literature by your excellent edition of the
Apostolic Fathers. [The name of Bishop
Jacobson was often introduced in our first volume, in notes to the
Apostolic Fathers. He has recently “fallen asleep,” after a
life of exemplary labour “with good report of all men and of the
Truth itself.” His learning and piety were adorned by a profound
humility, which gave a primitive cast to his character. At the Lambeth
Conference, having the honour to sit at his side, I observed his
extreme modesty. He rarely rose to speak, though he sometimes honoured
me with words in a whisper, which the whole assembly would have
rejoiced to hear. Like his great predecessor, Pearson, in many
respects, the mere filings and clippings of his thoughts were
gold-dust.]
I remain, with much respect,
My dear Lord,
Very faithfully yours,
Peter Holmes.
Mannamead,
Plymouth, [Dr. Holmes is
described, in the Edinburgh Edition, as “Domestic Chaplain to the
Rt. Hon. the Countess of Rothes.” He was B.A. (Oxon.) in 1840,
and took orders that year. Was Head-Master of Plymouth Grammar School
at one time, and among his very valuable and learned works should be
mentioned, as very useful to the reader of this series, his Translation
of Bull’s Defensio Fidei Nicænæ (two vols. 8vo.
Oxford, 1851), and of the same great author’s Judicium
Ecclesiæ Catholicæ, 8vo. Oxford, 1855.]
March, 1868.
Preface by the Translator. [This preface and the
frequent annotations of our author relieve the American editor, save
very sparingly, from adding notes of his own.]
The reader has, in this
volume a translation (attempted for the first time in English) of the
largest of the extant works of the earliest Latin Fathers. The
most important of Tertullian’s writings have always been highly
valued in the church, although, as was natural from their varied
character, for different reasons. Thus his two best-known treatises,
The Apology and The Prescription against Heretics, have
divided between them for more than sixteen centuries the admiration of
all intelligent readers,—the one for its masterly defence of the
Christian religion against its heathen persecutors, and the other for
its lucid vindication of the church’s rule of faith against its
heretical assailants. The present work has equal claims on the
reader’s appreciation, in respect of those qualities of vigorous
thought, close reasoning, terse expression, and earnest purpose,
enlivened by sparkling wit and impassioned eloquence, which have always
secured for Tertullian, in spite of many drawbacks, the esteem which is
given to a great and favourite author. If these books against Marcion
have received, as indeed it must be allowed they have, less attention
from the general reader than their intrinsic merit deserves, the
neglect is mainly due to the fact that the interesting character of
their contents is concealed by the usual title-page, which points only
to a heresy supposed to be extinct and inapplicable, whether in the
materials of its defence or confutation, to any modern circumstances.
But many treatises of great authors, which have outlived their literal
occasion, retain a value from their collateral arguments, which is not
inferior to that effected by their primary subject. Such is the case
with the work before us. If Marcionism is in the letter obsolete, there
is its spirit still left in the church, which in more ways than one
develops its ancient Two works are
worth mentioning in connection with this topic for their succinct and
handy form, as well as satisfactory treatment of their argument: Mr.
Perowne’s Norrisian prize essay, entitled The Essential
Coherence of the Old and New Testaments (1858), and Sir William
Page Wood’s recent work, The Continuity of Scripture, as
declared by the Testimony of our Lord, and of the evangelists and
apostles. Bishop Kaye says of
Tertullian (page 62): “He is indeed the harshest and most obscure
of writers, and the least capable of being accurately represented in a
translation;” and he quotes the learned Ruhnken’s sentence
of our author: “Latinitatis certè pessimum auctorem esse aio
et confirmo.” This is surely much too sweeping. To the
careful student Tertullian’s style commends itself, by and by, as
suited exactly to his subject—as the terse and vigorous
expression of terse and vigorous thought. Bishop Butler has been often
censured for an awkward style; whereas it is a fairer criticism to say,
that the arguments of the Analogy and the Sermons of Human
Nature have been delivered in the language best suited to their
character. This adaptation of style to matter is probably in all great
authors a real characteristic of genius. A more just and favourable
view is taken of Tertullian’s Latin by Niebuhr, Hist. Rom.
(Schmitz), vol. v. p. 271, and his Lectures on Ancient Hist.
(Schmitz), vol. ii. p. 54. He has also, as the
reader will observe, endeavoured to distinguish, by the help of type,
between the true God and Marcion’s god, printing the initials of
the former, and of the pronouns referring to Him, in capitals, and
those of the latter in small letters. To do this was not always an easy
matter, for in many passages the argument amalgamates the two.
Moreover, in the earlier portion of the work the translator fears that
he may have occasionally neglected to make the distinction.
The Five Books Against Marcion.
Book I. [Written A.D.
207. See Chapter xv. infra. In cap. xxix. is the token of
Montanism which denotes his impending lapse.]
Wherein is described the god of Marcion. He is shown to be utterly wanting in all the attributes of the true God.
————————————
Chapter I.—Preface. Reason for a New Work. Pontus Lends Its Rough Character to the Heretic Marcion, a Native. His Heresy Characterized in a Brief Invective.
Whatever in times
past Retro. Jam hinc viderit. Ex vetere. Fratris. Stilus. De.
The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is
self-contradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name. [Euxine=hospitable.
One recalls Shakespeare: —“Like to the Pontick Sea Whose icy current and compulsive
force Ne’er feels retiring
ebb.”—Othel.] Cruda. De jugo. See Strabo
(Bohn’s trans.), vol. ii. p. 247. Duritia. Libens. Exaggerantur. Calet. [Iphigenia of
Euripides.] [See the
Medea of Euripides.] [Prometheus of
Æschylus.] Hamaxobio. This
Sarmatian clan received its name ῾Αμαξόβιοι
from its gypsy kind of life. [I fancy there is
point in this singular, the sky of Pontus being always overcast. Cowper
says: “There is but one cloud in the
sky, But that doth the welkin invest,”
etc. Quidni. Lancinatur. Castrator
carnis. See Pliny, N. H. viii. 47 (Bohn’s trans.
vol. ii. p. 297). Ipsius litteris. Jam. Hinc. Retro. He alludes to his book
De Præscriptione Hæreticorum. [Was this work
then already written? Dr. Allix thinks not. But see Kaye, p. 47.] Interdum. [Can
it be that when all this was written (speaking of ourselves) our
author had fully lapsed from Communion with the Catholic
Church?]
Chapter II.—Marcion, Aided by Cerdon, Teaches a Duality of Gods; How He Constructed This Heresy of an Evil and a Good God.
The heretic of Pontus introduces two Gods, like
the twin Symplegades of his own shipwreck: One whom it was impossible
to deny, i.e. our Creator; and one whom he will never be able to
prove, i.e. his own god. The unhappy man
gained Passus. Instinctum. St. Languens. Mala. [This purely
good or goodish divinity is an idea of the Stoics. De
Præscript. chap. 7.] Hospitam.
He had, moreover, in one Quendam. [See
Irenæus, Vol. I. p. 352, this Series.] Integre. Præstruendo. Or sections.
Chapter III.—The Unity of God. He is the Supreme Being, and There Cannot Be a Second Supreme.
The principal, and indeed Et exinde. Si Forte. Jam. Of eternity. We subjoin the
original of this difficult passage: Hunc enim statum æternitati
censendum, quæ summum magnum deum efficiat, dum hoc est in deo
ipsa, atque ita et cetera, ut sit deus summum magnum et forma et
ratione et vi et potestate. Quid. Unicus. [Alone of his
kind.] As its first
principle. Porro. Forma.
Chapter IV.—Defence of the Divine Unity Against Objection. No Analogy Between Human Powers and God’s Sovereignty. The Objection Otherwise Untenable, for Why Stop at Two Gods?
But some one may contend that two great Supremes
may exist, distinct and separate in their own departments; and may even
adduce, as an example, the kingdoms of the world, which, though they
are so many in number, are yet supreme in their several regions. Such a
man will suppose that human circumstances are always comparable with
divine ones. Now, if this mode of reasoning be at all tolerable, what
is to prevent our introducing, I will not say a third god or a fourth,
but as many as there are kings of the earth? Now it is God that is in
question, whose main property it is to admit of no comparison with
Himself. Nature itself, therefore, if not an Isaiah, or rather God
speaking by Isaiah, will deprecatingly ask, “To whom will ye
liken me?” Denique. Excidet. Amittitur.
“Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly
monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration
strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one
supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is
therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”—
Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian,
Third edition, p. 453, note 2. Scilicet. Graduum. Culmen. Minutalibus
regnis. Undique. Substantiis. Eliquetur.
Chapter V.—The Dual Principle Falls to the Ground; Plurality of Gods, of Whatever Number, More Consistent. Absurdity and Injury to Piety Resulting from Marcion’s Duality.
But on what principle did Marcion confine his
supreme powers to two? I would first ask, If there be two, why
not more? Because if number be compatible with the substance of
Deity, the richer you make it in number the better. Valentinus was more
consistent and more liberal; for he, having once imagined two deities,
Bythos and Sige, Depth and silence. See Virgil,
Æneid, viii. 43, etc. Ipso termino. Paria. Jam. Numeri sui. Ecce.
Chapter VI.—Marcion Untrue to His Theory. He Pretends that His Gods are Equal, But He Really Makes Them Diverse. Then, Allowing Their Divinity, Denies This Diversity.
Thus far our discussion seems to imply that
Marcion makes his two gods equal. For while we have been maintaining
that God ought to be believed as the one only great Supreme Being,
excluding from Him every possibility Parilitatem. Formam. Alioquin. Certi (sumus). Tantummodo. Vindicet. Injecta manu
detinens. Præscribo. Ex æquo deos
confessus. De statu suo. Nega. Nega.
Chapter VII.—Other Beings Besides God are in Scripture Called God. This Objection Frivolous, for It is Not a Question of Names. The Divine Essence is the Thing at Issue. Heresy, in Its General Terms, Thus Far Treated.
But this argument you will try to shake with an
objection from the name of God, by alleging that that name is a
vague Passivo. כְּעַרִַח־אֵל.
Tertullian’s version is: In ecclesia deorum. The Vulgate:
In synagoga deorum. The now less obvious
nicknames of “Alex. Darius and Olofernes,” are in the
text. Substantiæ. Vocari obtinuit. Statum. Ex pari. Integritas. Hæsisti.
Chapter VIII.—Specific Points. The Novelty of Marcion’s God Fatal to His Pretensions. God is from Everlasting, He Cannot Be in Any Wise New.
In the first place, how arrogantly do the
Marcionites build up their stupid system, Stuporem suum. [Cap. xix.
infra.] The original of this
obscure passage is: “Novum igitur audiens deum, in vetere mundo
et in vetere ævo et sub vetere deo inauditum quem tantis retro
seculis neminem, et ipsa ignorantia antiquum, quidam Jesus Christus, et
ille in veteribus nominibus novus, revelaverit, nec alius
antehac.” The harsh expression, “quidam Jesus
Christus,” bears, of course, a sarcastic reference to the
capricious and inconsistent novelty which Marcion broached in his
heresy about Christ. [By some slight chance in punctuation and
arrangement, I have endeavoured to make it a little clearer.] Gloriæ.
[Qu. boast?] Hæc erit novitas
quæ. Novo semper ac novo
titulo. Consecravit. Germana. Censetur. A
frequent meaning in Tertullian. See Apol. 7 and 12. We cannot preserve the
terseness of the Latin: Deus, si est vetus, non erit; si est novus, non
fuit.
Now I know full well by what perceptive faculty
they boast of their new god; even their knowledge. Agnitione. The
distinctive term of the Gnostic pretension was the Greek
equivalent Γνῶσις. Agnitione. Plane. Non evagabor, ut
dicam. Provocari. Debebo. Ratione. Constantius. Quale est ut. Agnoscis. Vacat. Argumenta
="proofs.” Sin. Plane. Regulæ
partibus. Fortasse an. Status
principalis. Viderit. In diversitate. Nec admittentur. Sub eo. Formam. Dirigam.
Chapter X.—The Creator Was Known as the True God from the First by His Creation. Acknowledged by the Soul and Conscience of Man Before He Was Revealed by Moses.
For indeed, as the Creator of all things, He was
from the beginning discovered equally with them, they having been
themselves manifested that He might become known as God. For although
Moses, some long while afterwards, seems to have been the first to
introduce the knowledge of Dedicasse. Instituat. Denique. See also De
test, anim. 2, and De anima, 41. [Bp. Kaye refers (p. 166)
to Profr. Andrews Norton of Harvard, with great respect:
specially to a Note on this usage of the Heathen, in his
Evidences, etc. Vol. III.] Prophetia, inspired
Scripture.
Chapter XI.—The Evidence for God External to Him; But the External Creation Which Yields This Evidence is Really Not Extraneous, for All Things are God’s. Marcion’s God, Having Nothing to Show for Himself, No God at All. Marcion’s Scheme Absurdly Defective, Not Furnishing Evidence for His New God’s Existence, Which Should at Least Be Able to Compete with the Full Evidence of the Creator.
And justly so, they say. For who is there that is
less well known by his own (inherent) qualities than by
strange Extraneous. Extraneum. Alius. Plane falsæ
vacabit. Forma. Proprii sui mundi, et
hominis et sæculi. [Kaye, p. 206.] Cicerculam. [—“uncique
puer monstrator aratri,” Virg. Georg. i. 19, and see
Heyne’s note.] Præscriptio. Tertium cessat. Falsæ. An
allusion to the Docetism of Marcion. Apud quem.
Chapter
XII.—Impossibility of Acknowledging God Without This External
Evidence The word
cause throughout this chapter is used in the popular, inaccurate
sense, which almost confounds it with effect, the
“causa cognoscendi,” as distinguished from the
“causa essendi,” the strict cause.
But even if we were able to allow that he exists,
we should yet be bound to argue that he is without a cause. The word
cause throughout this chapter is used in the popular, inaccurate
sense, which almost confounds it with effect, the
“causa cognoscendi,” as distinguished from the
“causa essendi,” the strict cause. The word
“res” is throughout this argument used strictly by
Tertullian; it refers to “the thing” made by
God—that product of His creative energy which affords to us
evidence of His existence. We have translated it
“proof” for want of a better word. The “tanquam
sit,” in its subjunctive form, seems to refer to the concession
indicated at the outset of the chapter. Omnino sine causa. Illum, i.e.,
Marcion’s god. Captare. Deum ex operum
auctoritate formatum. Non statim
ratione, on a priori grounds. i.e., Marcion’s
god. Compare
Chapter XIII.—The Marcionites Depreciate the Creation, Which, However, is a Worthy Witness of God. This Worthiness Illustrated by References to the Heathen Philosophers, Who Were Apt to Invest the Several Parts of Creation with Divine Attributes.
While we are expelling from this rank (of Deity) a
god who has no evidence to show for himself which is so proper and
God-worthy as the testimony of the Creator, Marcion’s most
shameless followers with haughty impertinence fall upon the
Creator’s works to destroy them. To be sure, say they, the world
is a grand work, worthy of a God. This is an ironical
concession from the Marcionite side. Another
concession. Tertullian’s
rejoinder. De isto. They called it
κόσμος. By sapientiæ
professores he means the heathen philosophers; see De
Præscript. Hæret. c. 7. In his book adv.
Hermogenem, c. 8, Tertullian calls the philosophers
“hæreticorum patriarchæ.” Formidaverint. Substantiæ. Dei. The Greek name of
Jupiter, Ζεύς,
is here derived from ζέω, ferveo, I glow.
Juno’s name, ῞Ηρα,
Tertullian connects with ἀήρ, the air;
παρὰ τὸ
ἀὴρ καθ᾽
ὑπέρθεσιν
῞Ηρα. These names of the two great deities
suggest a connection with fire and air. i.e., Cybele. The
earth’s irrigations, and the washings of the image of Cybele
every year in the river Almo by her priests, are here confusedly
alluded to. For references to the pagan custom, see White and
Riddle’s large Lat. Dict. s. v. Almo. Mithras, the
Persian sun-god, was symbolized by the image of a lion. The sun
entering the zodiacal sign Leo amidst summer heat may be glanced
at. Deficiam ad. Sordidum. [Well and
nobly said.]
Chapter XIV.—All Portions of Creation Attest the Excellence of the Creator, Whom Marcion Vilifies. His Inconsistency Herein Exposed. Marcion’s Own God Did Not Hesitate to Use the Creator’s Works in Instituting His Own Religion.
Now, when you make merry with those minuter
animals, which their glorious Maker has purposely endued with a
profusion of instincts and resources, De industria ingeniis
aut viribus ampliavit. Tertullian, it
should be remembered, lived in Africa. Cantharidis. Adamavit. Laboravit. Paupertina. This and
all such passages are, of course, in imitation of Marcion’s
contemptuous view of the Creator’s work. Cellula. Infantat. Mendicitatibus. Matricem. Medullas. [The use of fish for
fasting-days has no better warrant than Marcion’s example.] Uteris.
Chapter XV.—The Lateness of the Revelation of Marcion’s God. The Question of the Place Occupied by the Rival Deities. Instead of Two Gods, Marcion Really (Although, as It Would Seem, Unconsciously) Had Nine Gods in His System.
After all, or, if you like, Vel. Conditionem. Adv. Marcionem,
v. 12. For
Marcion’s exclusive use, and consequent abuse, of St.
Paul, see Neander’s Antignostikus (Bohn), vol. ii.
pp. 491, 505, 506. [This date not merely
settles the time of our author’s work against Marcion, but
supplies us with evidence that his total lapse must have been very late
in life. For the five books, written at intervals and marked by
progressive tokens of his spiritual decline, are as a whole, only
slightly offensive to Orthodoxy. This should be borne in mind.] Frivolis. Again in
reference to Marcion undervaluing the creation as the work of the
Demiurge. Et ideo. In this and the
following sentences, the reader will observe the distinction which is
drawn between the Supreme and good God of Marcion and his
“Creator,” or Demiurge. Subsiciva. Stipare se. Molitus est. Sentire. Subicit. The Supreme and good
God. Tertullian here gives it as one of Marcion’s tenets, that
the Demiurge created the World out of pre-existent matter. Interim. Proinde et. Assignet. Namely, (1) the
supreme and good God; (2) His Christ; (3) the space in which He
dwells; (4) the matter of His creation; (5) the Demiurge
(or Marcion’s “Creator”); (6) his promised Christ;
(7) the space which contains him; (8) this world, his creation;
(9) evil, inherent in it.
Chapter XVI.—Marcion Assumes the Existence of Two Gods from the Antithesis Between Things Visible and Things Invisible. This Antithetical Principle in Fact Characteristic of the Works of the Creator, the One God—Maker of All Things Visible and Invisible.
Since, then, that other world does not appear, nor
its god either, the only resource left Consequens est ut. Defendant. Nunc enim. The
elliptical νῦν
γάρ of Greek argumentation. Modulata. “I make peace,
and create evil,”
Chapter XVII.—Not Enough, as the Marcionites Pretend, that the Supreme God Should Rescue Man; He Must Also Have Created Him. The Existence of God Proved by His Creation, a Prior Consideration to His Character.
Pressed by these arguments, they exclaim: One work
is sufficient for our god; he has delivered man by his supreme and most
excellent goodness, which is preferable to (the creation of) all the
locusts. To depreciate
the Creator’s work the more, Marcion (and Valentinus too) used to
attribute to Him the formation of all the lower creatures—worms,
locusts, etc.—reserving the mightier things to the good and
supreme God. See St. Jerome’s Proem. in Epist. ad
Philem. [See, Stier, Words of Jesus, Vol. vi. p.
81.] Dinoscetur. Quo necessarior. Locum. In chap. xxii.
Chapter XVIII.—Notwithstanding Their Conceits, the God of the Marcionites Fails in the Vouchers Both of Created Evidence and of Adequate Revelation.
Well, then, Age. Anabibazon. The
ἀναβιβάζων
was the most critical point in the ecliptic, in the old astrology, for
the calculation of stellar influences. Quadratus. Trigonus. Saturn
and Mars were supposed to be malignant planets. See Smith, Greek and
Rom. Ant. p. 144, c. 2. Qualitate. Definimus. Cognoscendum. Recognoscendum. Doctrina. Ex
prædicationibus. Operari. Vix impleverat. Alioquin. He means the Emperor
Hadrian; comp. Apolog. c. 13.
Chapter XIX.—Jesus Christ, the Revealer of the Creator, Could Not Be the Same as Marcion’s God, Who Was Only Made Known by the Heretic Some CXV. Years After Christ, and That, Too, on a Principle Utterly Unsuited to the Teaching of Jesus Christ, I.e., the Opposition Between the Law and the Gospels.
Well, but our god, say the Marcionites, although
he did not manifest himself from the beginning and by means of the
creation, has yet revealed himself in Christ Jesus. A book will be
devoted The third of these
books against Marcion. Circumlatorem. The author says this,
not as his own, but as Marcion’s opinion; as is clear from his
own words in his fourth book against Marcion, c. 7, (Pamelius). Spiritus
salutaris. Aura canicularis. Primum processit. Utriusque
instrumenti. Innotuit.
Chapter XX.—Marcion, Justifying His Antithesis Between the Law and the Gospel by the Contention of St. Paul with St. Peter, Shown to Have Mistaken St. Paul’s Position and Argument. Marcion’s Doctrine Confuted Out of St. Paul’s Teaching, Which Agrees Wholly with the Creator’s Decrees.
This most patent conclusion requires to be
defended by us against the clamours of the opposite side. For they
allege that Marcion did not so much innovate on the rule (of faith) by
his separation of the law and the gospel, as restore it after it had
been previously adulterated. O Christ, Tertullian’s
indignant reply. Passivum scilicet
convictum. Prædicationis.
[Largely ad hominem, this argument.] Et alibi. See This quotation,
however, is from Slightly altered from
Chapter XXI.—St. Paul Preached No New God, When He Announced the Repeal of Some of God’s Ancient Ordinances. Never Any Hesitation About Belief in the Creator, as the God Whom Christ Revealed, Until Marcion’s Heresy.
Now if it was with the view of preaching a new god
that he was eager to abrogate the law of the old God, how is it that he
prescribes no rule about Nihil præscribit
de. i.e., “the old
God,” as he has just called Him. Concessare
debebat. Æmulum. Derogaretur. Nutabat. Census. In Creatore
christianizet. Obduxeris. For
this sense of the word, see Apol. 1. sub init. “sed
obducimur,” etc. Sacramenti. Definito. That is,
“inspired.” Nihil retractare
oportebat. [Kaye, p. 274.]
But how shall (this) Antichrist be fully
overthrown unless we relax our defence by mere prescription, In his book,
De Præscrip. Hæret., [cap. xv.] Tertullian had
enjoined that heretics ought not to be argued with, but to be met with
the authoritative rule of the faith. He here proposes to forego
that course. Marcion’s
Docetic doctrine of Christ as having only appeared in
human shape, without an actual incarnation, is indignantly confuted by
Tertullian in his De Carne Christi, c.v. That is, the principle
in question—the bonitas Dei. Exinde agens. Obvenientia. Jugis. Susciperet. Despiceret. Destitueret. That is,
Marcion’s god’s. Censetur. Quandoque. Aliquando. Cruciare. Rescribetur. Sævitias. Arbusculæ. Si ut? Accessione. Ingenio. Nunc. [Comp.
chapter xv. supra, p. 282.]
Chapter XXIII.—God’s Attribute of Goodness Considered as Rational. Marcion’s God Defective Here Also; His Goodness Irrational and Misapplied.
Here is another rule for him. All the properties
of God ought to be as rational as they are natural. I require reason in
His goodness, because nothing else can properly be accounted good than
that which is rationally good; much less can goodness itself be
detected in any irrationality. More easily will an evil thing which has
something rational belonging to it be accounted good, than that a good
thing bereft of all reasonable quality should escape being regarded as
evil. Now I deny that the goodness of Marcion’s god is rational,
on this account first, because it proceeded to the salvation of a human
creature which was alien to him. I am aware of the plea which they will
adduce, that that is rather Atquin. Familiaritatis. This is the sense of
the passage as read by Oehler: “Antecedit autem debita indebitam,
ut principalis, ut dignior ministra et comite sua, id est
indebita.” Fr. Junius, however, added the word
“prior” which begins the next sentence to these words,
making the last clause run thus: “ut dignior ministra, et comite
sua, id est indebita, prior”—“as being more worthy of
an attendant, and as being prior to its companion, that is, the undue
benevolence.” It is difficult to find any good use of the
“prior” in the next sentence, “Prior igitur cum prima
bonitatis ratio sit,” etc., as Oehler and others point it. In rem suam. Redundavit. Ratio ipsa, i.e.,
rationality, or the character of reasonableness, which he is now
vindicating. Alio modo
destructus. Cujus est res. Justitia,
right as opposed to the wrong (injuria) of the
preceding sentence. Pro domestico, opposed
to the pro extraneo, the alien or stranger of the preceding and
succeeding context. Assertor. Nedum. Plagiator. i.e., the Creator. Oro te. Alii Deo. The strength
of this phrase is remarkable by the side of the oft-repeated
aliena. Therefore
Christians used to lift their hands and arms towards heaven in prayer.
Compare The Apology, chap. 30, (where the manibus
expansis betokens the open hand, not merely as the heathen
tendens ad sidera palmas). See also De Orat. c. 13,
and other passages from different writers referred to in the
“Tertullian” of the Oxford Library of the Fathers,
p. 70. [See the figures in the Catacombs as represented by
Parker, Marriott and others.] To the same
effect Irenæus had said: “How will it be consistent in them
to hold that the bread on which thanks are given is the body of their
Lord, and that the cup is His blood, if they do not acknowledge that He
is the Son of the Creator of the world, that is, the Word of
God?” (Rigalt.) [The consecrated bread is still
bread, in Patristic theology.] Operatur, a not
unfrequent use of the word. Thus Prudentius (Psychom. 572)
opposes operatio to avaritia.
Chapter XXIV.—The Goodness of Marcion’s God Only Imperfectly Manifested; It Saves But Few, and the Souls Merely of These. Marcion’s Contempt of the Body Absurd.
But as God is eternal and rational, so, I think,
He is perfect in all things. “Be ye perfect, even as your Father
which is in heaven is perfect.” Traducetur. Nec jam. Immo. Minor numero. Non fiunt salvi.
[Kaye, p. 347.] Pauciores. Partiaria exitii. Non facit salvos. Si forte (i.e.,
εἰ
τύχοι εἴπερ
ἄρα, with a touch of irony,— a frequent
phrase in Tertullian. Anima tenus.
Comp.De Præscr. Hær. 33, where Marcion, as well as
Apelles, Valentinus, and others, are charged with the Sadducean denial
of the resurrection of the flesh, which is censured by St. Paul,
Compare De
Præscr. Hær. 33, where Marcion and Apelles are brought
under St. Paul’s reproach in Hactenus. [Kaye, p.
260.] Animalis (from
anima, the vital principle, “the breath of life”) is
here opposed to corporalis. הָאָרָם,
homo, from הָאֲרַמָה,
humus, the ground; see the Hebrew of Febricitas. Offensum, probably in
respect of the Marcionite treatment of His attributes.
Chapter XXV.—God is Not a Being of Simple Goodness; Other Attributes Belong to Him. Marcion Shows Inconsistency in the Portraiture of His Simply Good and Emotionless God.
As touching this question of goodness, we have in
these outlines of our argument shown it to be in no way compatible with
Deity,—as being neither natural, Ingenitam. In chap.
xxii. this word seems to be synonymous with naturalem. Comp.
book ii. 3, where it has this sense in the phrase “Deo
ingenita.” Improbam. Appendicibus. Affectavit. Ruminans. Judiciarias vires. De ceteris
motibus. Nec necessario. Retro. Concussibilis.
Concupiscentiæ. (i.e., Marcion’s
god.) Porro. Æmulatione. Denique. Scilicet. Officiales
suæ. Suis dotibus. Administratur. Præscribatur. Defendemus.
Chapter XXVI.—In the Attribute of Justice, Marcion’s God is Hopelessly Weak and Ungodlike. He Dislikes Evil, But Does Not Punish Its Perpetration.
But it is here sufficient that the extreme
perversity of their god is proved from the mere exposition of his
lonely goodness, in which they refuse to ascribe to him such emotions
of mind as they censure in the Creator. Now, if he is susceptible
of no feeling of rivalry, or anger, or damage, or injury, as one who
refrains from exercising judicial power, I cannot tell how any system
of discipline—and that, too, a plenary one—can be
consistent in him. For how is it possible that he should issue
commands, if he does not mean to execute them; or forbid sins, if he
intends not to punish them, but rather to decline the functions of the
judge, as being a stranger to all notions of severity and judicial
chastisement? For why does he forbid the commission of that which he
punishes not when perpetrated? It would have been far more right, if he
had not forbidden what he meant not to punish, than that he should
punish what he had not forbidden. Nay, it was his duty even to have
permitted what he was about to prohibit in so unreasonable a way, as to
annex no penalty to the offence. Ut non defensurus.
Defendo = vindico. See Oehler’s note for other instances.
He takes no offence, therefore his will is not
wronged, although that is done which he was unwilling to have done; and
the transgression is now committed with the acquiescence of Secundum. Pronunciavit.
Chapter XXVII.—Dangerous Effects to Religion and Morality of the Doctrine of So Weak a God.
Again, he plainly judges evil by not willing it,
and condemns it by prohibiting it; while, on the other hand, he acquits
it by not avenging it, and lets it go free by not punishing it. What a
prevaricator of truth is such a god! What a dissembler with his own
decision! Afraid to condemn what he really condemns, afraid to hate
what he does not love, permitting that to be done which he does not
allow, choosing to indicate what he dislikes rather than deeply examine
it! This will turn out an imaginary goodness, a phantom of discipline,
perfunctory in duty, careless in sin. Listen, ye sinners; and ye who
have not yet come to this, hear, that you may attain to such a pass! A
better god has been discovered, who never takes offence, is never
angry, never inflicts punishment, who has prepared no fire in hell, no
gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness! He is purely and simply good.
He indeed forbids all delinquency, but only in word. He is in you, if
you are willing to pay him homage, Obsequium
subsignare. Legitimus. Propter
disciplinam. Plagiarii. The
Plagiarius is the ἀνδραποδιστής
or the ψυχαγωγός of
Alex. Greek. This “man-stealing” profession was often
accompanied with agreeable external accomplishments. Nempe ψυχαγωγοί,
quia blandis et mellitis verbis servos alienos sollicitant, et ad se
alliciunt. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. λύκοι
ἅρπαγες
προβάτων
κωδίοις
ἐγκεκρυμμένοι,
ἀνδραποδιστοί
τε καὶ
ψυχαγωγοὶ
εὐγλῶσσοι,
κλέπτοντες
μὲν ἀφανῶς,
κ.τ.λ.—Desid. Herald. Animad. ad Arnobium, p.
101. Comp.
Apology, 38. Absit, inquis, absit.
[i.e., the throwing of a grain of incense into the censer, before the
Emperor’s image or that of a heathen god.]
Chapter XXVIII.—This Perverse Doctrine Deprives Baptism of All Its Grace. If Marcion Be Right, the Sacrament Would Confer No Remission of Sins, No Regeneration, No Gift of the Spirit.
And what will happen to him after he is cast away?
He will, they say, be thrown into the Creator’s fire. Then
has no remedial provision been made (by their god) for the purpose of
banishing those that sin against him, without resorting to the cruel
measure of delivering them over to the Creator? And what will the
Creator then do? I suppose He will prepare for them a hell doubly
charged with brimstone, Sulphuratiorem
gehennam. Ita neminem. Suffectura. A
something whereon the Spirit may operate; so that the Spirit has a
præfectura over the anima. [Kaye, p. 179.] Resignatum. Tertullian
here yields to his love of antithesis, and makes almost nonsense of
signo and resigno. The latter verb has the meaning
violate (in opposition to signo, in the phrase
virgo signata, a pure unviolated virgin). Apud se. Apud se. Exsortem salutis.
Chapter XXIX.—Marcion Forbids Marriage. Tertullian Eloquently Defends It as Holy, and Carefully Discriminates Between Marcion’s Doctrine and His Own Montanism.
The flesh is not, according to Marcion, immersed
in the water of the sacrament, unless it be Free from all
matrimonial impurity. Spadonibus. This
word is more general in sense than eunuch, embracing such as are
impotent both by nature and by castration, White and Riddle’s
Lat. Dict. s.v.
Tertullian’s Montanism appears here. i.e., abstinence from
marriage. Sectando. [This,
indeed, seems to be a fair statement of Patristic doctrine concerning
marriage. As to our author’s variations see Kaye, p.
378.] Universum
conditionis. Causa in its
proper sense is, “that through which anything takes place;”
its just and normal state, therefore. Culpa is the derangement
of the cause; some flaw in it. Ratio. In fide. Tertullian
uses (De Pud. 18) “ante fidem” as synonymous
with ante baptismum; similarly “post
fidem.” [Bad as this is, does
it argue the lapse of our author as at this time complete?] This is the force of
the erit instead of the past tense. Isses in, i.e.,
obstitisses, check or resist, for then Marcion
would, of course, not have been born: the common text has
esses in. Tertullian has
discussed these “definitions” in chap. ii. vii., and the
“conditions” from chap. viii. onward. He will
“examine the Scripture” passages in books iv. and v.
Fr. Junius. Statuum.
Book
II. [Contains no marks of
Montanism of a decisive nature. Kaye, p. 54.]
Wherein Tertullian shows that the creator, or demiurge, whom Marcion calumniated, is the true and good God.
————————————
Chapter I.—The Methods of Marcion’s Argument Incorrect and Absurd. The Proper Course of the Argument.
The occasion of
reproducing this little work, the fortunes of which we noticed in the
preface of our first book, has furnished us with the opportunity of
distinguishing, in our treatment of the subject of two Gods in
opposition to Marcion, each of them with a description and section of
his own, according to the division of the subject-matter, defining one
of the gods to have no existence at all, and maintaining of the Other
that He is rightly Digne. From the dignity of
the supreme Godhead. Snbruere. Propria paratura. With the tanto
(answering to the previous quanto) should be understood
magis, a frequent omission in our author. Cura in. Inciderat.
Chapter II.—The True Doctrine of God the Creator. The Heretics Pretended to a Knowledge of the Divine Being, Opposed to and Subversive of Revelation. God’s Nature and Ways Past Human Discovery. Adam’s Heresy.
We have now, then, cleared our way to the
contemplation of the Almighty God, the Lord and Maker of the universe.
His greatness, as I think, is shown in this, that from the beginning He
made Himself known: He never hid Himself, but always shone out
brightly, even before the time of Romulus, to say nothing of that of
Tiberius; with the exception indeed that the heretics, and they alone,
know Him not, although they take such pains about Him. They on this
account suppose that another god must be assumed to exist, because they
are more able to censure than deny Him whose existence is so evident,
deriving all their thoughts about God from the deductions of sense;
just as if some blind man, or a man of imperfect vision, Fluitantibus
oculis. Quem videat non
videt. Temperat. Cæcutis. Quin potius
parcis. In periculum
extenderis. Ut sciens. Ut nesciens. Quasi sciens. Retractares. Omnifariam. Comp. Sic non debuit
Deus. This perhaps may mean, God ought not to have done
this, etc. Consultiores. Pusillus. That is, the natural
man, the ψυχικός. Animali = ψυχικῷ. Electionem. By this
word our author translates the Greek αἵρεσις. Comp. De
Præscr. Her. 6, p. 245, supra. Si forte.
Chapter III.—God Known by His Works. His Goodness Shown in His Creative Energy; But Everlasting in Its Nature; Inherent in God, Previous to All Exhibition of It. The First Stage of This Goodness Prior to Man.
It will therefore be right for us, as we enter on the
examination of the known God, when That is, “the
goodness” of God. Agnitionis,
their Gnostic scheme. Denique. This particle
refers back to the argument previous to its interruption by the
allusion to Marcion and his followers. Fructus, the enjoyment
of God’s works. Apparebat. [Was not
manifest.] Commisit in. Obventiciæ
bonitatis. Provocaticiæ
animationis. Immensa. Interminabili. Deo ingenita
“Natural to,” or “inherent in.” Perpetua. [Truly, a
sublime Theodicy.] Suffundens jam
hinc.
Chapter IV.—The Next Stage Occurs in the Creation of Man by the Eternal Word. Spiritual as Well as Physical Gifts to Man. The Blessings of Man’s Free-Will.
The goodness of God having, therefore, provided
man for the pursuit of the knowledge of Himself, added this to its
original notification, Præconio suo.
Postmodum…postmodum. See Bp. Bull on
The State of Man before the Fall, Works, ii.
73–81. Habitaculum majus. “Eructavit cor.
meum Sermonem optimum” is Tertullian’s reading of
Dispungens, i.e.,
examinans et probans et ita quasi consummans (Oehler). This twofold virtue is
very tersely expressed: “Sic et benedicebat quæ
benefaciebat.” This, the translator
fears, is only a clumsy way of representing the terseness of our
author’s “maledicere” and
“malefacere.” Bonitas et quidem
operantior. Blandiente. Præfecit. Delicias. Totius orbis
possidens. There is a profound
thought here; in his tract, De Pœnit. 10, he says,
“Where one or two are, is the church, and
the church is Christ.” Hence what he here calls Adam’s
“higher delights,” even spiritual blessings in Christ with
Eve. [Important note in Kaye, p. 304.] See Sexum Mariæ. For
the Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ, the Saviour of men; and the
virgin mother the Church, the spouse of Christ, gives birth to
Christians (Rigalt.). Arguis. Ex fastidio
liberis. Porro si.
Chapter V.—Marcion’s Cavils Considered. His Objection Refuted, I.e., Man’s Fall Showed Failure in God. The Perfection of Man’s Being Lay in His Liberty, Which God Purposely Bestowed on Him. The Fall Imputable to Man’s Own Choice.
Now then, ye dogs, whom the apostle puts
outside, Articulo. He refers to
Hermogenes; see Adv. Hermog. chap. xxxii. Vel…vel. Quanquam. As the Marcionites
alleged. Signatus est. Animæ. Nec alias nisi.
Chapter VI.—This Liberty Vindicated in Respect of Its Original Creation; Suitable Also for Exhibiting the Goodness and the Purpose of God. Reward and Punishment Impossible If Man Were Good or Evil Through Necessity and Not Choice.
But although we shall be understood, from our
argument, to be only so affirming man’s unshackled power over his
will, that what happens to him should be laid to his own charge, and
not to God’s, yet that you may not object, even now, that he
ought not to have been so constituted, since his liberty and power of
will might turn out to be injurious, I will first of all maintain that
he was rightly so constituted, that I may with the greater confidence
commend both his actual constitution, and the additional fact of its
being worthy of the Divine Being; the cause which led to man’s
being created with such a constitution being shown to be the better
one. Moreover, man thus constituted will be protected by both the
goodness of God and by His purpose, Ratio, or, “His
reason.” We have used both words, which are equally suitable to
the Divine Being, as seemed most convenient. Irrationaliter, or,
“irrationally.” See above, book i.
chap. xxiii. p. 288. Utique. Rationale, or,
“consistent with His purpose.” Suæ
potestatis. Substantia. Accommodata. Status. Suæ
potestatis. Sed et alias. Quale erat. Animi sui
possessione. Dignatione. Ex dispositione. The
same as the “universa disponendo” above. Institutione. Bonum jam suum, not
bonitatem. Emancipatum. Libripens. The
language here is full of legal technicalities, derived from the Roman
usage in conveyance of property. “Libripens quasi arbiter
mancipationis” (Rigalt.). Quoniam (with a subj.)
et hoc. Bonus consisteret. Ita demum. Proinde. Fortior. Meritis. Constituta est. Our author’s
word invenitur (in the singular) combines the bonitas and
ratio in one view. The verb is
subj., “deceret.” Sed, with
oportet understood. Recogitata. [Again, a
noble Theodicy.]
Chapter VII.—If God Had Anyhow Checked Man’s Liberty, Marcion Would Have Been Ready with Another and Opposite Cavil. Man’s Fall Foreseen by God. Provision Made for It Remedially and Consistently with His Truth and Goodness.
By such a conclusion all is reserved Salva. Gravitatem. Sed, for scilicet, not
unfrequent with our author. That is, from the
Marcionite position referred to in the second sentence of this chapter,
in opposition to that of Tertullian which follows. Si non bene
dispunxisset. Peroraturus. Tibi insusurra pro
Creatore. Functo.
Chapter VIII.—Man, Endued with Liberty, Superior to the Angels, Overcomes Even the Angel Which Lured Him to His Fall, When Repentant and Resuming Obedience to God.
For it was not merely that he might live the
natural life that God had produced man, but Ut non, “as if
he were not,” etc. [On capp. viii.
and ix. See Kaye’s references in notes p. 178 et
seqq.]
Chapter IX.—Another Cavil Answered, I.e., the Fall Imputable to God, Because Man’s Soul is a Portion of the Spiritual Essence of the Creator. The Divine Afflatus Not in Fault in the Sin of Man, But the Human Will Which Was Additional to It.
But, you say, in what way soever the substance of the
Creator is found to be susceptible of fault, when the afflatus
of God, that is to say, the soul, Anima, for
animus. This meaning seems required throughout this passage,
where afterwards occurs the phrase immortalis anima. Qualitas. Πνοήν, not πνεῦμα; so the
Vulgate has spiraculum, not spiritum. [Kaye (p.
247) again refers to Profr. Andrews Norton of Harvard for valuable
remarks concerning the use of the word spiritus by the ancients.
Evidences, Vol. III. p. 160, note 7.] Infuscandi. Aurulam. Veritati. Plerumque. Non deliquendi
felicitatem. Ceterum. Et alias autem. Denique. Hoc ipsum, referring
to the noluit of the preceding clause. Agitatum. Dispositio. Utique.
Chapter X.—Another Cavil Met, I.e., the Devil Who Instigated Man to Sin Himself the Creature of God. Nay, the Primeval Cherub Only Was God’s Work. The Devilish Nature Superadded by Wilfulness. In Man’s Recovery the Devil is Vanquished in a Conflict on His Own Ground.
If, however, you choose to transfer the
account Elogium. Ergo. Delator. Deferendo, in
reference to the word delator, our author’s synonyme for
διάβολος. Nisi. Nisi. Læsuræ
="injuries.” ᾽Αδικήματα
ἔν σοι—Iniquitates in
te.”—Hieron. Censum. Forma. Sustinens. [Kaye. p. 313.]
Chapter XI.—If, After Man’s Sin, God Exercised His Attribute of Justice and Judgment, This Was Compatible with His Goodness, and Enhances the True Idea of the Perfection of God’s Character.
Up to the fall of man, therefore, from the
beginning God was simply good; after that He became a judge both severe
and, as the Marcionites will have it, cruel. Woman is at once condemned
to bring forth in sorrow, and to serve her husband, Secura. Secundum. Secundum. Accommodata. Rei. Æmulum. Tutela.
Chapter XII.—The Attributes of Goodness and Justice Should Not Be Separated. They are Compatible in the True God. The Function of Justice in the Divine Being Described.
Since, therefore, there is this union and
agreement between goodness and justice, you cannot prescribe Cavere. This is
Oehler’s reading, and best suits the sense of the passage and the
style of our author. Habitus. Auctrice. Obventiciam.
Chapter XIII.—Further Description of the Divine Justice; Since the Fall of Man It Has Regulated the Divine Goodness. God’s Claims on Our Love and Our Fear Reconciled.
But yet, when evil afterwards broke out, and the
goodness of God began now to have an adversary to contend against,
God’s justice also acquired another function, even that of
directing His goodness according to men’s application for
it. Secundum
adversionem. Procuratio. Sævit. Commendari. Prospicit. De ejusmodi.
Chapter XIV.—Evil of Two Kinds, Penal and Criminal. It is Not of the Latter Sort that God is the Author, But Only of the Former, Which are Penal, and Included in His Justice.
On all occasions does God meet you: it is He who
smites, but also heals; who kills, but also makes alive; who humbles,
and yet exalts; who “creates Condens. See Hospitis populi
conflictatricem. Subministrari.
In Apol. ii., the verb ministrare is used to
indicate Satan’s power in influencing men. [The translator here
corrects his own word seduced and I have substituted his better
word influenced. The Lord gave him over to Satan’s
influence.]
Chapter XV.—The Severity of God Compatible with Reason and Justice. When Inflicted, Not Meant to Be Arbitrary, But Remedial.
Consider well, Dispice. Ratio. Nam et si. Compulerat. Sine adhuc. Edomita, cf.
chap. xix. sub init. and xxix. Omnis providentia.
Chapter XVI.—To the Severity of God There Belong Accessory Qualities, Compatible with Justice. If Human Passions are Predicated of God, They Must Not Be Measured on the Scale of Human Imperfection.
Even His severity then is good, because just: when
the judge is good, that is just. Other qualities likewise are good, by
means of which the good work of a good severity runs out its course,
whether wrath, or jealousy, Æmulatio. Sævitia. Debita. Exprobrari. Proinde est enim. Erudimur. Habitus. Curare. [See Vol. II. p. 71
(this series), for an early example of this Communicatio
idiomatum.] Status. Pariter. Præsumitis. [So
of generation, Sonship, etc.] Periclitabitur. Evertetur. Præstantiam,
“Qua scilicet præstat præmia vel supplicia”
(Rigalt.). Condecet.
Chapter XVII.—Trace God’s Government in History and in His Precepts, and You Will Find It Full of His Goodness.
These considerations show that the entire order of
God as Judge is an operative one, and (that I may express myself in
worthier words) protective of His Catholic Catholic,
because diffused throughout creation (Pamelius). Optimi. Indulget. Posteritas. Erudiretur. Refrigeria.
[
Chapter XVIII.—Some of God’s Laws Defended as Good, Which the Marcionites Impeached, Such as the Lex Talionis. Useful Purposes in a Social and Moral Point of View of This, and Sundry Other Enactments.
But what parts of the law can I defend as good
with a greater confidence than those which heresy has shown such a
longing for?—as the statute of retaliation, requiring eye for
eye, tooth for tooth, and stripe for stripe. Repastinaretur. Æstuata. Qua et alias. Ventris. Operationes. Industriam.
Chapter XIX.—The Minute Prescriptions of the Law Meant to Keep the People Dependent on God. The Prophets Sent by God in Pursuance of His Goodness. Many Beautiful Passages from Them Quoted in Illustration of This Attribute.
But even in the common transactions of life, and
of human intercourse at home and in public, even to the care of the
smallest vessels, He in every possible manner made distinct
arrangement; in order that, when they everywhere encountered these
legal instructions, they might not be at any moment out of the sight of
God. For what could better tend to make a man happy, than having
“his delight in the law of the Lord?” “In that law
would he meditate day and night.” Edomantis, cf. chap.
xv. sub fin. and xxix. Pupillo. Quæstiones,
alluding to Alluding to
A lax quotation,
perhaps, of the next clause in the same verse: “Break every
yoke.” Comp. Præmissa.
Chapter XX.—The Marcionites Charged God with Having Instigated the Hebrews to Spoil the Egyptians. Defence of the Divine Dispensation in that Matter.
But these “saucy cuttles” Sepiæ
isti. Pliny, in his Nat. Hist. ix. 29, says:
“The males of the cuttles kind are spotted with sundry colours
more dark and blackish, yes, and more firme and steady, than the
female. If the female be smitted with the trout-speare, they will come
to succour her; but she again is not so kind to them: for if the male
be stricken, she will not stand to it, but runs away. But both of them,
if they perceive that they be taken in such streights that they cannot
escape, shed from them a certain black humor like to ink; and when the
water therewith is troubled and made duskish, therein they hide
themselves, and are no more seen” (Holland’s
Translation, p. 250). Our epithet “saucy
cuttle” comes from Shakespeare, 2 Henry iv 2, 4, where, however, the word seems employed in a
different sense. Relucentem,
“rekindled” by the confutation. Vasa = the
jewels and the raiment mentioned in Nomine. [Here our
author exhibits his tact as a jurisconsult.] Villis. Elector. For a discussion
of the spoiling of the Egyptians by the Israelites, the reader is
referred to Calmet’s Commentary, on Tamen. Amplius. Singulis nummis.
[Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 23. Vol. II., p. 336,
supra.] Gratia Hebræorum,
either a reference to Popularium omnium. Expunxit.
Chapter XXI.—The Law of the Sabbath-Day Explained. The Eight Days’ Procession Around Jericho. The Gathering of Sticks a Violation.
Similarly on other points also, you reproach Him
with fickleness and instability for contradictions in His commandments,
such as that He forbade work to be done on Sabbath-days, and yet at the
siege of Jericho ordered the ark to be carried round the walls during
eight days; in other words, of course, actually on a Sabbath. You do
not, however, consider the law of the Sabbath: they are human works,
not divine, which it prohibits. Figuras. De absolutis. [He was not punished
for gathering sticks, but for setting an example of contempt of the
Divine Law.]
Chapter XXII.—The Brazen Serpent and the Golden Cherubim Were Not Violations of the Second Commandment. Their Meaning.
Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be
made of all things which are in heaven, and in earth, and in the
waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all
material exhibition Substantiam. Cæcæ. Titulum. [See Vol. II.
p. 477, this series.] See Exemplum. Refragari. Statu. In chap. xviii.
towards the end. [p. 311, supra.] An inexact quotation
of Honorem. Infuscabit. Titulus. See Fecerat
seems the better reading: q.d. “which he had
performed,” etc. Oehler reads fecerant.
Now, although you will have it that He is
inconstant Levem. Damnet. Atquin. Or, “for one who
is a good man and a judge.” Dispungetur. Censura.
Chapter XXIV.—Instances of God’s Repentance, and Notably in the Case of the Ninevites, Accounted for and Vindicated.
Furthermore, with respect to the repentance which
occurs in His conduct, Apud illum. Porro. Onerabat. Invidiosam. Criminosam. Titulum. Malitiæ
concursum. Non capit. Nunc. Infamiam. See above, chap.
xiv. [p. 308, supra.] Malitia, i.e.,
“the evil” mentioned in the cited Thus, according to St.
Jerome, in In isto articulo. Atqui hic. Or, “in his
capacity as Judge,” ex justitia. Immo. Ingratia. Relucet. Nedum.
Chapter XXV.—God’s Dealings with Adam at the Fall, and with Cain After His Crime, Admirably Explained and Defended.
It is now high time that I should, in order to
meet all Ut omnia expediam. Purgandas. Pusillitates. Immo. Sugillatione. Dolendi. Oculatiorem. Præterire. Naso. Hoc nomine. Relevandi. Ex ore tuo, “out
of thine own mouth.” Propter statum
legis. Ipsum. [Comp.
Relevatos.
Chapter XXVI.—The Oath of God: Its Meaning. Moses, When Deprecating God’s Wrath Against Israel, a Type of Christ.
But God also swears. Well, is it, I wonder, by the
God of Marcion? No, no, he says; a much vainer oath—by
Himself! See Deprehendis. Extorquens. Pusillus. An allusion to, rather
than a quotation of, Non sineret. Quantum liceat.
Chapter XXVII.—Other Objections Considered. God’s Condescension in the Incarnation. Nothing Derogatory to the Divine Being in This Economy. The Divine Majesty Worthily Sustained by the Almighty Father, Never Visible to Man. Perverseness of the Marcionite Cavils.
And now, that I may briefly pass in
review Absolvam. Ad destructionem. Ratione. Indigna. Diversatum. Conditionis. Pusillitates. Patibulis. i.e., the sensations
of our emotional nature. Ejus Dei. Ipsum. Ipsum. Congressum. On this mode of the
eternal generation of the Son from the Father, as the Λόγος
προφορικός, the reader is referred for much patristic information to Bp.
Bull’s Defensio Fid. Nic. (trans. in Anglo-Cath.
Library by the translator of this work). Proferendo ex semet
ipso. Voluntati. Ediscens,
“practising” or “rehearsing.” This doctrine of
theology is more fully expressed by our author in a fine passage in his
Treatise against Praxeas, xvi. (Oehler, vol. ii. p. 674), of
which the translator gave this version in Bp. Bull’s Def. Nic.
Creed, vol. i. p. 18: “The Son hath executed judgment from
the beginning, throwing down the haughty tower, and dividing the
tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining
upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone ‘the Lord from the Lord.’
For he it was who at all times came down to hold converse with men,
from Adam on to the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream,
in mirror, in dark saying; ever from the beginning laying the
foundation of the course (of His dispensations), which He meant to
follow out unto the end. Thus was He ever learning (practising or
rehearsing); and the God who conversed with men upon earth could be no
other than the Word, which was to be made flesh. But He was thus
learning (or rehearsing, ediscebat) in order to level for
us the way of faith, that we might the more readily believe that the
Son of God had come down into the world, if we knew that in times past
also something similar had been done.” The original thus opens:
“Filius itaque est qui ab initio
judicavit.” This the author connects with
Penes nos. Christians,
not Marcionites. [Could our author have regarded himself as formally at
war with the church, at this time?] Ex æquo
agebat. In the 1st book, 25th
and following chapters. Sævum.
Chapter XXVIII.—The Tables Turned Upon Marcion, by Contrasts, in Favour of the True God.
Now, touching the weaknesses and malignities, and
the other (alleged), notes (of the Creator), I too shall advance
antitheses in rivalry to Marcion’s. If my God knew not of
any other superior to Himself, your god also was utterly unaware that
there was any beneath himself. It is just what Heraclitus “the
obscure” Tenebrosus.
Cicero, De finibus, ii. says: “Heraclitus qui
cognomento Σκοτεινὸς
perhibetur, quia de natura nimis obscure memoravit.” Sursam et deorsum. An
allusion to Heraclitus’ doctrine of constant change, flux and
reflux, out of which all things came. Καὶ τὴν
μεταβολὴν
ὁδὸν ἄνω
κάτω, τόν τε
κόσμον
γίνεσθαι
κατὰ ταύτην,
κ.τ.λ. “Change is the way up and down; the
world comes into being thus,” etc. (Diogenes Laertius, ix.
8). Sententias. Dissimulationes. Non nisi emendata. Non repercussus. Mentitum. Non verum. An allusion
to the Docetism of Marcion. Nihil deliquit in
Christum, that is, Marcion’s Christ. Paucis amat.
Chapter XXIX.—Marcion’s Own Antitheses, If Only the Title and Object of the Work Be Excepted, Afford Proofs of the Consistent Attributes of the True God.
But I would have attacked Marcion’s own
Antitheses in closer and fuller combat, if a more elaborate
demolition of them were required in maintaining for the Creator the
character of a good God and a Judge, after Secundum. Ingeniorum. Enim. i.e.,
Marcion’s Antitheses. Antitheses so
called because Marcion in it had set passages out of the O.T. and the
N.T. in opposition to each other, intending his readers to infer from
the apparent disagreement that the law and the gospel were not from the
same author (Bp. Kaye on Tertullian, p. 468). Pro rebus
edomitis. See chap. xv. and xix., where he refers to the
law as the subduing instrument. Repercussus: perhaps
“refuted.” Exclusus. Ab omni motu
amariore. Singulas species, a
law term. Arbustiores. A
figurative word, taken from vines more firmly supported on trees
instead of on frames. He has used the word indomitis above
to express his meaning. Rationali. Compare
chap. vi. of this book, where the “ratio,” or
purpose of God, is shown to be consistent with His goodness in
providing for its highest development in man’s interest. Ratione: in reference
to God’s ratio or purpose in creation. See chap. vi.
note 10. [p. 301, supra.]
Wherein Christ is shown to be the Son of God, Who created the world; to have been predicted by the prophets; to have taken human flesh like our own, by a real incarnation.
————————————
Chapter I.—Introductory; A Brief Statement of the Preceding Argument in Connection with the Subject of This Book.
Following the track of my
original treatise, the loss of which we are steadily
proceeding Perseveramus. Ex abundanti. i.e., “as the
Son of, or sent by, no other God.” i.e., “was the
Son of, or sent by, no other God.” Recensu. [Surely Tertullian,
when he wrote this, imagined himself not separated formally from the
Apostolic churches. Of which see De Præscriptione,
(p. 258) supra.] Ubi
posteritas invenitur. Compare De Præscript.
Hæret. 34, where Tertullian refers to “that definite
rule, before laid down, touching ‘the later date’
(illo fine supra dicto posteritatis), whereby they
(i.e., certain novel opinions) would at once be condemned on the ground
of their age alone.” In 31 of the same work he contrasts
“posteritatem mendacitatis” with
“principalitatem veritatis”—“the latter
date of falsehood” with “the primary date of
truth.” [pp. 258, 260, supra.] See book i. chap.
1. Non ut laborantem.
“Qui enim laborant non totis sed fractis utuntur viribus.”
Πανστρατιᾷ
πανσυδίῃ; Anglice,
“with all her might.” In præscript.
compendiis vincit. Ut gestientem.
Chapter II.—Why Christ’s Coming Should Be Previously Announced.
Coming then at once to the point, Hinc denique. As Marcion makes
Him. Profiteretur. Patrocinium. Defendit,
“insist on it.” Suggestu. Mandator. Dispositione,
“its being ordered or arranged.” Parabatur. Per fidem
profuturum. Indiceretur. Agnitione. Prædicatione,
“prophecy.”
Chapter III.—Miracles Alone, Without Prophecy, an Insufficient Evidence of Christ’s Mission.
A procedure Ordo. Virtutum,
“miracles.” Exauctoravit. Auctore. Proinde. Cludet,
quasi claudet. Repromissis in. Tantummodo nova. Egentia experimentis
fidei victricis vetustatis. i.e., through
God’s announcement by prophecy.
Chapter IV.—Marcion’s Christ Not the Subject of Prophecy. The Absurd Consequences of This Theory of the Heretic.
He Your God. Ipse. Ejus (i.e. Marcionis)
Dominum, meaning Marcion’s God, who had not yet been
revealed. The Creator and His
Christ, as rivals of Marcion’s. He twits Marcion
with introducing his Christ on the scene too soon. He ought to
have waited until the Creator’s Christ (prophesied of
through the Old Testament) had come. Why allow him to be predicted, and
then forbid His actual coming, by his own arrival on the scene first?
Of course, M. must be understood to deny that the Christ of the New
Testament is the subject of the Old Testament prophecies at all.
Hence T.’s anxiety to adduce prophecy as the main evidence
of our Lord as being really the Creator’s Christ. Atquin. Vanus. The reader will
remember that Tertullian is here arguing on Marcion’s ground,
according to whom the Creator’s Christ, the Christ predicted
through the O.T., was yet to come. Marcion’s Christ, however, had
proved himself so weak to stem the Creator’s course, that he had
no means really of checking the Creator’s Christ from coming. It
had been better, adds Tertullian, if Marcion’s Christ had waited
for the Creator’s Christ to have first appeared. Marcion’s
Christ. Emendare. Revocare. Aut si. Posterior emendator
futurus: an instance of Tertullian’s style in paradox. Vero. Redarguens. Si forte.
Chapter V.—Sundry Features of the Prophetic Style: Principles of Its Interpretation.
These preliminary remarks I have ventured to
make Proluserim. [An important
principle, see Kaye, p. 325.] Familiare. Expunctum. Relaturus. Hæreticorum
apostolus. We have already referred to Marcion’s acceptance
of St. Paul’s epistles. It has been suggested that Tertullian in
the text uses hæreticorum apostolus as synonymous
with ethnicorum apostolus="apostle of the
Gentiles,” in which case allusion to St. Paul would of course be
equally clear. But this interpretation is unnecessary.
Chapter VI.—Community in Certain Points of Marcionite and Jewish Error. Prophecies of Christ’s Rejection Examined.
Since, therefore, there clearly exist these two
characteristics in the Jewish prophetic literature, let the reader
remember, “Remember, O
reader.” Constitisse. Sociari cum. Marcion. The model of wise
naval legislation, much of which found its way into the Roman
pandects. Symbol of barbarism
and ignorance—a heavy joke against the once seafaring
heretic. Ignoratus,
“rejected of men.” A supposed quotation
of This seems to be a
translation with a slight alteration of the LXX. version of Retro. Per ejusdem
substantiæ conditionem. He seems here to
allude to such statements of God’s being as Substantiam
prædictationis. Materiam. Alterius, “the
other,” i.e., Marcion’s rival God. Planum in signis, cf.
the Magnum in potestate of Apolog. 21. Æmulum, “a
rival,” i.e., to Moses. Nec hominem ejus ut
alienum judicaverunt, “His manhood they judged not to be
different.”
Chapter VII.—Prophecy Sets Forth Two Different Conditions of Christ, One Lowly, the Other Majestic. This Fact Points to Two Advents of Christ.
Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity
of learning the clue Rationem. Humilitate. A reference to, rather
than quotation from, Sicut puerulus,
“like a little boy,” or, “a sorry slave.” See Consummationem: an
allusion to See Joshua, i.e.,
Jesus. Podere. Cidari munda. See Jejunio, see
Circumdatus. Perhaps in reference
to Civitatem,
“city.” In perditionem. This treatment
of the scape-goat was partly ceremonial, partly disorderly. The Mischna
(Yoma vi. 4–6) mentions the scarlet ribbon which was bound
round the animal’s head between the horns, and the
“pulling” (rather plucking out of its hair); but this
latter was an indignity practised by scoffers and guarded against by
Jews. Tertullian repeats the whole of this passage, Adv. Jud.
xiv. Similar use is made of the type of the scape-goat by other
fathers, as Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph.) and Cyril of Alex.
(Epist. ad Acacium). In this book ix. Against Julian, he
expressly says: “Christ was described by the two goats,—as
dying for us in the flesh, and then (as shown by the scape-goat)
overcoming death in His divine nature.” See
Tertullian’s passages illustrated fully in Rabbi Chiga,
Addit. ad Cod. de die Expiat. (in Ugolini, Thes. i.
88). Quasi visceratione.
[See Kaye’s important comment, p. 426.] Jejunantibus.
Chapter VIII.—Absurdity of Marcion’s Docetic Opinions; Reality of Christ’s Incarnation.
Our heretic must now cease to borrow poison from
the Jew—“the asp,” as the adage runs, “from the
viper” So Epiphanius, adv.
Hæres. l. 23. 7, quotes the same proverb, ὡς
ἀσπὶς
παρ᾽ ἐχίδνης
ἰὸν
δανιζομένη.
[Tom. II. p. 144. Ed. Oehler.] As in his Docetic
views of the body of Christ. Mendacio. Congressus. Convictus. Demandat. Tam impresse,
“so strongly.” Valebit. Aufertur. Sane. Phantasmate
forsitan.
Chapter IX.—Refutation of Marcion’s Objections Derived from the Cases of the Angels, and the Pre-Incarnate Manifestations of the Son of God.
Now, in this discussion of yours, Ista. [See Kaye, p.
205.] [Pamelius attributes
this doctrine to Appelles a disciple of Marcion, of whom see Kaye, pp.
479, 480.] Mentiri. i.e., among the
angels. Reformaret. Commeatum.
Chapter X.—The Truly Incarnate State More Worthy of God Than Marcion’s Fantastic Flesh.
Therefore, since you are not permitted to resort
to any instances of the Creator, as alien from the subject, and
possessing special causes of their own, I should like you to state
yourself the design of your god, in exhibiting his Christ not in the
reality of flesh. If he despised it as earthly, and (as you express it)
full of dung, Stercoribus
infersam. A Marcionite
argument. Stropham, a
player’s trick; so in Spectac. 29. Alienis. Globum. Mendacio.
Chapter XI.—Christ Was Truly Born; Marcion’s Absurd Cavil in Defence of a Putative Nativity.
All these illusions of an imaginary corpo Corpulentiæ. This woman is called
in De Præscr. Hæret. 6, “an angel of
deceit,” and (in 30) “a virgin, but afterwards a monstrous
prostitute.” Our author adds: “Induced by her tricks and
miracles, Apelles introduced a new heresy.” See also Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl. v. 13; Augustin, De Hæres. 42;
Hieronymus, Epist. adv. Ctesiph. p. 477, tom. iv. ed.
Benedictin. Below, iv. 26; also in
De carne Christi, cap. vii. Expungendam,
“consummated,” a frequent use of the word in our
author. Viderit opinio
humana. Inflatæ. Sanguinis tributo. Plane, ironically
said. Turpissimum. Perora. Mendacio. Habitus. Carneus. Ex nativitate.
Chapter XII.—Isaiah’s Prophecy of Emmanuel. Christ Entitled to that Name.
And challenge us first, as is your wont, to consider
Isaiah’s description of Christ, while Cohærentia. Agitetur in
Christo.
Chapter XIII.—Isaiah’s Prophecies Considered. The Virginity of Christ’s Mother a Sign. Other Prophecies Also Signs. Metaphorical Sense of Proper Names in Sundry Passages of the Prophets.
You are equally led away by the sound of
names, Compare with this
chapter, T.’s adv. Judæos, 9. Jam hominem, jam virum
in Adv. Judæos, “at man’s
estate.” Lanceare ante quam
lancinare. This play on words points to the very early training of the
barbarian boys to war. Lancinare perhaps means, “to nibble
the nipple with the gum.” He alludes to the
suppling of their young joints with oil, and then drying them in the
sun. Pannis. Butyro. The tam dignum
of this place is “jam signum” in adv.
Judæos. Contineat. This opinion of Jews
and Judaizing heretics is mentioned by Irenæus, Adv.
Hæret. iii. 21 (Stieren’s ed. i. 532); Eusebius,
Hist. Eccles. v. 8; Jerome, Adv. Helvid. (ed. Benedict),
p. 132. Nor has the cavil ceased to be held, as is well known, to the
present day. The הָעַלְֹמָה
of Disposita. Et hic. Alius ordo jam
infantis. Infantia est. Better
in adv. Judæos, “est infantiæ.” The italicised words
we have added from adv. Judæos, “hoc est mirabile
signum.” Posterior.
Posteritas is an attribute of heresy in T.’s
view.
For besides the generally known fact, that the
riches of the East, that is to say, its strength and resources, usually
consist of gold and spices, it is certainly true of the Creator, that
He makes gold the riches of the other Ceterarum, other than
the Jews, i.e., Gentiles. See Otto’s
Justin Martyr, ii. 273, n. 23. [See Vol. I. p. 238,
supra.] Videlicet. The
Creatori here answers to the Scripturis divinis of
the parallel passage in adv. Judæos. Of course there
is a special force in this use of the Creator’s name here
against Marcion. To the sins of these
nations. Apud illum, i.e.,
Creatorem. Maledictionis.
Chapter XIV.—Figurative Style of Certain Messianic Prophecies in the Psalms. Military Metaphors Applied to Christ.
This interpretation of ours will derive
confirmation, when, on your supposing that Christ is in any passage
called a warrior, from the mention of certain arms and expressions of
that sort, you weigh well the analogy of their other meanings, and draw
your conclusions accordingly. “Gird on Thy sword,” says
David, “upon Thy thigh.” Literally,
“Advance, and prosper, and reign.” “Advance, and
prosper, and reign.” Exinde qua. Traductiones. Ejusmodi. Exempla.
Chapter XV.—The Title Christ Suitable as a Name of the Creator’s Son, But Unsuited to Marcion’s Christ.
Touching then the discussion of His flesh, and
(through that) of His nativity, and incidentally Interim. Ex dispositione.
This word seems to mean what is implied in the phrases,
“Christian dispensation,” “Mosaic
dispensation,” etc. Consignatur. Proprietatibus. Quintilian,
Inst. viii. 6, defines this as a figure “which lends a
name to things which have it not.” De alieno
abutendo. Senio. Passio. Adversus Creatorem, in
sui Dei nomine venientes. i.e., to the
Marcionite position.
Chapter XVI.—The Sacred Name Jesus Most Suited to the Christ of the Creator. Joshua a Type of Him.
Now if he caught at the name Christ, just
as the pickpocket clutches the dole-basket, why did he wish to be
called Jesus too, by a name which was not so much looked for by
the Jews? For although we, who have by God’s grace attained to
the understanding of His mysteries, acknowledge that this name
also was destined for Christ, yet, for all that, the fact was not known
to the Jews, from whom wisdom was taken away. To this day, in short, it
is Christ that they are looking for, not Jesus; and they interpret
Elias to be Christ rather than Jesus. He, therefore, who came also in a
name in which Christ was not expected, might have come only in that
name which was solely anticipated for Him. That is, Christ. Surely it is
Duo, not Deo. Constare. Incipit vocari. Secundum populum. Vir. Non celavit te,
“not concealed Himself from you.” Officium
prophetæ. Sacramentum. Identidem. Reliquus ordo. Obduximus.
Chapter XVII.—Prophecies in Isaiah and the Psalms Respecting Christ’s Humiliation.
Let us compare with Scripture the rest of His
dispensation. Whatever that poor despised body Corpusculum illud. Habitum. Conspectum. Puerulus,
“little child,” perhaps. Sentences out of
Intentionem. Momentaneum. Actum.
Prædicationis. Interim.
Chapter XVIII. Compare adv.
Judæos, chap. 10. [pp. 165, 166, supra.]
On the subject of His death, De exitu. Compare The words
“quiaet aliasantecedit rerum probatio rationem,”
seem to refer to the parallel passage in adv. Judæos, where
he has described the Jewish law of capital punishment, and argued for
the exemption of Christ from its terms. He begins that paragraph with
saying, “Sed hujus maledictionis sensum antecedit rerum
ratio.” [See, p. 164, supra.] Perhaps
rationale or procedure. Edocebo. Magis obumbrandum. But he may mean, by
“ne demorer cursum,” “that I may not
obstruct the course of the type,” by taking off attention from
its true force. In the parallel place, however, another turn is given
to the sense; Joseph is a type, “even on this
ground—that I may but briefly allude to it—that he
suffered,” etc. Census. Vanum. Spectaculum
salutare.
Chapter XIX.—Prophecies of the Death of Christ.
Come now, when you read in the words of David, how
that “the Lord reigneth from the tree,” Lignarium aliquem
regem. The
twenty-second Psalm. A.V. Canentis. Hæretica
duritia. Passionum,
literally sufferings, which would hardly give the
sense. Nisi. Quo magis
erubescat.
Et—et—et. Both His own and His
people’s.
Chapter XX. Comp. adv.
Judæos, 11 and 12.
It is sufficient for my purpose to have traced
thus far the course of Christ’s dispensation in these
particulars. This has proved Him to be such a one as prophecy announced
He should be, so that He ought not to be regarded in any other
character than that which prediction assigned to Him; and the result of
this agreement between the facts of His course and the Scriptures of
the Creator should be the restoration of belief in them from that
prejudice which has, by contributing to diversity of opinion, either
thrown doubt upon, or led to a denial of, a considerable part of them.
And now we go further and build up the superstructure of those kindred
events Ea paria. Evenire. Censum. [Kaye, p.
149.] Ventris,
“womb.” He treats
“body” as here meaning womb. Ipsius. Floruit ex. Viro deputare. The four books
of the Kings were sometimes regarded as two, “the
first” of which contained 1 and 2 Samuel, “the
second” 1 and 2 Kings. The reference in this place
is to He here again
makes bowels synonymous with womb. Magis. Habendus in. In
Chapter XXI.—The Call of the Gentiles Under the Influence of the Gospel Foretold.
So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a
basis for your difference between the two Christs, as if the Jewish
Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people
alone i.e., the Jews. Or perhaps, “are
found to belong to the Creator’s Christ, not to
Marcion’s.” Marcion denied
that there was any prophecy of national or Gentile conversion;
it was only the conversion of individual proselytes that he
held. Allectio. Exorta est. Sibynas, Σιβύνη·
ὅπλον δόρατι
παραπλήσιον. Hesychius, “Sibynam appellant Illyrii telum
venabuli simile.” Paulus, ex Festo, p. 336,
Müll. (Oehler.) Allectio. Junius explains the
author’s induxerunt by deleverunt; i.e., “they
annulled your opinion about proselytes being the sole called, by their
promulgation of the gospel.”
Chapter XXII.—The Success of the Apostles, and Their Sufferings in the Cause of the Gospel, Foretold.
You have the work of the apostles also predicted:
“How beautiful are the feet of them which preach the gospel of
peace, which bring good tidings of good,” Pamelius regards this
as a quotation from Atquin. Universæ. Comp. Exprobrat. [Ambiguous, according
to Kaye, p. 304, may mean a transition from Paganism to true
Christianity.] [Kaye remarks
that traditions of practice, unlike the traditions of doctrine,
may be varied according to times and circumstances. See p.
286.]
Chapter XXIII.—The Dispersion of the Jews, and Their Desolate Condition for Rejecting Christ, Foretold.
Now, since you join the Jews in denying that their
Christ has come, recollect also what is that end which they were
predicted as about to bring on themselves after the time of Christ, for
the impiety wherewith they both rejected and slew Him. For it began to
come to pass from that day, when, according to Isaiah, “a man
threw away his idols of gold and of silver, which they made into
useless and hurtful objects of worship;” Architectum,
Compare Adv.
Judæos, 13, p. 171, for a like statement. Exustionem. Defensus, perhaps
“claimed.” See Certe. Compare a
passage in the Apology, chap. xxi. p. 34,
supra. Jam vero. Admiserit per. Hoc affectavit. Plane.
Chapter XXIV.—Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints.
Yes, certainly, Immo. Apud inferos. Placatus. See below, in book iv.
chap. iv. Ita ut describitur,
i.e., in the literal sense. Persequi. Allegorica. Digestum. On the Hope of
the Faithful. This work, which is not extant (although its title
appears in one of the oldest mss. of
Tertullian, the Codex Agobardinus), is mentioned by St. Jerome
in his Commentary on Ezekiel, chap. xxxvi.; in the preface to
his Comment. on Isaiah, chap. xviii.; and in his notice of
Papias of Hierapolis (Oehler). Otiosum. [See Kaye’s
important Comment. p. 345.] Deputat. That is, the
Montanist. [Regarded as conclusive; but not conclusive evidence
of an accomplished lapse from Catholic Communion.] He means that of
Severus against the Parthians. Tertullian is the only author who
mentions this prodigy. Evanescente. Et alias de proximo
nullam: or “de proximo” may mean, “on a near
approach.” Ratio. Apud: or, “in
the dispensation of the Creator.” Dispositionis. Nostri, i.e.,
Christians. [Not Montanist, but Catholic.] Judæorum enim
dispositio in Esau priorum natu et posteriorum affectu filiorum. This
is the original of a difficult passage, in which Tertullian, who has
taken Jacob as a type of the later, the Christian church, seems to make
Esau the symbol of the former, the Jewish church, which, although prior
in time, was later in allegiance to the full truth of God. Temere, si forte,
interpretabimur. Apud. In allusion to the
dove as the symbol of the Spirit, see Præjudicium. Præconium. Si forte. Indulgentiæ. Regiam: perhaps
“capital” or “palace.” Omne.
[The remarks of
Bishop Kaye on our author’s Marcion are simply invaluable,
and the student cannot dispense with what is said more particularly of
this Book. See Kaye, pp. 450–480.]
In Which Tertullian Pursues His Argument. Jesus is the Christ of the Creator. He Derives His Proofs from St. Luke’s Gospel; That Being the Only Historical Portion of the New Testament Partially Accepted by Marcion. This Book May Also Be Regarded as a Commentary on St. Luke. It Gives Remarkable Proof of Tertullian’s Grasp of Scripture, and Proves that “The Old Testament is Not Contrary to the New.” It Also Abounds in Striking Expositions of Scriptural Passages, Embracing Profound Views of Revelation, in Connection with the Nature of Man.
————————————
Chapter I.—Examination of the Antitheses of Marcion, Bringing Them to the Test of Marcion’s Own Gospel. Certain True Antitheses in the Dispensations of the Old and the New Testaments. These Variations Quite Compatible with One and the Same God, Who Ordered Them.
Every opinion and the
whole scheme Paraturam. Provocamus ad.
[Kaye, p. 469, refers to Schleiermacher’s Critical Essay
on St. Luke and to a learned note of Mr. Andrews Norton of Harvard
(vol. iii. Appendix C.) for valuable remarks on Marcion’s
Gospel.] Et, emphatic. Dotem quandam. [See cap. 2,
infra.] Patrocinaretur. Præscriptive
occurere. This law term (the Greek παραγραφή)
seems to refer to the Church’s “rule of faith”
(præscriptio), which he might at once put in against
Marcion’s heresy; only he prefers to refute him on his own
ground. Atque adeo. Apud Creatorem. Olim. T.’s version of
Compendiatum. Laciniosis. Novate novamen novum.
Agricultural words. Altered version of
Secundum Mariæ
censum. See Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical
Literature (third edition), in the article “Genealogy of
Jesus Christ,” where the translator of this work has largely
given reasons for believing that St. Luke in his genealogy, (chap.
iii.) has traced the descent of the Virgin Mary. To the authorities there given may be added this
passage of Tertullian, and a fuller one, Adversus
Judæos, ix., towards the end. [p. 164,
supra.] To its former
self. Recogitare. Saltim. Æmularum
invicem. Præjudicatum
est. In the external
world. Sacramenta.
Chapter II.—St. Luke’s Gospel, Selected by Marcion as His Authority, and Mutilated by Him. The Other Gospels Equally Authoritative. Marcion’s Terms of Discussion, However, Accepted, and Grappled with on the Footing of St. Luke’s Gospel Alone.
You have now our answer to the Antitheses
compendiously indicated by us. Expeditam a nobis. [The term εὐαγγέλιον
was often employed for a written book, says Kaye (p. 298), who
refers to Book i. cap. 1. supra, etc.] Interim, perhaps
“occasionally.”
Præstructuram. Instrumentum.
[See cap. 1, supra. And, above, note 9. Also in cap. iii. and
the Apology, (cap. xlvii.) he calls the Testaments, Digests,
or Sancta Digesta.] By this canon of his,
that the true Gospels must have for their authors either apostles or
companions and disciples of apostles, he shuts out the false Gospels of
the heretics, such as the Ebionites, Encratites, Nazarenes, and
Marcionites (Le Prieur). Apostolicos,
companions of the apostles associated in the authorship. He means, of course,
St. Mark and St. Luke. Adsistat illi. Immo Christi. Insinuant. Instaurant. Isdem regulis. Supplementum. Viderit. De capite. Scilicet. Evertere. Congredi. Dissimulamus. Ex nostro. Compare
Irenæus, Adversus Hæreses (Harvey), i. 25 and iii. 11;
also Epiphanius, Hær. xlii. See also the editor’s
notes on the passages in Irenæus, who quotes other authorities
also, and shows the particulars of Marcion’s mutilations.
[Vol. I. 429.] Quem cæderet. Posterior. See Hieronymi,
Catal. Scriptt. Eccles. 7, and Fabricius’
notes. Instrumenti. [Dr. Holmes not
uniformly, yet constantly inserts the prefix St. before the name of
Paul, and brackets it, greatly disfiguring the page. It is not in
our author’s text, but I venture to dispense with the
ever-recurring brackets.]
Chapter III. This is Oehler’s
arrangement of the chapter, for the sake of the sense. The former
editions begin this third chapter with “Sed enim Marcion
nactus.”
In the scheme of Marcion, on the
contrary, Aliud est si. Sacramentum. Habuit utique. Paraturam. Sed enim. See Compare what has
been already said in book i. chap. 20, and below in book v. chap. 3.
See also Tertullian’s treatise, De Præscript.
Hæret. chap. 23. [Kaye, p. 275.] Statum. Propria. Variare convictum. Integrum. Inde nostra
digesta. Germanum
instrumentum. That is, according to
the Marcionite cavil. De titulo quoque.
Chapter IV.—Each Side Claims to Possess the True Gospel. Antiquity the Criterion of Truth in Such a Matter. Marcion’s Pretensions as an Amender of the Gospel.
We must follow, then, the clue Funis ducendus
est. Ratio. Præjudicans. Posterius revincetur.
See De Præscriptione Hæret., which goes on this
principle of time. Compare especially chapters xxix. and xxx. [p. 256,
supra.] Falsum. Passione. Materia. De veritate
materiam. Sæculo post. Interim. Communio ejus. De veritate
disceptat. Quod est secundum nos.
[A note of T.’s position.] Projectam. [Catholic =
Primitive.] Præferunt. Penes nos. Post futura. Sane. Eversi. Nisi quod.
Chapter V.—By the Rule
of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the
Real St. Luke’s. Marcion’s Only a Mutilated Edition. The
Heretic’s Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other
Gospels. [On this whole chapter
and subject, consult Kaye, pp. 278–289.]
On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which
is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if
that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then
it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the
apos Sacrosanctum.
Inviolate. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 384. Compare
De Præscript. Hæret. c. 36,
supra. De proximo.
Westcott renders this, “who are nearest to us.” See in
loco. et…et. [N.B. Not
Peter’s See, then.] Alumnas ecclesias. He
seems to allude to the seven churches of the Apocalypse. [Not the
Order of bishops (as we now speak) but of their succession from
St. John. Kaye, p. 219.] Generositas. De societate
sacramenti. [i.e. Catholic Unity.] Eadem. Plane. Censum. Examine. Favos. See
Pliny, Nat. Hist. xi. 21. Patrocinabitur. [Jones
on the Canon, Vol. I. p. 66.] Proinde per illas. See Hieronymus,
Catal. Scriptt. Eccles. c. 8. Digestum. See above, chap. 2, p.
347. Capit videri. Flagitandus. Potius institerit. The Gospels of the
apostles John and Matthew, and perhaps Mark’s also, as being St.
Peter’s. Dedicata cum. Competit. Confirmavit. Denique. Apostolica, i.e.,
evangelia. That is, the canonical
Gospel of St. Luke, as distinct from Marcion’s corruption of it.
[N.B. “Us” = Catholics.] Traducto. Nunc—nunc. Nunc—nunc. Expedimur. Fide, integrity. Posteritati
falsariorum præscribentem. [Mark the authority of
churches. He uses the plural—quod ab omnibus.]
Chapter VI.—Marcion’s Object in Adulterating the Gospel. No Difference Between the Christ of the Creator and the Christ of the Gospel. No Rival Christ Admissible. The Connection of the True Christ with the Dispensation of the Old Testament Asserted.
But we now advance a step further on, and
challenge (as we promised to do) the very Gospel of Marcion, with the
intention of thus proving that it has been adulterated. For it is
certain Certe, for certo. Propterea. Conveniemus. Sic habebit. This seems to be the
sense of the words, “sub illa utique conditione quæ ex
utraque parte condicta sit.” Scindit. That is, between what
is severe and judicial and punitive on one side, that is, the
Creator’s; and what is mild, merciful, and forgiving, on the
other, that is, the Redeemer’s side (Rigalt.). Præscriptio. Defigimus. Creatoris
pronunciandum. Adjuverit.
Repræsentaverit. Restauraverit virtutes
ejus. Sententias
reformaverit.
Chapter VII.—Marcion Rejected the Preceding Portion of St. Luke’s Gospel. Therefore This Review Opens with an Examination of the Case of the Evil Spirit in the Synagogue of Capernaum. He Whom the Demon Acknowledged Was the Creator’s Christ.
In the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Utique. Ecquid ordinis. See above, book i.
chap. xxiii. [Comp. i. cap. xix.] This is here the force
of viderit, our author’s very favourite idiom. Apparere. Sapit. Impegerit. Descendisse autem, dum
fit, videtur et subit oculos. Probably this bit of characteristic
Latinity had better be rendered thus: “The accomplishment of a
descent, however, is, whilst happening, a visible process, and one that
meets the eye.” Of the various readings, “dum sit,”
“dum it,” “dum fit,” we take the last with
Oehler, only understanding the clause as a parenthesis. Suggestu. Indignum. Cui. Ingressuro
prædicationem. This is the literal
rendering of Tertullian’s version of the prophet’s words,
which occur chap. ix. 1, 2. The first clause closely follows the LXX.
(ed. Tisch.): Τοῦτο
πρῶτον πίε,
ταχύ ποίει. This
curious passage is explained by Grotius (on Si utique. Agnoscere. Additum. Præfert. Tam repentinus. Etsi passim
adiretur. Eloquium. Facilius. That is, the
Creator. Si non Creatoris. See above, in
book iii. chap. xii., on the name Emmanuel; in chap. xv., on the
name Christ; and in chap. xvi., on the name
Jesus.
My present discussion is, how the evil spirit
could have known that He was called by such a name, when there had
never at any time been uttered about Him a single prophecy by a god who
was unknown, and up to that time silent, of whom it was not possible
for Him to be attested as “the Holy One,” as (of a god)
unknown even to his own Creator. What similar event could he
then have published Quid tale
ediderit. Compare what was said
above in book iii., chap. xvi. p. 335. Exceperat. Such is our
author’s reading of Sævi. Optimi. Præmisimus. De candida salutis:
see Aut cur. Quidem. Verisimiliorem
statum.
Chapter VIII.—Other Proofs from the Same Chapter, that Jesus, Who Preached at Nazareth, and Was Acknowledged by Certain Demons as Christ the Son of God, Was the Creator’s Christ. As Occasion Offers, the Docetic Errors of Marcion are Exposed.
The Christ of the Creator had Habebat. Ipso nomine, or by His
very name. Nazaræos;
or, Nazarites. [Christians were still so called by the Jews in
the Third Century. Kaye, 446.] Descendit apud, see
Emancipata. A rebuke of
Marcion’s Docetic views of Christ. Scilicet. Per caliginem.
“Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest
res,” “For nothing can
touch and be touched but a bodily substance.” This line
from Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, i. 305, is again quoted by
Tertullian in his De Anima, chap. v. (Oehler).
is even a sentence worthy of a place in the world’s
wisdom. In short, He did himself touch others, upon whom He laid His
hands, which were capable of being felt, and conferred the blessings of
healing, See Interim. Proinde enim. Illius erat. Porro. Propriæ non
habebat. Præ timore. See above, book i.
chap. vii. xxvi. and xxvii. Materiæ. Cedebant. Aut nunquid. Necessitatem. In aliam notam. Sermonem.
[Nota Bene, Habitus loci. The law was
given in the wilderness of Sinai; see
Chapter IX.—Out of St. Luke’s Fifth Chapter are Found Proofs of Christ’s Belonging to the Creator, E.g. In the Call of Fishermen to the Apostolic Office, and in the Cleansing of the Leper. Christ Compared with the Prophet Elisha.
Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed
had He such respect for that of fishermen, as to select from it for
apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee (for it cannot seem to be the
mere fact itself for which the narrative was meant to be drawn
out Argumentum processurum
erat. See Attentius
argumentatur. Apud illum, i.e., the
Creator. Per carnalia, by
material things. Hoc nomine. Æmulus. Another allusion
to Marcion’s Docetic doctrine. Materiam. Unicum. Ex., literally,
“alone of.” So Compare Facilius—rather
than of Israelites. Per Nationes.
[Bishop Andrewes thus classifies the “Sins of the Nations,”
as Tertullian’s idea seems to have suggested: (1) Pride,
Amorite; (2) Envy, Hittite; (3) Wrath, Perizzite; (4)
Gluttony, Girgashite; (5) Lechery, Hivite; (6)
Covetousness, Canaanite; (7) Sloth, Jebusite.] Compare, in
Simeon’s song, [See Elucidation
I.] Such seems to be the
meaning of the obscure passage in the original, “Syro facilius
emundato significato per nationes emundationis in Christo lumine earum
quæ septem maculis, capitalium delictorum inhorrerent,
idoatria,” etc. We have treated significato as one member
of an ablative absolute clause, from significatum, a noun
occuring in Gloss. Lat. Gr. synonymous with δήλωσις. Rigault, in a
note on the passage, imputes the obscurity to Tertullian’s
arguing on the Marcionite hypothesis. “Marcion,” says he,
“held that the prophets, like Elisha, belonged to the Creator,
and Christ to the good God. To magnify Christ’s beneficence, he
prominently dwells on the alleged fact, that Christ, although a
stranger to the Creator’s world, yet vouchsafed to do good in it.
This vain conceit Tertullian refutes from the Marcionite hypothesis
itself. God the Creator, said they, had found Himself incapable of
cleansing this Israelite; but He had more easily cleansed the
Syrian. Christ, however, cleansed the Israelite, and so showed
himself the superior power. Tertullian denies both
positions.” Quasi per singulos
titulos. There was a
mystic completeness in the number seven. Dicabatur. Sicut sermonem
compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. In chap. i. of this book, the N.T. is
called the compendiatum. This illustrates the present
phrase. Et hoc opponit.
Repræsentavit. Quasi non audeam. Vindicare in. Plane. An ironical
cavil from the Marcionite view. Si tamen major. Utpote
prophetatæ. Emaculatum. [i.e., the Great High
Priest whose sacrifice is accepted of the Father, for the sins of the
whole world.] Suscepturus:
to carry or take away. Legis indultor. Advenit. Atquin. Formam. Ab ea avertendos. Aliquatenus. Jam. Supervacuus. Gradu. Ecce. Sententiam. Quod salvum est. That is, you
retain the passage in St. Luke, which relates the act of
honouring the law; but you reject that in St. Matthew, which contains
Christ’s profession of honouring the law. Nostros: or, perhaps,
“our people,”—that is, the Catholics.
Chapter X.—Further Proofs of the Same Truth in the Same Chapter, from the Healing of the Paralytic, and from the Designation Son of Man Which Jesus Gives Himself. Tertullian Sustains His Argument by Several Quotations from the Prophets.
The sick of the palsy is healed, Animi vigorem. This seems to be
Circumduxit. Resignati jejunii. See
Consequens est ut
ostendas. Istam. Parem. See book i. chap.
xxvi.–xxviii. Admonere. Retractare: give a set
treatise about them. Præscriptio. To secure
terseness in the premisses, we are obliged to lengthen out the
brief terms of the conclusion, virgo est. Si forte. Si et Dei. Si neque patris. On Marcion’s
principles, it must be remembered. Compare T.’s
treatise, Adversus Valentinianos, chap. xii. Censentur. Si forte. Nominum communio
simplex. Defendimus. See above,
book iii. chap. xv. xvi. Ex accidenti
obvenit. Super. Proprio. Non convenit. Causam. The context explains
the difference between nomen and appellatio. The
former refers to the name Jesus or Christ, the latter to
the designation Son of man. Secundum intentionem
eorum. Eum: that is,
man. Repercutere. Scandalo isto. Denique. Dispice. Interpellandi. Corpus ex corpore. Plane: introducing the
sharp irony. This is perhaps the
best sense of T.’s sarcasm: “Atque adeo (thus
far) inspice cor Pontici aut (or else)
cerebrum.”
Chapter XI.—The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to the Baptist. Christ as the Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New. Arguments Connecting Christ with the Creator.
The publican who was chosen by the Lord, He means Levi or St.
Matthew; see Profanum. Male descendit. Homo a deo
Marcionis. See chap. vii. of this
book, and chap. ii. of book. iii. Plenum ordinem. See below, chap.
xviii. Tuebor. Ipsum. Marcion’s
diversitas implied an utter incompatibility between John and
Christ; for it assigned John to the Creator, from whom it took Christ
away. De disciplinis: or,
“about discipleships.” De auctoritatibus; or,
“about the authors thereof.” Humiliter. Concessit. Rejecturus
alioquin. Deputat. The same, which spake
again by Isaiah. There is also in
Hebrew an affinity between לֹבנה, “frankincense,”
and לֹבִבוז,
“Lebanon.” [Note this strange but reiterated and emphatic
identification of incense with idolatry. In the Gentile church
it was thoroughly identified with Paganism.] See also book i. chap.
xxix. [On this reservation of Baptism see Elucidation II.] Alter. His reading of
(probably) Olim statuimus. Ille. Novitas. Vetustas. That is, “the
oldness of the law.” That is, “the
newness of the gospel.” Notandam. Separatione. The more
general reading is separationem. Alienis: i.e.,
“things not his own.” Amplitudinem. Provehitur, “is
developed.” Aliud. See
Chapter XII.—Christ’s Authority Over the Sabbath. As Its Lord He Recalled It from Pharisaic Neglect to the Original Purpose of Its Institution by the Creator the Case of the Disciples Who Plucked the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath. The Withered Hand Healed on the Sabbath.
Concerning the Sabbath also I have this to
premise, that this question could not have arisen, if Christ did not
publicly proclaim Circumferret. Cur destrueret. Deberet. Institutione:
or, teaching, perhaps. Alium. Intervertit. Operatione. Concussum est
sabbatum. Per Jesum.
Professus…sequebatur. This obscure passage
runs thus in the original: “Marcion captat status
controversiæ (ut aliquid ludam cum mei Domini veritate), scripti
et voluntatis.” Status is a technical word in
rhetoric. “Est quæstio quæ ex prima causarum
conflictione nascitur.” See Cicero, Topic. c. 25,
Part. c. 29; and Quinctilian, Instit. Rhetor. iii.
6. (Oehler). Sumitur color. Affectum. Tunc demum. Statum. Non constanter
tuebatur. Non contristandi quam
vacandi. [This adoption
of an Americanism is worthy of passing notice.] Placet illi quia
Creator indulsit. That is, the Christ of
another God. It is impossible to
say where Tertullian got this reading. Perhaps his LXX. copy
might have had (in The LXX. of the latter
clause of Liberandæ
animæ: perhaps saving life. In salutem animæ:
or, for saving life. Pro anima: or, for a
life. Animæ omni: or,
any life. Tuebatur. Merito. Destructum. We
have, as has been most convenient, rendered this word by annul,
destroy, break. Et. Obstruxit.
“Destroy”…It was hardly necessary for Oehler to
paraphrase our author’s characteristically strong sentence by,
“since Marcion thought that he had gagged,”
etc. In other words,
“permits to be done on the Sabbath.” Præsidia. Quod, not
quæ, as if in apposition with præsidia. See Olim. Forma. Repræsentat.
Chapter XIII.—Christ’s Connection with the Creator Shown. Many Quotations Out of the Old Testament Prophetically Bear on Certain Events of the Life of Jesus—Such as His Ascent to Praying on the Mountain; His Selection of Twelve Apostles; His Changing Simon’s Name to Peter, and Gentiles from Tyre and Sidon Resorting to Him.
Surely to Sion He brings good tidings, and to
Jerusalem peace and all blessings; He goes up into a mountain, and
there spends a night in prayer, Ordinem. In vigore. Or
this phrase may qualify the noun thus: “They were astonished at
His doctrine, in its might.” Our author’s
reading of Næ. Interpretari. Apud creatorem. Simpliciter:
i.e., simply or without relation to any types or
prophecies. Non simpliciter. Res. Rei
præparatura. Cætera. Affectavit. De non suis; opposed
to the de figuris suis peculiariter. [St. Peter was not
the dearest of the Apostles though he was the
foremost.] Mari.
Chapter XIV.—Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. In Manner and Contents It So Resembles the Creator’s Dispensational Words and Deeds. It Suggests Therefore the Conclusion that Jesus is the Creator’s Christ. The Beatitudes.
I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by
means of which He adapts the peculiarity Proprietatem. The original runs
thus: “Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias ejus, per quas
proprietatem doctrinæ suæ inducit ad edictum, ut ita dixerim,
Christi.” There is here an allusion to the edict of
the Roman prætor, that is, his public announcement, in
which he states (when entering on his office) the rules by which he
will be guided in the administration of the same (see White and Riddle,
Latin Dict. s. v. Edictum). οί πτωχοι, not
πένητες Affectibus. Prout incidit.
In the psalm he exclaims: “Defend the
fatherless and the needy; do justice to the humble and the poor;
deliver the poor, and rid the needy out of the hand of the
wicked.” The books of
“Samuel” were also called the books of
“Kings.” Solatii. Tertullian seems to
have read διαλλαχθῶμεν
instead of διαλεχθῶμεν, let us reason together, in his LXX. Jamdudum
pertinent. In evangelii scilicet
sui præstructionem. An Christo
præministrentur. Gestivit. Statim admissus. Said in irony, as if
Marcion’s Christ deserved the rejection. His reading of
Sancite. Circumscribit. Famulis et
magistratibus. It is uncertain what passage this quotation represents.
It sounds like some of the clauses of Personam nominis. Sancitur.
Chapter XV.—Sermon on the Mount Continued. Its Woes in Strict Agreement with the Creator’s Disposition. Many Quotations Out of the Old Testament in Proof of This.
“In the like manner,” says
He, Versipellem. An
indignant exclamation on Marcion’s Christ. Suggillans. Porro. Hic. Suggillaverunt. This
is Oehler’s emendation; the common reading is
figuraverunt. Motus est. Deus optimus. That is, apathetic,
inert, and careless about human affairs. Demutat. Ejus erunt. Sufferentiam. Benignitatem. Ad maledictionem
præcavendam. Portendebat in. Opposuit. Timendum. Creatori docere. Ratas habet. Divitum causas. Gloriam. Erit par
creatoris. Austerioris. Aspernatorem. Advocatorem. Vitia. Tertullian says, ex
Perside. Insilit. Homo: “the
mean man,” A.V. Vir. Relucent. Distinguendo. Nedum
benedictionem. Non pertinuissent
ad.
Chapter XVI.—The Precept of Loving One’s Enemies. It is as Much Taught in the Creator’s Scriptures of the Old Testament as in Christ’s Sermon. The Lex Talionis of Moses Admirably Explained in Consistency with the Kindness and Love Which Jesus Christ Came to Proclaim and Enforce in Behalf of the Creator. Sundry Precepts of Charity Explained.
“But I say unto you which hear”
(displaying here that old injunction, of the Creator: “Speak to
the ears of those who lend them to you” Benedicite. St.
Luke’s word, however, is καλῶς
ποιεῖτε, “do
good.” Calumniantur.
St. Luke’s word applies to injury of speech as well as of
act. “We have
here the sense of Marcion’s objection. I do not suppose
Tertullian quotes his very words.”—Le
Prieur. Le Prieur refers to a
similar passage in Tertullian’s De Patientia, chap.
vi. Oehler quotes an eloquent passage in illustration from Valerianus
Episc. Hom. xiii. Renuntiandum est. Penes. Fidem non capit. Talione, opposito. Leges talionis.
[Judicial, not personal, reprisals.] Voluntatem. Compotem facit. That
is, says Oehler, intellectus sui. Prophetia. Disciplinas: or,
“lessons.” Denique. Considerem, or, as
some of the editions have it, consideremus. Alioquin. In vacuum. Præstare, i.e.,
debuerat præstare. Passim. Excitatura. Datori. The author’s
reading of Cura ultro ne sit. Præjudicat. De fenore. Below, in the next
chapter. This obscure passage
runs thus: “Immo unum erit ex his per quæ lex Creatoris erit
in Christo.” Prior ea. This is the idea,
apparently, of Tertullian’s question: “Quis enim
poterit diligere extraneos?” But a different turn
is given to the sense in the older reading of the passage: Quis enim
non diligens proximos poterit diligere extraneos? “For who
that loveth not his neighbours will be able to love strangers?”
The inserted words, however, were inserted conjecturally by Fulvius
Ursinus without ms. authority. Gradus. Cujus non extitit
primus. In proximos. Sacramentum. The sense rather than
the words of Passivitatem
sententiæ meæ. Parem factum. Possim. Præstare. Hac inconvenientia
voluntatis et facti. Will and action. Non agitur. Strictum. Pro meo arbitrio. At enim. The Greek
ἀλλὰ γάρ. Merito. “Recisum
sermonem facturus in terris Dominus.” This reading of
Chapter XVII.—Concerning Loans. Prohibition of Usury and the Usurious Spirit. The Law Preparatory to the Gospel in Its Provisions; So in the Present Instance. On Reprisals. Christ’s Teaching Throughout Proves Him to Be Sent by the Creator.
And now, on the subject of a loan, when He asks,
“And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank
have ye?” Literally, what
redounds to the loan. Fructum fenoris: the
interest. Quorundam tunc
fidem. Primis quibusque
præceptis. Balbutientis adhuc
benignitatis. [Elucidation IV.] Pignus reddes dati
(i.e., fenoris) is his reading of a clause in One of the flagrant
errors of Marcion’s belief of God. See above, chap. xi. Quam spado. Hoc eram ejus. Ante duos unum.
Before God made Adam and Eve one flesh, “I was created
Adam, not became so by birth.”—Fr.
Junius. Denuo. Me enixus est. Non in animam sed in
spiritum. Euge. Suavis. Eloquia. Suggillavit. Reading of
Apud quem. Mensus fuerit. De discipulo. Revincat. Scandalum. See above,
book i. chap. ii., for Marcion’s perverse application of the
figure of the good and the corrupt tree. In hoc solo adulterium
Marcionis manus stupuisse miror. He means that this passage has
been left uncorrupted by M. (as if his hand failed in the pruning
process), foolishly for him. Videbitur. Editus. Temptabat. Perhaps,
“was tampering with them.” Eloquia.
Chapter XVIII.—Concerning the Centurion’s Faith. The Raising of the Widow’s Son. John Baptist, and His Message to Christ; And the Woman Who Was a Sinner. Proofs Extracted from All of the Relation of Christ to the Creator.
Likewise, when extolling the centurion’s
faith, how incredible a thing it is, that He should confess that
He had “found so great a faith not even in
Israel,” Comp. Epiphanius,
Hæres. xlii., Refut. 7, for the same
argument: Εἰ
οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ
᾽Ισραὴλ
τοιαύτην
πίστιν εὖρεν,
κ.τ.λ. “If He found not so great faith,
even in Israel, as He discovered in this Gentile centurion, He does not
therefore condemn the faith of Israel. For if He were alien from
Israel’s God, and did not pertain to Him, even as His father, He
would certainly not have inferentially praised Israel’s
faith” (Oehler). Nec exinde. This
points to Christ’s words, “I have not found such
faith in Israel.”—Oehler. Alienæ fidei. Ceterum. Suggillasset. Æmulus. Eam talem, that is,
the faith of Israel. Documentum. Et quidem adhuc
orantes. Comp. Epiphanius,
Hæres. xlii., Schol. 8, cum Refut.;
Tertullian, De Præscript Hæret. 8; and De
Bapt. 10. Ut ulterius. This is
the absurd allegation of Marcion. So Epiphanius (Le Prieur). Ego. Scandalum. Playing on
the word “scandalum” in its application to the
Baptist and to Marcion. “It is
most certain that the Son of God, the second Person of the Godhead, is
in the writings of the fathers throughout called by the title of
Spirit, Spirit of God, etc.; with which usage agree the Holy
Scriptures. See Ex forma prophetici
moduli. Tertullian
stands alone in the notion that St. John’s inquiry was owing to
any withdrawal of the Spirit, so soon before his martyrdom, or any
diminution of his faith. The contrary is expressed by Origen,
Homil. xxvii., on Ut in massalem suam
summam. Unus jam de turba. Eundem. Etiam prophetes. Facilius. Jesus. Sperabat. Documentorum. Major. Scandalum. That is, not the
Creator’s Christ—whose prophet John was—therefore a
different Christ from Him whom John announced. This is said, of course,
on the Marcionite hypothesis (Oehler). Angelum. Eleganter. Scrupulum. That is,
Christ, according to Epiphanius. See next note. Comp. the Refutation
of Epiphanius (Hæres. xlii. Refut. 8):
“Whether with reference to John or to the Saviour, He pronounces
a blessing on such as should not be offended in Himself or in
John. Nor should they devise for themselves whatsoever things
they heard not from him. He also has a greater object in view, on
account of which the Saviour said this; even that no one should think
that John (who was pronounced to be greater than any born of women) was
greater than the Saviour Himself, because even He was born of a woman.
He guards against this mistake, and says, ‘Blessed is he who
shall not be offended in me.’ He then adds, ‘He that is
least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.’ Now, in
respect of His birth in the flesh, the Saviour was less than he by the
space of six months. But in the kingdom He was greater, being even his
God. For the Only-begotten came not to say aught in secret, or to
utter a falsehood in His preaching, as He says Himself, ‘In
secret have I said nothing, but in public,’ etc.
(Κἄν τε
πρὸς
᾽Ιωάννην
ἔχοι…ἀλλὰ
μετὰ
παῤῥησίας).”—
Oehler. Tantundem competit
creatori. Major tanto
propheta. De remissa. Comp. Epiphanius,
Hæres. xlii., Refut. 10, 11.
Chapter XIX.—The Rich Women of Piety Who Followed Jesus Christ’s Teaching by Parables. The Marcionite Cavil Derived from Christ’s Remark, When Told of His Mother and His Brethren. Explanation of Christ’s Apparent Rejection Them.
The fact that certain rich women clave to Christ,
“which ministered unto Him of their substance,” amongst
whom was the wife of the king’s steward, is a subject of
prophecy. By Isaiah the Lord called these wealthy
ladies—“Rise up, ye women that are at ease, and hear my
voice” Ostenderet. Eloquii. Pronunciatio. Pronuntiationi. Sane: with a touch of
irony. Rationales.
“Quæ voces adhibita ratione sunt
interpretandæ.”—Oehler. Singular in the
original, but (to avoid confusion) here made plural. In allusion to
Advivit. Adgenerantur. Constat.
[Jarvis, Introd. p. 204 and p. 536.] Nunc: i.e., when
Christ was told of His mother and brethren. “C.
Sentius Saturninus, a consular, held this census of the whole empire as
principal augur, because Augustus determined to impart the sanction of
religion to his institution. The agent through whom Saturninus carried
out the census in Judæa was the governor Cyrenius, according to
Luke, chap. ii.”—Fr. Junius.
Tertullian mentions Sentius Saturninus again in De
Pallio, i. Tertullian’s statement in the text has
weighed with Sanclemente and others, who suppose that Saturninus was
governor of Judæa at the time of our Lord’s birth, which
they place in 747 a.u.c. “It is
evident, however,” says Wieseler, “that this argument is
far from decisive; for the New Testament itself supplies far better
aids for determining this question than the discordant ecclesiastical
traditions—different fathers giving different dates, which might
be appealed to with equal justice; while Tertullian is even
inconsistent with himself, since in his treatise Adv.
Jud. viii., he gives 751 a.u.c. as
the year of our Lord’s birth” (Wieseler’s
Chronological Synopsis by Venables, p. 99, note 2). This Sentius
Saturninus filled the office of governor of Syria, 744–748. For
the elaborate argument of Aug. W. Zumpt, by which he defends St.
Luke’s chronology, and goes far to prove that Publius Sulpicius
Quirinus (or “Cyrenius”) was actually the governor of Syria
at the time of the Lord’s birth, the reader may be referred to a
careful abridgment by the translator of Wieseler’s work, pp.
129–135. Non simpliciter. St.
Mark rather than St. Luke is quoted in this interrogative sentence. Ex condicione
rationali. See Oehler’s note, just above, on the word
“rationales.” Abdicavit:
Rigalt thinks this is harsh, and reminds us that at the cross
the Lord had not cast away his Mother. [Elucidation VI.] This is literally from
In semetipso. Ceterum. i.e., the kindred.
[N.B. He includes the Mother!] We have translated
Oehler’s text of this passage: “Denique nihil magnum,
si fidem sanguini, quam non habebat.” For
once we venture to differ from that admirable editor (and that although
he is supported in his view by Fr. Junius), and prefer the reading of
the mss. and the other editions: “Denique
nihil magnum, si fidem sanguini, quem non habebat.” To
which we would give an ironical turn, usual to Tertullian, “After
all, it is not to be wondered at if He preferred faith to flesh and
blood, which he did not himself possess!”—in allusion to
Marcion’s Docetic opinion of Christ.
Chapter XX.—Comparison of Christ’s Power Over Winds and Waves with Moses’ Command of the Waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan. Christ’s Power Over Unclean Spirits. The Case of the Legion. The Cure of the Issue of Blood. The Mosaic Uncleanness on This Point Explained.
But “what manner of man is this? for He
commandeth even the winds and water!” Agnorant. Et pari utrinque
stupore discriminis fixum. This obscure passage
is thus read by Oehler, from whom we have translated: “Lege
extorri familiæ dirimendæ in transitu ejus Jordanis
machæram fuisse, cujus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus
docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare.” The
machæram (“sword”) is a metaphor for the
river. Rigaltius refers to Virgil’s figure,
Æneid, viii. 62, 64, for a justification of the simile.
Oehler has altered the reading from the “ex
sortefamilæ,” etc., of the mss. to
“extorrifamiliæ,” etc. The former
reading would mean probably: “Read out of the story of the
nation how that Jordan was as a sword to hinder their passage across
its stream.” The sorte (or, as yet another
variation has it, “et sortes,” “the
accounts”) meant the national record, as we have it in the
beginning of the book of Joshua. But the passage is almost hopelessly
obscure. Solis. Istius. See above, book iii.
chap. xiii. Atque ita ipsum
esse. Agentem. Conversaretur. Substantiæ:
including these demons. Sed enim: the
ἀλλὰ γὰρ of the Greek. Aliquid. Pusillitatibus. Ego. See above, book iii.
chap. xxv. Adæquatum: on a
par with. A Marcionite
hypothesis. Ecquomodo legem ejus
irrupit. Primo. Spurcitia. Non temere. In lege taxari. Illa autem
redundavit. Distinxisse. Utique. Epiphanius, in
Hæres. xlii. Refut. 14, has the same
remark. Qua res vacua. In allusion to the
Marcionite hypothesis mentioned above.
Chapter XXI.—Christ’s Connection with the Creator Shown from Several Incidents in the Old Testament, Compared with St. Luke’s Narrative of the Mission of the Disciples. The Feeding of the Multitude. The Confession of St. Peter. Being Ashamed of Christ. This Shame is Only Possible of the True Christ. Marcionite Pretensions Absurd.
He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom
of God. Vestit. Libertatem oris. In testationem
redigi. Probatum. Scilicet. De pristino more. Aut. Protelavit. Exuberare. Redundaverant. Ordinem. I have no doubt
that ten was the word written by our author; for some Greek
copies read δέκα, and Ambrose in his
Hexaëmeron, book vi. chap. ii., mentions the same number
(Fr. Junius). Recensebat. Utique. Immo. See below, chaps.
xl.–xliii. Sic quoque. Certe. Compare above, chap.
x., towards the end. Jam tunc. Ista. Decucurrerunt. We have, by
understanding res, treated these adjectives as nouns. Rigalt.
applies them to the doctrina of the sentence just previous.
Perhaps, however, “persecutione” is the noun. Materia conveniat. Ordo. Perorantibus. Fœditatem. Ipsius etiam carnis
indignitatem; because His flesh, being capable of suffering and subject
to death, seemed to them unworthy of God. So Adv. Judæos,
chap. xiv., he says: “Primo sordidis indutus est, id est carnis
passibilis et mortalis indignitate.” Or His
“indignity” may have been εἶδος οὐκ
ἄξιον
τυραννίδος, His “unkingly aspect” (as Origen expresses
it, Contra Celsum, 6); His “form of a
servant,” or slave, as St. Paul says. See also Tertullian’s
De Patientia, iii. (Rigalt.) Coagulatur.
[ Ex feminæ
humore. Pecus. Julius
Firmicus, iii. 1, uses the word in the same way: “Pecus
intra viscera matris artuatim concisum a medicis
proferetur.” [Jul. Firmicus Maternus, floruit circa,
a.d. 340.] Such is probably the
meaning of “non decem mensium cruciatu deliberatus.” For
such is the situation of the infant in the womb, that it seems to
writhe (cruciari) all curved and contracted (Rigalt.). Latinius
read delibratus instead of deliberatus, which means,
“suspended or poised in the womb as in a scale.” This has
my approbation. I would compare De Carne Christi, chap. iv. (Fr.
Junius). Oehler reads deliberatus in the sense of
liberatus. Statim lucem lacrimis
auspicatus. Primo retinaculi sui
vulnere: the cutting of the umbilical nerve. [Contrast Jer.
Taylor, on the Nativity, Opp. I. p. 34.] Nec sale ac melle
medicatus. Of this application in the case of a recent childbirth we
know nothing; it seems to have been meant for the skin. See Pliny, in
his Hist. Nat. xxii. 25. Nec pannis jam
sepulturæ involucrum initiatus. Volutatus per
immunditias. Vix. Tarde. Expositus. i.e., he never passed
through stages like these. Veritate. Debuit
pronuntiasse. Se deposuit. Ad meritum
confusionis. Quod illum
finxisti.
Chapter XXII.—The Same Conclusion Supported by the Transfiguration. Marcion Inconsistent in Associating with Christ in Glory Two Such Eminent Servants of the Creator as Moses and Elijah. St. Peter’s Ignorance Accounted for on Montanist Principle.
You ought to be very much ashamed of Scilicet, in ironical
allusion to a Marcionite opinion. Quoscunque. In sordibus
aliquibus. Sic. To belong to another
god. Secundum
perversitatem. Prædicatores. Informator, Moses, as
having organized the nation. Reformator, Elias, the
great prophet. It was a primitive
opinion in the Church that Elijah was to come, with Enoch, at the end
of the world. See De Anima, chap. xxxv. and l.; also
Irenæus, De Hæres. v. 5. [Vol. I. 530.] This Tertullian seems
to have done in his treatise De Ecstasi, which is mentioned by
St. Jerome—see his Catalogus Scriptt. Eccles. (in
Tertulliano); and by Nicephorus, Hist. Eccles. iv. 22, 34.
On this subject of ecstasy, Tertullian has some observations in De
Anima, chap. xxi. and xlv. (Rigalt. and Oehler.) [Elucidation VII.] Amentiam. Excidat sensu. He calls those the
carnally-minded (“psychicos”) who thought that ecstatic
raptures and revelations had ceased in the church. The term
arises from a perverse application of Amentiam. Ceterum. According to the
hypothesis. Totum ordinem, in the
three periods represented by Moses, and Elijah, and Christ. Compare Consignari. In eo suggestu. Conscriptum
fuerat. Marcion’s
god. Compare above, book i.
chap. 15, and book iv. chap. 7. Precario. This
word is used in book v. chap. xii. to describe the
transitoriness of the Creator’s paradise and
world. Nec nunc. Ejus est
exhibentis. Non præmisisti.
Oehler suggests promisisti, “have given us no
promise.” Censum: Some read
sensum, “sense.” Anima: life. Tertullian, by
introducing this statement with an “inquit,” seems
to make a quotation of it; but it is only a comment on the actual
quotations. Tertullian’s invariable object in this argument is to
match some event or word pertaining to the Christ of the New Testament
with some declaration of the Old Testament. In this instance the
approving words of God upon the mount are in In Christo.
In with an ablative is often used by our author for in
with an accusative. Or perhaps “by
the Creator.” A Marcionite
position. Habitum. Interdum. Commemoremur: be
reminded, or call to mind. Cognoscenter:
γνωστῶς, “so as
to know Thee.” See Posterioribus
temporibus. [The awful ribaldry of Voltaire upon this glorious
revelation is based upon the Vulgate reading of Noluit. It is difficult to see
what this inquit means. Nedum.
Chapter XXIII.—Impossible that Marcion’s Christ Should Reprove the Faithless Generation. Such Loving Consideration for Infants as the True Christ Was Apt to Shew, Also Impossible for the Other. On the Three Different Characters Confronted and Instructed by Christ in Samaria.
I take on myself the character Personam: “I
personate Israel.” Genitura. ἐπερχόμενε.
The true Christ is ὁ
ἐρχόμενος. Totum apud te. De tuo commisisti. Quam olim. Imputes. This fable is not
extant (Oehler). Adhuc. Insiliit. Nisi quod nec ille.
This ille, of course, means the Creator’s Christ. Diligit: or,
loves. Autem. Committit. Parvulos. Pueros: [young
lads]. Partus
Hebræos. See a like comparison
in book i. chap. xxix. p. 294. Qui de infantia primus
est: i.e., cujus qui de infantia, etc. [Elucidation VIII.] Repræsentat
plagam. I translate after
Oehler’s text, which is supported by the oldest authorities.
Pamelius and Rigaltius, however, read “Christi lenitatem
increpantis eandem animadversionem,” etc. (“On the
contrary, I recognize the gentleness of Christ, who rebuked His
disciples when they,” etc.) This reading is only conjectural,
suggested by the “Christi lenitatem” of the context. Destinantes. Compare De
Patientia, chap. xv. Salutem: i.e.,
“Christ, who is our salvation” (Fr. Junius). Animam defunctam. Imbuerat. Sectam.
Chapter XXIV.—On the Mission of the Seventy Disciples, and Christ’s Charge to Them. Precedents Drawn from the Old Testament. Absurdity of Supposing that Marcion’s Christ Could Have Given the Power of Treading on Serpents and Scorpions.
He chose also seventy other missionaries Apostolos:
Compare above, book
iv. chap. xiii. p. 364. Causarum:
“occasions” or circumstances. Potestatum. In
Marcionite terms, “The Gods of the Old and the New
Testaments.” Consparsionum. [Punic
Latin.] Virgam, Causarum
offerentiam. Expeditionem, with the
sense also of “supplies” in the next clause. Circumcidens. Struxerat. See Literally,
“bless him not, i.e., salute him not.” Literally,
“answer him not, i.e., return not his salvation.” Compare above, book
ii. chap. 17, p. 311. See this argued at
length above, in book ii. chap. 20, p. 313. Dominatoribus. Subitum. Accipit tempus. Inducens speciem. Tardasse. The announcement
(according to the definition) defining the beginning of its existence
in time. Appropinquasse.
He likewise adds, that they should say to such as
would not receive them: “Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that
the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” Et judicem in
utroque. Hærentia. Nedum. Inhumanitas. Ecclesiam. There is
force in thus using Christian terms for Jewish ordinances, full as he
is of the identity of the God of the old with Him of the new
covenant. Deputetur. Penes Creatorem. Evacuationem. Secundum ordinem
prædicationis.
Chapter XXV.—Christ Thanks the Father for Revealing to Babes What He Had Concealed from the Wise. This Concealment Judiciously Effected by the Creator. Other Points in St. Luke’s Chap. X. Shown to Be Only Possible to the Creator’s Christ.
Who shall be invoked as the Lord of heaven, that
does not first show Himself Ostenditur. Satis inique. Præmiserat. Argumenta. Deliquerant. On the Marcionite
hypothesis. Deducerentur. In quem competunt
omnia. Ingenia. Denique. Olim. Ventriloquorum, Greek
ἐγγαστριμύθων. Ergo. Res ejus
edisserens. Uti traduceret
eas. Constructionem. Destructionem. Per. ἐπερχόμενος
ille; on which see above, chap. xxiii. p. 385. Marcion’s
god. Alieno abstinere. Aut si. Ecquomodo. Creatoris est. This passage it is not
easy to identify. [See Speculam. When the vintage was
gathered, Quæ competere
possunt. Ut decuit. Merito.
Repræsentationem. Æque. Tamen. Legalem. Recidivæ. This is perhaps the
meaning of “ne plus aliquid observationis exigeret sublimior
spe.” Nec alius. Principaliter. Et utramque vitam. Ei opponit. Caput. Dei
tui…Marcionites. Captanda. Præstet. i.e., he must needs
have it taught and recommended by Christ. Viderit. As Marcion
pretended.
Chapter XXVI.—From St. Luke’s Eleventh Chapter Other Evidence that Christ Comes from the Creator. The Lord’s Prayer and Other Words of Christ. The Dumb Spirit and Christ’s Discourse on Occasion of the Expulsion. The Exclamation of the Woman in the Crowd.
When in a certain place he had been praying to
that Father above, Suffigi. Scito. Proinde. Sensum. Generavit. Mundialis spiritus:
perhaps “the breath of life.” Milium. Prædamnavit. Hoc ordine. Infamat. Salutem: perhaps
salvation. Unde sum functus. This
obscure clause may mean “the right of praying,” or
“the right of access, and boldness to knock.” Ad præstandum non
suo homini. Autem. See A sarcastic
allusion to the ante-nuptial error of Marcion, which he has
exposed more than once (see book i. chap. xxix. and book iv. chap.
xxiii. p. 386.). Sæculum. Tantum quod = vixdum
(Oehler). Tam cito. Apud quem. Significaret. Vetustatum scilicet
suarum. Apud. Applicuit. Ceterum. Defluendo. The
scorpion here represents any class of the lowest animals,
especially such as stung. The Marcionites impiously made it a
reproach to the Creator, that He had formed such worthless and
offensive creatures. Compare book i. chap. 17, note 5. p.
283. See above, on
Natura. Proinde.
Chapter XXVII.—Christ’s Reprehension of the Pharisees Seeking a Sign. His Censure of Their Love of Outward Show Rather Than Inward Holiness. Scripture Abounds with Admonitions of a Similar Purport. Proofs of His Mission from the Creator.
I prefer elsewhere refuting Purgare. From the Marcionite
point of view. Fiximus. Denotari. Tunc. Retractabat. Circumferret. Lavacro. The Pharisees and
lawyers. Holuscula. Marcion’s gospel
had κλῆσιν (vocationem,
perhaps a general word for hospitality) instead of
κρίσιν,
judgment,—a quality which M. did not allow in his god. See
Epiphanius, Hæres. xlii., Schol. 26 (Oehler and Fr.
Junius). Amaxam. Nondum palam
facto. Sectam
administrat. Quodsiquis. Officiis. Idem. Suggillans. Vocationem:
Marcion’s κλῆσιν. Nedum. Taxat. Clamantes. See The books point to
Legis doctores: the
νομικοί of the
Gospels. Zelotes. Arguunt. As Marcion held Him to
be. A Marcionite
position. Sævum. Deficiendo.
Chapter
XXVIII.—Examples from the Old Testament, Balaam, Moses, and
Hezekiah, to Show How Completely the Instruction and Conduct of
Christ As narrated by St.
Justly, therefore, was the hypocrisy of the
Pharisees displeasing to Him, loving God as they did with their lips,
but not with their heart. “Beware,” He says to the
disciples, “of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is
hypocrisy,” not the proclamation of the Creator. The Son hates
those who refused obedience Contumaces. Demereri. Occidi habebunt. Post occisionem. So full of blasphemy,
as he is, against the Creator. Infuscat. Documentum. Simul. A Marcionite
objection. “Two men of the
Hebrews.”—A.V. Ne uteretur. Excusserat. Oehler
interprets the word by temptaverat. Nunquid indigne
tulerit. This is an
instance of the title “Spirit” being applied to the
divine nature of the Son. See Bp. Bull’s Def. Nic. Fid.
(by the translator). [See note 13, p. 375, supra.] Above, chap. xv.
of this book, p. 369, supra. Comp. Apud Persas.
Chapter XXIX.—Parallels from the Prophets to Illustrate Christ’s Teaching in the Rest of This Chapter of St. Luke. The Sterner Attributes of Christ, in His Judicial Capacity, Show Him to Have Come from the Creator. Incidental Rebukes of Marcion’s Doctrine of Celibacy, and of His Altering of the Text of the Gospel.
Who would be unwilling that we should distress
ourselves Agere curam: take
thought.—A.V. Æmulam. Flosculo: see
Ultro subjectis. Pro sua vilitate. Tantum quod
revelato. Expunxerim. De alieno bonus. Qualis. Secundo gradu. Status. Peræquatio. Cui per omnia
pariaverint. Sed ille potius. A censure on
Marcion’s Christ. Suffossus. Defendo. Portendat. Salvo. Actorum. Illi catechizat. Decet. Ille: Marcion’s
Christ. Iste: the Creator. Vel: or, “if you
please;” indicating some uncertainty in the quotation. The
passage is more like Viderit. Pamelius supposes that
Tertullian here refers to St. Matthew’s account, where the word
is μάχαιραν,
on the ground that the mss. and versions of St.
Luke’s Gospel invariably read διαμερισμόν. According to Rigaltius, however, Tertullian means that sword
is written in Marcion’s Gospel of Luke, as if the heretic had
adulterated the passage. Tertullian no doubt professes to quote all
along from the Gospel of Luke, according to Marcion’s
reading. St. Luke’s word
being διαμερισμόν
(division), not μάχαιραν
(sword). Parentes. Tertullian calls by a
proper name the vineyard which Isaiah (in his Ex præcepto. Ex arbitrio. Eodem gradu.
When the question was again raised concerning a
cure performed on the Sabbath-day, how did He discuss it: “Doth
not each of you on the Sabbath loose his ass or his ox from the stall,
and lead him away to watering?” Omni animæ. Recognoscor. Utique. Puta. Laqueum. Materia. Lacrimosa austeritate,
see Forte. Vanitatem
vanitate. Vel. Quid ergo illuc
Creatori. Si stique.
What kind of persons does He bid should be invited
to a dinner or a supper? Forma. Cui parti. Saturitatem. Dehinc. Tantum
quod…jam. Tantum
quod…jam. Pertinentissime. Dehinc. ἐπ᾽
ἐσχάτων
ἡμερῶν, Septuagint. Gerunt: although
vainly at present (“jam vana in Judæis”—Oehler);
Semler conjectures “gemunt, bewail.” Gustaturos. Specula, “a
look-out;” σκηνή is the word in LXX. Semel. This is probably the
meaning of a very involved sentence: “Quid ex hoc ordine secundum
dispensationem et prædicationes Creatoris recensendo competit
illi, cujus (“Creatoris”—Oehler) nec ordinem
habet nec dispositionem ad parabolæ conspirationem qui totum opus
semel facit?” “By the
fathers.” See above. “By the
prophets.” See also above. An obscure sentence,
which thus runs in the original: “Ante debent alii excusare,
postea alii convenisse.” The Jews. The Gentiles. Speculum. Fastidiosos. Portendit. Plane: This is a
Marcionite position (Oehler).
Chapter XXXII.—A Sort of Sorites, as the Logicians Call It, to Show that the Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Drachma Have No Suitable Application to the Christ of Marcion.
Who sought after the lost sheep and the lost piece
of silver? Habuit. Cujus fuit: i.e., each
of the things respectively. Argumentum. Vacat circa eum.
Chapter XXXIII.—The Marcionite Interpretation of God and Mammon Refuted. The Prophets Justify Christ’s Admonition Against Covetousness and Pride. John Baptist the Link Between the Old and the New Dispensations of the Creator. So Said Christ—But So Also Had Isaiah Said Long Before. One Only God, the Creator, by His Own Will Changed the Dispensations. No New God Had a Hand in the Change.
What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be
served, Defendi. Offendi. What in the
Punic language is called Mammon, says Rigaltius, the Latins
call lucrum, “gain or lucre.” See
Augustine, Serm. xxxv. de Verbo domini. I
would add Jerome, On the VI. of Matthew where he says:
“In the Syriac tongue, riches are called
mammon.” And Augustine, in another passage, book ii.,
On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, says:
“Riches in Hebrew are said to be called
mammon. This is evidently a Punic word, for in that
language the synonyme for gain (lucrum) is
mammon.” Compare the same author on Ab actu. Auctorem. Famulatam. Ammentavit. Magis destinabantur:
middle voice. Utique. Nominaturus. Alius. Quem non posuit. Meum: Notando. Ad hoc ut
seperatur. Sedatio: literally,
“a setting to rest,” ἠρέμησις. Ut undeunde magis
probetur…regnum Dei. See above, note on
chap. xxviii., towards the end, on this designation of Christ’s
divine nature.
Chapter XXXIV.—Moses, Allowing Divorce, and Christ Prohibiting It, Explained. John Baptist and Herod. Marcion’s Attempt to Discover an Antithesis in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man in Hades Confuted. The Creator’s Appointment Manifested in Both States.
But Christ prohibits divorce, saying,
“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from
her husband, also committeth adultery.” A Marcionite
challenge. Plane. St. Matthew’s
Gospel. Direxit. Gestans. Excusaverit. Ideo ut. Nubere. This verb is
here used of both sexes, in a general sense. Alias. Etiam:
first word of the sentence. Alicubi. Nondum. Tu. Alibi: i.e., than in
the Marcionite connection. Apud te. Scilicet. Justitia divortii. Debeo. Sententiam. Literally,
“Moses.” Illiberis. [N.B.
He supposes Philip to have been dead.] Costa: literally,
“rib” or “side.” Jaculatus est. The condition
being that the deceased brother should have left “no
child” see ( Ad subsequens
argumentum divitis. Ipsum. Suggillati Herodis
male maritati. Deformans. Apud inferos. [Note
the origin of this doctrine.] Revincente:
perhaps “reproves his eyesight,” in the sense of
refutation. Sublimiorem inferis.
[Elucidation VIII.] Compare Ascensum in
cœlum: Sept. ἀνάβασιν
εἰς τὸν
οὐρανόν, Cur non capiat. Candida quædam
prospiciatur: where candida is a noun substantive (see above,
chap. vii. p. 353). There seems to be here
an allusion to Nec accepisset. See Omnino. See Divinitatum;
“divine powers.” Ipsarum
materiarum.
Chapter XXXV.—The Judicial Severity of Christ and the Tenderness of the Creator, Asserted in Contradiction to Marcion. The Cure of the Ten Lepers. Old Testament Analogies. The Kingdom of God Within You; This Teaching Similar to that of Moses. Christ, the Stone Rejected by the Builders. Indications of Severity in the Coming of Christ. Proofs that He is Not the Impassible Being Marcion Imagined.
Then, turning to His disciples, He says:
“Woe unto him through whom offences come! It were better for him
if he had not been born, or if a millstone were hanged about his neck
and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these
little ones,” Ex acceptione
personæ. The Greek προσωποληψία,
“respect of persons.” Dones. Erga:
i.q. circa. See Morositatem. Prævenientem. Or, perhaps,
“had proved the prophecy true by His accomplishment of
it.” Retractari. See above in chap.
ix. Præfatus est: see
Destructionem. Authenticus.
“He was the true, the original Priest, of whom the priests
under the Mosaic law were only copies” (Bp. Kaye, On the
Writings of Tertullian, pp. 293, 294, and note 8). Et utique viderit. Tam opiniosus. Qua: “I should
prefer quia” (Oehler). Pristino leproso: but
doubtful. Causas. Schisma illud ex
novem tribubus. There is another reading which
substitutes the word decem. “It is, however,
immaterial; either number will do roundly. If ‘ten’
be the number, it must be understood that the tenth is divided,
accurately making nine and a half tribes. If ‘nine’ be
read, the same amount is still made up, for Simeon was reckoned
with Judah, and half of the tribe of Benjamin remained
loyal” (Fr. Junius). Avulsas. Næ. Subiciens: or
“subjecting.” Tota promissio
Christus. Matricem. Fontem non puteum
salutis. Agnovisse. Justificandos. Una sententia. Excelsum: Sept.
ὑπέρογχος. Substantialiter. Assumi. See Ut ille. Ille: emphatic. That is, the
Creator’s Christ from the Marcionite point of
view.
Chapter XXXVI.—The Parables of the Importunate Widow, and of the Pharisee and the Publican. Christ’s Answer to the Rich Ruler, the Cure of the Blind Man. His Salutation—Son of David. All Proofs of Christ’s Relation to the Creator, Marcion’s Antithesis Between David and Christ Confuted.
When He recommends perseverance and earnestness in
prayer, He sets before us the parable of the judge who was compelled to
listen to the widow, owing to the earnestness and importunity of her
requests. Meliorem Deum. Reprobatum. Sive reprobatricem
superbiæ, sive justificatricem humilitatis. Destructorem. See above, chap. xxvi.
p. 392. Utique. Ad contestandum. See above, chap. ix.,
near the beginning. Adjecit quod
deerat. Ubique. Traduceretur. The clauses of
Christ’s words, which are here adapted to Micah’s, are in
every case broken with an inquit. Tunc pendentibus:
i.e., at the time mentioned in the story of the blind man. Notitiam. Non temere. Atquin. Infameretis. Remunerator. That is, in the
sound only, and phantom of the word; an allusion to the Docetic
absurdity of Marcion. That is, that He was
“Son of David,” etc. Censum: that is, must
believe Him born of her. This, perhaps, is the
meaning in a clause which is itself more antithetical than clear:
“Ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim.” In book iii. chap.
vii. (at the beginning), occurs the same proverb of Marcion and the
Jews. See p. 327. See The Marcionites. See Fidei equidem
pravæ: see preceding page, note 3. Atquin. Et hoc filius David:
i.e., præstitit, “showed Himself good,”
perhaps. De suo
retundendam. Instead of contrast, he shows the
similarity of the cases. Ejusdem carnis: i.e.,
infirmæ (Oehler). Exorandum sibi.
Chapter XXXVII.—Christ and Zacchæus. The Salvation of the Body as Denied by Marcion. The Parable of the Ten Servants Entrusted with Ten Pounds. Christ a Judge, Who is to Administer the Will of the Austere Man, I.e. The Creator.
“Salvation comes to the house” of
Zac The older reading,
which we here follow, is: “Enimvero Zacchæus etsi allophylus
fortasse,” etc. Oehler, however, points the passage thus:
“Enimvero Zacchæus etsi allophylus, fortasse,” etc.,
removing the doubt, and making Zacchæus “of another
race” than the Jewish, for certain. This is probably more than
Tertullian meant to say. Aliqua notitia
afflatus. In the same
passage. For the history of
Zacchæus, see Salutaria esse. Substantiis. Caro: “the
flesh,” here a synonym with the corpus of the previous
clauses. Elisa est. Secundum rationem
feneratæ. Ex parte
severitatis. This phrase comes not
from the present passage, but from The original of this
obscure sentence is as follows: “Aut si et hic Creatorem finxerit
austerum…..hic quoque me ille instruit eujus pecuniam ut fenerem
edocet.
Chapter XXXVIII.—Christ’s Refutations of the Pharisees. Rendering Dues to Cæsar and to God. Next of the Sadducees, Respecting Marriage in the Resurrection. These Prove Him Not to Be Marcion’s But the Creator’s Christ. Marcion’s Tamperings in Order to Make Room for His Second God, Exposed and Confuted.
Christ knew “the baptism of John, whence it
was.” Existeret. Ipse. “Of
knowledge of good and evil.” The “law” thereof
occurs in Increpaturus. Certe. [The word
sacrament not technical here.] Materia. Monetam. Non alieno. Quo magis absit a
Christo. Ut videatur. Subostendisse. Surely Oehler’s
responsio ought to be responsionis, as the older books
have it. Absolvitur. Ex abundanti. We have translated
here, post præscriptionem, according to the more frequent
sense of the word, præscriptio. But there is another
meaning of the word, which is not unknown to our author, equivalent to
our objection or demurrer, or (to quote Oehler’s
definition) “clausula qua reus adversarii intentionem
oppugnat—the form by which the defendant rebuts the
plaintiff’s charge.” According to this sense, we read:
“I shall now proceed…and after putting in a demurrer (or
taking exception) against the tactics of my opponent.” Cohærentes. Decucurrerunt in
legendo: or, “they ran through it, by thus reading.” We have
adapted, rather than translated, Tertullian’s words in
this parenthesis. His words of course suit the order of the
Latin, which differs from the English. The sentence in Latin is,
“Quos autem dignatus est Deus illius ævi possessione
et resurrectione a mortuis.” The phrase in question is illius
ævi. Where shall it stand? The Marcionites placed
it after “Deus” in government, but Tertullian
(following the undoubted meaning of the sentence) says it depends on
“possessione et resurrectione,” i.e.,
“worthy of the possession, etc., of that world.” To effect
this construction, he says, “Ut facta hic distinctione post deum
ad sequentia pertineat illius ævi;” i.e., he requests that a
stop be placed after the word “deus,” whereby the phrase
“illius ævi” will belong to the words which
follow—“possessione et resurrectione a
mortuis.” Formam: “its
conditions” or “process.” Non obtundebat. Tueretur.
Chapter XXXIX.—Concerning Those Who Come in the Name of Christ. The Terrible Signs of His Coming. He Whose Coming is So Grandly Described Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, is None Other Than the Christ of the Creator. This Proof Enhanced by the Parable of the Fig-Tree and All the Trees. Parallel Passages of Prophecy.
As touching the propriety of His names, it has
already been seen See above: book iii.
chap. xv. and xvi. pp. 333, 334. The illam here
refers to the nominum proprietas, i.e., His title
Christ and His name Jesus. Transnominaret. Proinde. Consimilem: of
course Marcion’s Christ; the Marcionite being challenged in the
“you.” Compare, in
Omnipotens:
παντοκράτωρ
(Sept.); of hosts—A.V. Allophylis. Exserta. See Per tolerantiam:
“endurance.” Comp. After the Septuagint
he makes a plural appellative (“eis qui toleraverint,” LXX.
τοῖς
ὑπομένονσι)
of the Hebrew לְחֵלֶמ, which
in A.V. and the Vulgate (and also Gesenius and Fuerst) is the dative of
a proper name.
That “the very powers also of heaven have to
be shaken,” Elata: “fear was
raised to its very highest.” In Arbuscularum. Nescio an. Comp. Literally, “the
prophecies.”
Chapter XL.—How the Steps in the Passion of the Saviour Were Predetermined in Prophecy. The Passover. The Treachery of Judas. The Institution of the Lord’s Supper. The Docetic Error of Marcion Confuted by the Body and the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In like manner does He also know the very time it
behoved Him to suffer, since the law prefigures His passion.
Accordingly, of all the festal days of the Jews He chose the
passover. Sacramentum. Vervecina Judaica. In
this rough sarcasm we have of course our author’s contempt of
Marcionism. Levabit: literally,
“shall lift up,” etc. Exitum. Revocati. This passage more
nearly resembles Appretiati vel
honorati. There is nothing in the original or the Septuagint to meet
the second word honorati, which may refer to the
“honorarium,” or “fee paid on admission to a
post of honour,”—a term of Roman law, and referred to by
Tertullian himself. Corpus
veritatis: meant as a thrust against Marcion’s
Docetism. Ad vanitatem
Marcionis. [Note 9, p. 289.] Peponem. In his De
Anima, c. xxxii., he uses this word in strong irony:
“Cur non magis et pepo, tam
insulsus.” [This text,
imperfectly quoted in the original, is filled out by Dr. Holmes.] So the Septuagint in
Illuminator
antiquitatum. This general phrase includes typical ordinances under the
law, as well as the sayings of the prophets. In Juda.
Chapter XLI.—The Woe Pronounced on the Traitor a Judicial Act, Which Disproves Christ to Be Such as Marcion Would Have Him to Be. Christ’s Conduct Before the Council Explained. Christ Even Then Directs the Minds of His Judges to the Prophetic Evidences of His Own Mission. The Moral Responsibility of These Men Asserted.
“Woe,” says He, “to that man by
whom the Son of man is betrayed!” Ipse. This is an
argumentum ad hominem against Marcion for his cavil, which was
considered above in book ii. chap. v.–viii. p. 300. Obstitit
peccaturo. Si ignorabat. One
would have expected “si non ignorabat,”
like the “si sciebat” of the next step in the argument. The original of this
not very clear sentence is: “Nam et Petrum præsumptorie
aliquid elocutum negationi potius destinando zeloten deum tibi
ostendit.” Oehler’s
admirable edition is also carefully printed for the most part,
but surely his quæsisset must here be
quæsissent. Supersedit
ostendere. i.e., not to answer
that question of theirs. This seems to be the force of the perfect
tense, “occultasse se.” He makes Jesus stretch
forth His hand, porrigens manum inquit. Or does he
suppose that they repeated this same question twice? His words
are, “dum rursus interrogant.” Either, “Art
thou,” or, “Thou art, then, the Son of God.” Oblique. Ut, quia…sic
senserunt. Aperte. Æque ita et ille
confirmative respondit. Ut perseveraverint in
eo quod pronuntiatio sapiebat.…See
Chapter XLII.—Other Incidents of the Passion Minutely Compared with Prophecy. Pilate and Herod. Barabbas Preferred to Jesus. Details of the Crucifixion. The Earthquake and the Mid-Day Darkness. All Wonderfully Foretold in the Scriptures of the Creator. Christ’s Giving Up the Ghost No Evidence of Marcion’s Docetic Opinions. In His Sepulture There is a Refutation Thereof.
For when He was brought before Pilate, they
proceeded to urge Him with the serious charge Onerare
cœperunt. “King
Messiah;” λέγοντα
ἑαυτὸν
Χριστὸν
βασιλέα
εἶναι, Gravassent. Proinde. Constitutus est in
judicio. The Septuagint is καταστήσεται
εἰς κρίσιν,
“shall stand on His trial.” Velut munus.
This is a definition, in fact, of the xenium in the verse from
Hosea. This ξένιον was the Roman
lautia, “a state entertainment to distinguished foreigners
in the city.” Comp. This remarkable
suppression was made to escape the wonderful minuteness of the
prophetic evidence to the details of Christ’s
death. We append the original
of these obscure sentences: “Quo jam testimonium vestimentorum?
Habe falsi tui prædam; totus psalmus vestimenta sunt
Christi.” The general sense is apparent. If Marcion does suppress
the details about Christ’s garments at the cross, to escape the
inconvenient proof they afford that Christ is the object of prophecies,
yet there are so many other points of agreement between this wonderful
Psalm and St. Luke’s history of the crucifixion (not expunged, as
it would seem, by the heretic), that they quite compensate for the loss
of this passage about the garments (Oehler). Comp. Argumenta. Here you have the
meaning of the sixth hour. Comp. Spiritus: or
“breath.” Expirasse:
considered actively, “breathed out,” in reference to
the “expiravit” of the A sharp rebuke
of Marcion’s Docetism here follows. Autem. Autem. Nusquam comparuit
phantasma cum spiritu. Post expirationem. See these stages in
Non nihil: “a
something.” This argument is also
used by Epiphanius to prove the reality of Christ’s body,
Hæres. xl. Confut. 74. The same writer also
employs for the same purpose the incident of the women returning
from the sepulchre, which Tertullian is going to adduce in his next
chapter, Confut. 75 (Oehler).
Chapter XLIII.—Conclusions. Jesus as the Christ of the Creator Proved from the Events of the Last Chapter of St. Luke. The Pious Women at the Sepulchre. The Angels at the Resurrection. The Manifold Appearances of Christ After the Resurrection. His Mission of the Apostles Amongst All Nations. All Shown to Be in Accordance with the Wisdom of the Almighty Father, as Indicated in Prophecy. The Body of Christ After Death No Mere Phantom. Marcion’s Manipulation of the Gospel on This Point.
It was very meet that the man who buried the Lord
should thus be noticed in prophecy, and thenceforth be
“blessed;” The first
word of the passage just applied to Joseph. Volutata. Tot fere
laterensibus. Plane. Videte. The original
is much stronger ψηλαφήσατέ
με καὶ
ἴδετε, “handle me,
and see.” Two sentences thrown into one. An additional proof
that He was no phantom.
And now, as I would venture to believe, Ut opinor. Sententiis. Prophetarum.
Dr. Holmes’ Note.
————————————
Dr. Holmes appends the following as a note to the Fourth Book. (See cap. vi. p. 351.)
The following statement, abridged from Dr. Lardner (The History of Heretics, chap. x. secs. 35–40), may be useful to the reader, in reference to the subject of the preceding Book:—Marcion received but eleven books of the New Testament, and these strangely curtailed and altered. He divided them into two parts, which he called τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον (the Gospel) and τὸ ᾽Αποστολικόν (the Apostolicon).
1. The former contained nothing more than a
mutilated, and sometimes interpolated, edition of St.
Luke; the name of that evangelist, however, he expunged from the
beginning of his copy.
2. According to Irenæus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret,
he rejected the genealogy and baptism of Christ; whilst from
Tertullian’s statement (chap. vii.) it seems likely that he
connected what part of chap. iii.—
3. He further eliminated the history of the
temptation. That part of
4. Epiphanius mentions sundry slight alterations in
capp. v. 14, 24, vi. 5, 17. In
5. On an impartial review of these alterations, some
seem to be but slight; others might be nothing but various readings;
but others, again, are undoubtedly designed perver
6. To show the unauthorized and unwarrantable character of these alterations, omissions, additions, and corruptions, the Catholic Christians asserted that their copies of St. Luke’s Gospel were more ancient than Marcion’s (so Tertullian in chap. iii. and iv. of this Book iv.); and they maintained also the genuineness and integrity of the unadulterated Gospel, in opposition to that which had been curtailed and altered by him (chap. v.).
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Deadly Sins, cap. ix., p. 356.)
To maintain a modern and
wholly uncatholic system of Penitence, the schoolmen invented a
technical scheme of sins mortal and sins venial, which
must not be read into the Fathers, who had no such technicalities in
mind. By “deadly sins” they meant all such as St. John
recognizes (
In St. Augustine’s time, when moral theology
became systematized in the West, by his mighty genius and influence,
the following were recognized degrees of guilt: (1.) Sins deserving
excommunication. (2.) Sins requiring to be confessed to the brother
offended in order to God’s forgiveness, and (3.) sins covered by
God’s gracious covenant, when daily confessed in the Lord’s
Prayer, in public, or in private. And this classification was
professedly based on Holy Scripture. Thus: (1.) on the
text—“To deliver such an one unto Satan, etc.”
( Opp. Tom. vi. p. 228.
Ed. Migne.
The modern Trent theology has vastly amplified the
scholastic teachings and refinements, and the elevation of Liguori to
the rank of a church-doctor has virtually made the whole system de
fide with the Latins. The Easterns know nothing of this
modern and uncatholic teaching, and it is important that the student of
the Ante-Nicene Patrologia should be on his guard against the
novel meanings which the Trent theology imposes upon orthodox (Nicene)
language. The long ages during which Eastern orthodoxy has been
obscured by
II.
(Reservation of Baptism, cap. xi., note, p. 361.)
It is important, here, to observe the heretical origin
of a sinful superstition which becomes conspicuous in the history of
Constantine. If the church tolerated it in his case, it was doubtless
in view of this extraordinary instance of one, who was a heathen still,
at heart, becoming a guardian and protector of the persecuted Faithful.
It is probable that he was regarded as a Cyrus or a Nebuchadnezzar whom
God had raised up to protect and to deliver His people; who was to be
honoured and obeyed as “God’s minister” (
III.
(Peter, cap. xiii. p. 365.)
The great Gallican, Launoy, doctor of the Sorbonne, has proved that the Fathers understand the Rock to be Christ, while, only rarely, and that rhetorically, not dogmatically, St. Peter is called a stone or a rock; a usage to which neither Luther nor Calvin could object. Tertullian himself, when he speaks dogmatically, is in accord with other Fathers, and gives no countenance to the modern doctrine of Rome. See La Papauté, of the Abbé Guettée, pp. 42–61. It is important, also, to note that the primacy of St. Peter, more or less, whatever it may have been in the mind of the Fathers, was wholly personal, in their view. Of the fables which make it hereditary and a purtenance of Rome they knew nothing.
IV.
(Loans, cap. xvii. p. 372.)
The whole subject of usury, in what it
consists, etc., deserves to receive more attention than it does
in our times, when nominal Christians are steeped in the
sin of money-traffic to the injury of neighbours, on a scale truly
gigantic. God’s word clearly rebukes this sin. So does the
Council of Nice. Calmet. Opp. i. 483
and Tom. x., p. 525.
(The Baptist, cap. xviii. p. 375.)
The interpretation of Tertullian, however, has the
all-important merit (which Bacon and Hooker recognize as cardinal) of
flowing from the Scripture without squeezing. (1.) Our Lord sent the
message to John as a personal and tender assurance to him. (2.)
The story illustrates the decrease of which the Baptist had
spoken prophetically (
VI.
(Harshness, cap. xix., note 6., p. 378. Also, cap. xxvi. p. 393.)
Tertullian seems with reflect the early view of the
church as to our Lord’s total abnegation of all filial relations
with the Virgin, when He gave to her St. John, instead of Himself, on
the Cross. For this purpose He had made him the beloved disciple and
doubtless charged him with all the duties with which he was to be
clothed. Thus He fulfilled the figurative law of His priesthood,
as given by Moses, (
VII.
(Children, cap. xxiii. p. 386.)
In this beautiful testimony of our author to the
sanctity of marriage, and the blessedness of its fruits, I see his
austere spirit reflecting the spirit of Christ so tenderly and so
faithfully, in the love of children, that I am warmly drawn to him. I
cannot give him up to Montanism at this period of his life and labours.
Surely, he was as yet merely persuaded that the prophetic
charismata were not extinct, and that
they had been received by his
VIII.
(Hades, cap. xxxiv. p. 406.)
Here again our author shews his unsettled view as to Sheol or Hades, on which see Kaye, pp. 247–250. Here he distinguishes between the Inferi and Abraham’s bosom; but (in B. iii. cap. 24.) he has already, more aptly, regarded the Inferi, or Hades, as the common receptacle of departed spirits, where a “great gulf” indeed, separates between the two classes.
A caricature may sometimes illustrate
characteristic features more powerfully than a true portrait. The
French call the highest gallery in theatres, paradis; and I have sometimes explained it by the
fact that the modern drama originated in the monkish Mysteries,
revived so profanely in our own day. To reconcile the poor to a bad
place they gave it the name of Paradise, thus illustrating their
Mediæval conceptions; for trickling down from Tertullian his vivid
notions seem to have suffused all Western theology on this subject.
Thus, then, one vast receptacle receives all the dead. The pit,
as we very appropriately call it in English, answers to the place of
lost spirits, where the rich man was in torments. Above, are
ranged the family of Abraham reclining, as it were, in their
father’s bosom, by turns. Far above, under skylights, (for the
old Mysteries were celebrated in the day-time) is the Paradise,
where the Martyrs see God, and are represented as “under the
altar” of heaven itself. Now, abandoning our grotesque
illustration, but using it for its topography, let us conceive
of our own globe, as having a world-wide concavity such as they
imagined, from literalizing the under-world of Sheol. In its
depths is the Phylace (
Additional Note.
————————————
(Passage not easy to identify, p. 390, note 14.)
Easy enough, by the LXX. See
Wherein Tertullian proves, with respect to St. Paul’s epistles, what he had proved in the preceding book with respect to St. Luke’s gospel. Far from being at variance, they were in perfect unison with the writings of the Old Testament, and therefore testified that the Creator was the only God, and that the Lord Jesus was his Christ. As in the preceding books, Tertullian supports his argument with profound reasoning, and many happy illustrations of Holy Scripture.
————————————
Chapter I.—Introductory. The Apostle Paul Himself Not the Preacher of a New God. Called by Jesus Christ, Although After the Other Apostles, His Mission Was from the Creator. States How. The Argument, as in the Case of the Gospel, Confining Proofs to Such Portions of St. Paul’s Writings as Marcion Allowed.
There is nothing without a
beginning but God alone. Now, inasmuch as the beginning occupies the
first place in the condition of all things, so it must necessarily take
precedence in the treatment of them, if a clear knowledge is to be
arrived at concerning their condition; for you could not find the means
of examining even the quality of anything, unless you were certain of
its existence, and that after discovering its origin. Cum cognoveris unde
sit. Materiam. We have already
more than once referred to Marcion’s preference for St.
Paul. “The reason of the preference thus given to that
apostle was his constant and strenuous opposition to the Judaizing
Christians, who wished to reimpose the yoke of the Jewish ceremonies on
the necks of their brethren. This opposition the Marcionites
wished to construe into a direct denial of the authority of the Mosaic
law. They contended also from St. Paul’s assertion, that he
received his appointment to the apostolic office not from man, but from
Christ, that he alone delivered the genuine doctrines of the gospel.
This deference for St. Paul accounts also for Marcion’s accepting
St. Luke’s Gospel as the only authentic one, as we saw in
the last book of this treatise; it was because that evangelist had been
the companion of St. Paul” (Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of
Tertullian, 3d edition, pp. 474–475). Novus aliqui
discipulus. Interim. Temere. Agnitione. Ad sollicitudinem. In albo. Ex incursu: in
allusion to St. Paul’s sudden conversion, Marcion is
frequently called “Ponticus Nauclerus,” probably
less on account of his own connection with a seafaring life, than that
of his countrymen, who were great sailors. Comp. book. i. 18.
(sub fin.) and book iii. 6. [pp. 284, 325.] In acatos tuas. Quo symbolo. Quis illum tituli
charactere percusserit. Quis transmiserit
tibi. Quis imposuerit. Constanter. Ne illius
probetur, i.e., to the Catholic, for Marcion did
not admit all St. Paul’s epistles (Semler). Omnia apostolatus ejus
instrumenta. Subscribit. Actis refert. Conversor. Jam hinc. Satisfactio. Non aliud portendebat
quam. Secundum Virginis
censum. Figurarum
sacramenta. Although St.
Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, Marcion does not seem to have
admitted this book into his New Testament. “It is clearly
excluded from his catalogue, as given by Epiphanius. The same thing
appears from the more ancient authority of Tertullian, who begins his
Book v. against Marcion with showing the absurdity of his conduct in
rejecting the history and acts of the apostles, and yet receiving St.
Paul as the chief of the apostles, whose name is never mentioned in the
Gospel with the other apostles, especially since the account given by
Paul himself in Inde te a defensione
ejus expello. An insinuation that
Marcion’s defence of Paul was, in fact, a calumny of the
apostle. Præstruant
eam. Qualis es. Habe nunc de meo. In ipso gradu
præscriptionis. Oportere
docere…sapere…velle. Edicere. Ne non haberetur. Nullum alium deum
circumlatum. Præjudicasse
debebit. Marcion only
received ten of St. Paul’s epistles, and these altered by
himself.
Chapter II.—On the Epistle to the Galatians. The Abolition of the Ordinances of the Mosaic Law No Proof of Another God. The Divine Lawgiver, the Creator Himself, Was the Abrogator. The Apostle’s Doctrine in the First Chapter Shown to Accord with the Teaching of the Old Testament. The Acts of the Apostles Shown to Be Genuine Against Marcion. This Book Agrees with the Pauline Epistles.
The epistle which we also allow to be the most
decisive Principalem. See above, in book i.
chap. xx., also in book iv. chap. i. Comp. Apud quem. Porro. Immo quia. Disciplina. Ultro. Discessionem. Ut adhuc
suggeremus. Deberet. Moverat illos a. We have here an
instance of the high authority of the Septuagint version. It comes from
the Seventy: Καὶ
ἐπὶ τῷ
ὀνοματι
αὐτοῦ ἔθνη
ἐλπιοῦσιν
( Apud:
“administered by.” Cum sit. Referret. A similar remark
occurs in Præscript. Hæretic. c. xxiii. p. 253. Ipsa materia. See “The Acts
of the Apostles” is always a plural phrase in
Tertullian. Ut non secutus
sit. Formam. Dedocendæ legis;
i.e., of Moses.
Chapter III.—St. Paul Quite in Accordance with St. Peter and Other Apostles of the Circumcision. His Censure of St. Peter Explained, and Rescued from Marcion’s Misapplication. The Strong Protests of This Epistle Against Judaizers. Yet Its Teaching is Shown to Be in Keeping with the Law and the Prophets. Marcion’s Tampering with St. Paul’s Writings Censured.
But with regard to the countenance Ad patrocinium. Scribit often
takes the place of inquit; naturally enough as referring to the
epistles. Formam. Si quando. Ex defensione. Interpolatione
Scripturæ. Qua effingerent. Ipsi. Incipit reddere
rationem. Contrarii utique
facti. [Farrar, St. Paul, pp. 232 and 261.] Denique. See Conybeare
and Howson, in loc. Fuerunt propter quos
crederetur. The following
statement will throw light upon the character of the two classes
of Jewish professors of Christianity referred to by Tertullian:
“A pharisaic section was sheltered in its bosom (of the church at
Jerusalem), which continually strove to turn Christianity into a sect
of Judaism. These men were restless agitators, animated by the
bitterest sectarian spirit; and although they were numerically a small
party, yet we know the power of the turbulent minority. But besides
these Judaizing zealots, there was a large proportion of the Christians
at Jerusalem, whose Christianity, though more sincere than that of
those just mentioned, was yet very weak and imperfect…Many of
them still only knew of a Christ after the flesh—a Saviour of
Israel—a Jewish Messiah. Their minds were in a state of
transition between the law and the gospel; and it was of great
consequence not to shock their prejudices too rudely; lest they should
be tempted to make shipwreck of their faith and renounce their
Christianity altogether.” These were they whose prejudices
required to be wisely consulted in things which did not touch the
foundation of the gospel. (Conybeare and Howson’s St.
Paul, People’s Edition, vol. ii. pp. 259, 260.) Ex censu eorum: see
See above, book iv.
chap. xiv. p. 365. Victus: see
Rivi: the
wadys of the East.
For he remembered that the time was come of which
the Psalm spake, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off
their yoke from us;” Apud. The LXX.
version of Apud te. According to the
promise of a prophet of the Creator. See Magis proinde: as
sharing in the faith he had, “being yet uncircumcised.” See
Patris fidei. In integritate
carnis. Denique. Formam:
“plan” or “arrangement.” Alterius dei…dei
alterius. Revincatur. Ipso sensu.
Chapter IV.—Another Instance of Marcion’s Tampering with St. Paul’s Text. The Fulness of Time, Announced by the Apostle, Foretold by the Prophets. Mosaic Rites Abrogated by the Creator Himself. Marcion’s Tricks About Abraham’s Name. The Creator, by His Christ, the Fountain of the Grace and the Liberty Which St. Paul Announced. Marcion’s Docetism Refuted.
“But,” says he, “I speak after
the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage
under the elements of the world.” This apparent
quotation is in fact a patching together of two sentences from
Exemplum. Suspicit. Erubescat. So, instead of
pursuing the contents of In extremitatem
temporum. Ipsius.
Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who
proclaimed the promise thereof? Who is (our) Father, but He who is also
our Maker? Therefore, after such affluence (of grace), they
should not have returned “to weak and beggarly
elements.” Nec sic taxans. Cœnas puras:
probably the παρασκευαί
mentioned in See also In other words,
Marcion has indeed tampered with the passage, omitting some things; but
(strange to say) he has left untouched the statement which, from his
point of view, most required suppression. Allegorica: on the
importance of rendering ἀλληγορούμενα
by this participle rather than by the noun “an
allegory,” as in A.V., see Bp. Marsh’s Lectures on the
Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 351–354. Ostensiones:
revelationes perhaps. Apud quem. Tertullian, in his
terse style, takes the case of the emperor, as the highest potentate,
who, if any, might make free with his power. He seizes the moment when
Galba was saluted emperor on Nero’s death, and was the means of
delivering so many out of the hands of the tyrant, in order to sharpen
the point of his illustration.
Furthermore, since both circumcision and
uncircumcision were attributed to the same Deity, both lost their
power Utraque vacabat. Dispendium. Compendium: the
terseness of the original cannot be preserved in the translation. Erratis: literally,
“ye are deceived.” Intentat. Corruptionis. See Stigmata: the scars
not of circumcision, but of wounds suffered for His sake (Conybeare and
Howson). Corporalia. Solidam.
Chapter V.—The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Pauline Salutation of Grace and Peace Shown to Be Anti-Marcionite. The Cross of Christ Purposed by the Creator. Marcion Only Perpetuates the Offence and Foolishness of Christ’s Cross by His Impious Severance of the Gospel from the Creator. Analogies Between the Law and the Gospel in the Matter of Weak Things, and Foolish Things and Base Things.
My preliminary remarks Præstructio. Titulo. Appellant. Officio. Pacem quam
præferendam. Competentibus nostro
quoque sacramento. Nisi ex accedentibus
cui magis competant. Disciplinæ. Per naturæ
dissimulationem. This Fr. Junius explains by τὴν φύσεως
ἀφοσίωσιν,
in the sense of “original sin” (ἀφοσιοῦσθαι
seems to point to sin requiring expiation). Causam. Aut si: introducing a
Marcionite cavil. Apud dominum. Boni duxit Deus,
εὐδόκησεν ὁ
Θεός. Hic vel maxime. That is, “man
who lives in the world, not God who made the world.” Æmula. Causæ: the
reasons of His retributive providence. Consignat. “Etiam Marcion
servat.” These words cannot mean, as they have been translated,
that “Marcion even retains these words” of prophecy; for
whenever Marcion fell in with any traces of this prophecy of Christ, he
seems to have expunged them. In Caro. Vere. Apud Creatorem etiam
vetera: (vetera, i.e.) “veteris testamenti
institutiones” (Oehler). Æmulatur. By
Chapter VI.—The Divine Way of Wisdom, and Greatness, and Might. God’s Hiding of Himself, and Subsequent Revelation. To Marcion’s God Such a Concealment and Manifestation Impossible. God’s Predestination. No Such Prior System of Intention Possible to a God Previously Unknown as Was Marcion’s. The Powers of the World Which Crucified Christ. St. Paul, as a Wise Master-Builder, Associated with Prophecy. Sundry Injunctions of the Apostle Parallel with the Teaching of the Old Testament.
By all these statements, therefore, does he show
us what God he means, when he says, “We speak the wisdom of God
among them that are perfect.” Infatuavit. Nedum. Sacramenta. Palam decurrentia. Delitescebat. Quodammodo. Introductione
sæculi. Pæne jam totis
sæculis prodactis.
In the Creator, however, the two courses were
perfectly compatible—both the predestination before the ages and
the revelation at the end thereof, because that which He both
fore-ordained and revealed He also in the intermediate space of time
announced by the pre-ministration of figures, and symbols, and
allegories. But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of
our glory, that “none of the princes of this world knew it, for
had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory,” Ut et hoc recidat. Virtutibus. Sed jam nec mihi
competit. In Creatoris accipitur
apud Marcionem. Considered, in the
hypothesis, as Marcion’s god. Apud me. Videtur. Et quo. Instrumento. Depalatorem. So the A.V. of
We add the original of
this sentence: “Nisi si structorem se terreni operis Deus
profitebatur, ut non de suo Christo significaret, qui futurus esset
fundamentum credentium in eum, super quod prout quisque superstruxerit,
dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam si opus ejus per ignem
probabitur, si merces illi per ignem rependetur, creatoris est, quia
per ignem judicatur vestra superædificatio, utique sui fundamenti,
id est sui Christi.” Tertullian is arguing upon an
hypothesis suggested by Marcion’s withdrawal of his Christ
from everything “terrene.” Such a process as is
described by St. Paul in this passage, The text has
vitiabitur, “shall be
defiled.” The older reading,
“adhuc sensum pristina præjudicaverunt,” we
have preferred to Oehler’s “ad hunc sensum,” etc. Si non illi
doceret.
Chapter VII.—St. Paul’s Phraseology Often Suggested by the Jewish Scriptures. Christ Our Passover—A Phrase Which Introduces Us to the Very Heart of the Ancient Dispensation. Christ’s True Corporeity. Married and Unmarried States. Meaning of the Time is Short. In His Exhortations and Doctrine, the Apostle Wholly Teaches According to the Mind and Purposes of the God of the Old Testament. Prohibition of Meats and Drinks Withdrawn by the Creator.
“And the hidden things of darkness He will
Himself bring to light,” Our author’s
version is no doubt right. The Greek does not admit the co-ordinate,
triple conjunction of the A.V.: Θέατρον
ἐγενήθημεν
τῷ κόσμῳ—καὶ
ἀγγέλοις καὶ
ἀνθρώποις. Nimirum: introducing a
strong ironical sentence against Marcion’s conceit. Nisi exserte. Secutus sit. Viderit. Peribit. Constantior:
ironically predicated. One of
Marcion’s Antitheses.
Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal
intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing Viderint. Et Christus: Pamelius
and Rigaltius here read “Christi
apostolus.” Oehler defends the text as the
author’s phrase suggested (as Fr. Junius says) by the preceding
words, “Moses or Christ.” To which we may add, that
in this particular place St. Paul mentions his injunction as
Christ’s especially, οὐκ ἐγὼ,
αλλ᾽ ὁ
Κύριος, He turns to
Marcion’s god. Comp. Gratis. Figuram extranei
sacramenti. Recensendum. Me terret sibi. Magis quam foveat. Novationem.
Chapter VIII.—Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man. Spiritual Gifts. The Sevenfold Spirit Described by Isaiah. The Apostle and the Prophet Compared. Marcion Challenged to Produce Anything Like These Gifts of the Spirit Foretold in Prophecy in His God.
“The head of every man is
Christ.” See more concerning
these in chap. xviii. of this book. Comp. Probabiles:
“approved.” See above, in book iv.
chap. xl. Flos: Sept.
ἂνθος. Religionis: Sept.
εὐσεβείας. Timor Dei: Sept.
φόβος
Θεοῦ. We have more
than once shown that by Tertullian and other ancient fathers, the
divine nature of Christ was frequently designated
“Spirit.” Floruisset in
carne. See He argues from his own
reading, filiis hominum. Comp. This seems to be the
force of the subjunctive verb noluerit. Noluerit. Meritum. They are
spiritual gifts, not endowments of body. De dilectione
præferenda. Compare Totis
præcordiis. “Here, as in
Æque. Duntaxat gratia. Et si: These words
introduce the Marcionite theory. Traduxerint. Duntaxat
spiritalem: These words refer to the previous ones, “not
spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God.” [Of course
here is a touch of his fanaticism; but, he bases it on
( Amentia. Magnidicam. Erit.
Chapter IX.—The Doctrine of the Resurrection. The Body Will Rise Again. Christ’s Judicial Character. Jewish Perversions of Prophecy Exposed and Confuted. Messianic Psalms Vindicated. Jewish and Rationalistic Interpretations on This Point Similar. Jesus—Not Hezekiah or Solomon—The Subject of These Prophecies in the Psalms. None But He is the Christ of the Old and the New Testaments.
Meanwhile the Marcionite will exhibit nothing of
this kind; he is by this time afraid to say which side has the better
right to a Christ who is not yet revealed. Just as my Christ is to be
expected, He here argues, as it
will be readily observed, from the Marcionite theory alluded to, near
the end of the last chapter. See his treatise,
De Resur. Carnis, chap. i. (Oehler). An allusion to the
deaths of martyrs. Compendio. Defendi. Animam. The reader will
readily see how the English fails to complete the illustration with the
ease of the Latin, “surgere,” “iterum
surgere,” “resurgere.” Vivificatio. Mortificatio. Adhuc. Interposuit
aliquid. Jam quidem. In Ezechiam
cecinisse. Tertullian, as usual,
argues from the Septuagint, which in the latter clause of Nos. Debemus. Istos: that is, the
Jews (Rigalt.). Utique jam in tanto
opere. Natum esse quum
maxime. Generavi: Sept.
ἐγέννησα. Curiosius. Deputans carni:
a note against Docetism. Super vellus: so Sept.
ἐπὶ πόκον. Similarly the
Rabbis Saadias Gaon and Hadarsan, above mentioned in our note,
beautifully applied to Messiah’s placid birth,
“without a human father,” the figures of
Simpliciora. Consecuturus.
Chapter X.—Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, Continued. How are the Dead Raised? and with What Body Do They Come? These Questions Answered in Such a Sense as to Maintain the Truth of the Raised Body, Against Marcion. Christ as the Second Adam Connected with the Creator of the First Man. Let Us Bear the Image of the Heavenly. The Triumph Over Death in Accordance with the Prophets. Hosea and St. Paul Compared.
Let us now return to the resurrection, to the
defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed
sufficient attention in another work of ours. He refers to his De
Resurrect. Carnis. See chap. xlviii. Viderit. Kalendæ
Februariæ. The great expiation or lustration, celebrated at Rome
in the month which received its name from the festival, is described by
Ovid, Fasti, book ii., lines 19–28, and 267–452, in
which latter passage the same feast is called Lupercalia. Of
course as the rites were held on the 15th of the month, the word
kalendæ here has not its more usual meaning (Paley’s
edition of the Fasti, pp. 52–76). Oehler refers also to
Macrobius, Saturn. i. 13; Cicero, De Legibus, ii. 21;
Plutarch, Numa, p. 132. He well remarks (note in
loc.), that Tertullian, by intimating that the heathen rites of
the Februa will afford quite as satisfactory an answer to
the apostle’s question, as the Christian superstition alluded to,
not only means no authorization of the said superstition for himself,
but expresses his belief that St. Paul’s only object was to
gather some evidence for the great doctrine of the resurrection from
the faith which underlay the practice alluded to. In this respect,
however, the heathen festival would afford a much less pointed
illustration; for though it was indeed a lustration for the dead,
περὶ
νεκρῶν, and had for its object
their happiness and welfare, it went no further than a vague notion of
an indefinite immortality, and it touched not the recovery of the body.
There is therefore force in Tertullian’s si forte. Si forte. τῷ εὔχεσθαι
ὑπὲρ τῶν
νεκρῶν (Rigalt.). Pro corporibus. Corpora. Ut, with the
subjunctive verb induxerit. Consequens erat. Porro. Ut. Portendit. Anima: we will
call it soul in the context. Possit videri. Animam. Non ideo. Animam. Animale. The terseness
of his argument, by his use of the same radical terms Anima and
Animale, is lost in the English. [See Cap. 15
infra. Also, Kaye p. 180. St. Augustine seems to tolerate our
author’s views of a corporal spirit in his treatise de
Hæresibus.] ὁ ἔσχατος
᾽Αδάμ into ὁ ἔσχατος
Κύριος. Vel auctoris. Par. Marcion seems to
have changed man into Lord, or rather to have omitted
the ἄνθρωπος of the
second clause, letting the verse run thus: ὁ πρῶτος
ἄνθρωπος ἐκ
γῆς χοϊκὁς, ὁ
δεύτερος
Κύριος ἐξ
οὐρανοῦ. Anything to cut
off all connection with the Creator. The οἱ
ἐπουράνιοι,
the “de cœlo homines,” of this Secundum exitum. Merebitur. Sed
resuscitatæ. Aut si. Demutationi. Suggested by the
ἰσχυσας of Sept. in
The Septuagint version
of the passage in Hosea is, ποῦ ἡ δίκη
σου, θάνατε;
ποῦ τὸ
κέντνον σου,
ᾅδη, which is very like the form of the
apostrophe in
Chapter XI.—The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The Creator the Father of Mercies. Shown to Be Such in the Old Testament, and Also in Christ. The Newness of the New Testament. The Veil of Obdurate Blindness Upon Israel, Not Reprehensible on Marcion’s Principles. The Jews Guilty in Rejecting the Christ of the Creator. Satan, the God of This World. The Treasure in Earthen Vessels Explained Against Marcion. The Creator’s Relation to These Vessels, I.e. Our Bodies.
If, owing to the fault of human error, the word
God has become a common name (since in the world there are said
and believed to be “gods many” Atquin et nos. The
Contingent qualities in logic. See above in book ii.
[cap. xi. p. 306.] Apud unum recenseri
prævenerunt. Obtunsi:
“blunted,” He seems to have
read the clause as applying to the world, but St. Paul certainly
refers only to the obdurate Jews. The text is: “Sed
obtunsi sunt sensus mundi. Moysi ordinem
totum. He would stop off the
phrase τοῦ
αἰῶνος
τούτου from ὁ Θεὸς, and remove it to the end of the
sentence as a qualification of τῶν
ἀπίστων. He adds
another interpretation just afterwards, which, we need not say, is both
more consistent with the sense of the passage and with the
consensus of Christian writers of all ages, although “it
is historically curious” (as Dean Alford has remarked)
“that Irenæus [Hæres. iv. 48, Origen,
Tertullian (v. 11, contra Marcion)], Chrysostom, Œcumenius,
Theodoret, Theophylact, all repudiate, in their zeal against the
Manichæans, the grammatical rendering, and take τῶν
ἀπίστων τοῦ
αἰῶνος
τούτου together”
(Greek Testament, in loc.). [I have corrected Alford’s
reference to Tertullian which he makes B. iv. 11.] Sept. κρὐψω, “will
hide.” Said concessively, in
reference to M.’s position above mentioned. Marcion’s
“God of this world” being the God of the Old Testament. Hactenus: pro
non amplius (Oehler) tractasse. “A fuller
criticism on this slight matter might give his opponent the advantage,
as apparently betraying a penury of weightier and more certain
arguments” (Oehler). Mancipata est
illi. Persona: the
πρόσωπον of the
Septuagint. Ait. Oehler, after Fr.
Junius, defends the reading “mortificationem
dei,” instead of Domini, in reference to Marcion,
who seems to have so corrupted the reading. Vexatione. Animi.
Chapter XII.—The Eternal Home in Heaven. Beautiful Exposition by Tertullian of the Apostle’s Consolatory Teaching Against the Fear of Death, So Apt to Arise Under Anti-Christian Oppression. The Judgment-Seat of Christ—The Idea, Anti-Marcionite. Paradise. Judicial Characteristics of Christ Which are Inconsistent with the Heretical Views About Him; The Apostle’s Sharpness, or Severity, Shows Him to Be a Fit Preacher of the Creator’s Christ.
As to the house of this our earthly
dwelling-place, when he says that “we have an eternal home in
heaven, not made with hands,” As Marcion would have
men believe. Despoliati. Gravemur. Strinxit. Superinduti magis quod
de cœlo quam exuti corpus. Utique et mortui. De cœlo. Induunt. Superinduunt. Vita
præveniri. Boni ducere. Deputari cum. Per id, per quod,
i.e., corpus. His reading of
Utique ut sponsam
sponso. Prædicationis
adulteratæ. A reference to
Marcion’s other god of the New Testament, of which he tortured
the epistles (and this passage among them) to produce the evidence. Patitur. The work here
referred to is not extant; it is, however, referred to in the De
Anima, c. lv. Precario; “that
which one must beg for.” See, however, above, book iv. chap.
xxii. p. 384, note 8, for a different turn to this word.
Chapter XIII.—The Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul Cannot Help Using Phrases Which Bespeak the Justice of God, Even When He is Eulogizing the Mercies of the Gospel. Marcion Particularly Hard in Mutilation of This Epistle. Yet Our Author Argues on Common Ground. The Judgment at Last Will Be in Accordance with the Gospel. The Justified by Faith Exhorted to Have Peace with God. The Administration of the Old and the New Dispensations in One and the Same Hand.
Since my little work is approaching its ter Profligatur. Concessionem. Apud Creatorem. Excludere. Utique. Aliud est si. Nostri
instrumenti. Instar legis:
“which is as good as a law to them,” etc. See the remarks on
Ut homo. Scilicet
verebatur. Metens. Tunc. Tertullian, by
the word “enjoins” (monet), seems to have
read the passage in Nusquam. Ejus. Nisi si: an ironical
particle. Ideo ut. Apud ipsum. Statim (or, perhaps,
in respect of the derivation), “firmly” or
“stedfastly.” Ejus. In this argument
Tertullian applies with good effect the terms “flesh” and
“body,” making the first [which he elsewhere calls the
“terrena materia” of our nature (ad Uxor.
i. 4)] the proof of the reality of the second, in opposition to
Marcion’s Docetic error. “Σὰρξ is not = σῶμα, but as in Compare the
This, which is really
the second clause of Per quam liquuit
delictum latere: a playful paradox, in the manner of our author,
between liquere and latere.
Chapter XIV.—The Divine Power Shown in Christ’s Incarnation. Meaning of St. Paul’s Phrase. Likeness of Sinful Flesh. No Docetism in It. Resurrection of Our Real Bodies. A Wide Chasm Made in the Epistle by Marcion’s Erasure. When the Jews are Upbraided by the Apostle for Their Misconduct to God; Inasmuch as that God Was the Creator, a Proof is in Fact Given that St. Paul’s God Was the Creator. The Precepts at the End of the Epistle, Which Marcion Allowed, Shown to Be in Exact Accordance with the Creator’s Scriptures.
If the Father “sent His Son in the likeness
of sinful flesh,” Sensus νοός in Pari. Consimilis. Titulum. Mendacium. This vindication
of these terms of the apostle from Docetism is important. The
word which our A.V. has translated sinful is a stronger term in
the original. It is not the adjective ἁμαρτωλοῦ, but the
substantive ἁμαρτίας,
amounting to “flesh of sin,” i.e. (as Dean Alford
interprets it) “the flesh whose attribute and character is
sin.” “The words ἐν
ὁμοιώματι
σαρκὸς
ἁμαρτίας, De Wette
observes, appear almost to border on Docetism, but in reality contain a
perfectly true and consistent sentiment; σὰρξ
ἁμαρτίας; is flesh, or
human nature, possessed with sin.…The likeness, predicated in
Carnis peccati. Puta nunc. Statu. Censu: perhaps
“birth.” This word, which originally means the
censor’s registration, is by our author often used
for origo and natura, because in the registers
were inserted the birthdays and the parents’ names (Oehler). It is better that we
should give the original of this sentence. Its structure is
characteristically difficult, although the general sense, as Oehler
suggests, is clear enough: “Quia vera quidem, sed non ex
semine de statu simili (similis, Latinius and
Junius and Semler), sed vera de censu non vero
dissimili (dissimilis, the older reading and
Semler’s).” We add the note of Fr. Junius:
“The meaning is, that Christ’s flesh is true indeed, in
what they call the identity of its substance, although not of
its origin (ortus) and qualities—not
of its original, because not of a (father’s) seed, as in the case
of ourselves; not of qualities, because these have not in Him the like
condition which they have in us.” Dum alterius par
est. Qua hoc tantum
est. See Non ad reatum
substantiæ sed ad conversationis pertinebunt. Understand
“corpus” (Oehler). Dici capit:
capit, like the Greek ἐνδέχεται, means,
“is capable or susceptible;” often so in Tertullian. We do not know from
either Tertullian or Epiphanius what mutilations Marcion made in this
epistle. This particular gap did not extend further than from
The god of the New
Testament, according to Marcion. In fidem Christi ex
lege venientem. By “the law” he means the Old Testament in
general, and probably refers to Rigaltius (after
Fulvius Ursinus) read “non erasit,” but with
insufficient authority; besides, the context shows that he was
referring to the large erasure which he had already mentioned, so that
the non is inadmissible. Marcion must, of course, be
understood to have retained Plane: ironically. Ironically said.
He has been quoting all along from Marcion’s text of St.
Paul, turning its testimony against Marcion. For although he
rejected St. Matthew’s Gospel, which contains the statement, he
retained St. Paul’s epistle, from which the statement is clearly
proved. Ecce. Promerendum.
Chapter XV.—The First Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Shorter Epistles Pungent in Sense and Very Valuable. St. Paul Upbraids the Jews for the Death First of Their Prophets and Then of Christ. This a Presumption that Both Christ and the Prophets Pertained to the Same God. The Law of Nature, Which is in Fact the Creator’s Discipline, and the Gospel of Christ Both Enjoin Chastity. The Resurrection Provided for in the Old Testament by Christ. Man’s Compound Nature.
I shall not be sorry to bestow attention on the
shorter epistles also. Even in brief works there is much
pungency. Sapor. We have here a
characteristic touch of his diligent and also intrepid spirit.
Epiphanius says this short epistle “was so entirely corrupted by
Marcion, that he had himself selected nothing from it whereon to found
any refutations of him or of his doctrine.” Tertullian,
however, was of a different mind; for he has made it evident, that
though there were alterations made by Marcion, yet sufficient was left
untouched by him to show the absurdity of his opinions. Epiphanius and
Tertullian entertained, respectively, similar opinions of
Marcion’s treatment of the second epistle, which the latter
discusses in the next chapter (Larder). All the best
mss., including the Codices Alex., Vat., and
Sinait., omit the ἰδίους, as do Tertullian
and Origen. Marcion has Chrysostom and the received text,
followed by our A.V., with him. Amarum. Status
exaggerationis. Ergo exaggerari non
potuit nisi. Ex utroque titulo. Portentuosis. The rule of Gentile
life. We have here followed
Oehler’s reading, which is more intelligible than the four or
five others given by him. Tractet. Retundo. Oehler and Fr.
Junius here read Amos, but all the other readings give Hosea;
but see above, book iii. chap. xxiv., where Amos was read by
all. Nihil fecit. This is
precisely St. Paul’s ἐξουθενεῖν, “to annihilate” (A.V. “despise”), in
1 Formam. Celebratur. Si quando corpus in
hujus modi prænominatur. It is remarkable
that our author quotes this text of the three principles, in
defence only of two of them. But he was strongly opposed to the
idea of any absolute division between the soul and the
spirit. A distinction between these united parts, he might,
under limitations, have admitted; but all idea of an actual separation
and division he opposed and denied. See his De
Anima, cap. x. St. Augustine more fully still maintained a
similar opinion. See also his De Anima, iv.
32. Bp. Ellicott, in his interesting sermon On the Threefold Nature
of Man, has given these references, and also a sketch of patristic
opinion of this subject. The early fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of
Alex., Origen, as well as Didymus of Alex., Gregory Nyssen., and Basil,
held distinctly the threefold nature. Our own divines, as is natural,
are also divided in views. Bp. Bull, Hammond, and Jackson hold the
trichotomy, as a triple nature is called; others, like Bp.
Butler, deny the possibility of dividing our immaterial nature into two
parts. This variation of opinion seems to have still
representatives among our most recent commentators: while Dean Alford
holds the triplicity of our nature literally with St. Paul, Archdeacon
Wordsworth seems to agree with Bp. Butler in regarding soul and
spirit as component parts of one principle. See also Bp.
Ellicott’s Destiny of the Creature, sermon v. and
notes. On this paradox, that
souls are corporeal, see his treatise De Anima, v., and
following chapters (Oehler). [See also cap. x.
supra.] Quæ = caro.
Chapter XVI.—The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. An Absurd Erasure of Marcion; Its Object Transparent. The Final Judgment on the Heathen as Well as the Jews Could Not Be Administered by Marcion’s Christ. The Man of Sin—What? Inconsistency of Marcion’s View. The Antichrist. The Great Events of the Last Apostasy Within the Providence and Intention of the Creator, Whose are All Things from the Beginning. Similarity of the Pauline Precepts with Those of the Creator.
We are obliged from time to time to recur to
certain topics in order to affirm truths which are connected
with them. We repeat then here, that as the Lord is by the apostle
proclaimed Circumferri. Utriusque meriti:
“of both the eternal sentences.” Crematoris Dei. Non omnibus
scibilis. The prophets of the
Old and the New Testament. Solventes Jesum. This
expression receives some explanation from the Vulgate version of
Instinctum
fallaciæ. Summissu erroris. Marcion, or
rather his Christ, who on the hypothesis absurdly employs the
Creator’s Christ on the flagrantly inconsistent mission of
avenging his truth, i.e. Marcionism. Habens
fungi…Creatori. Angelum: the
Antichrist sent by the Creator. Æmulatio. Plagis: “heavy
strokes,” in opposition to the previous
“beneficiis.” Prædicationibus:
see Productus est. Materia.
Chapter XVII.—The Epistle to the Laodiceans. The Proper Designation is to the Ephesians. Recapitulation of All Things in Christ from the Beginning of the Creation. No Room for Marcion’s Christ Here. Numerous Parallels Between This Epistle and Passages in the Old Testament. The Prince of the Power of the Air, and the God of This World—Who? Creation and Regeneration the Work of One God. How Christ Has Made the Law Obsolete. A Vain Erasure of Marcion’s. The Apostles as Well as the Prophets from the Creator.
We have it on the true tradition Veritati. Titulum interpolare
gestiit: or, “of corrupting its title.” Certe tamen. For a discussion
on the title of this epistle in a succinct shape, the reader is
referred to Dean Alford’s Gr. Test. vol. iii.
Prolegomena, chap. ii. sec. 2. ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι,
“to sum up into a head.” He explains
“præsperasse by ante
sperasse.” Infertur. Plane. Deo mundi: i.e. the
God who made the world. Operator: in reference
to the expression in Sufficit igitur
si. On this and another
meaning given to the phrase in Plane: an ironical
particle here. In Marcion’s
sense. Captante. Literally, “the
covenants and their promise.” Conversatio: rather,
“intercourse with Israel.” This is rather an
allusion to, than a quotation of, “The law of
commandments contained in ordinances.” He expresses the
proverbial adage very tersely, “non Marrucine, sed
Pontice.” Vacuam fecit. Ex adjutore. Conderet:
“create,” to keep up the distinction between this and
facere, “to make.” “Because, if our
building as Christians rested in part upon that foundation, our God,
and the God of the Jews must be the same, which Marcion denied”
(Lardner).
Chapter XVIII.—Another Foolish Erasure of Marcion’s Exposed. Certain Figurative Expressions of the Apostle, Suggested by the Language of the Old Testament. Collation of Many Passages of This Epistle, with Precepts and Statements in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Prophets. All Alike Teach Us the Will and Purpose of the Creator.
As our heretic is so fond of his pruning-knife, I
do not wonder when syllables are expunged by his hand, seeing that
entire pages are usually the matter on which he practises his effacing
process. The apostle declares that to himself, “less than the
least of all saints, was the grace given” of enlightening all men
as to “what was the fellowship of the mystery, which during the
ages had been hid in God, who created all things.” The passage of St.
Paul, as Tertullian expresses it, “Quæ dispensatio
sacramenti occulti ab ævis in Deo, qui omnia condidit.”
According to Marcion’s alteration, the latter part runs,
“Occulti ab ævis Deo, qui omnia condidit.” The
original is, Τίς ἡ
οἰκονομία
τοῦ
μυστηρίου
τοῦ
ἀποκεκρυμμένου
ἀπὸ τῶν
αἰώνων ἐν τῷ
Θεῷ (compare Emicat. Debebat. Marcion’s god,
of course. Extundis. See above, book iii.
chap. xiii. and xiv. p. 332. Proinde. Ego. Masculi. Inter ista. Magna sacramenta. An ironical
allusion to Marcion’s interpretation, which he has considered in
a former chapter, of the title God of this world. Apud Creatorem. Ex qua delatura. Illius
arbusculæ. Spiritalia
nequitiæ: “wicked spirits.” Ut taxaret. Of course
he alludes to Marcion’s absurd exposition of the
Chapter XIX.—The Epistle to the Colossians. Time the Criterion of Truth and Heresy. Application of the Canon. The Image of the Invisible God Explained. Pre-Existence of Our Christ in the Creator’s Ancient Dispensations. What is Included in the Fulness of Christ. The Epicurean Character of Marcion’s God. The Catholic Truth in Opposition Thereto. The Law is to Christ What the Shadow is to the Substance.
I am accustomed in my prescription against all
heresies, to fix my compendious criterion Compendium figere. Antoniniani Marcionis:
see above in book i. chap. xix. Ante omnes. Ante amina. Creatoris is
our author’s word. Aut si. Evangelizatores. Ceterum quale. “Una ipsa”
is Oehler’s reading instead of universa. Cujus novissime
fuerant. As if only in a
metaphorical body, in which sense the Church is “His
body.” “Dominum
inferens hebetem;” with which may be compared
Cicero (De Divin. ii. 50, 103): “Videsne Epicurum quem
hebetem et rudem dicere solent Stoici…qui negat, quidquam deos
nec alieni curare, nec sui.” The otiose and
inert character of the god of Epicurus is referred to by
Tertullian not unfrequently; see above, in book iv. chap. xv.;
Apolog. 47, and Ad Nationes, ii. 2; whilst in
De Anima, 3, he characterizes the philosophy of Epicurus by a
similar term: “Prout aut Platonis honor, aut Zenonis vigor,
aut Aristotelis tenor, aut Epicuri stupor, aut Heracliti
mæror, aut Empedoclis furor persuaserunt.” The Stoical
dogma of the eternity of matter and its equality with God
was also held by Hermogenes; see his Adv. Hermogenem, c.
4, “Materiam parem Deo infert.” Pliny, Nat.
Hist. vii. 55, refers to the peculiar opinion of Democritus on this
subject (Fr. Junius). Recensentur:
Initium. Contained in Vol. iii.
and iv. In the Epistle to the
Laodiceans or Ephesians; see his remarks in the preceding chapter of
this book v.
Chapter XX.—The Epistle to the Philippians. The Variances Amongst the Preachers of Christ No Argument that There Was More Than One Only Christ. St. Paul’s Phrases—Form of a Servant, Likeness, and Fashion of a Man—No Sanction of Docetism. No Antithesis (Such as Marcion Alleged) in the God of Judaism and the God of the Gospel Deducible from Certain Contrasts Mentioned in This Epistle. A Parallel with a Passage in Genesis. The Resurrection of the Body, and the Change Thereof.
When (the apostle) mentions the several motives of
those who were preaching the gospel, how that some, “waxing
confident by his bonds, were more fearless in speaking the word,”
while others “preached Christ even out of envy and strife, and
again others out of good-will,” many also “out of
love,” and certain “out of contention,” and some
“in rivalry to himself,” Utique. Regulas
sacramentorum. Nihilominus. Plane. Compare the treatise,
De Resur. Carnis, c. vi. (Oehler). Exhausit ἐκένωσε. Posuit. Inventum ratione. Non enim
exaggeraret. Virtutem:
perhaps the power. See the preceding
note. Candidæ
pharisaeæ: see Deputari, which
is an old reading, should certainly be demutari, and so say the
best authorities. Oehler reads the former, but contends for the
latter.
Chapter XXI.—The Epistle to Philemon. This Epistle Not Mutilated. Marcion’s Inconsistency in Accepting This, and Rejecting Three Other Epistles Addressed to Individuals. Conclusions. Tertullian Vindicates the Symmetry and Deliberate Purpose of His Work Against Marcion.
To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to
protect it against the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however,
when he received (into his Apostolicon) this letter which was
written but to one man, that he rejected the two epistles to Timothy
and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline. His
aim, was, I suppose, to carry out his interpolating process even to the
number of (St. Inspector:
perhaps critic. Retro: in the former
portions of this treatise. Expunxerimus. Qua eruimus ipsa
ista. [Elucidation II.]
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Soul and Spirit, cap. xv. and notes 1 and 2, p. 463.)
Dr. Holmes, in the learned note which follows,
affords me a valuable addition to my scanty remarks on this subject in
former volumes. See (Vol. I. pp. 387, 532,) references to the great
work of Professor Delitzsch, in notes on Irenæus. In Vol. II. p.
102, I have also mentioned M. Heard’s work, on the Tripartite
Nature of Man. With reference to the disagreement of the learned on
this great matter, let me ask is it not less real than apparent? The
dichotomy to which Tertullian objected, and the
trichotomy which Dr. Holmes makes a name of “the triple
nature,” are terms which rather suggest a process of
“dividing asunder of soul and spirit,” and which involve an
ambiguity that confuses the inquiry. Now, while the gravest objections
may be imagined, or even demonstrated, against a process which seems to
destroy the unity and individuality of a Man, does not every theologian
accept the analytical formula of the apostle and recognize the
bodily, the animal and the spiritual in the life
of man? If so is there not fundamental agreement as to
Man’s whole nature in Christ, seems to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit’s suffusion of man’s spirit; this rules and governs the psychic nature and through it the body.
II.
(The entire work, cap. xxi. p. 474.)
He who has followed Tertullian through the mazes in
which Marcion, in spite of shifts and turnings innumerable, has been
hunted down, and defeated, must recognize the great work performed by
this author in behalf of Christian Orthodoxy. It seems to have been the
plan of Christ’s watchful care over His Church, that, in the
earliest stages of its existence the enemy should be allowed to display
his utmost malice and to bring out all his forces against Truth. Thus,
before the meeting of Church-councils the language of faith had grown
up, and clear views and precise statements of doctrine had been
committed to the idioms of human thought. But, the labours of
Tertullian are not confined to these diverse purposes. With all the
faults of his acute and forensic mind, how powerfully he illuminates
the Scriptures and glorifies them as containing the whole system of the
Faith. How rich are his quotations, and how penetrating his
conceptions of their uses. Besides all this, what an introduction he
gives us to the modes of thought which were becoming familiar in the
West,
If I have treated tenderly the reputation of this great
Master, in my notes upon his Marcion, it is with a twofold purpose.
(1.) It seems to me due to truth that his name should be less
associated with his deplorable lapse than with his long and faithful
services to the Church, and (2.) that the student should thus follow
his career with a pleasure and with a confidence the lack of which
perpetually annoys us when we give the first place to the Montanist and
not to the Catholic. Let this be our spirit in accompanying him into
his fresh campaigns against “the grievous wolves” foreseen
by St. Paul with tears.
But as our Author invokes a careful examination of his “entire work,” let the student recur to Irenæus (Vol. I. p. 352, etc.) and observe how formidable, from the beginning, was the irreligion of Marcion. His doctrines did truly “eat like a canker,” assailing the Scriptures by mutilations and corruptions of the text itself. No marvel that Tertullian shows him no quarter, though we must often regret the forensic violence of his retort. As to the Dualism which, through Marcion, thus threatened the first article of the Creed, consult the valuable remarks of the Encyc. Britannica, (“Mithras”). Mithras became known to the Romans circa b.c. 70, and his worship flourished under Trajan and his successors. An able writer remarks that it was natural “Dualism should develop itself out of primitive Zoroastrianism. The human mind has ever been struck with a certain antagonism of which it has sought to discover the cause. Evil seems most easily accounted for by the supposition of an evil Person; and the continuance of an equal struggle, without advantage to either side, seems to imply the equality of that evil Person with the author of all good. Thus Dualism had its birth. Many came to believe in the existence of two co-eternal and co-equal Persons, one good and the other evil, between whom there has been from all eternity a perpetual conflict, and between whom the same conflict must continue to rage through all coming time.”
III.
Against Hermogenes.
Containing an Argument Against His Opinion that Matter is Eternal.
[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]
————————————
Chapter I.—The Opinions of Hermogenes, by the Prescriptive Rule of Antiquity Shown to Be Heretical. Not Derived from Christianity, But from Heathen Philosophy. Some of the Tenets Mentioned.
We are accustomed, for the
purpose of shortening argument, Compendii gratia. [The
reference here to the De Præscript. forbids us to
date this tract earlier than 207 a.d. Of this
Hermogenes, we only know that he was probably a Carthaginian, a
painter, and of a versatile and clever mind.] This is the criterion
prescribed in the Præscript. Hæret.xxxi. xxxiv.,
and often applied by Tertullian. See our Anti-Marcion, pp.
272, 345, 470, and passim. The tam novella
is a relative phrase, referring to the fore-mentioned
rule. Denique. Maldicere
singuiis. Probably by painting
idols (Rigalt.; and so Neander). It is uncertain
whether Tertullian means to charge Hermogenes with defending
polygamy, or only second marriages, in the phrase
nubit assidue. Probably the latter, which was offensive to the
rigorous Tertullian; and so Neander puts it. Quoting Disregarding the law
when it forbids the representation of idols. (Rigalt.). Et cauterio et
stilo. The former instrument was used by the encaustic painters
for burning in the wax colours into the ground of their pictures
(Westropp’s Handbook of Archæology, p. 219).
Tertullian charges Hermogenes with using his encaustic art to the
injury of the scriptures, by practically violating their precepts in
his artistic works; and with using his pen (stilus) in
corrupting the doctrine thereof by his heresy. By the nubentium
contagium, Tertullian, in his Montanist rigour, censures those who
married more than once. Thus differing from
Marcion. The force of the
subjunctive, ex qua fecerit.
Chapter II.—Hermogenes, After a Perverse Induction from Mere Heretical Assumptions, Concludes that God Created All Things Out of Pre-Existing Matter.
Our very bad painter has coloured this his primary
shade absolutely without any light, with such arguments as these: He
begins with laying down the premiss, Præstruens. Porro. In partes non
devenire. Ut faceret
semetipsum. Ut fieret de
semetipso. Non fieri. Non ejus fieret
conditionis. Inveniri.
Chapter III.—An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer: While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative Appellations, Not Eternally Applicable. An Inconsistency in the Argument of Hermogenes Pointed Out.
He adds also another point: that as God was always
God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord.
But Porro. Retro. Itaque. Conjecturam. Tam…quam. Scilicet. Argumentari: in the
sense of argutari. Naviter nobis
patrocinatur. Cognominatur: as
if by way of surname, Deus
Dominus. Et ego. Extrema linea.
Rhenanus sees in this phrase a slur against Hermogenes, who was an
artist. Tertullian, I suppose, meant that Hermogenes was
extremely ignorant. Experimenta. Libera: and so
not a possible subject for the Lordship of God. Matter having,
by the hypothesis, been independent of God, and so incapable of
giving Him any title to Lordship. Fuit hoc utique. In
Hermogenes’ own opinion, which is thus shown to have been
contradictory to itself, and so absurd.
Chapter IV.—Hermogenes Gives Divine Attributes to Matter, and So Makes Two Gods.
At this point, then, I shall begin to treat of
Matter, how that, (according to Hermogenes,) Quod, with the
subjunctive comparet. Census. Scilicet. Apud nos. The property of being
eternal. Unicum sit necesse
est. Censetur.
Chapter V.—Hermogenes Coquets with His Own Argument, as If Rather Afraid of It. After Investing Matter with Divine Qualities, He Tries to Make It Somehow Inferior to God.
But God is God, and Matter is Matter. As if a mere
difference in their names prevented equality, Comparationi. Ratio. Auctrix. Statim si. Totum Dei. Hermogenes. Ordinem: or
course. Quale autem est:
“how comes it to pass that.”
Chapter VI.—The Shifts to Which Hermogenes is Reduced, Who Deifies Matter, and Yet is Unwilling to Hold Him Equal with the Divine Creator.
He declares that God’s attribute is still
safe to Him, of being the only God, and the First, and the Author of
all things, and the Lord of all things, and being incomparable to
any—qualities which he straightway ascribes to Matter also. He is
God, to be sure. God shall also attest the same; but He has also sworn
sometimes by Himself, that there is no other God like Him. Ordo. Salvum ergo erit. Recensentur.
Chapter VII.—Hermogenes Held to His Theory in Order that Its Absurdity May Be Exposed on His Own Principles.
When he contends that matter is less than God, and
inferior to Him, and therefore diverse from Him, and for the same
reason not a fit subject of comparison with Him, who is a greater and
superior Being, I meet him with this prescription, that what is eternal
and unborn is incapable of any diminution and inferiority, because it
is simply this which makes even God to be as great as He is, inferior
and subject to none—nay, greater and higher than all. For,
just as all things which are born, or which come to an end, and are
therefore not eternal, do, by reason of their exposure at once to an
end and a beginning, admit of qualities which are repugnant to
God—I mean diminution and inferiority, because they are born and
made—so likewise God, for this very reason, is unsusceptible of
these accidents, because He is absolutely unborn, Nec natus omnino. Of course, according
to Hermogenes, whom Tertullian refutes with an argumentum ad
hominem. Aderit utrobique. That is, having no God
superior to themselves. Hermogenes.
Chapter VIII.—On His Own Principles, Hermogenes Makes Matter, on the Whole, Superior to God.
Nay more, Atquin etiam. Ex illa usus est. De cujus utitur. Præstat. Itaque. Quidem. Revera. Sane. They are so deemed in
the de Præscript. Hæret. c. vii.
Chapter IX.—Sundry Inevitable But Intolerable Conclusions from the Principles of Hermogenes.
He cannot say that it was as its Lord that God
employed Matter for His creative works, for He could not have been the
Lord of a substance which was co-equal with Himself. Well, but perhaps
it was a title derived from the will of another, We have rather
paraphrased the word “precario”—“obtained by
prayer.” [See p. 456.] Domino: opposed to
“precario.” Ideo…ut. Mediocritatis. Tali: i.e.
potestate. Jam ergo: introducing
an argumentum ad hominem against Hermogenes. Quia dominator. Ergo. Aut precario:
“as having begged for it.” Precario: See above,
note 2, p. 482. De is often in
Tertullian the sign of an instrumental noun.
Chapter X.—To What Straits Hermogenes Absurdly Reduces the Divine Being. He Does Nothing Short of Making Him the Author of Evil.
Even if Matter had been the perfection of
good, Optima. Bona fide. Audiat. De mali ratione. Hac sua
injectione. See our Anti-Marcion, iv. i., for this word,
p. 345. Assentator. Fr. Junius
suggests “adsectator” of the stronger meaning
“promoter;” nor does Oehler object. Adversum
semetipsum. Male: in
reference to His alleged complicity with evil.
Chapter XI.—Hermogenes Makes Great Efforts to Remove Evil from God to Matter. How He Fails to Do This Consistently with His Own Argument.
But, after all, Et tamen. Definimus. Competere illi. Alias. Et in Deum credi. Gestivit. Jam vero. Tum. Utique: with a touch
of irony, in the argumentum ad hominem. Conditionis:
“creation.” Condixerint. Male deputantur.
Chapter XII.—The Mode of Controversy Changed. The Premisses of Hermogenes Accepted, in Order to Show into What Confusion They Lead Him.
Come now, let us suppose Matter to be evil, nay,
very evil, by nature of course, just as Scilicet. O homo. Temere. Tene. Scilicet. Denique. That is, of course, by
its own natural law.
Chapter XIII.—Another Ground of Hermogenes that Matter Has Some Good in It. Its Absurdity.
Here the question will arise How creatures were
made good out of it, Matter. i.e. in their nature,
Matter being evil, and they good, on the hypothesis. Concurrisse. Ipsa. Invidiam. Ingenio.
Chapter XIV.—Tertullian Pushes His Opponent into a Dilemma.
Now, if it be also argued, that although Matter
may have afforded Him the opportunity, it was still His own will which
led Him to the creation of good creatures, as having detected Nactus. Turpe. Utique. Ex malo. Proinde quatenus. We subjoin the
original of this sentence: “Plane sic interest unde fecerit ac si
de nihilo fecisset, nec interest uned fecerit, ut inde fecerit unde eum
magis decuit.” Pusillitas. Secundum Hermogenis
dispositionem.
Chapter XV.—The Truth, that God Made All Things from Nothing, Rescued from the Opponent’s Flounderings.
Now, if good was neither produced out of matter,
since it was not in it, evil as it was, nor out of God, since,
according to the position of Hermogenes, nothing could have been
produced out of god, it will be found that good was created out of
nothing, inasmuch as it was formed of none—neither of Matter nor
of God. And if good was formed out of nothing, why not evil too? Nay,
if anything was formed out of nothing, why not all things? Unless
indeed it be that the divine might was insufficient for the production
of all things, though it produced a something out of nothing. Or
else if good proceeded from evil matter, since it issued neither from
nothing nor from God, it will follow that it must have proceeded from
the conversion of Matter contrary to that unchangeable attribute which
has been claimed for it, as an eternal being. Contra denegatam
æterni conversationem. Literally, “Contrary to that
convertibility of an eternal nature which has been denied (by
Hermogenes) to be possible.” It will be obvious why we have, in
connection with the preceding clause preferred the equivalent rendering
of our text. For the denial of Hermogenes, which Tertullian refers to,
see above, chap. xii. p. 484. Debuisset
protulisse. This clumsy expedient
to save the character of both God and Matter was one of the weaknesses
of Hermogenes’ system. Cur non et ex nihilo
potuerit induci? Ubique et undique. Destructionibus.
“Ruin of character” is the true idea of this strong
term.
Chapter XVI.—A Series of Dilemmas. They Show that Hermogenes Cannot Escape from the Orthodox Conclusion.
On the very threshold,
Præstructione. The notion is of the foundation of an
edifice: here ="preliminary remarks” (see our
Anti-Marcion, v. 5, p. 438). Articuli. Utrumque utrique. Alterum alteri. Boni matrix. The usual reading is
“Hermogenes.” Rigaltius, however, reads
“Hermogenis,” of which Oehler approves; so as to make
Tertullian say, “I cannot tell how I can avoid the opinion of
Hermogenes, who,” etc. etc. Per substantiæ
suggestum. Excusas jam causam.
Hermogenes held that Matter was eternal, to exclude God from the
authorship of evil. This causa of Matter he was now
illogically evading. Excusare = ex, causa, “to cancel the
cause.” De præjudicio
alieno.
Chapter XVII.—The Truth of God’s Work in Creation. You Cannot Depart in the Least from It, Without Landing Yourself in an Absurdity.
This rule is required by the nature of the
One-only God, Unici Dei. De aliquo. Adeo ut fecerit.
Chapter XVIII.—An Eulogy on the Wisdom and Word of God, by Which God Made All Things of Nothing.
If any material was necessary to God in the
creation of the world, as Hermogenes supposed, God had a far nobler and
more suitable one in His own wisdom Sophiam suam
scilicet. Apud. Or the
“inquit” may indicate the very words of
“Wisdom.” Fontes. Although
Oehler prefers Junius’ reading “montes,” he yet
retains “fontes,” because Tertullian (in ch. xxxii. below)
has the unmistakable reading “fontes” in a like
connection. Compingens. Ad quem: the
expression is masculine. Commendet. “Non fini
subditam” is Oehler’s better reading than the old
“sibi subditam.” Condidit: created. See Intra Dominum. Scilicet. Cœpti
agitari. Multo magis non
capit. Extra Dominum. Sensu. Nedum. Proinde. On this version of
Nisi quod.
Chapter XIX.—An Appeal to the History of Creation. True Meaning of the Term Beginning, Which the Heretic Curiously Wrests to an Absurd Sense.
But I shall appeal to the original
document Originale
instrumentum: which may mean “the document which treats of the
origin of all things.” Principium. Corpulentum. Substantivum
aliquid. De cetero. Non ab re tamen.
Chapter XX.—Meaning of the Phrase—In the Beginning. Tertullian Connects It with the Wisdom of God, and Elicits from It the Truth that the Creation Was Not Out of Pre-Existent Matter.
But in proof that the Greek word means nothing
else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense
than the initial one, we have that (Being)
Illam…quæ. Condidit:
“created.” In qua: in Wisdom. Wisdom. De cogitatu. Species facti. Proinde.
Chapter XXI.—A Retort of Heresy Answered. That Scripture Should in So Many Words Tell Us that the World Was Made of Nothing is Superfluous.
But, you will say to me, if you determine that all
things were made of nothing, on the ground that it is not told us that
anything was made out of pre-existent Matter, take care that it be not
contended on the opposite side, that on the same ground all things were
made out of Matter, because it is not likewise expressly said that
anything was made out of nothing. Some arguments may, of
course, Plane. Dum ostenditur: which
Oehler and Rigalt. construe as “donec ostendatur.” One
reading has “dum non ostenditur,”
“so long as it is not shown.” Ea conditione. In totum habebat
intelligi.
Chapter XXII.—This Conclusion Confirmed by the Usage of Holy Scripture in Its History of the Creation. Hermogenes in Danger of the Woe Pronounced Against Adding to Scripture.
And to such a degree has the Holy Ghost Quid unde protulerit:
properly a double question ="what was produced, and whence?” Unde
unde…dumne. Quid unde processerit:
properly a double question ="what was produced, and whence?” Adoro: reverently
admire. Officina.
Chapter XXIII.—Hermogenes Pursued to Another Passage of Scripture. The Absurdity of His Interpretation Exposed.
But he draws an argument from the following words,
where it is written: “And the earth was without form, and
void.” Redigit in. Inconditam: we have
combined the two senses of the word. Tale aliquid. Plane: ironical.
Chapter XXIV.—Earth Does Not Mean Matter as Hermogenes Would Have It.
I now return to the several points Articulos. Nec utique. Communicare. We have construed
Oehler’s reading: “Quanto non comparet”
(i.e., by a frequent ellipse of Tertullian,
“quanto magis non comparet”).
Fr. Junius, however, suspects that instead of “quanto” we
should read “quando”: this would produce the sense,
“since it is not apparent to what object it may be
ascribed,” etc. Nominatam. Cognominatam.
Chapter XXV.—The Assumption that There are Two Earths Mentioned in the History of the Creation, Refuted.
He accordingly maintains that there are two earths
set before us in the passage in question: one, which God made in the
beginning; the other being the Matter of which God made the world, and
concerning which it is said, “And the earth was without form, and
void.” Quæ cui nomen
terræ accommodare debeat. This is literally a double question,
asking about the fitness of the name, and to which earth it is best
adapted. He means those
who have gone wrong on the eternity of matter. Proinde. A mixed metal,
of the colour of amber.
Chapter XXVI.—The Method Observed in the History of the Creation, in Reply to the Perverse Interpretation of Hermogenes.
We, however, have but one God, and but Qualitatem ejus:
unless this means “how He made it,” like the
“qualiter fecerit” below. Utique. Prosequi. Primo præfari,
postea prosequi; nominare, deinde describere. This properly is an
abstract statement, given with Tertullian’s usual
terseness: “First you should (‘decet’) give your
preface, then follow up with details: first name your subject,
then describe it.” Alioquin. Hermogenes, whose view
of the narrative is criticised. Integer. Autem. Cum maxime
edixerat. The
“autem” of the note just before this. Fibula. Alligat sensum.
Chapter XXVII.—Some Hair-Splitting Use of Words in Which His Opponent Had Indulged.
But you next praise your eyebrows, and toss back
your head, and beckon with your finger, in characteristic
disdain, Implied in the
emphatic tu. Sine u lo lenocinio
pronunciationis. Prima positio:
the first inflection perhaps, i.e. the present tense. Declinatio: the past
tense. Caput. Scilicet. This seems to be the
meaning of the obscure passage, “Ut ejusdem sit Erat
cujus et quod erat.”
Chapter XXVIII.—A Curious Inconsistency in Hermogenes Exposed. Certain Expressions in The History of Creation Vindicated in The True Sense.
But we shall show not only that this
condition Habitum. Deo subjacebat. See below, ch. xxx. p.
494. Matter. “Compertus
est” is here a deponent verb. Minus factum. Rudimento. Tertullian
uses the word “rudis” (unformed) for the scriptural term
(“void”); of this word “rudimentum” is the
abstract.
Chapter XXIX.—The Gradual Development of Cosmical Order Out of Chaos in the Creation, Beautifully Stated.
God, indeed, consummated all His works in a due
order; at first He paled them out, Depalans. Dedicans:
“disposed” them. Solatio lunæ: a
beautiful expression! Significavit. Belluis. In vacuum: void. Futura etiam
perfecta. De reliquo nondum
instructa. Genitalis humoris. Canit:
“sing,” as the Psalmist. Emicantior.
“Visibilis” is here the opposite of the term
“invisibilis,” which Tertullian uses for the Scripture
phrase “without form.” In congregatione
una. Sustinebat: i.e.
expectabat (Oehler). Volo. He means, of course,
the theoretic “Matter” of Hermogenes. Demonstravit:
“make it visible.” Tertullian here all along makes
form and visibility synonymous. Ostensam:
“manifested” (see note 10, p. 96.) Cum cælo
separavit:
Chapter XXX.—Another Passage in the Sacred History of the Creation, Released from the Mishandling of Hermogenes.
The following words will in like manner apparently
corroborate the conjecture of Hermogenes, “And darkness was upon
the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
water;” Confusæ. Massalis illius
molis. Situs. Dispositionem. Tot formarum
vocabulis. Corpus
confusionis. Unicum. Informe. Autem. Confusum. Ex varietate. Unam speciem. Unam ex multis
speciem. Istas species. Non habens formas. Agnoscitur.
Chapter XXXI.—A Further Vindication of the Scripture Narrative of the Creation, Against a Futile View of Hermogenes.
But this circumstance, too, will be caught at,
that Scripture meant to indicate of the heaven only, and this earth of
yours, Ista: the earth, which
has been the subject of contention. Speciebus. Scrupulo: doubt or
difficulty. Suggestus: “Hoc
est, apparatus, ornatus” (Oehler). It will be observed
that Tertullian applies the spiritus to the wind as
a creature. Qua summale. Qua portionale. Scena. Has species. Both in the quotation
and here, Tertullian read “faciem” where we read
“nostrils.” Cutem: another reading
has “costam,” rib. See
Chapter XXXII.—The Account of the Creation in Genesis a General One, Corroborated, However, by Many Other Passages of the Old Testament, Which Give Account of Specific Creations. Further Cavillings Confuted.
This is the answer I should give in defence of the
Scripture before us, for seeming here to set forth Quatenus hic
commendare videtur. Dissimulato tacito
intellectu. Subjecta. De spiritu. This
shows that Tertullian took the spirit of So also the
Septuagint. So also the
Septuagint. The
“wind.” Flatum:
“breath;” so LXX. of Fontes, quæ. Modulans. Plane. In disperso. Ergo:
Tertullian’s answer. Ch. xxx., towards the
end. Ut et aliæ. Jam. Otiosa. Generatio: creation in
the highest sense of matter issuing from the maker. Another reading has
“generosiora essent,” for our “generatio sola
esset,” meaning that, “those things would be nobler which
had not been made,” which is obviously quite opposed to
Tertullian’s argument. Æque. Præmiserat.
Chapter XXXIII.—Statement of the True Doctrine Concerning Matter. Its Relation to God’s Creation of the World.
But although Hermogenes finds it amongst his own
colourable pretences Colores. See our
“Anti-Marcion,” p. 217, Edin., where the word
pretension should stand instead of precedent.
Præscribentes. Innatum: see above,
note 12. Donec ad Scripturas
provocata deficiat exibitio materiæ. Etiamsi quid. Origines. Materias. There is a
point in this use of the plural of the controverted term
materia.
Chapter XXXIV.—A Presumption that All Things Were Created by God Out of Nothing Afforded by the Ultimate Reduction of All Things to Nothing. Scriptures Proving This Reduction Vindicated from Hermogenes’ Charge of Being Merely Figurative.
Besides, Ceterum. Acerba sua
“grossos suos” (Rigalt.). So our marginal reading. Etiam mare hactenus,
Causam. Etiam. Emortuam. In hoc, ut esset.
Contrasted with the “non erat” of the previous sentence,
this must be the meaning, as if it were “ut fieret.”
Chapter XXXV.—Contradictory Propositions Advanced by Hermogenes Respecting Matter and Its Qualities.
As regards all other points touching Matter,
although there is no necessity why we should treat of them (for our
first point was the manifest proof of its existence), we must for all
that pursue our discussion just as if it did exist, in order that its
non-existence may be the more apparent, when these other points
concerning it prove inconsistent with each other, and in order at the
same time that Hermogenes may acknowledge his own contradictory
positions. Matter, says he, at first sight seems to us to be
incorporeal; but when examined by the light of right reason, it
is found to be neither corporeal nor incorporeal. What is this right
reason of yours, Ista. Interim. De substantiis
duntaxat. Age nunc sit:
“But grant that there is this third state.”
Chapter XXXVI.—Other Absurd Theories Respecting Matter and Its Incidents Exposed in an Ironical Strain. Motion in Matter. Hermogenes’ Conceits Respecting It.
But see what a contradiction he next
advances Subicit. Other than
“the right reason” above named. Adversus. The original,
“Adversus renuntiationem reciprocationis illius,” is an
obscure expression. Oehler, who gives this reading in his edition,
after the editio princeps, renders the term
“reciprocationis” by the phrase “negative
conversion” of the proposition that Matter is corporeal and
incorporeal (q.d. “Matter is neither corporeal nor
incorporeal”). Instead, however, of the reading
“reciprocationis,” Oehler would gladly read
“rectæ rationis,” after most of the
editions. He thinks that this allusion to “the right
reason,” of which Hermogenes boasted, and of which the absurd
conclusion is exposed in the context, very well suits the sarcastic
style of Tertullian. If this, the general reading, be adopted, we
must render the whole clause this: “For it will be corporeal and
incorporeal, in spite of the declaration of that right reason
(of Hermogenes), which is plainly enough above giving any
reason,” etc. etc. Inconditum. See
above ch. xviii., in the middle. Notwithstanding the absurdity of
Hermogenes idea, it is impossible to translate this word
irregular as it has been proposed to do by Genoude. Rectior. Bardior. Actus: being
driven. Actus ejus est
motus. Sicut tu. Denique. Solius. Res. Officia. Habitum. Quid enim? Si placuisset
tibi. See below, ch. xli.,
p. 500.
Chapter XXXVII.—Ironical Dilemmas Respecting Matter, and Sundry Moral Qualities Fancifully Attributed to It.
I see now that you are coming back again to that
reason, which has been in the habit of declaring to you nothing in the
way of certainty. For just as you introduce to our notice Matter as
being neither corporeal nor incorporeal, so you allege of it that it is
neither good nor evil; and you say, whilst arguing further on it in the
same strain: “If it were good, seeing that it had ever been so,
it would not require the arrangement of itself by God; Compositionem Dei. Non accepisset
translationem. Subostendis. Affinem. Subicis. This is the force of
the subjunctive verb. Te confessum.
Chapter XXXIII.—Other Speculations of Hermogenes, About Matter and Some of Its Adjuncts, Shown to Be Absurd. For Instance, Its Alleged Infinity.
My observations touching the site De situ. Oehler here restores
the reading “quod et de modo,” instead
of “de motu,” for which Pamelius
contends. Oehler has the mss. on his side, and
Fr. Junius, who interprets “modo” here to
mean “mass or quantity.” Pamelius wishes to suit the
passage to the preceding context (see ch. xxxvi.); Junius thinks it is
meant rather to refer to what follows, by which it is confirmed. In loco. Determinatur. Lineam extremam. Modo corporis: or
“bulk.” Nec tota fabricatur,
sed partes ejus. This perhaps means: “It is not its entirety, but
its parts, which are used in creation.” Obduceris: here a verb
of the middle voice. In reference to the
opinion above mentioned, “Matter is not fabricated as whole, but
in parts.” Ut exemplarium
antiquitatis.
Chapter XXXIX.—These Latter Speculations Shown to Be Contradictory to the First Principles Respecting Matter, Formerly Laid Down by Hermogenes.
Well, now, since it seems to you to be the
correcter thing, Rectius. Definitiva. Ut quæ
fabricatur, inquis, a Deo. Lineis. Tertullian
often refers to Hermogenes’ profession of painting. In partes venire. Omnia ex omnibus. i.e. of Matter. Dinoscatur ex. Utique ex
pristinis. Aliter habeant.
Chapter XL.—Shapeless Matter an Incongruous Origin for God’s Beautiful Cosmos. Hermogenes Does Not Mend His Argument by Supposing that Only a Portion of Matter Was Used in the Creation.
You say that Matter was reformed for the
better In melius
reformatam. Speculum. Mulus. Speciatum: εἰδοποιηθέν,
“arranged in specific forms.” Κόσμος. Inornatæ:
unfurnished with forms of beauty. Non totam eam
fabricatam. Recesserunt a forma
ejus.
Chapter XLI.—Sundry Quotations from Hermogenes. Now Uncertain and Vague are His Speculations Respecting Motion in Matter, and the Material Qualities of Good and Evil.
I come back to the point of
motion, From which he has
digressed since ch. xxxvi., p. 497. Subjacens materia. Æqualis momenti
motum. Passivitas. Determinabilem. In loco facis:
“you localise.” In loco. Denique. Cum corpori accedunt:
or, “when they are added to a body.” Loca:
“places;” one to each. Cum ab utraque regione
suspendis: equally far from good and evil.
Chapter XLII.—Further Exposure of Inconsistencies in the Opinions of Hermogenes Respecting the Divine Qualities of Matter.
You have thrown out all your views loosely and at
random, Dispersisti omnia. Inconditum.
“Communionem.” Ornari: “to be
adorned.” Ornari: “to be
adorned.”
Only in God motion is regular, Composite. Incondite.
Chapter XLIII.—Other Discrepancies Exposed and Refuted Respecting the Evil in Matter Being Changed to Good.
On the subject of motion I would make this further
remark. Following the simile of the boiling caldron, you
say that motion in Matter, before it was regulated, was
confused, Concretus. Certaminis. Compositionem:
“arrangement.” See above, ch. xxxvii.
p. 498. Ornata. Cessavit a. Cessavit.
Chapter XLIV.—Curious Views Respecting God’s Method of Working with Matter Exposed. Discrepancies in the Heretic’s Opinion About God’s Local Relation to Matter.
But it remains that I should show also how you
make God work. You are plainly enough at variance with the
philosophers; but neither are you in accord with the prophets. The
Stoics maintain that God pervaded Matter, just as honey the honeycomb.
You, however, affirm that it is not by pervading Matter that God makes
the world, but simply by appearing, and approaching it, just as beauty
affects Facit quid decor. Certe. Retro.
Chapter XLV.—Conclusion. Contrast Between the Statements of Hermogenes and the Testimony of Holy Scripture Respecting the Creation. Creation Out of Nothing, Not Out of Matter.
But it is not thus that the prophets and the
apostles have told us that the world was made by God merely appearing
and approaching Matter. They did not even mention any Matter, but
(said) that Wisdom was first set up, the beginning of His ways, for His
works. Spiritu Ipsius:
“by His Spirit.” See Aut si. Atquin. Ubique conveniri. Nescio quæ. Sensualia. Nec competat. Nisi quod.
Against the Valentinians.
In Which the Author Gives a Concise Account of, Together with Sundry Caustic Animadversions on, the Very Fantastic Theology of the Sect. This Treatise is Professedly Taken from the Writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenæus, and Proculus.
[Translated by Dr. Roberts.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Introductory. Tertullian Compares the Heresy to the Old Eleusinian Mysteries. Both Systems Alike in Preferring Concealment of Error and Sin to Proclamation of Truth and Virtue.
The Valentinians, who are
no doubt a very large body of heretics—comprising as they do so
many apostates from the truth, who have a propensity for fables, and no
discipline to deter them (therefrom) care for nothing so much as to
obscure Occultant. [This
tract may be assigned to any date not earlier than a.d. 207. Of this Valentinus, see cap. iv. infra,
and de Præscript. capp. 29, 30,
supra.] We are far from
certain whether we have caught the sense of the original, which we add,
that the reader may judge for himself, and at the same time observe the
terseness of our author: “Custodiæ officium conscientiæ
officium est, confusio prædicatur, dum religio
asseveratur.” Et aditum prius
cruciant. Antequam
consignant. Epoptas: see
Suidas, s.v. ᾽Επόπται. Ædificent. Adytis. Epoptarum. Dispositio. Patrocinio coactæ
figuræ. Excusat. “Quid enim aliud
est simulachrum nisi falsum?” (Rigalt.) Quos nunc
destinamus. Lenocinia. Taciturnitate. Facili caritati.
Oehler, after Fr. Junius, gives, however, this phrase a subjective turn
thus: “by affecting a charity which is easy to them, costing
nothing.” Concreto. Sua cæde.
Chapter II.—These Heretics Brand the Christians as Simple Persons. The Charge Accepted, and Simplicity Eulogized Out of the Scriptures.
For this reason we are branded Notamur. In the original
the phrase is put passively: “malim eam partem
meliori sumi vitio.” How terse is the
original! minus sapere quam pejus. Facies Dei. Litaverunt:
“consecrated.” Tertullian’s
words are rather suggestive of sense than of syntax:
“Pueros vocem qui crucem clamant?” Secundum Deum:
“according to God’s will.” Dedi. i.e., without
wisdom. Concutere.
Chapter III.—The Folly of This Heresy. It Dissects and Mutilates the Deity. Contrasted with the Simple Wisdom of True Religion. To Expose the Absurdities of the Valentinian System is to Destroy It.
Let, then, the serpent hide himself as much as he
is able, and let him wrest Torqueat. Per anfractus. Nec semel totus. By this remark it
would seem that Tertullian read sundry passages in his Latin Bible
similarly to the subsequent Vulgate version. For instance, in
Or, perhaps,
“whom it (nature) feels in all its works.” Alioquin. Alloquin a turba eorum
et aliam frequentiam suadere: which perhaps is best rendered,
“But from one rabble of gods to frame and teach men to believe in
another set,” etc. A nutricula. Inter somni
difficultates. These were
child’s stories at Carthage in Tertullian’s days. Apostoli spiritus: see
Detectorem. Designatorem. Totius
conscientiæ illorum. Tanto impendio.
Chapter IV.—The Heresy Traceable to Valentinus, an Able But Restless Man. Many Schismatical Leaders of the School Mentioned. Only One of Them Shows Respect to the Man Whose Name Designates the Entire School.
We know, I say, most fully their actual origin,
and we are quite aware why we call them Valentinians, although they
affect to disavow their name. They have departed, it is
true, Enim. Martyrii. Conversus. Semitam. Consolatur. Regularum: the
particulars of his system. [Here comes in the word, borrowed from
heresy, which shaped Monasticism in after times and created the
regular orders.] Nec unitatem, sed
diversitatem: scil. appellant. Colores
ignorantiarum.
Chapter V.—Many Eminent Christian Writers Have Carefully and Fully Refuted the Heresy. These the Author Makes His Own Guides.
My own path, however, lies along the original
tenets Archetypis. Passivorum. [See Vol. I. pp. 171,
182, this series]. In a good sense, from
the elegance of his style. [See Vol. I. p. 326,
of this series. Tertullian appropriates the work of Irenæus, (B.
i.) against the Gnostics without further ceremony: translation
excepted.] Dignitas. [Of this
Proculus see Kaye, p. 55.] Otiosus.
Chapter VI.—Although Writing in Latin He Proposes to Retain the Greek Names of the Valentinian Emanations of Deity. Not to Discuss the Heresy But Only to Expose It. This with the Raillery Which Its Absurdity Merits.
In order then, that no one may be blinded by so
many outlandish Tam peregrinis. Compactis. Ut signum hoc sit. Or
stormed perhaps; expugnatio is the word. Delibatione
transfunctoria. Ostendam vulnera. Secura.
Chapter VII.—The First Eight Emanations, or Æons, Called the Ogdoad, are the Fountain of All the Others. Their Names and Descent Recorded.
Beginning with Ennius, Primus omnium. Cœnacula: dining
halls. Supernitates
supernitatum. Ædicularum. Meritorium. This is perhaps a fair
rendering of “Insulam Feliculam credas tanta tabulata
cœlorum, nescio ubi.” “Insula” is sometimes
“a detached house.” It is difficult to say what
“Felicula” is; it seems to be a diminutive of Felix. It
occurs in Arrian’s Epictetica as the name of a slave. We follow
Tertullian’s mode of designation all through. He, for the most
part, gives the Greek names in Roman letters, but not quite always. Expostulo: “I
postulate as a first principle.” Tertullian is
responsible for this Latin word amongst the Greek names. The
strange mixture occurs often. Quadriga. Factionis. Ibidem simul. Cellas. Census. Turbam. Criminum. Numinum.
Chapter VIII.—The Names and Descent of Other Æons; First Half a Score, Then Two More, and Ultimately a Dozen Besides. These Thirty Constitute the Pleroma. But Why Be So Capricious as to Stop at Thirty?
For, behold, when the second Tetrad—Sermo
and Vita, Homo and Ecclesia We everywhere give
Tertullian’s own names, whether of Greek form or Latin. On their
first occurrence we also give their English sense. Ebulliunt. Proinde
conjugales. Of this name there are
two forms—Αἶνος (Praise)
and ᾽Αεινοῦς
(Eternal Mind). Or Τελετός
(Teletus). Another form of this Æon’s name is Φιλητός
(Philetus = Beloved). Oehler always reads
Theletus. Cogor. Frigidissimus. Cum virum fortem
peroraret…inquit. Tertullian’s
joke lies in the equivocal sense of this cry, which may mean either
admiration and joy, or grief and rage. Audisti:
interrogatively. See above, chap. iv.
p. 505. Privilegia. Castrata. Tanta numerorum
coagula. The
pædagogium was either the place where boys were trained as
pages (often for lewd purposes), or else the boy himself of such a
character. Oehler reads,
“hetæri (ἑταῖροι) et
syntrophi.” Another reading, supported by Rigaltius, is
“sterceiæ,” instead of the former word, which gives a
very contemptuous sense, suitable to Tertullian’s irony.
Chapter IX.—Other Capricious Features in the System. The Æons Unequal in Attributes. The Superiority of Nus; The Vagaries of Sophia Restrained by Horos. Grand Titles Borne by This Last Power.
But, further, there is an
“acceptance Exceptio. Tertullian has, above,
remarked on the silent and secret practices of the Valentinians: see
chap. i. p. 503. In hunc derivaret. Sed enim. De Patre. Præ vi dulcedinis
et laboris. It is not easy to say
what is the meaning of the words, “Et in reliquam substantiam
dissolvi.” Rigaltius renders them: “So that whatever
substance was left to her was being dissolved.” This seems to be
forcing the sentence unnaturally. Irenæus (according to the Latin
translator) says: “Resolutum in universam
substantiam,” “Resolved into his (the Father’s)
general substance,” i. 2, 2. [Vol. I. p. 317.] Illius. So Grabe; but
Reaper, according to Neander. Animationem.
Chapter X.—Another Account of the Strange Aberrations of Sophia, and the Restraining Services of Horus. Sophia Was Not Herself, After All, Ejected from the Pleroma, But Only Her Enthymesis.
But some dreamers have given another account of
the aberration Exitum. Uti quæ. Comp. Aristotle,
Hist. Anim. vi. 2; Pliny, H. N. x. 58,
60. Ratione. Exitus. In hæc: in
relation to the case of Sophia. Above, in chap. viii.
we were told that Nus, who was so much like the Father, was himself
called “Father.” In censu. Appendicem. Literally,
“infirm fruit and a female,” i.e. “had not
shared in any male influence, but was a purely female
production.” See our Irenæus, i. 4. [Vol. I. p.
321.]
Chapter XI.—The Profane Account Given of the Origin of Christ and the Holy Ghost Sternly Rebuked. An Absurdity Respecting the Attainment of the Knowledge of God Ably Exposed.
Accordingly, after the banishment of the
Enthymesis, and the return of her mother Sophia to her husband, the
(illustrious) Monogenes, the Nus, Ille nus. Iterum: above. Copulationem: The
profane reference is to Christ and the Spirit. [A shocking
reference to the Spirit which I modify to one of the Divine
Persons.] Vulneratur. Cathedræ. Quædam. Conjugiorum. Innati
conjectationem. Perpetuitatis:
i.e. “what was unchangeable in their condition and
nature.” Rationem: perhaps
“the means.” Hac dispositione.
Chapter XII.—The Strange Jumble of the Pleroma. The Frantic Delight of the Members Thereof. Their Joint Contribution of Parts Set Forth with Humorous Irony.
Thus they are all on the self-same footing in
respect of form and knowledge, all of them having become what each of
them severally is; none being a different being, because they are all
what the others are. Nemo aliud quia alteri
omnes. Refunduntur. The reader will, of
course, see that we give a familiar English plural to these names, as
better expressing Tertullian’s irony. Concinunt. Diffundebatur. Nauclerus:
“pilot.” Tertullian lived in a
seaport at Carthage. Nedum. Christ and the Holy
Spirit, [i.e. blasphemously.] Symbolæ
ratio. Ratio. Ex ære
collaticio. In reference to the common symbola, Tertullian adds
the proverbial formula, “quod aiunt” (as they say). Compingunt. Cognominant. De patritus.
Irenæus’ word here is πατρωνυμικῶς
(“patronymice”). Ex omnium
defloratione. Patina. Alluding to the
olive-branch, ornamented with all sorts of fruits (compare our
“Christmas tree”), which was carried about by boys in
Athens on a certain festival (White and Riddle).
Chapter XIII.—First Part of the Subject, Touching the Constitution of the Pleroma, Briefly Recapitulated. Transition to the Other Part, Which is Like a Play Outside the Curtain.
In this series, then, is contained the first emanation
of Æons, who are alike born, and are married, and produce
offspring: there are the most dangerous fortunes of Sophia in her
ardent longing for the Father, the most seasonable help of Horos, the
expiation of her Comparaticium
antistatum. The latter word Oehler explains, “ante ipsum
stantes;” the former, “quia genus eorum comparari poterat
substantiæ Soteris” (so Rigaltus). The reader will see
how obviously this is meant in Tertullian’s “Quod superest,
inquis, vos valete et plaudite.” This is the well-known
allusion to the end of the play in the old Roman theatre. See
Quintilian, vi. 1, 52; comp. Horace, A. P. 155.
Tertullian’s own parody to this formula, immediately after, is:
“Immo quod superest, inquam, vos audite et proficite. In libero: which may
be, however, “beyond the control of Horos.”
Chapter XIV.—The Adventures of Achamoth Outside the Pleroma. The Mission of Christ in Pursuit of Her. Her Longing for Christ. Horos’ Hostility to Her. Her Continued Suffering.
For Enthymesis, or rather Achamoth—because
by this inexplicable Ininterpretabili. Tertullian’s
“Dum ita rerum habet” is a copy of the Greek οὕτω τῶν
πραγμάτων
ἔχουσο. Deflectitur a. Casus sui. Rerum ex
liberalitatibus. De actia fuit. [See
Vol. I. pp. 320, 321.] It is not necessary,
with Rigaltius, to make a difficulty about this, when we remember that
Tertullian only refers to a silly conceit of the Valentinians touching
the origin of the sacred name. Or does
“nec habens supervolare crucem”
mean “being unable to elude the cross?” As if
Tertullian meant, in his raillery, to say, that Achamoth had not the
skill of the player who played the part of Laureolus. Although so often
suspended on the gibbet, he had of course as often escaped the real
penalty. A notorious robber,
the hero of a play by Lutatius Catullus, who is said to have been
crucified. Temperata.
Chapter XV.—Strange Account of the Origin of Matter, from the Various Affections of Achamoth. The Waters from Her Tears; Light from Her Smile.
Well, now, the Pythagoreans may learn, the Stoics
may know, Plato himself (may discover), whence Matter, which they will
have to be unborn, derived both its origin and substance for all this
pile of the world—(a mystery) which not even the
renowned Ille. Recogitavit. “Omnis anima
hujus mundi” may, however, mean “every living
soul.” So Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p.
487. Cetera. Achamoth’s. Exitum. Utique. These two
rivers, with their peculiar qualities, are mentioned by Pliny, H.
N. ii. 103; [and the latter by Milton against
Salmasius.] Ovid.
Metam. iv. 286. Pipiavit. Qui. As light. Instrumentum: water is
meant. Christ and the Holy
Spirit. Oehler.
Chapter XVI.—Achamoth Purified from All Impurities of Her Passion by the Paraclete, Acting Through Soter, Who Out of the Above-Mentioned Impurities Arranges Matter, Separating Its Evil from the Better Qualities.
She, too, resorts to prayers, after the manner of
her mother. But Christ, Who now felt a dislike to quit the
Pleroma, appoints the Paraclete as his deputy. To her, therefore, he
despatches Soter, Saviour: another title
of their Paraclete. Fructiferumque
suggestum. Expumicat. Habilitatem atque
naturam. We have treated this as a “hendiadys.” Æquiparantias
corpulentiarum.
Chapter XVII.—Achamoth in Love with the Angels. A Protest Against the Lascivious Features of Valentinianism. Achamoth Becomes the Mother of Three Natures.
Then Achamoth, delivered at length from all her
evils, wonderful to tell Ecce. Subavit et ipsa. Trinitas generum.
Chapter XVIII.—Blasphemous Opinion Concerning the Origin of the Demiurge, Supposed to Be the Creator of the Universe.
Having become a better proficient Exercitior. Scilicet. Fere. Eo animo. See above, chap. xvi.
p. 512. Demiurgum. Et velut sigillario.
“Sigillarium est νευρόσπαστον,”
Oehler. The Father acting
through and proceeding from his Mother. Commendant. Delegant. Communiter in
universitatem.
Chapter XIX.—Palpable Absurdities and Contradictions in the System Respecting Achamoth and the Demiurge.
And yet there is not any agreement between the
propriety of the names and that of the works, from which all the names
are suggested; since all of them ought to have borne the name of her by
whom the things were done, unless after all Jam. Rursus. This is the force of
the “qui” with the subjunctive verb. Soter. Effingeret. There seems to be a
relative gradation meant among these extra-Pleroma beings, as there was among the Æons
of the Pleroma; and, further, a relation between the two sets of
beings—Achamoth bearing a relation to Propator, the Demiurge to
Nus, etc.
Chapter XX—The Demiurge Works Away at Creation, as the Drudge of His Mother Achamoth, in Ignorance All the While of the Nature of His Occupation.
The Demiurge therefore, placed as he was without the
limits of the Pleroma in the ignominious solitude of his eternal exile,
founded a new empire—this world (of ours)—by
clear Duplicis
substantiæ illius disclusæ. Sublimantia. Ogdoadis
primogenitalis: what Irenæus calls “the first-begotten
and primary Ogdoad of the Pleroma” (See our Irenæus,
Vol. I.; also above, chap. vii. p. 506.) Noëros. Nubeculas. Arbusculas. Puerilium
dicibulorum. Sibi here must
refer to the secondary agent of the sentence.
Chapter XXI.—The Vanity as Well as Ignorance of the Demiurge. Absurd Results from So Imperfect a Condition.
Meanwhile you must believe Tenendum. Alioquin. Adeo rerum non erat
compos. Censu. Scilicet.
Chapter XXII.—Origin of the Devil, in the Criminal Excess of the Sorrow of Achamoth. The Devil, Called Also Munditenens, Actually Wiser Than the Demiurge, Although His Work.
The odium felt amongst them Infamia apud
illos. Tolerabilior. Capit: “capax
est,” nimirum “infamiæ” (Fr. Junius). Ex nequitia. Achamoth’s. Irenæus’
word is Κοσμοκράτωρ;
see also
Chapter XXIII.—The Relative Positions of the Pleroma. The Region of Achamoth, and the Creation of the Demiurge. The Addition of Fire to the Various Elements and Bodies of Nature.
Their most eminent powers, moreover, they confine
within the following limits, as in a citadel. In the most elevated of
all summits presides the tricenary Pleroma, Above, in chap. viii.,
he has mentioned the Pleroma as “the fulness of the thirtyfold
divinity.” Metatur. Reciprocandi. Fire. Ego. Motiunculis. Febricitasse.
Chapter XXIV.—The Formation of Man by the Demiurge. Human Flesh Not Made of the Ground, But of a Nondescript Philosophic Substance.
Such being their conceits respecting God, or, if
you like, Vel. Ex pituitis et
gramis. Choicus.
Chapter XXV.—An Extravagant Way of Accounting for the Communication of the Spiritual Nature to Man. It Was Furtively Managed by Achamoth, Through the Unconscious Agency of Her Son.
In Achamoth, moreover, there was inherent a
certain property of a spiritual germ, of her mother Sophia’s
substance; and Achamoth herself had carefully severed off (the same
quality), and implanted it in her son the Demiurge, although he was
actually unconscious of it. It is for you to imagine Accipe. Anima derivaret. Sermoni perfecto. Traducem animæ
suæ. Censum. Or, the substance of
᾽Αρχή.
Chapter XXVI.—The Three Several Natures—The Material, the Animal, and the Spiritual, and Their Several Destinations. The Strange Valentinian Opinion About the Structure of Soter’s Nature.
In like manner they assign to each of them a
separate end. Exitum. Monstruosum illum. Prosicias induisse.
Irenæus says, “Assumed the first-fruits,” τὰς
ἀπαρχάς. Ingratis.
Chapter XXVII.—The Christ of the Demiurge, Sent into the World by the Virgin. Not of Her. He Found in Her, Not a Mother, But Only a Passage or Channel. Jesus Descended Upon Christ, at His Baptism, Like a Dove; But, Being Incapable of Suffering, He Left Christ to Die on the Cross Alone.
I now adduce Reddo. Nescio quæ. Fartilia. Farsura. That which descended
like a dove. Æque
insubditivam. In delineationem. Agnitionali.
Chapter XXVIII.—The Demiurge Cured of His Ignorance by the Saviour’s Advent, from Whom He Hears of the Great Future in Store for Himself.
Meanwhile the Demiurge, being still ignorant of
everything, although he will actually have to make some announcement
himself by the prophets, but is quite incapable of even this part of
his duty (because they divide authority over the prophets Prophetiale
patrocinium.
Chapter XXIX.—The Three Natures Again Adverted to. They are All Exemplified Amongst Men. For Instance, by Cain, and Abel, and Seth.
I will now collect from different sources, by way
of conclusion, what they affirm concerning the dispensation De dispositione. Inunitam. Argumenta. Essentiæ. Choicum: “the
clayey.” Having the doubtful issues, which arise from
freedom of the will (Oehler). Recondunt: or,
“discover.” Recondunt: or,
“discover.” Superducunt. De obvenientia. Indulgentiam. The “quos”
here relates to “spiritalem statum,” but expressing
the sense rather than the grammatical propriety, refers to the
plural idea of “good souls” (Oehler). Depluat. Salutaria. We have tried to
retain the emphatic repetition, “inreformabilem naturæ
naturam.” Eruditu hujus. Above, in ch. xxv. p.
515. Istarum
næniarum.
Chapter XXX.—The Lax and Dangerous Views of This Sect Respecting Good Works. That These are Unnecessary to the Spiritual Man.
For this reason it is that they neither regard
works Operationes: the doing
of (good) works.” As, forsooth, we
should in the spiritual state. Suffragio. Being animal, not
spiritual. See above. ch. ix. x.
p. 508. See
Scorpiace, ch. x. infra. Passivitate.
“Diligentia” may mean “proclivity”
(Rigalt.). Of the Æons. Nec legitimum:
“not a lawful son.”
Chapter XXXI.—At the Last Day Great Changes Take Place Amongst the Æons as Well as Among Men. How Achamoth and the Demiurge are Affected Then. Irony on the Subject.
It remains that we say something about the end of
the world, De consummatione. Urgebit. See above, ch. xxiii.
p. 514. Compacticius ille. Fient. Query, the Holy
Scriptures, or the writings of the Valentinians? Very severe against
adultery, and even against celibacy. In ch. xx. this
“scenam de Hebdomade cælesti” is called
“cælorum septemplicem scenam” ="the sevenfold stage of
heaven.” Cœnaculum. See
above, ch. vii. p. 506.
Chapter XXXII.—Indignant Irony Exposing the Valentinian Fable About the Judicial Treatment of Mankind at the Last Judgment. The Immorality of the Doctrine.
As for the human race, its end will be to the
following effect:—To all which bear the earthy Choicæ:
“clayey.” See above, in ch.
xxiv. p. 515. Interiores. Averterant. Neque detentui
obnoxii. Neque conspectui
obnoxii. Si ita est: or,
“since such is the fact.” Claudent. But slaves, in
fact. This parenthetic
clause, “tacendo jam dixi,” perhaps means, “I say
this with shame,” “I would rather not have to say
it.” The common reading is,
“Onesimum Æonem,” an Æon called Onesimus, in
supposed allusion to Philemon’s Onesimus. But this is too
far-fetched. Oehler discovers in “Onesimum” the corruption
of some higher number ending in “esimum.” This is Oehler’s
idea of “et nulla jam fabula.” Rigaltius, however, gives a
good sense to this clause: “All will come true at last; there
will be no fable.” The same as
Macariotes, in ch. viii. above, p. 507.
Chapter XXXIII.—These Remaining Chapters an Appendix to the Main Work. In This Chapter Tertullian Notices a Difference Among Sundry Followers of Ptolemy, a Disciple of Valentinus.
I shall now at last produce, by way of
finale, Velut
epicitharisma. Emendatoribus. Censum.
Chapter XXXIV.—Other Varying Opinions Among the Valentinians Respecting the Deity, Characteristic Raillery.
Others of purer mind, mindful of the honour of the Deity, have, for the purpose of freeing him from the discredit of even single wedlock, preferred assigning no sex whatever to Bythus; and therefore very likely they talk of “this deity” in the neuter gender rather than “this god.” Others again, on the other hand, speak of him as both masculine and feminine, so that the worthy chronicler Fenestella must not suppose that an hermaphrodite was only to be found among the good people of Luna.
Chapter XXXV.—Yet More Discrepancies. Just Now the Sex of Bythus Was an Object of Dispute; Now His Rank Comes in Question. Absurd Substitutes for Bythus Criticised by Tertullian.
There are some who do not claim the first place
for Bythus, but only a lower one. They put their Ogdoad in the foremost
rank; itself, however, derived from a Tetrad, but under different
names. For they put Pro-arche (Before the Beginning) first,
Anennœtos (Inconceivable) second, Arrhetos
(Indescribable) third, Aoratos (Invisible) fourth. Then
after Pro-arche they say Arche (Beginning) came forth and
occupied the first and the fifth place; from Anennœtos came
Acataleptos (Incomprehensible) in the second and the sixth
place; from Arrhetos came Anonomastos (Nameless) in the third
and the seventh place; from Aoratos Tertullian, however,
here gives the Latin synonyme, Invisibilis.
Chapter XXXVI.—Less Reprehensible Theories in the Heresy. Bad is the Best of Valentinianism.
How much more sensible are they who, rejecting all
this tiresome nonsense, have refused to believe that any one Æon
has descended from another by steps like these, which are really
neither more nor less Gemonian; The “Gemonian
steps” on the Aventine led to the Tiber, to which the bodies of
executed criminals were dragged by hooks, to be cast into the
river. Mappa, quod aiunt,
missa: a proverbial expression. Istam. See above, ch. vii. p.
506.
Chapter XXXVII.—Other Turgid and Ridiculous Theories About the Origin of the Æons and Creation, Stated and Condemned.
Now listen to some other buffooneries Oehler gives good
reasons for the reading “ingenia circulatoria,” instead of
the various readings of other editors. Insignioris apud eos
magistri. Non proferentes.
Another reading is “non proserentes” (not generating). Sermo. Or, solitariness. Or, Union. Compare our
Irenæus, I. 2, 3. [Vol. I. p. 316.]
Chapter XXXVIII.—Diversity in the Opinions of Secundus, as Compared with the General Doctrine of Valentinus.
Secundus is a trifle more human, as he is briefer:
he divides the Ogdoad into a pair of Tetrads, a right hand one and a
left hand one, one light and the other darkness. Only he
is unwilling to derive the power which apostatized and fell
away Achamoth.
Chapter XXXIX.—Their Diversity of Sentiment Affects the Very Central Doctrine of Christianity, Even the Person and Character of the Lord Jesus. This Diversity Vitiates Every Gnostic School.
Now, concerning even the Lord Jesus, into how
great a diversity of opinion are they divided! One party form Him of
the blossoms of all the Æons. See above, ch. xii. p.
510. The Æons
Sermo and Vita. See above, ch. vii. p.
506. See above, ch. viii.
p. 507. See above, ch. xiv. p.
511. Superfruticant. Archamoth is referred
to.
On the Flesh of Christ. In his work
On the Resurrection of the Flesh (chap. ii.), Tertullian refers
to this tract, and calls it “De Carne Domini adversus
quatuor hæreses”: the four heresies being those of Marcion,
Apelles, Basilides, and Valentinus. Pamelius, indeed, designates the
tract by this fuller title instead of the usual one, “De Carne
Christi.” [This tract contains references to works written
while our author was Montanistic, but it contains no positive
Montanism. It should not be dated earlier than a.d. 207.]
This was written by our author in confutation of certain heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s flesh, or at least its identity with human flesh—fearing that, if they admitted the reality of Christ’s flesh, they must also admit his resurrection in the flesh; and, consequently, the resurrection of the human body after death.
[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]
————————————
Chapter I.—The General Purport of This Work. The Heretics, Marcion, Apelles, and Valentinus, Wishing to Impugn the Doctrine of the Resurrection, Deprive Christ of All Capacity for Such a Change by Denying His Flesh.
They who are so anxious to
shake that belief in the resurrection which was firmly settled Moratam. The allusion is to
Tertullian’s
phrase is “carnis vota”—the future prospects of the
flesh. Certum est. Ordo. Τῷ δοκεῖν
haberentur. This term gave name to the Docetic
errors. Opinio.
Clearly enough is the nativity announced by
Gabriel. This is said in
opposition to Marcion, who held the Creator’s angel, and
everything else pertaining to him, to be evil. A reference to
Marcion. See also our
Anti-Marcion, iv. 7. Viderit. Apostolicus. Morere. Rescindendo. Compare our
Anti-Marcion, i. 1, iv. 4 and de Præscr.
Hær. c. xxx. Atquin. Aliter fuisse. Porro. Ex abundanti. [Dr.
Holmes, in this sentence actually uses the word lengthy,
for which I have said large.]
Chapter III.—Christ’s Nativity Both Possible and Becoming. The Heretical Opinion of Christ’s Apparent Flesh Deceptive and Dishonourable to God, Even on Marcion’s Principles.
Since Quatenus. Nativitatem. Opinio. If Christ’s
flesh was not real, the pretence of it was wholly wrong. Viderint homines. It did not much matter
(according to the view which Tertullian attributes to Marcion) if God
did practise deception in affecting the assumption of a humanity which
He knew to be unreal. Men took it to be real, and that answered every
purpose. God knew better: and He was moreover, strong enough to obviate
all inconveniences of the deception by His unfaltering fortitude, etc.
All this, however, seemed to Tertullian to be simply damaging and
perilous to the character of God, even from Marcion’s own point
of view. Edoce. Non potes dicere
ne, etc. Distat. In exitu
conversionis. See below in
chap. vi. and in the Anti-Marcion, iii. 9. Corpore.
Since, therefore, you do not reject the assumption
of a body Corporationem. Compare similar
passages in the Anti-Marcion, iii. 1 and iv. 21. Insolescentem. Enitentis. Religiosum. Cum suis impedimentis
profusum. Unctionibus
formatur. Hanc venerationem
naturæ. Compare Tertullian’s phrase, “Illa sanctissima
et reverenda opera naturæ,” in the
Anti-Marcion, iii. 11. Videris. Per ludibria nutritum.
Compare the phrase just before, “smiled on with nurse’s
fawns”—“blanditiis deridetur.” Oehler, however,
compares the phrase with Tertullian’s expression
(“puerperii spurcos, anxios, ludicros
exitus,”) in the Anti-Marcion, iv.
21. Hæc: i.e.
man’s nativity and his flesh. Literally, “by a
heavenly regeneration.” Revera. [I cannot let
the words which follow, stand in the text; they are sufficiently
rendered.]
Chapter V.—Christ Truly Lived and Died in Human Flesh. Incidents of His Human Life on Earth, and Refutation of Marcion’s Docetic Parody of the Same.
There are, to be sure, other things also quite as
foolish (as the birth of Christ), which have reference to the
humiliations and sufferings of God. Or else, let them call a
crucified God “wisdom.” But Marcion will apply the
knife Aufer, Marcion.
Literally, “Destroy this also, O Marcion.” Educari an
sepeliri. Recidisti. Vacua ludibria. Paul was of great
authority in Marcion’s school. Excusas. The humiliation which
God endured, so indispensable a part of the Christian faith. Ineptum. That is, imaginary and
unreal. Census: “the
origin.” Dispuncta est. This term is
almost a technical designation of the divine nature of Christ in
Tertullian. (See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, p. 247,
note 7, Edin.) This term is
almost a technical designation of the divine nature of Christ in
Tertullian. (See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, p. 247,
note 7, Edin.) This term is
almost a technical designation of the divine nature of Christ in
Tertullian. (See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, p. 247,
note 7, Edin.) Dimidias. See his Adv.
Valentin, chap. 25. Avocatorem.
Chapter VI.—The Doctrine of Apelles Refuted, that Christ’s Body Was of Sidereal Substance, Not Born. Nativity and Mortality are Correlative Circumstances, and in Christ’s Case His Death Proves His Birth.
But certain disciples He has Appelles mainly
in view. Sine præjudicio
tamen. “Without prejudice to their denial, etc.” The Roman version of
the proverb is “out of the lime-kiln into the
coal-furnace.” See Tertullian, de
Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx. Ab eo: or,
“from that event of the carnal contact.” A
good reading, found in most of the old books, is ab ea,
that is, Philumene. Ex ea qualitate in
qua. Ipsius: the
Creator. Forma. Æque. Quod, quia nascitur,
moritur. Pro. Ediscebat.
Compare a fine passage of Tertullian on this subject in our
Anti-Marcion, note 10, p. 112, Edin. Ceterum. The angels’. Sidera. Drawn, as they
thought, from the stars.
Chapter VII.—Explanation of the Lord’s Question About His Mother and His Brethren. Answer to the Cavils of Apelles and Marcion, Who Support Their Denial of Christ’s Nativity by It.
But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity,
all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of
Christ’s flesh, wilfully deny that God Himself was born, on the
ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my
brethren?” See our
Anti-Marcion, iv. 19. Literally,
“heresies.” Literally,
“nobody prevented its being, etc.” Subesse. Materia. Eo adicimus etiam. Supervenissent. Non computantes
scilicet. Nec sustinent
saltem. Contendens:
“videlicet sponsionibus” (Oehler) Literally, “Who
is my mother, and who are my brethren?”—Christ’s own
words. The alius is a
genitive, and must be taken with sermonis. Abnegavit:
“repudiated.” Force of the
indicative quale erat.
Chapter VIII.—Apelles and His Followers, Displeased with Our Earthly Bodies, Attributed to Christ a Body of a Purer Sort. How Christ Was Heavenly Even in His Earthly Flesh.
These passages alone, in which Apelles and Marcion
seem to place their chief reliance when interpreted according to the
truth of the entire uncorrupted gospel, ought to have been sufficient
for proving the human flesh of Christ by a defence of His birth. But
since Apelles’ precious set Isti Apelleiaci. Ignominiam. Ab igneo illo
præside mali: see Tertullian’s de Anima. xxiii.;
de Resur. Carn. v.; Adv. Omnes Hæres. vi. Peccatum. Mundus is here
the universe or entire creation. Censu. Plane. Retro. Secundum carnem. Ei
adæquantur.
We have thus far gone on the principle, that
nothing which is derived from some other thing, however different it
may be from that from which it is derived, is so different as not to
suggest the source from which it comes. No material substance is
without the witness of its own original, however great a change into
new properties it may have undergone. There is this very body of ours,
the formation of which out of the dust of the ground is a truth which
has found its way into Gentile fables; it certainly testifies its own
origin from the two elements of earth and water,—from the former
by its flesh, from the latter by its blood. Now, although there is a
difference in the appearance of qualities (in other words, that which
proceeds from something else is in development Fit. Sua. Metalla. Christum hominem
obstupescebant. Notaretur. Non mira. Compare Novum: made of the
stars. Merentem. Literally, “why
do you suppose it to be celestial.”
Chapter X.—Another Class of Heretics Refuted. They Alleged that Christ’s Flesh Was of a Finer Texture, Animalis, Composed of Soul.
I now turn to another class, who are equally wise
in their own conceit. They affirm that the flesh of Christ is
composed of soul, Animalem:
“etherialized; of a finer form, differing from gross, earthy
matter” (Neander). Animalem. Non carneas. Præsumant. Scilicet.
Chapter XI.—The Opposite Extravagance Exposed. That is Christ with a Soul Composed of Flesh—Corporeal, Though Invisible. Christ’s Soul, Like Ours, Distinct from Flesh, Though Clothed in It.
But we meet another argument of theirs, when we
raise the question why Christ, in assuming a flesh composed of soul,
should seem to have had a soul that was made of flesh? For God, they
say, desired to make the soul visible to men, by enduing it with a
bodily nature, although it was before invisible; of its own nature,
indeed, it was incapable of seeing anything, even its own self, by
reason of the obstacle of this flesh, so that it was even a matter of
doubt whether it was born or not. The soul, therefore (they
further say), was made corporeal in Christ, in order that we might see
it when undergoing birth, and death, and (what is more) resurrection.
But yet, how was this possible, that by means of the flesh the soul
should demonstrate itself Demonstraretur: or,
“should become apparent.” Cui latebat. Denique. Isto modo. An retro allegent. Per quod sit. Eam: the soul. Dignius: i.e.,
“in a manner more worthy of Himself.” Demonstrare. Cassidem. Deputetur. Aliqua vi rationis:
or, “by some power of its own condition.” Demonstrare. Notitiæ. Ne. Gestisset. Ex. Istis. In illam:
perhaps “in it,” as if an ablative case, not an
unusual construction in Tertullian.
Chapter XII.—The True Functions of the Soul. Christ Assumed It in His Perfect Human Nature, Not to Reveal and Explain It, But to Save It. Its Resurrection with the Body Assured by Christ.
Well, now, let it be granted that the soul is made
apparent by the flesh, Ostensa sit. Si constiterit. Denique. Quoquo modo. Opinor. Sensualis: endowed
with sense. Nihil animale sine
sensu. Nihil sensuale sine
anima. We should have been
glad of a shorter phrase for sentire (“to use
sense”), had the whole course of the passage permitted it. Se ministrare. See especially
chap. iv. supra. Debuerat. Nisi qualis esset. Ostendere; see
Nimirum. Animalis. Carnalis. Dispositione.
The soul became flesh that the soul might become
visible. Ostenderetur: or,
“that it might prove itself soul.” Or, “that it
might show itself flesh.” Alterutrum: “no
matter which.” Testæ: a pitcher,
perhaps. Generis. Tertullian quotes his
opponent’s opinion here. Silicet: in
reference to the alleged doctrine. Non adhæret. Singularitas tota. Nudis. “The
salvation” (salute) is Tertullian’s word. Above, beginning of
chap. x. Salvus.
Chapter XIV.—Christ Took Not on Him an Angelic Nature, But the Human. It Was Men, Not Angels, Whom He Came to Save.
But Christ, they say, bare Gestavit. Satellitem. Si forte. For this
designation of the divine nature in Christ, see our
Anti-Marcion, p. 247, note 7, Edin. Hebioni. Plane.
Chapter XV.—The Valentinian Figment of Christ’s Flesh Being of a Spiritual Nature, Examined and Refuted Out of Scripture.
Valentinus, indeed, on the strength of his
heretical system, might consistently devise a spiritual flesh for
Christ. Any one who refused to believe that that flesh was human might
pretend it to be anything he liked, forasmuch as (and this remark is
applicable to all heretics), if it was not human, and was not
born of man, I do not see of what substance Christ Himself spoke when
He called Himself man and the Son of man, saying: “But now
ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth;” Vice
præscriptionis. Animalis. Factiuncula. Informatam. Volutabant: see
Lactantius, iv. 22. De nobis probatum est:
or, perhaps, “has been proved to have happened in our own
case.” Ex incorruptela. Corruptela.
Chapter XVI.—Christ’s Flesh in Nature, the Same as Ours, Only Sinless. The Difference Between Carnem Peccati and Peccatum Carnis: It is the Latter Which Christ Abolished. The Flesh of the First Adam, No Less Than that of the Second Adam, Not Received from Human Seed, Although as Entirely Human as Our Own, Which is Derived from It.
The famous Alexander, Although Tertullian
dignifies him with an ille, we have no particulars of this
man. [It may be that this is an epithet, rather than a name,
given to some enemy of truth like Alexander the
“Coppersmith” ( Census. So Bp. Kaye renders
“carnem peccati.” [See his valuable note, p.
253.] We take the
meminerimus to refer “to the Creed.” Suggestu. Naturam. Culpam. “Tertullian,
referring to St. Paul, says of Christ: ‘Evacuavit peccatum in
carne;’ alluding, as I suppose, to Also in Peccatricis
carnis. Viri. Transire in: “to
pass into.” Sine coagulo.
Chapter XVII.—The Similarity of Circumstances Between the First and the Second Adam, as to the Derivation of Their Flesh. An Analogy Also Pleasantly Traced Between Eve and the Virgin Mary.
But, leaving Alexander with his syllogisms, which
he so perversely applies in his discussions, as well as with the hymns
of Valentinus, which, with consummate assurance, he interpolates as the
production of some respectable Idonei. Æmula. Literally,
“Gabriel.”
Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not
fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father’s seed,
lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the
Son of God, and have nothing more than “a Solomon” or
“a Jonas,” De Hebionis
opinione. Hominis. Viri. Vacabat. As we have often
observed, the term Spiritus is used by Tertullian to
express the Divine Nature in Christ. Anti-Marcion, p.
375, note 13. Dispositio
rationis. Proferendum. Nec periclitatus
quasi. Literally,
“in which it became flesh.” [A very perspicuous
statement of the Incarnation is set forth in this chapter.]
Chapter XIX.—Christ, as to His Divine Nature, as the Word of God, Became Flesh, Not by Carnal Conception, Nor by the Will of the Flesh and of Man, But by the Will of God. Christ’s Divine Nature, of Its Own Accord, Descended into the Virgin’s Womb.
What, then, is the meaning of this passage,
“Born Tertullian reads this
in the singular number, “natus est.” We need not say that
the mass of critical authority is against Tertullian, and with his
opponents, in their reading of this passage. He refers to the
Valentinians. See our translation of this tract against them, chap.
xxv., etc., p. 515, supra. Formalis nostræ
nativitatis. Despumatione. Vis. Medicando. [This is
based on i.e., The Son of
God. Which is all that the
heretics assign to Him. Such as Valentinus
ascribed to Him. See above, c. xv. p. 511.
Chapter XX.—Christ Born of a Virgin, of Her Substance. The Physiological Facts of His Real and Exact Birth of a Human Mother, as Suggested by Certain Passages of Scripture.
But to what shifts you resort, in your attempt to
rob the syllable ex (of) Indicating the
material or ingredient, “out of.” Per. Ex. Grammaticis. Avulsisti. i.e. of His flesh. Concarnatus et
convisceratus: “united in flesh and internal
structure.” Sentinam illam inferni
sanguinis. Lactiorem. Avulsionem.
Chapter XXI.—The Word of God Did Not Become Flesh Except in the Virgin’s Womb and of Her Substance. Through His Mother He is Descended from Her Great Ancestor David. He is Described Both in the Old and in the New Testament as “The Fruit of David’s Loins.”
Whereas, then, they contend that the novelty (of
Christ’s birth) consisted in this, that as the Word of God became
flesh without the seed of a human father, so there should be no flesh
of the virgin mother (assisting in the transaction), why should not the
novelty rather be confined to this, that His flesh, although not born
of seed, should yet have proceeded from flesh? I should like to go more
closely into this discussion. “Behold,” says he,
“a virgin shall conceive in the womb.” See the same
passages. Ipsius. Quod concepit: or,
“what she conceived.” Evacuabitur. An objection. The rejoinder. Eruditur. Quominus vindicet. Adhærere.
Chapter XXII.—Holy Scripture in the New Testament, Even in Its Very First Verse, Testifies to Christ’s True Flesh. In Virtue of Which He is Incorporated in the Human Stock of David, and Abraham, and Adam.
They may, then, obliterate the testimony of the
devils which proclaimed Jesus the son of David; but whatever
unworthiness there be in this testimony, that of the apostles they will
never be able to efface. There is, first of all, Matthew, that most
faithful chronicler Commentator. Originis carnalis:
i.e. “origin of the flesh of.” In nomine: or,
“for the sake of.” Censetur.
We acknowledge, however, that the prophetic
declaration of Simeon is fulfilled, which he spoke over the
recently-born Saviour: Literally,
“Lord.” Academici isti:
“this school of theirs.” i.e. “Because
she produced not her son from her husband’s seed.” Defensionem. Nupsit. Nupsit ipsa patefacti
corporis lege. De vi masculi admissi
an emissi. i.e. “The
male.” Clausam: i.e. a
virgin’s. Magis. Utique. Nuptialem
passionem. Epiphanius
(Hær. xxx. 30) quotes from the apocryphal Ezekiel this
passage: Τέξεται ἡ
δάμαλις, καὶ
ἐροῦσιν—οὐ
τέτοκεν. So Clem. Alex.
Stromata, vii. Oehler. Ceterum.
Chapter XXIV.—Divine Strictures on Various Heretics Descried in Various Passages of Prophetical Scripture. Those Who Assail the True Doctrine of the One Lord Jesus Christ, Both God and Man, Thus Condemned.
For when Isaiah hurls denunciation against our
very heretics, especially in his “Woe to them that call evil
good, and put darkness for light,” Istos. Prædicatur. Comp. de
Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx. p. 257,
supra. Disceptatores
ejus. Ceteris passivum. Tantundem. Tantummodo.
Chapter XXV.—Conclusion. This Treatise Forms a Preface to the Other Work, “On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” Proving the Reality of the Flesh Which Was Truly Born, and Died, and Rose Again.
But let this suffice on our present subject; for I think that by this time proof enough has been adduced of the flesh in Christ having both been born of the virgin, and being human in its nature. And this discussion alone might have been sufficient, without encountering the isolated opinions which have been raised from different quarters. We have, however, challenged these opinions to the test, both of the arguments which sustain them, and of the Scriptures which are appealed to, and this we have done ex abundanti; so that we have, by showing what the flesh of Christ was, and whence it was derived, also predetermined the question, against all objectors, of what that flesh was not. The resurrection, however, of our own flesh will have to be maintained in another little treatise, and so bring to a close this present one, which serves as a general preface, and which will pave the way for the approaching subject now that it is plain what kind of body that was which rose again in Christ.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(In the body of a dove, cap. iii. p. 523.)
The learned John Scott, in his invaluable work
The Christian Life, I quote the Ed.
London, 1739, Vol. V., p. 249.
II.
(His mother and His brethren, cap. vii. p. 527.)
It is not possible that the author of this chapter had ever conceived of the Blessed Virgin otherwise than as “Blessed among women,” indeed, but enjoying no especial prerogative as the mother of our Lord. He speaks of “denying her” and “putting her away” after He began His Ministry, as He requires His ministers to do, after His example. How extraordinary this language—“the repudiation of carnal relationship.” According to our author, never charged with heresy on this point, the high rewards of the holy Mary, in the world to come will be those due to her faith, not to the blessing of “her breasts and of her womb.” Christ designates those as “more blessed,” who hear His word and keep it. This the Blessed Virgin did pre-eminently, and herein was her own greater blessedness; that is, (our author shews) her crown of glory depends chiefly, like that of other saints, on her faith and works, not on her mere Maternity.
VI.
On the Resurrection of the Flesh.
The heretics against whom this work is
directed, were the same who maintained that the demiurge, or the god
who created this world and gave the Mosaic dispensation, was opposed to
the supreme God. Hence they attached an idea of inherent corruption and
worthlessness to all his works—amongst the rest, to the flesh or
body of man; affirming that it could not rise again, and that the soul
alone was capable of inheriting immortality. See Bp. Kaye,
On Tertullian, p. 256. A full examination of the tenets of these
Gnostic heretics occurs in our author’s Treatise against
Marcion. An able review of Tertullian’s line of thought in
this work on the resurrection occurs in Neander’s
Antignostikus, Bohn’s
translation, ii. 478–486. [There is a decisive ebullition
of Montanistic fanaticism in cap. xi., and in the second chapter there
is a reference to the De Carne Christi. Date this treatise
circa a.d. 208.]
[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]
————————————
Chapter I.—The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body Brought to Light by the Gospel. The Faintest Glimpses of Something Like It Occasionally Met with in Heathenism. Inconsistencies of Pagan Teaching.
The resurrection of the
dead is the Christian’s trust. Fiducia. Parentant. Pro temporibus
esculentorum. Etiam desiderar. Cum crematis
cremat. Adhuc proxime:
“Christianæ scilicet doctrinæ.” Oehler. Recidivatum. Corporalem.
Since there is even within the confines of
God’s Church Apud Deum. Sciemus. Salutem. Eam solidam. In sacramentis. In
prædicationibus: “in the declarations of the
prophets.” Scrupulis. See books ii.
and iii. of our Anti-Marcion. He means the De
Carne Christi. Tanquam penes nos
quoque incerta, id est penes Creatorem. This obscure clause is very
variously read. One reading, approved by Fr. Junius, has:
“Tanquam penes nos incertum, dum sit quoque certum penes
Creatorem,” q.d., “As a subject full of
uncertainty as respects ourselves, although of an opposite character in
relation to the Creator;” whatever that may mean. Hoc latere. Compare Adv. Omnes
Hæreses, c. vi. Varro’s words
help us to understand this rough joke: “Ursi Lucana
origo,” etc. (De Ling. Lat. v. 100.) Iste: rather his
subject than his person. i.e. the De
Anima.
Chapter III.—Some Truths Held Even by the Heathen. They Were, However, More Often Wrong Both in Religious Opinions and in Moral Practice. The Heathen Not to Be Followed in Their Ignorance of the Christian Mystery. The Heretics Perversely Prone to Follow Them.
One may no doubt be wise in the things of God,
even from one’s natural powers, but only in witness to the truth,
not in maintenance of error; (only) when one acts in accordance with,
not in opposition to, the divine dispensation. For some things
are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance, is
held by many; the knowledge of our God is possessed by all. I may use,
therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, “Every soul
is immortal.” I may use also the conscience of a nation,
when it attests the God of gods. I may, in like manner, use all the
other intelligences of our common nature, when they pronounce God to be
a judge. “God sees,” (say they); and, “I commend you
to God.” Compare the De
Test. Anim. ii., and De Anim. xlii.
Chapter IV.—Heathens and Heretics Alike in Their Vilification of the Flesh and Its Functions, the Ordinary Cavils Against the Final Restitution of So Weak and Ignoble a Substance.
Hence it is that heretics start at once from this
point, Of the resurrection of
the body. Frivolæ. Isto. Gula. Natandum
pulmonibus.
Chapter V.—Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God. The Body of Man Was, in Fact, Previous to His Soul.
Inasmuch as all uneducated men, therefore, still form
their opinions after these common-sense views, and as the falterers and
the weak-minded have a renewal of their perplexities occasioned by the
selfsame views; and as the first battering-ram which is directed
against ourselves is that which shatters the condition of the flesh, we
must on our side necessarily so manage our defences, as to guard, first
of all, the condition of the flesh, their disparagement of it being
repulsed by our own eulogy. The heretics, therefore, challenged us to
use our rhetoric no less than our philosophy. Respecting, then, this
frail and poor, worthless body, which they do not indeed hesitate to
call evil, even if it had been the work of angels, as Menander and
Marcus are pleased to think, or the formation of some fiery being, an
angel, as Apelles teaches, it would be quite enough for securing
respect for the body, that it had the support and protection of even a
secondary deity. The angels, we know, rank next to God.
Now, whatever be the supreme God of each heretic, I should not unfairly
derive the dignity of the flesh likewise from Him to whom was present
the will for its production. For, of course, if He had not willed its
production, He would have prohibited it, when He knew it was in
progress. It follows, then, that even on their principle the flesh is
equally the work of God. There is no work but belongs to Him who has
permitted it to exist. It is indeed a happy circumstance, that most of
their doctrines, including even the harshest, accord to our God the
entire formation of man. How mighty He is, you know full well who
believe that He is the only God. Let, then, the flesh begin to give you
pleasure, since the Creator thereof is so great. But, you say, even the
world is the work of God, and yet “the fashion of this
Formam. Universitati. Limum de terra:
It having just
been said that flesh was man’s prior
designation.
Chapter VI.—Not the Lowliness of the Material, But the Dignity and Skill of the Maker, Must Be Remembered, in Gauging the Excellence of the Flesh. Christ Partook of Our Flesh.
Let me therefore pursue the subject before
me—if I can but succeed in vindicating for the flesh as much as
was conferred on it by Him who made it, glorying as it even then was,
because that poor paltry material, clay, found its way into the hands
of God, whatever these were, happy enough at merely being touched by
them. But why this glorying? Was it that, Quid enim si. Adeo. Ista. Constitutus.
Chapter VII.—The Earthy Material of Which Flesh is Created Wonderfully Improved by God’s Manipulation. By the Addition of the Soul in Man’s Constitution It Became the Chief Work in the Creation.
But perhaps the dignity of the flesh may seem to
be diminished, because it has not been actually manipulated by the hand
of God, as the clay was at first. Now, when God handled the clay
for the express purpose of the growth of flesh out of it afterwards, it
was for the flesh that He took all the trouble. But I want you,
moreover, to know at what time and in what manner the flesh flourished
into beauty out of its clay. For it cannot be, as some will have
it, that those “coats of skins” A Valentinian
notion. Invehi. Dominari.
Chapter VIII.—Christianity, by Its Provision for the Flesh, Has Put on It the Greatest Honour. The Privileges of Our Religion in Closest Connection with Our Flesh. Which Also Bears a Large Share in the Duties and Sacrifices of Religion.
Now such remarks have I wished to advance in
defence of the flesh, from a general view of the condition of our human
nature. Let us now consider its special relation to Christianity, and
see how vast a privilege before God has been conferred on this poor and
worthless substance. It would suffice to say, indeed, that there is not
a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it
is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on
which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its
salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually
renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in
order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the
soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the
soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of
hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh
feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may
fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their
recompense, when they are united in their service. Those sacrifices,
moreover, which are acceptable to God—I mean conflicts of the
soul, fastings, and abstinences, and the humiliations which are annexed
to such duty—it is the flesh which performs again and
again Instaurat. Una notitia ejus =
monogamia.
Chapter IX.—God’s Love for the Flesh of Man, as Developed in the Grace of Christ Towards It. The Flesh the Best Means of Displaying the Bounty and Power of God.
To recapitulate, then: Shall that very flesh,
which the Divine Creator formed with His own hands in the image of God;
which He animated with His own afflatus, after the likeness of
His own vital vigour; which He set over all the works of His hand, to
dwell amongst, to enjoy, and to rule them; which He clothed with His
sacraments and His instructions; whose purity He loves, whose
mor Afflatus. Vacuisset.
Chapter X.—Holy Scripture Magnifies the Flesh, as to Its Nature and Its Prospects.
You hold to the scriptures in which the flesh is
disparaged; receive also those in which it is ennobled. You read
whatever passage abases it; direct your eyes also to that which
elevates it. “All flesh is grass.” Below, in ch. xvi.
Chapter XI.—The Power of God Fully Competent to Effect the Resurrection of the Flesh.
Thus far touching my eulogy of the flesh, in
opposition to its enemies, who are, notwithstanding, its greatest
friends also; for there is nobody who lives so much in accordance with
the flesh as they who deny the resurrection of the flesh, inasmuch as
they despise all its discipline, while they disbelieve its punishment.
It is a shrewd saying which the Paraclete utters concerning these
persons by the mouth of the prophetess Prisca: “They are
carnal, Carnes. [To
explain the state of mind in which this sentence is written, let the
reader kindly turn back to Vol. II. p. 4, the paragraph, “As
Eusebius informs us, etc.”] Licentiam. Oehler explains
“devoratum” by “interceptum.”
Chapter XII.—Some Analogies in Nature Which Corroborate the Resurrection of the Flesh.
Consider now those very analogies of the divine
power (to which we have just alluded). Day dies into night, and is
buried everywhere in darkness. The glory of the world is obscured in
the shadow of death; its entire substance is tarnished with blackness;
all things become sordid, silent, stupid; everywhere business ceases,
and occupations rest. And so over the loss of the light there is
mourning. But yet it again revives, with its own beauty, its own
dowry, is own sun, the same as ever, whole and entire, over all the
world, slaying its own death, night—opening its own sepulchre,
the darkness—coming forth the heir to itself, until the night
also revives—it, too, accompanied with a retinue of its own. For
the stellar rays are rekindled, which had been quenched in the morning
glow; the distant groups of the constellations are again brought back
to view, which the day’s temporary interval had removed
out of sight. Readorned also are the mirrors of the moon, which her
monthly course had worn away. Winters and summers return, as do
the spring-tide and autumn, with their resources, their routines, their
fruits. Forasmuch as earth receives its instruction from heaven
to clothe the trees which had been stripped, to colour the flowers
afresh, to spread the grass again, to reproduce the seed which had been
consumed, and not to reproduce them until consumed. Wondrous method!
from a defrauder to be a preserver, in order to restore, it takes away;
in order to guard, it destroys; that it may make whole, it injures; and
that it may enlarge, it first lessens. (This process) indeed, renders
back to us richer and fuller blessings than it deprived us of—by
a destruction which is profit, by an injury which is advantage, and by
a loss which is gain. In a word, I would say, all creation is
instinct with renewal. Whatever you may chance upon, has already
existed; whatever you have lost, returns again without fail. All things
return to their former state, after having gone out of sight; all
things begin after they have ended; they come to an end for the very
purpose of coming into existence again. Nothing perishes but with a
view to salvation. The whole, therefore, of this revolving order of
things bears witness to the resurrection of the dead. In His works did
God write it, before He wrote it in the Scriptures; He proclaimed it in
His mighty deeds earlier than in His inspired words. He first sent
Nature to you as a teacher, meaning to send Prophecy also as a
supplemental instructor, that, being Nature’s disciple, you may
more easily believe Prophecy, and without hesitation accept (its
testimony) when you come to hear what you have seen already on every
side; nor doubt that
Chapter XIII.—From Our Author’s View of a Verse in the Ninety-Second Psalm, the Phœnix is Made a Symbol of the Resurrection of Our Bodies.
If, however, all nature but faintly figures our
resurrection; if creation affords no sign precisely like it, inasmuch
as its several phenomena can hardly be said to die so much as to come
to an end, nor again be deemed to be reanimated, but only re-formed;
then take a most complete and unassailable symbol of our hope, for it
shall be an animated being, and subject alike to life and death. I
refer to the bird which is peculiar to the East, famous for its
singularity, marvelous from its posthumous life, which renews its life
in a voluntary death; its dying day is its birthday, for on it it
departs and returns; once more a phœnix where just now there was
none; once more himself, but just now out of existence; another, yet
the same. What can be more express and more significant for our
subject; or to what other thing can such a phenomenon bear witness? God
even in His own Scripture says: “The righteous shall
flourish like the phœnix;” Δίκαιος ὡς
φοίνιξ
ἀνθήσει, Sept.
Chapter XIV.—A Sufficient Cause for the Resurrection of the Flesh Occurs in the Future Judgment of Man. It Will Take Cognisance of the Works of the Body No Less Than of the Soul.
Such, then, being the outlines of the divine
energies which God has displayed as much in the parables of
nature as in His spoken word, let us now approach His very edicts
and decrees, since this is the division which we mainly adopt in our
subject-matter. We began with the dignity of the flesh, whether
it were of such a nature that when once destroyed it was capable of
being restored. Then we pursued an inquiry touching the power of God,
whether it was sufficiently great to be habitually able to confer this
restoration on a thing which had been destroyed. Now, if we have proved
these two points, I should like you to inquire into the (question
of) cause, whether it be one of sufficient weight to claim the
resurrection of the flesh as necessary and as conformable in every way
to reason; because there underlies this demurrer: the flesh may be
quite capable of being restored, and the Deity be perfectly able to
effect the restoration, but a cause for such recovery must needs
pre-exist. Admit then a sufficient one, you who learn of a God who is
both supremely good as well as just He refers to
Marcion. He here refers his
reader to what he has written against Marcion, especially in his books
i. and ii.
Chapter XV.—As the Flesh is a Partaker with the Soul in All Human Conduct, So Will It Be in the Recompense of Eternity.
Come now, let our opponents sever the connection
of the flesh with the soul in the affairs of life, that they may be
emboldened to sunder it also in the recompense of life. Let them deny
their association in acts, that they may be fairly able to deny also
their participation in rewards. The flesh ought not to have any share
in the sentence, if it had none in the cause of it. Let the soul
alone be called back, if it alone went away. But (nothing of the kind
ever happened); for the soul alone no more departed from life, than it
ran through alone the course from which it departed—I mean this
present life. Indeed, the soul alone is so far from conducting (the
affairs of) life, that we do not withdraw from community with the flesh
even our thoughts, however isolated they be, however unprecipitated
into act by means of the flesh; since whatever is done in man’s
heart is done by the soul in the flesh, and with the flesh, and through
the flesh. The Lord Himself, in short, when rebuking our thoughts,
includes in His censures this aspect of the flesh, (man’s heart),
the citadel of the soul: “Why think ye evil in your
hearts?” The leading power.
Chapter XVI.—The Heretics Called the Flesh “The Vessel of the Soul,” In Order to Destroy the Responsibility of the Body. Their Cavil Turns Upon Themselves and Shows the Flesh to Be a Sharer in Human Actions.
When, however, we attribute to the soul authority, and
to the flesh submission, we must see to it that (our opponents) do not
turn our position by another argument, by insisting on so placing the
flesh in the service of the soul, that it be not (considered as) its
servant, lest they should be compelled, if it were so regarded, to
admit its companionship (to the soul). For they would argue that
servants and companions possess a discretion in discharging the
functions of their respective
“Frictricis” is Oehler’s reading.
Chapter XVII.—The Flesh Will Be Associated with the Soul in Enduring the Penal Sentences of the Final Judgment.
“Every uneducated Simplicior. Interim.
Chapter XVIII.—Scripture Phrases and Passages Clearly Assert “The Resurrection of the Dead.” The Force of This Very Phrase Explained as Indicating the Prominent Place of the Flesh in the General Resurrection.
Thus far it has been my object by prefatory
remarks to lay a foundation for the defence of all the Scriptures which
promise a resurrection of the flesh. Now, inasmuch as this
verity is supported by so many just and reasonable
considerations—I mean the dignity of the flesh itself, As stated in ch.
v.–ix. See ch. xi. As stated in ch. xii.
and xiii. See ch.
xiv.–xvii. Divinitus. Proscripta. Resurrectio
Mortuorum. “Corpse
from falling.” This, of course, does not show the connection
of the words, like the Latin. [Elucidation I.]
Chapter XIX.—The Sophistical Sense Put by Heretics on the Phrase “Resurrection of the Dead,” As If It Meant the Moral Change of a New Life.
Now this consideration of the phrase in question, and
its signification—besides maintaining, of course, the true
meaning of the important words—must needs contribute to this
further result, that whatever obscurity our adversaries throw over the
subject under the pretence of figurative and allegorical language, the
truth will stand out in clearer light, and out of uncertainties certain
and definite rules will be prescribed. For some, when they have
alighted on a very usual form of prophetic statement, generally
expressed in figure and allegory, though not always, distort into some
imaginary sense even the most clearly described doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead, alleging that even death itself must be
understood in a spiritual sense. They say that which is commonly
supposed to be death is not really so,—namely, the separation of
body and soul: it is rather the ignorance of God, by reason of which
man is dead to God, and is not less buried in error than he would be in
the grave. Wherefore that also must be held to be the resurrection,
when a man is reanimated by access to the truth, and having dispersed
the death of ignorance, and being endowed with new life
Chapter XX.—Figurative Senses Have Their Foundation in Literal Fact. Besides, the Allegorical Style is by No Means the Only One Found in the Prophetic Scriptures, as Alleged by the Heretics.
Now, to upset all conceits of this sort, let me
dispel at once the preliminary idea on which they rest—their
assertion that the prophets make all their announcements in figures of
speech. Now, if this were the case, the figures themselves could not
possibly have been distinguished, inasmuch as the verities would not
have been declared, out of which the figurative language is stretched.
And, indeed, if all are figures, where will be that of which they are
the figures? How can you hold up a mirror for your face, if the face
nowhere exists? But, in truth, all are not figures, but there are also
literal statements; nor are all shadows, but there are bodies too: so
that we have prophecies about the Lord Himself even, which are clearer
than the day. For it was not figuratively that the Virgin conceived in
her womb; nor in a trope did she bear Emmanuel, that is, Jesus, God
with us.
Chapter XXI.—No Mere Metaphor in the Phrase Resurrection of the Dead. In Proportion to the Importance of Eternal Truths, is the Clearness of Their Scriptural Enunciation.
Well, if it occurs occasionally in certain
portions of it, you will say, then why not in that phrase, Resurrectio
Mortuorum, of which we have been speaking. See ch. xix.
Chapter XXII.—The Scriptures Forbid Our Supposing Either that the Resurrection is Already Past, or that It Takes Place Immediately at Death. Our Hopes and Prayers Point to the Last Great Day as the Period of Its Accomplishment.
We must after all this turn our attention to those
scriptures also which forbid our belief in such a resurrection as is
held by your Animalists (for I will not call them
Spiritualists), For the opinions of
those Valentinians who held that Christ’s flesh was composed of
soul or of spirit—a refined, ethereal substance—see
Tertullian’s De Carne Christi, cc. x.–xv. Suspirant in. Compare The
Apology, xl.; De Spect. xxvii.; De Exhort.
Cast. xii.
Chapter XXIII.—Sundry Passages of St. Paul, Which Speak of a Spiritual Resurrection, Compatible with the Future Resurrection of the Body, Which is Even Assumed in Them.
The apostle indeed teaches, in his Epistle to the
Colossians, that we were once dead, alienated, and enemies to the Lord
in our minds, whilst we were living in wicked works; Denique.
Chapter XXIV.—Other Passages Quoted from St. Paul, Which Categorically Assert the Resurrection of the Flesh at the Final Judgment.
The character of these times learn, along with the
Thessalonians. For we read: “How ye turned from idols to serve
the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He
raised from the dead, even Jesus.”
Chapter XXV.—St. John, in the Apocalypse, Equally Explicit in Asserting the Same Great Doctrine.
In the Revelation of John, again, the order of
these times is spread out to view, which “the souls of the
martyrs” are taught to wait for beneath the altar, whilst they
earnestly pray to be avenged and judged:
Chapter XXVI.—Even the Metaphorical Descriptions of This Subject in the Scriptures Point to the Bodily Resurrection, the Only Sense Which Secures Their Consistency and Dignity.
To a preceding objection, that the Scriptures are
allegorical, I have still one answer to make—that it is open to
us also to defend the bodily character of the resurrection by means of
the language of the prophets, which is equally figurative. For consider
that primeval sentence which God spake when He called man earth;
saying, “Earth thou art, and to earth shalt thou
return.” See above, ch. v.
Chapter XXVII.—Certain Metaphorical Terms Explained of the Resurrection of the Flesh.
We have also in the Scriptures robes
mentioned as allegorizing the hope of the flesh. Thus in the Revelation
of John it is said: “These are they which have not defiled
their clothes with women,” There is a curious
change of the word here made by Tertullian, who reads ἱμάτια instead of ἰάματα, “thy health,” or
“healings,” which is the word in the Sept.
Chapter XXVIII.—Prophetic Things and Actions, as Well as Words, Attest This Great Doctrine.
But we know that prophecy expressed itself by
things no less than by words. By words, and also by deeds, is the
resurrection foretold. When Moses puts his hand into his bosom, and
then draws it out again dead, and again puts his hand into his bosom,
and plucks it out living, Comp. Comp. Comp. Sitiant.
Chapter XXIX.—Ezekiel’s Vision of the Dry Bones Quoted.
Inasmuch, then, as even the figurative portions of
Scripture, and the arguments of facts, and some plain statements of
Holy Writ, throw light upon the resurrection of the flesh (although
without specially naming the very substance), how much more effectual
for de
Chapter XXX.—This
Vision Interpreted by Tertullian of the Resurrection of the Bodies of
the Dead. A Chronological Error of Our Author, Who Supposes that
Ezekiel in His
I am well aware how they torture even this
prophecy into a proof of the allegorical sense, on the ground that by
saying, “These bones are the whole house of Israel,” He
made them a figure of Israel, and removed them from their proper
literal condition; and therefore (they contend) that there is here a
figurative, not a true prediction of the resurrection, for (they say)
the state of the Jews is one of humiliation, in a certain sense dead,
and very dry, and dispersed over the plain of the world. Therefore the
image of a resurrection is allegorically applied to their state, since
it has to be gathered together, and recompacted bone to bone (in other
words, tribe to tribe, and people to people), and to be reincorporated
by the sinews of power and the nerves of royalty, and to be brought out
as it were from sepulchres, that is to say, from the most miserable and
degraded abodes of captivity, and to breathe afresh in the way of a
restoration, and to live thenceforward in their own land of Judæa.
And what is to happen after all this? They will die, no doubt. And what
will there be after death? No resurrection from the dead, of course,
since there is nothing of the sort here revealed to Ezekiel. Well, but
the resurrection is elsewhere foretold: so that there will be one even
in this case, and they are rash in applying this passage to the
state of Jewish affairs; or even if it do indicate a different recovery
from the resurrection which we are maintaining, what matters it to me,
provided there be also a resurrection of the body, just as there is a
restoration of the Jewish state? In fact, by the very circumstance that
the recovery of the Jewish state is prefigured by the reincorporation
and reunion of bones, proof is offered that this event will also happen
to the bones themselves; for the metaphor could not have been
formed from bones, if the same thing exactly were not to be realized in
them also. Now, although there is a sketch of the true thing in
its image, the image itself still possesses a truth of its own: it must
needs be, therefore, that must have a prior existence for itself, which
is used figuratively to express some other thing. Vacuity is not a
consistent basis for a similitude, nor does nonentity form a suitable
foundation for a parable. It will therefore be right to believe that
the bones are destined to have a rehabiliment of flesh and breath, such
as it is here said they will have, by reason indeed of which
their renewed state could alone express the reformed condition of
Jewish affairs, which is pretended to be the meaning of this passage.
It is, however, more characteristic of a religious spirit to maintain
the truth on the authority of a literal interpretation, such as is
required
Chapter XXXI.—Other Passages Out of the Prophets Applied to the Resurrection of the Flesh.
Unquestionably, if the people were indulging in
figurative murmurs that their bones were become dry, and that
their hope had perished—plaintive at the consequences of their
dispersion—then God might fairly enough seem to have consoled
their figurative despair with a figurative promise.
Since, however, no injury had as yet alighted on the people from their
dispersion, although the hope of the resurrection had very frequently
failed amongst them, it is manifest that it was owing to the perishing
condition of their bodies that their faith in the resurrection was
shaken. God, therefore, was rebuilding the faith which the people were
pulling down. But even if it were true that Israel was then depressed
at some shock in their existing circumstances, we must not on that
account suppose that the purpose of revelation could have rested in a
parable: its aim must have been to testify a resurrection, in order to
raise the nation’s hope to even an eternal salvation and an
indispensable restoration, and thereby turn off their minds from
brooding over their present affairs. This indeed is the aim of
other prophets likewise. “Ye shall go forth,” (says
Malachi), “from your sepulchres, as young calves let loose from
their bonds, and ye shall tread down your enemies.”
Chapter XXXII.—Even Unburied Bodies Will Be Raised Again. Whatever Befalls Them God Will Restore Them Again. Jonah’s Case Quoted in Illustration of God’s Power.
But, that you may not suppose that it is merely those
bodies which are consigned to tombs whose resurrection is foretold, you
have it declared in Scripture: “And I will com
Chapter XXXIII.—So Much for the Prophetic Scriptures. In the Gospels, Christ’s Parables, as Explained by Himself, Have a Clear Reference to the Resurrection of the Flesh.
This is evidence enough from the prophetic
Scriptures. I now appeal to the Gospels. But here also I must first
meet the same sophistry as advanced by those who contend that the Lord,
like (the prophets), said everything in the way of allegory, because it
is written: “All these things spake Jesus in parables, and
without a parable spake He not unto them,” See See See Such cases of obvious
meaning, which required no explanation, are referred to in
Chapter XXXIV.—Christ Plainly Testifies to the Resurrection of the Entire Man. Not in His Soul Only, Without the Body.
To begin with the passage where He says that He is
come to “to seek and to save that which is
lost.”
Chapter XXXV.—Explanation of What is Meant by the Body, Which is to Be Raised Again. Not the Corporeality of the Soul.
But He also teaches us, that “He is rather
to be feared, who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell,”
that is, the Lord alone; “not those which kill the body, but are
not able to hurt the soul,” Tertullian
supposed that even the soul was in a certain sense of a corporeal
essence. [Compare the speculations of Crusius in Auberlen, Divine
Revelation, (Translation of A.B. Paton, Edinburgh, Clarks,
1867).] Scilicet.
Chapter XXXVI.—Christ’s Refutation of the Sadducees, and Affirmation of Catholic Doctrine.
Let us now see whether (the Lord) has not imparted
greater strength to our doctrine in breaking down the subtle cavil of
the Sadducees. Their great object, I take it, was to do away altogether
with the resurrection, for the Sadducees in fact did not admit any
salvation either for the soul or the flesh; Compare
Tertullian’s De Præscript. Hæret. c. xxxiii.
Chapter XXXVII.—Christ’s Assertion About the Unprofitableness of the Flesh Explained Consistently with Our Doctrine.
He says, it is true, that “the flesh
profiteth nothing;” The divine
nature of the Son. See our Anti-Marcion, pp. 129, 247, note 7,
Edin. Compare c. xix.
above.
Chapter XXXVIII.—Christ, by Raising the Dead, Attested in a Practical Way the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Flesh.
After the Lord’s words, what are we
to think of the purport of His actions, when He raises dead
persons from their biers and their graves? To what end did He do
so? If it was only for the mere exhibition of His power, or to afford
the temporary favour of restoration to life, it was really no great
matter for Him to raise men to die over again. If, however, as was the
truth, it was rather to put in secure keeping men’s belief in a
future resurrection, then it must follow from the particular form of
His own examples, that the said resurrection will be a bodily one. I
can never allow it to be said that the resurrection of the future,
being destined for the soul only, did then receive these preliminary
illustrations of a raising of the flesh, simply because it would have
been impossible to have shown the
Chapter XXXIX.—Additional Evidence Afforded to Us in the Acts of the Apostles.
The Acts of the Apostles, too, attest Tertullian
always refers to this book by a plural phrase. Resignandi. Consignandi. Sub tribuno.
Chapter XL.—Sundry Passages of St. Paul Which Attest Our Doctrine Rescued from the Perversions of Heresy.
Now it is no matter of surprise if arguments are
captiously taken from the writings of (the apostle) himself, inasmuch
as there “must needs be heresies;” Animum. Animam.
Chapter XLI.—The Dissolution of Our Tabernacle Consistent with the Resurrection of Our Bodies.
It is still the same sentiment which he follows up
in the passage in which he puts the recompense above the sufferings:
“for we know;” he says, “that if our earthly house of
this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens;” Compendio
mortis. Compare our Anti-Marcion for the same thoughts and
words, v. 12. [p. 455, supra.]
Chapter XLII.—Death Changes, Without Destroying, Our Mortal Bodies. Remains of the Giants.
It is the transformation these shall undergo which
he explains to the Corinthians, when he writes: “We shall all
indeed rise again (though we shall not all undergo the transformation)
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump”—for none shall experience this change but those only
who shall be found in the flesh. “And the dead,” he says,
“shall be raised, and we shall be changed.” Now,
after a careful consideration of this appointed order, you will be able
to adjust what follows to the preceding sense. For when he adds,
“This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must
put on immortality,” Comp. De Anim. c.
li. Sed: for
“scilicet.” Carthage. Exuti. He must have
read ἐκδυσάμενοι
, instead of the reading of nearly all the ms.
authorities, ἐνδυσάμενοι.
Chapter XLIII.—No Disparagement of Our Doctrine in St. Paul’s Phrase, Which Calls Our Residence in the Flesh Absence from the Lord.
In the same way, when he says, “Therefore we
are always confident, and fully aware, that while we are at home in the
body we are absent from the Lord; for we walk by faith, not be
sight,” Comp. his De
Anima, c. lv. [Elucidation III.] Per hyperbaton.
Chapter XLIV.—Sundry Other Passages of St. Paul Explained in a Sentence Confirmatory of Our Doctrine.
Now, if you will examine the words which precede
the passage where mention is made of the outward and the inward man,
will you not discover the whole truth, both of the dignity and the hope
of the flesh? For, when he speaks of the “light which God hath
commanded to shine in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of
the glory of the Lord in the person of Jesus Christ,”
But in their blindness they again impale
themselves on the point of the old and the new man. When the apostle
enjoins us “to put off the old man, which is corrupt according to
the deceitful lusts; and to be renewed in the spirit of our mind; and
to put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and
true holiness,” The flesh. See ch. xxvii. We treat
“homines” as a nominative, after Oehler.
Chapter XLVI.—It is the Works of the Flesh, Not the Substance of the Flesh, Which St. Paul Always Condemns.
You may notice that the apostle everywhere condemns the
works of the flesh in such a Nodosius. Per delinquentiam: see
the De Carne Christi, xvi.
Chapter XLVII.—St. Paul, All Through, Promises Eternal Life to the Body.
For that must be living after the world, Evacuetur: καταργηθῃ. A.V. destroyed, i.e. deprived of all activity,
Municipatum. [Note
Tertullian’s summary of the text, in harmony with the
Tripartite philosophy of humanity.]
Chapter XLVIII.—Sundry Passages in the Great Chapter of the Resurrection of the Dead Explained in Defence of Our Doctrine.
But “flesh and blood,” you say,
“cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Lavatione. Comp.
Chapter XLIX.—The Same Subject Continued. What Does the Apostle Exclude from the Dead? Certainly Not the Substance of the Flesh.
We come now to the very gist Ad carnem et sanguinem
revera. See De Carne
Christi. ch. xvi. See
Chapter L.—In What Sense Flesh and Blood are Excluded from the Kingdom of God.
Putting aside, however, all interpretations of
this sort, which criminate the works of the flesh and blood, it may be
permitted me to claim for the resurrection these very substances,
understood in none other than their natural sense. For it is not the
resurrection that is directly denied to flesh and blood, but the
kingdom of God, which is incidental to Obvenit. A.V.
damnation, Forma. This must be the
meaning of the dative illi. We have kept this word
to suit the last Scripture quotation; but Tertullian’s word, both
here and in the quotation, is “devorata,” swallowed up. See
Chapter LI.—The Session of Jesus in His Incarnate Nature at the Right Hand of God a Guarantee of the Resurrection of Our Flesh.
That, however, which we have reserved for a
concluding argument, will now stand as a plea for all, and for the
apostle himself, who in very deed would have to be charged with extreme
indiscretion, if he had so abruptly, as some will have it, and as they
say, blindfold, and so indiscriminately, and so unconditionally,
excluded from the kingdom of God, and indeed from the court of heaven
itself, all flesh and blood whatsoever; since Jesus is still sitting
there at the right hand of the Father, Cutem ipsam.
Rufinus says that in the church of Aquileia they touched their bodies
when they recited the clause of the creed which they rendered
“the resurrection of this body.”
Chapter LII.—From St. Paul’s Analogy of the Seed We Learn that the Body Which Died Will Rise Again, Garnished with the Appliances of Eternal Life.
Let us now see in what body he asserts that the
dead will come. And with a felicitous sally he proceeds at once to
illustrate the point, as if an objector had plied him with some such
question. “Thou fool,” says he, “that which
thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.” An objection of the
opponent.
Chapter LIII.—Not the Soul, But the Natural Body Which Died, is that Which is to Rise Again. The Resurrection of Lazarus Commented on. Christ’s Resurrection, as the Second Adam, Guarantees Our Own.
Some, however, contend that the soul is
“the natural (or animate) body,” What in our
version is rendered “a natural body,” is St.
Paul’s σῶμα
ψυχικόν, which the heretics
held to be merely a periphrasis for ψυχή. We have rendered
Tertullian’s phrase corpus animale by “animate
body,” the better to suit the argument. Compare See this put more
fully above, c. v., near the end. Animata. See the De
Anima, v.–ix., for a full statement of Tertullian’s
view of the soul’s corporeality.
What shall we say then? Has not the flesh even now
(in this life) the spirit by faith? so that the question still remains
to be asked, how it is that the animate (or natural) body can be said
to be sown? Surely the flesh has received even here the
spirit—but only its “earnest;”
Chapter LIV.—Death Swallowed Up of Life. Meaning of This Phrase in Relation to the Resurrection of the Body.
Then, again, questions very often are suggested by
occasional and isolated terms, just as much as they are by connected
sentences. Thus, because of the apostle’s expression, “that
mortality may be swallowed up of life”
Chapter LV.—The Change of a Thing’s Condition is Not the Destruction of Its Substance. The Application of This Principle to Our Subject.
Now although, in proving that the flesh shall rise again
we ipso facto prove that no other flesh will
partake of that resurrection than that which is in question, yet
insulated questions and their occasions do require even discussions of
their own, even if they have been already sufficiently met. We will
therefore give a fuller explanation of the force and the reason of a
change which (is so great, that it) almost suggests the presumption
that it is a different flesh which is to rise again; as if, indeed, so
great a change amounted to utter cessation, and a complete destruction
of the former self. A distinction, however, must be made between a
change, however great, and everything which has the character of
destruction. For undergoing change is one thing, but being
destroyed is another thing. Now this distinction would no longer exist,
if the flesh were to suffer such a change as amounts to destruction.
Destroyed, however, it must be by the change, unless it shall itself
persistently remain throughout the altered condition which shall be
exhibited in the resurrection. For precisely as it perishes, if it does
not rise again, so also does it equally perish even if it does rise
again, on the supposition that it is lost Subducitur.
Chapter LVI.—The Procedure of the Last Judgment, and Its Awards, Only Possible on the Identity of the Risen Body with Our Present Flesh.
For how absurd, and in truth how unjust, and in
both respects how unworthy of God, for one substance to do the work,
and another to reap the reward: that this flesh of ours should be
torn by martyrdom, and another wear the crown; or, on the other hand,
that this flesh of ours should wallow in uncleanness, and another
receive the condemnation! Is it not better to renounce all faith at
once in the hope of the resurrection, With Marcion. With Valentinus. Statu. Utrobique.
Chapter LVII.—Our Bodies, However Mutilated Before or After Death, Shall Recover Their Perfect Integrity in the Resurrection. Illustration of the Enfranchised Slave.
We now come to the most usual cavil of unbelief.
If, they say, it be actually the selfsame substance which is recalled
to life with all its form, and lineaments, and quality, then why
not with all its other characteristics? Then the blind, and the
lame, and the palsied, and whoever else may have passed away with any
conspicuous mark, will return again with the same. What now is the
fact, although you in the greatness of your conceit Qualiscunque. Or the recovery of our
entire person. Genus.
Chapter LVIII.—From This Perfection of Our Restored Bodies Will Flow the Consciousness of Undisturbed Joy and Peace.
“Everlasting joy,” says Isaiah,
“shall be upon their heads.” Justitia.
Chapter LIX.—Our Flesh in the Resurrection Capable, Without Losing Its Essential Identity, of Bearing the Changed Conditions of Eternal Life, or of Death Eternal.
But, you object, the world to come bears the
character of a different dispensation, even an eternal one; and
therefore, you maintain, that the non-eternal substance of this life is
incapable of possessing a state of such different features. This would
be true enough, if man were made for the future dispensation, and not
the dispensation for man. The apostle, however, in his epistle says,
“Whether it be the world, or life, or death, or things present,
or things to come; all are yours:” Demetere. An allusion to some
conceits of the Valentinians, who put men of truest nature and fit for
Christ’s grace outside of the ocean-bounded earth, etc.
Chapter LX.—All the Characteristics of Our Bodies—Sex, Various Limbs, Etc.—Will Be Retained, Whatever Change of Functions These May Have, of Which Point, However, We are No Judges. Analogy of the Repaired Ship.
But behold how persistently they still accumulate their
cavils against the flesh, especially against its identity, deriving
their argu
Chapter LXI.—The Details of Our Bodily Sex, and of the Functions of Our Various Members. Apology for the Necessity Which Heresy Imposes of Hunting Up All Its Unblushing Cavils.
Now you have received your mouth, O man, for the
purpose of devouring your food and imbibing your drink: why not,
however, for the higher purpose of uttering speech, so as to
distinguish yourself from all other animals? Why not rather for
preaching the gospel of God, that so you may become even His
priest and advocate before men? Adam indeed gave their several
names to the animals, before he plucked the fruit of the tree; before
he ate, he prophesied. Then, again, you received your teeth for the
consumption of your meal: why not rather for wreathing your mouth with
suitable defence on every opening thereof, small or wide? Why not, too,
for moderating the impulses of your tongue, and guarding your
articulate speech from failure and violence? Let me tell you, (if you
do not know), that there are toothless persons in the world. Look at
them, and ask whether even a cage of teeth be not an honour to the
mouth. There are apertures in the lower regions of man and woman,
by means of which they gratify no doubt their animal passions; but why
are they not rather regarded as outlets for the cleanly
Chapter LXII.—Our Destined Likeness to the Angels in the Glorious Life of the Resurrection.
To this discussion, however, our Lord’s
declaration puts an effectual end: “They shall be,”
says He, “equal unto the angels.” ἰσάγγελοι. Cui.
Chapter LXIII.—Conclusion. The Resurrection of the Flesh in Its Absolute Identity and Perfection. Belief of This Had Become Weak. Hopes for Its Refreshing Restoration Under the Influences of the Paraclete.
And so the flesh shall rise again, wholly in every
man, in its own identity, in its absolute integrity. Wherever it may
be, it is in safe keeping in God’s presence, through that most
faithful “Mediator between God and man, (the man) Jesus
Christ,” In this apostrophe to
the soul, he censures Marcion’s heresy. Compare the De
Carne Christi. See the De
Præscript. Hæret. ch. xxxviii. supra, for
instances of these diverse methods of heresy. Marcion is mentioned as
the mutilator of Scripture, by cutting away from it whatever
opposed his views; Valentinus as the corrupter thereof, by his
manifold and fantastic interpretations. See the Adv.
Valentinianos, supra. We follow
Oehler’s view here, by all means.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Cadaver, cap. xviii. p. 588.)
The Schoolmen and middle-age jurists improved on Tertullian’s etymology. He says,—“a cadendo—cadaver.” But they form the word thus: Caro data vermibus = Ca-da-ver.
On this subject see a most interesting discourse
of the (paradoxical and sophistical, nay the whimsical) Count Joseph de
Maistre, in his Soirées de St. Pétersbourg. Œuvres, Tom. v.
p. 111.
“Chill penury repressed their noble rage,”
from Gray’s Elegy. The Diversions of Purley, of Horne-Tooke, supply amusing examples of the like in the formation of English words.
II.
(His flesh, the Bread, cap. xxxvii. p. 572.)
Note our author’s exposition. He censures
those who understood our Lord’s words after the letter, as if
they were to eat the carnal body. He expounds the spiritual
thing which gives life as to be understood by the text: “the
words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.”
His word is the life-giving principle and therefore he called his flesh
by the same name: and we are to “devour Him with the ear
and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by
faith.” The flesh profits nothing, the spirit imparts life.
Now, was Tertullian ever censured for this exposition? On the contrary,
this was the faith of the Catholic Church, from the beginning. Our
Saxon forefathers taught the same, as appears from the Homily of
Ælfric, 82 See Soames’ Anglo Saxon
Church, cap. xii. p. 465, and cap. xi. pp. 423–430. See also the
valuable annotations of Dr. Routh’s Opuscula, Vol. II. pp.
167–186.
III.
(Paradise, cap. xliii. p. 576.)
This sentence reads, in the translation I am editing, as follows: “No one, on becoming absent from the body, is at once a dweller in the presence of the Lord, except by the prerogative of martyrdom, whereby (the saint) gets at once a lodging in Paradise, not in Hades.” But the original does not say precisely this, nor does the author use the Greek word Hades. His words are: “Nemo enim peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum nisi ex martyrii prœrogativa Paradiso silicet non Inferis diversurus.” The passage therefore, is not necessarily as inconsistent with the author’s topography of the invisible world, as might seem. “Not in the regions beneath Paradise but in Paradise itself,” seems to be the idea; Paradise being included in the world of Hades, indeed, but in a lofty region, far enough removed from the Inferi, and refreshed by light from the third Heaven and the throne itself, (as this planet is by the light of the Sun,) immensely distant though it be from the final abode of the Redeemed.
VII.
Against Praxeas; The error of
Praxeas appears to have originated in anxiety to maintain the unity of
God; which, he thought, could only be done by saying that the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost were one and the same. He contended, therefore,
according to Tertullian, that the Father himself descended into the
virgin, was born of her, suffered, and was in a word Jesus Christ. From
the most startling of the deductions from Praxeas’ general
theory, his opponents gave him and his followers the name of
Patripassians; from another point in his teaching they were
called Monarchians. [Probable date not earlier than a.d. 208].
In Which He Defends, in all Essential
Points, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. [Elucidation I.]
[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Satan’s Wiles Against the Truth. How They Take the Form of the Praxean Heresy. Account of the Publication of This Heresy.
In various ways has the
devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been
to destroy the truth by defending it. He maintains that there is one
only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this
doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that
the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her,
Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. Here the old
serpent has fallen out with himself, since, when he tempted Christ
after John’s baptism, he approached Him as “the Son of
God;” surely intimating that God had a Son, even on the testimony
of the very Scriptures, out of which he was at the moment forging his
temptation: “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones
be made bread.” Probably Victor.
[Elucidation II.] Had admitted them to
communion. “The connection
renders it very probable that the hic quoque of this
sentence forms an antithesis to Rome, mentioned before, and that
Tertullian expresses himself as if he had written from the very spot
where these things had transpired. Hence we are led to conclude that it
was Carthage.”—Neander, Antignostikus, ii. 519, note 2, Bohn. On the designation
Psychici, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 263, note 5,
Edin. [This statement may
only denote a withdrawal from the communion of the Bishop of Rome, like
that of Cyprian afterwards. That prelate had stultified himself and
broken faith with Tertullian; but, it does not, necessarily, as Bp.
Bull too easily concludes, define his ultimate separation from his own
bishop and the North-African church.]
Chapter II.—The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead.
In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was
born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in
their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we
indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better
instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth),
believe that there is one only God, but under the following
dispensation, or οἰκονομία
, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who
proceeded The Church
afterwards applied this term exclusively to the Holy Ghost. [That is,
the Nicene Creed made it technically applicable to the Spirit,
making the distinction marked between the generation of the Word
and the procession of the Holy Ghost.] The
“Comforter.” See our
Anti-Marcion, p. 119, n. 1. Edin. See his De
Præscript. xxix. Tertullian uses
similar precaution in his argument elsewhere. See our
Anti-Marcion, pp. 3 and 119. Edin. οἰκονομία. Dirigens. Statu. See The
Apology, ch. xxi. Specie. See Bull’s
Def. Fid. Nic., and the translation (by the translator of this
work), in the Oxford Series, p. 202.
Chapter III.—Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and
unlearned,) who always constitute οἰκονυμία. So Bp. Kaye,
On Tertullian, p. 499. Unicum. This was a notion of
Praxeas. See ch. x. Tam unicis.
“Pignora” is often used of children and
dearest relations. [The first sentence of
this chapter is famous for a controversy between Priestly and Bp.
Horsley, the latter having translated idiotæ by the word
idiots. See Kaye, p. 498.]
Chapter IV.—The Unity of the Godhead and the Supremacy and Sole Government of the Divine Being. The Monarchy Not at All Impaired by the Catholic Doctrine.
But as for me, who derive the Son from no other
source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as
doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received
all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the
Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was
committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be
formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the
Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no
other source than from the Father through the Son. [Compare Cap.
viii. infra.] Apud.
Chapter V.—The Evolution of the Son or Word of God from the Father by a Divine Procession. Illustrated by the Operation of the Human Thought and Consciousness.
But since they will have the Two to be but One, so
that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only
right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as
to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus
shall the truth itself Res ipsa. Formam, or shape. Patrocinantibus. See St. Jerome’s
Quæstt. Hebr. in Genesim, ii. 507.
“Dispositio” means “mutual relations in the
Godhead.” See Bp. Bull’s Def. Fid. Nicen., Oxford
translation, p. 516. Sensus ipsius. Sermonem. [He always
calls the Logos not Verbum, but Sermo, in this treatise.
A masculine word was better to exhibit our author’s thought. So
Erasmus translates Logos in his N. Testament, on which see Kaye, p.
516.] Sermonen. Sermonalis. Rationalis. i.e.,
“Reason is manifestly prior to the Word, which it dictates”
(Bp. Kaye, p. 501). Sermonem. Dicturus. Another
reading is “daturus,” about to give. Sermone.
Chapter VI.—The Word of God is Also the Wisdom of God. The Going Forth of Wisdom to Create the Universe, According to the Divine Plan.
This power and disposition “Mutual
relations in the Godhead.” Sensus. Sapientius.
Chapter VII.—The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal Being.
Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume
His own form and glorious garb, Ornatum. Conditus. [See
Theophilus To Autolycus, cap. x. note 1, p. 98, Vol. II. of this
series. Also Ibid. p. 103, note 5. On the whole subject, Bp.
Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicænæ. Vol. V. pp.
585–592.] Condidit. Offensus. This doctrine of the
soul’s corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian
in his De Resurr. Carn. xvii., and De Anima v. By
Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical.
See our Anti-Marcion, p. 451, note 4, Edin. [On Tertullian’s
orthodoxy, here, see Kaye, p. 502.]
Chapter VIII.—Though the Son or Word of God Emanates from the Father, He is Not, Like the Emanations of Valentinus, Separable from the Father. Nor is the Holy Ghost Separable from Either. Illustrations from Nature.
If any man from this shall think that I am introducing
some προβολή—that
is to say, some prolation “The word
προβολή properly means
anything which proceeds or is sent forth from the substance of another,
as the fruit of a tree or the rays of the sun. In Latin, it is
translated by prolatio, emissio, or editio,
or what we now express by the word development. In
Tertullian’s time, Valentinus had given the term a material
signification. Tertullian, therefore, has to apologize for using
it, when writing against Praxeas, the forerunner of the
Sabellians” (Newman’s Arians, ii. 4; reprint, p.
101). προβολή. See Adv.
Valentin. cc. xiv. xv. Literally, the
προβολή, “of the
truth.” [Compare cap.
iv. supra.] Or oneness of the
divine empire. Or dispensation of the
divine tripersonality. See above ch. ii.
Chapter IX.—The Catholic Rule of Faith Expounded in Some of Its Points. Especially in the Unconfused Distinction of the Several Persons of the Blessed Trinity.
Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith
which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the
Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what
sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is
one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct
from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every
uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it
predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among
the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say
this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the
Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and
Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from
the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is
different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as
the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their
being.
“Modulo,” in the sense of dispensation or economy.
See Oehler and Rigault. on The Apology, c. xxi. “In his
representation of the distinction (of the Persons of the Blessed
Trinity), Tertullian sometimes uses expressions which in aftertimes,
when controversy had introduced greater precision of language, were
studiously avoided by the orthodox. Thus he calls the Father the whole
substance, the Son a derivation from or portion of the whole.”
(Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 505). After Arius, the
language of theology received greater precision; but as it is, there is
no doubt of the orthodoxy of Tertullian’s doctrine, since he so
firmly and ably teaches the Son’s consubstantiality with
the Father—equal to Him and inseparable from him. [In other
words, Tertullian could not employ a technical phraseology afterwards
adopted to give precision to the same orthodox ideas.] Aliud ab alio.
Chapter X.—The Very Names of Father and Son Prove the Personal Distinction of the Two. They Cannot Possibly Be Identical, Nor is Their Identity Necessary to Preserve the Divine Monarchy.
So it is either the Father or the Son, and the day
is not the same as the night; nor is the Father the same as the Son, in
such a way that Both of them should be One, and One or the Other should
be Both,—an opinion which the most conceited
“Monarchians” maintain. He Himself, they say, made Himself
a Son to Himself. [Kaye, p. 507, note
3.] As correlatives, one
implying the existence of the other. An ironical reference
to a great paradox in the Praxean heresy.
Chapter XI.—The Identity of the Father and the Son, as Praxeas Held It, Shown to Be Full of Perplexity and Absurdity. Many Scriptures Quoted in Proof of the Distinction of the Divine Persons of the Trinity.
It will be your duty, however, to adduce your
proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He
made His Word a Son to Himself. For if He calls Him Son, and if the Son
is none other than He who has proceeded from the Father Himself,
and if the Word has proceeded from the Father Himself, He will
then be the Son, and not Himself from whom He proceeded. For the
Father Himself did not proceed from Himself. Now, you who say that
the Father is the same as the Son, do really make the same Person both
to have sent forth from Himself (and at the same time to have gone out
from Himself as) that Being which is God. If it was possible for Him to
have done this, He at all events did not do it. You must bring forth
the proof which I require of you—one like my own; that is, (you
must prove to me) that the Scriptures show the Son and the Father to be
the same, just as on our side the Father and the Son are demonstrated
to be distinct; I say distinct, but not
separate: Distincte, non
divise. For this version of
Ecce. In allusion to
In allusion to
Sustinent. Ex. Tertullian reads
Κυρίῳ
instead of Κύρῳ, “Cyrus.” [See Elucidation
III., and also cap. xxv. infra.] [See De
Baptismo, cap. v. p. 344, Ed. Oehler, and note how often our
author cites an important text, by half quotation, leaving the
residue to the reader’s memory, owing to the impetuosity of his
genius and his style: “Monte decurrens velut amnis,
imbres quem super notas aluere ripas fervet, etc.”]
Chapter XII.—Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.
If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as
if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is
possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to
speak in plural phrase, saying, “Let us make man in our own
image, and after our own likeness;” Mundialis lux. [Kaye thinks the
Athanasian hymn (so called) was composed by one who had this treatise
always in mind. See p. 526.] Per eum.
Chapter XIII.—The Force of Sundry Passages of Scripture Illustrated in Relation to the Plurality of Persons and Unity of Substance. There is No Polytheism Here, Since the Unity is Insisted on as a Remedy Against Polytheism.
Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and
He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another
created; (and thus) two Gods are declared. If you are so venturesome
and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more
deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as
God: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre
of Thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. Thou hast loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath
anointed Thee or made Thee His Christ.” Retro. Numerum. Conscientia. Species.
Chapter XIV.—The Natural Invisibility of the Father, and the Visibility of the Son Witnessed in Many Passages of the Old Testament. Arguments of Their Distinctness, Thus Supplied.
Moreover, there comes to our aid, when we insist
upon the Father and the Son as being Two, that regulating
principle which has determined God to be invisible. When Moses in Egypt
desired to see the face of the Lord, saying, “If therefore I have
found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself unto me, that I may see Thee
and know Thee,” Pro modulo
derivationis. Spiritus here
is the divine nature of Christ. Si forte. Cominus sciret. Comp. Involved in the
nunquid.
Chapter XV.—New Testament Passages Quoted. They Attest the Same Truth of the Son’s Visibility Contrasted with the Father’s Invisibility.
If I fail in resolving this article (of our faith)
by passages which may admit of dispute Quæstionibus. Quia cum Patre apud
Patrem. In sensu. The reading is,
“in Patris sensu;” another reading substitutes
“sinu” for “sensu;” q.d.
“the Father’s bosom.”
Chapter XVI.—Early Manifestations of the Son of God, as Recorded in the Old Testament; Rehearsals of His Subsequent Incarnation.
But you must not suppose that only the works which
relate to the (creation of the) world were made by the Son, but also
whatsoever since that time has been done by God. For “the Father
who loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His
hand,” See our
Anti-Marcion, p. 112, note 10. Edin. Comp. See the
treatise, Against Marcion. ii. 25, supra. Quasi.
Chapter XVII.—Sundry August Titles, Descriptive of Deity, Applied to the Son, Not, as Praxeas Would Have It, Only to the Father.
They more readily supposed that the Father acted
in the Son’s name, than that the Son acted in the Father’s;
although the Lord says Himself, “I am come in my Father’s
name;”
Chapter XVIII.—The Designation of the One God in the Prophetic Scriptures. Intended as a Protest Against Heathen Idolatry, It Does Not Preclude the Correlative Idea of the Son of God. The Son is in the Father.
But what hinders them from readily perceiving this
community of the Father’s titles in the Son, is the statement of
Scripture, whenever it determines God to be but One; as if the selfsame
Scripture had not also set forth Two both as God and Lord, as we have
shown above. See above ch. xiii. p.
607.
Chapter XIX.—The Son in Union with the Father in the Creation of All Things. This Union of the Two in Co-Operation is Not Opposed to the True Unity of God. It is Opposed Only to Praxeas’ Identification Theory.
But this very declaration of His they will hastily
pervert into an argument of His singleness. “I
have,” says He, “stretched out the heaven
alone.” Undoubtedly alone as regards all other
powers; and He thus gives a premonitory evidence against the
conjectures of the heretics, who maintain that the world was
constructed by various angels and powers, who also make the Creator
Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate agent sent to
form external things, such as the constituent parts of the world, but
who was at the same time ignorant of the divine purpose. If,
now, it is in this sense that He stretches out the heavens alone, how
is it that these heretics assume their position so perversely, as to
render inadmissible the singleness of that Wisdom which says,
“When He prepared the heaven, I was present with
Him?” On this reading,
see our Anti-Marcion, p. 207, note 9. Edin. Prolatus. See ch. xiii. p.
107.
Chapter XX.—The Scriptures Relied on by Praxeas to Support His Heresy But Few. They are Mentioned by Tertullian.
But I must take some further pains to rebut their
arguments, when they make selections from the Scriptures in support of
their opinion, and refuse to consider the other points, which obviously
maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the
Godhead, and with the full admission Sonitu.
Chapter XXI.—In This and the Four Following Chapters It is Shewn, by a Minute Analysis of St. John’s Gospel, that the Father and Son are Constantly Spoken of as Distinct Persons.
Consider, therefore, how many passages present
their prescriptive authority to you in this very Gospel before this
inquiry of Philip, and previous to any discussion on your part. And
first of all there comes at once to hand the preamble of John to his
Gospel, which shows us what He previously was who had to become
flesh. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God: all
things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing
made.” Unius sinum Patris.
Another reading makes: “He alone (unus) declared,” etc. See
i.e. His divine
nature. The expression is in
the neuter collective form in the original.
Chapter XXII.—Sundry Passages of St. John Quoted, to Show the Distinction Between the Father and the Son. Even Praxeas’ Classic Text—I and My Father are One—Shown to Be Against Him.
Again, whose doctrine does He announce, at which
all were astonished? See
Chapter XXIII.—More Passages from the Same Gospel in Proof of the Same Portion of the Catholic Faith. Praxeas’ Taunt of Worshipping Two Gods Repudiated.
Again, when Martha in a later passage acknowledged
Him to be the Son of God, Or, “by way of
excess.” Or, held
(haberi).
Chapter XXIV.—On St. Philip’s Conversation with Christ. He that Hath Seen Me, Hath Seen the Father. This Text Explained in an Anti-Praxean Sense.
But there were some who even then did not
understand. For Thomas, who was so long incredulous, said: “Lord,
we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus
saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh
unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye would have known the
Father also: but henceforth ye know Him, and have seen
Him.” Vicarium.
Chapter XXV.—The Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. He is Distinct from the Father and the Son as to Their Personal Existence. One and Inseparable from Them as to Their Divine Nature. Other Quotations Out of St. John’s Gospel.
What follows Philip’s question, and the
Lord’s whole treatment of it, to the end of
John’s Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of
the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the
properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter,
also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from
heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called
“another Comforter,” indeed; See above ch.
xiii. Unum. [On this famous
passage see Elucidation III.] Unus. [A curious
anecdote is given by Carlyle in his Life of Frederick (Book xx.
cap. 6), touching the text of “the Three Witnesses.”
Gottsched satisfied the king that it was not in the Vienna ms. save in an interpolation of the margin “in
Melanchthon’s hand.” Luther’s Version lacks this
text.]
Chapter XXVI.—A Brief Reference to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Their Agreement with St. John, in Respect to the Distinct Personality of the Father and the Son.
In addition to Philip’s conversation, and
Inicere. i.e., the angel of the
Annunciation. On this not
strictly defensible term of Tertullian, see Bp. Bull’s Defence
of the Nicene Creed, book ii. ch. vii. sec. 5, Translation, pp.
199, 200. “The
selfsame Person is understood under the appellation both of
Spirit and Word, with this difference only, that He is
called ‘the Spirit of God,’ so far as He is a Divine
Person,…and ‘the Word,’ so far as He is the Spirit in
operation, proceeding with sound and vocal utterance from God to set
the universe in order.”—Bp. Bull,
Def. Nic. Creed, p. 535, Translation. Ex ipso. Substantiva res. Ipse Deus: i.e., God
so wholly as to exclude by identity every other person. Non in unum.
Chapter XXVII.—The Distinction of the Father and the Son, Thus Established, He Now Proves the Distinction of the Two Natures, Which Were, Without Confusion, United in the Person of the Son. The Subterfuges of Praxeas Thus Exposed.
But why should I linger over matters which are so
evident, when I ought to be attacking points on which they seek to
obscure the plainest proof? For, confuted on all sides on the
distinction between the Father and the Son, which we maintain without
destroying their inseparable union—as (by the examples) of the
sun and the ray, and the fountain and the river—yet, by help of
(their conceit) an indivisible number, (with issues) of two and three,
they endeavour to interpret this distinction in a way which
shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in one
Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to
be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that
is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and
the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing them rather
than uniting them. For if Jesus is one, and Christ is another, then the
Son will be different from the Father, because the Son is Jesus, and
the Father is Christ. Such a monarchy as this they learnt,
I suppose, in the school of Valentinus, making two—Jesus and
Christ. But this conception of theirs has been, in fact, already
confuted in what we have previously advanced, because the Word of God
or the Spirit of God is also called the power of the Highest, whom they
make the Father; whereas these relations Ipsæ. His version of
Ex. See next chapter. i.e., Christ’s
divine nature.
Chapter XXVIII.—Christ Not the Father, as Praxeas Said. The Inconsistency of This Opinion, No Less Than Its Absurdity, Exposed. The True Doctrine of Jesus Christ According to St. Paul, Who Agrees with Other Sacred Writers.
And so, most foolish heretic, you make
Christ to be the Father, without once considering the actual
force of this name, if indeed Christ is a name, and not rather a
surname, or designation; for it signifies “Anointed.” But
Anointed is no more a proper name than Clothed or Shod; it is only an
accessory to a name. Suppose now that by some means Jesus were also
called Vestitus (Clothed), as He is actually called Christ from
the mystery of His anointing, would you in like manner say that Jesus
was the Son of God, and at the same time suppose that Vestitus
was the Father? Now then, concerning Christ, if Christ is the Father,
the Father is an Anointed One, and receives the unction of course from
another. Else if it is from Himself that He re See Here Tertullian reads
τῷ
Χριστῷ μου
Κυρίῳ, instead of Κύρῳ, “to Cyrus,”
in From this
deduction of the doctrine of Praxeas, that the Father must have
suffered on the cross, his opponents called him and his followers
Patripassians.
Chapter XXIX.—It Was Christ that Died. The Father is Incapable of Suffering Either Solely or with Another. Blasphemous Conclusions Spring from Praxeas’ Premises.
Silence! Silence on such blasphemy. Let us be
content with saying that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let
this suffice, because the Scriptures have told us so much. For even
the apostle, to his declaration—which he makes not without
feeling the weight of it—that “Christ died,”
immediately adds, “according to the Scriptures,” Referimus: or,
“Recite and record.” [This passage
convinces Lardner that Praxeas was not a Patripassian. Credib.
Vol. VIII. p. 607.] That is, the divine
nature in general in this place. That which was open to
it to suffer in the Son. Suo nomine. De nobis.
Chapter XXX.—How the Son Was Forsaken by the Father Upon the Cross. The True Meaning Thereof Fatal to Praxeas. So Too, the Resurrection of Christ, His Ascension, Session at the Father’s Right Hand, and Mission of the Holy Ghost.
However, if you persist in pushing your views
further, I shall find means of answering you with greater stringency,
and of meeting you with the exclamation of the Lord Himself, so as to
challenge you with the question, What is your inquiry and reasoning
about that? You have Him exclaiming in the midst of His
passion: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken
me?” This is the sense
rather than the words of i.e., the divine
nature. Tertullian was now a
[pronounced] Montanist.
Chapter XXXI.—Retrograde Character of the Heresy of Praxeas. The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity Constitutes the Great Difference Between Judaism and Christianity.
But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to
the Jewish faith, of which this is the substance—so to believe in
One God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides Him, and after the Son
the Spirit. Now, what difference would there be between us and them, if
there were not this distinction which you are for breaking down?
What need would there be of the gospel, which is the substance of the
New Covenant, laying down (as it does) that the Law and the Prophets
lasted until John the Baptist, if thenceforward the Father, the
Son, and the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making
One Only God? God was pleased to renew His covenant with man in such a
way as that His Unity might be believed in, after a new manner, through
the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known
openly, Coram. Viderint.
Postscript.
————————————
The learned Dr. Holmes, the translator of the Second volume of the Edinburgh series, to which our arrangement has given another position, furnished it with a Preface as follows:
“This volume
contains all Tertullian’s polemical works (placed in his
second volume by
“For the scanty facts connected with our author’s life, and for some general remarks on the importance and style of his writings, the reader is referred to the Introduction of my translation of the Five Books against Marcion.
“The treatises which comprise this volume will be found replete with the vigorous thought and terse expression which always characterize Tertullian.
“Brief synopses are prefixed to the several treatises, and headings are supplied to the chapters: these, with occasional notes on difficult passages and obscure allusions, will, it is hoped, afford sufficient aid for an intelligent perusal of these ancient writings, which cannot fail to be interesting alike to the theologian and the general reader,—full as they are of reverence for revealed truth, and at the same time of independence of judgment, adorned with admirable variety and fulness of knowledge, genial humour, and cultivated imagination.”
————————————
Dr. Holmes further adorned this same volume with a dedication to a valued friend, in the following words:
“The Right Rev. Father in God, W. I. Trower, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Gibraltar, and formerly Bishop of Glasgow and Galway:
My Dear Lord, In one of our conversations last summer, you were kind enough to express an interest in this publication, and to favour me with some valuable hints on my own share in it. It gives me therefore great pleasure to inscribe your honoured name on the first page of this volume.
I avail myself of this public opportunity of endorsing, on my own account, the high opinion which has long been entertained of your excellent volumes on The Epistles and The Gospels.
Recalling to mind, as I often do, our pleasant days at Pennycross and Mannamead, I remain, my dear Lord, very faithfully yours, Peter Holmes.”
Mannamead, March 10, 1870.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Sundry doctrinal statements of Tertullian. See p. 601 (et seqq.), supra.)
I am glad for many reasons that Dr. Holmes appends the following from Bishop Kaye’s Account of the Writings of Tertullian:
“On the doctrine of the blessed Trinity, in order
to explain his meaning Tertullian borrows illustrations from natural
objects. The three Persons of the Trinity stand to each other in the
relation of the root, the shrub, and the fruit; of the fountain, the
river, and the cut from the river; of the sun, the ray, and the
terminating point of the ray. For these illustrations he professes
himself indebted to the Revelations of the Paraclete. In later times,
divines have occasionally resorted to similar illustrations for the
purpose of familiarizing the doctrine of the Trinity to the mind; nor
can any danger arise from the proceeding, so long as we
“‘Notwithstanding, however, the
intimate union which subsists between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
we must be careful,’ says Tertullian, ‘to distinguish
between their Persons.’ In his representations of this
distinction he sometimes uses expressions which in after times, when
controversy had introduced greater precision of language, were
studiously avoided by the orthodox. Thus he calls the Father the whole
substance—the Son a derivation from or portion of the
whole.” Kaye, pp.
504–596.
“After showing that Tertullian’s
opinions were generally coincident with the orthodox belief of the
Christian Church on the great subject of the Trinity in Unity, Bp. Kaye
goes on to say: ‘We are far from meaning to assert that
expressions may not occasionally be found which are capable of a
different interpretation, and which were carefully avoided by the
orthodox writers of later times, when the controversies respecting the
Trinity had introduced greater precision of language.’ Pamelius
thought it necessary to put the reader on his guard against certain of
these expressions; and Semler has noticed, with a sort of ill-natured
industry (we call it ill-natured industry, because the true mode
of ascertaining a writer’s opinions is, not to fix upon
particular expressions, but to take the general tenor of his language),
every passage in the Tract against Praxeas in which there is any
appearance of contradiction, or which will bear a construction
favourable to the Arian tenets. Bp. Bull also, who conceives the
language of Tertullian to be explicit and correct on the subject of the
pre-existence and the consubstantiality, admits that he occasionally
uses expressions at variance with the co-eternity of Christ. For
instance, in the Tract against Hermogenes, Ch. iii. compared with
ch. xviii.
“In speaking also of the Holy Ghost,
Tertullian occasionally uses terms of a very ambiguous and equivocal
character. He says, for instance (Adversus Praxean, c. xii.),
that in
II.
(The bishop of Rome, cap. i. p. 597.)
Probably Victor (a.d.
190), who is elsewhere called Victorinus, as Oehler conjectures,
by a blunderer who tacked the inus to his name, because he was
thinking of Zephyrinus, his immediate successor. This Victor
“acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus,” and kept up
communion with the Phrygian churches that adopted them: but worse than
that, he now seems to have patronized the Patri-passion heresy, under
the compulsion of Praxeas. So Tertullian says, who certainly had no
idea that the Bishop of Rome was the infallible judge of controversies,
when he recorded the facts of this strange history. Thus, we find the
very founder of “Latin Christianity,” accusing a
contemporary Bishop of Rome of heresy and the patronage of heresy, in
two particulars. Our earliest acquaintance with that See presents
us with Polycarp’s superior authority, at Rome itself, in
maintaining apostolic doctrine and suppressing heresy. “He it
was, who coming to Rome,” says Irenæus, Vol. i. p. 416, this
Series. Vol. I. p. 569, this
Series. Eusebius, B.V. cap.
24. Refer also to preceding note, and to Vol. I. p. 310, this
Series. Vol. II. pp. 3 and 4,
this Series, also, Eusebius, B.V. Cap. iii.
III.
(These three are one, cap. xxv. p. 621. Also p. 606.)
Porson having spoken Pontifically upon the matter of the
text of “the Three Witnesses,” cadit quæstio,
locutus est Augur Apollo. It is of more importance that
Bishop Kaye in his calm wisdom, remarks as follows; p. 516.
It appears to me very clear that Tertullian is quoting
“A New
Plea for the Authenticity of the text of the Three Heavenly
Witnesses: or, Porson’s Letters to Travis eclectically
examined, etc. etc. By the Rev. Charles Forster, etc.” Cambridge,
Deighton, Bell & Co., and London, Bell & Daldy,
1867.
Stated as a mere question as to the early African
Church, See Milman,
Hist. Lat. Christ., i. p. 29.
To those interested in the question let me commend
the learned dissertation of Grabe on the textual case, as it stood in
his day. See Bull’s
Works, Vol. V., p. 381. Where it is Psalm
XIV.
Scorpiace.
Antidote for the Scorpion’s
Sting. [Written about
a.d. 205.]
[Translated by Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.
The earth brings forth, as
if by suppuration, great evil from the diminutive scorpion. The poisons
are as many as are the kinds of it, the disasters as many as are also
the species of it, the pains as many as are also the colours of it.
Nicander writes on the subject of scorpions, and depicts them.
And yet to smite with the tail—which tail will be whatever is
prolonged from the hindmost part of the body, and scourges—is the
one movement which they all use when making an assault. Wherefore that
succession of knots in the scorpion, which in the inside is a thin
poisoned veinlet, rising up with a bow-like bound, draws tight a barbed
sting at the end, after the manner of an engine for shooting
missiles. From which circumstance they also call after the
scorpion, the warlike implement which, by its being drawn back, gives
an impetus to the arrows. The point in their case is also a duct of
extreme minuteness, to inflict the wound; and where it penetrates, it
pours out poison. The usual time of danger is the summer season:
fierceness hoists the sail when the wind is from the south and the
south-west. Among cures, certain substances supplied by nature
have very great efficacy; magic also puts on some bandage; the art of
healing counteracts with lancet and cup. For some, making haste, take
also beforehand a protecting draught; but sexual intercourse drains it
off, and they are dry again. We have faith for a defence, if we are not
smitten with distrust itself also, in immediately making the
sign Of the cross over the
wounded part. [This translation is frequently weakened by useless
interpolations; some of these destroying the author’s style, for
nothing, I have put into footnotes or dropped.] I.e. adjuring
the part, in the name of Jesus, and besmearing the poisoned heel with
the gore of the beast, when it has been crushed to death. [So the
translator; but the terse rhetoric of the original is not so
circumstantial, and refers, undoubtedly, to the lingering influence of
miracles, according to St. The opponents of
martyrdoms are meant.—Tr. i.e. the
devil.—Tr. An instrument of
torture, so called.—Tr.
Chapter II.
But not yet about the good to be got from
martyrdom must we learn, without our having first heard about
the duty of suffering it; nor must we learn the usefulness of
it, before we have heard about the necessity for it. The
(question of the) divine warrant goes first—whether God has
willed and also commanded ought of the kind, so that they who assert
that it is not good are not plied with arguments for thinking it
profitable save when they have been subdued. By those in favour of
its having been divinely enjoined. By argument, of
course.—Tr. Of course our
division of the Scripture by chapter and verse did not exist in the
days of Tertullian.—Tr. The words in the
Septuagint are: ὃτι ἐμοὶ οἱ
υἱοὶτ
᾽Ισραὴλ
οἰκέται
εἰσίν,
παῖδές μου
οὗτοί εἰσιν
οὕς ἐξήγαγον
ἐκ γῆς
Αἰγύπτου.
Chapter III.
Nor should I think it needful to discuss whether
God pursues a worthy course in forbidding His own name and honour to be
given over to a lie, or does so in not consenting that such as He has
plucked from the maze of false religion should return again to Egypt,
or does so in not suffering to depart from Him them whom He has chosen
for Himself. Thus that, too, will not require to be treated by us,
whether He has wished to be kept the rule which He has chosen to
appoint, and whether He justly avenges the abandonment of the rule
which He has wished to be kept; since He would have appointed it to no
purpose if He had not wished it kept, and would have to no purpose
wished it kept if He had been unwilling to uphold it. My next
step, indeed, is to put to the test these appointments of God in
opposition to false religions, the completely vanquished as well as
also the punished, since on these will depend the entire argument for
martyrdoms. Moses was apart with God on the mountain, when the people,
not brooking his absence, which was so needful, seek to make gods for
themselves, which, for his own part, he will prefer to
destroy.
Chapter IV.
If, therefore, it is evident that from the beginning
this kind of worship has both been forbidden—witness the commands
so numerous and weighty—and that it has never been engaged in
without punishment following, as examples so numerous and impressive
show, and that no offence is counted by God so presumptuous as a
trespass of this sort, we ought further to perceive the purport of both
the divine threatenings and their fulfilments, which was even then
commended not only by the not calling in question, but also by the
enduring of martyrdoms, for which certainly He had given occasion by
forbidding idolatry. For otherwise martyrdoms would not take
place. And certainly He had supplied, as a warrant for these, His own
authority, willing those events to come to pass for the occurrence of
which He had given occasion. At present (it is important), for we
are getting severely stung concerning the will of God, An allusion to
what occurred in the games, there being lines to mark the space within
which the contests were to be waged.—Tr.
Chapter V.
You have therefore the will of my God. We have cured
this prick. Let us give good heed to another thrust touching the
character of His will. It would be tedious to show that my God is
good,—a truth with which the Marcionites have now been made
acquainted by us. Meanwhile it is enough that He is called God for its
being necessary that He should be believed to be good. For if any one
make the supposition that God is evil, he will not be able to take his
stand on both the constituents thereof: he will be bound either to
affirm that he whom he has thought to be evil is not God, or that he
whom he has proclaimed to be God is good. Good, therefore, will be the
will also of him who, unless he is good, will not be God. The goodness
of the thing itself also which God has willed—of martyrdom, I
mean—will show this, because only one who is good has willed what
is good. I stoutly maintain that martyrdom is good, as required by the
God by whom likewise idolatry is forbidden and punished. For
martyrdom strives against and opposes idolatry. But to strive against
and oppose evil cannot be ought but good. Not as if I denied that there
is a rivalry in evil things with one another, as well as in good also;
but this ground for it requires a different state of matters. For
martyrdom contends with idolatry, not from some malice which they
share, but from its own kindness; for it delivers from idolatry. Who
will not proclaim that to be good which delivers from idolatry?
What else is the opposition between idolatry and martyrdom, than that
between life and death? Life will be counted to be martyrdom as much as
idolatry to be death. He who will call life an evil, has death to speak
of as a good. This frowardness also appertains to men,—to discard
what is wholesome, to accept what is baleful, to avoid all dangerous
cures, or, in short, to be eager to die rather than to be healed. For
they are many who flee from the aid of physic also, many in folly, many
from fear and false modesty. And the healing art has manifestly an
apparent cruelty, by reason of the lancet, and of the burning iron, and
of the great heat of the mustard; yet to be cut and burned, and pulled
and bitten, is not on that account an evil, for it occasions helpful
pains; nor will it be refused merely because it afflicts, but because
it afflicts inevitably will it be applied. The good accruing is
the apology for the frightfulness of the work. In short, that man who
is howling and groaning and bellowing in the hands of a physician will
presently load the same hands with a fee, and proclaim that they are
the best operators, and no longer affirm that they are cruel. Thus
martyrdoms also rage furiously, but for salvation. God also will be at
liberty to heal for everlasting life by means of fires and swords, and
all that is painful. But you will admire the physician at least even in
that respect, that for the most part he employs like properties in the
cures to counteract the properties of the diseases, when he aids, as it
were, the wrong way, succouring by means of those things to which the
affliction is owing. For he both checks heat by heat, by laying on a
greater load; and subdues inflammation by leaving thirst unappeased, by
tormenting rather; and contracts the superabundance of Literally,
“disperse in vapour.”—Tr.
Chapter VI.
But if, for the contest’s sake, God had
appointed martyrdoms for us, that thereby we might make trial with our
opponent, in order that He may now keep bruising him by whom man chose
to be bruised, here too generosity rather than harshness in God holds
sway. For He wished to make man, now plucked from the devil’s
throat by faith, trample upon him likewise by courage, that he might
not merely have escaped from, but also completely vanquished, his
enemy. He who had called to salvation has been pleased to summon to
glory also, that they who were rejoicing in consequence of their
deliverance may be in transports when they are crowned likewise. With
what good-will the world celebrates those games, the combative
festivals and superstitious contests of the Greeks, involving forms
both of worship and of pleasure, has now become clear in Africa also.
As yet cities, by sending their congratulations severally, annoy
Carthage, which was presented with the Pythian game after the
racecourse had attained to an old age. Thus, by the world Literally,
“age.”—Tr.
Chapter VII.
If the scorpion, swinging his tail in the air,
still reproach us with having a murderer for our God, I shall shudder
at the altogether foul breath of blasphemy which comes stinking from
his heretical mouth; but I will embrace even such a God, with assurance
derived from reason, by which reason even He Himself has, in the person
of His own Wisdom, by the lips of Solomon, proclaimed Himself to be
more than a murderer: Wisdom (Sophia), says He has slain her own
children.
Chapter VIII.
We keep therefore the one position, and, in
respect of this question only, summon to an encounter, whether
martyrdoms have been commanded by God, that you may believe that they
have been commanded by reason, if you know that they have been
commanded by Him, because God will not command ought without reason.
Since the death of His own saints is precious is His sight, as David
sings,
Chapter IX.
It remains for us, lest ancient times may perhaps
have had the sacrament Tertullian means
martyrdom.—Tr. The words in the
Greek, though correctly rendered in our authorized version, are, when
translated literally, what Tertullian represents them to
be.—Tr.
Chapter X.
But as to those who think that not here, that is,
not within this environment of earth, nor during this period of
existence, nor before men possessing this nature shared by us all, has
confession been appointed to be made, what a supposition is theirs,
being at variance with the whole order of things of which we have
experience in these lands, and in this life, and under human
authorities! Doubtless, when the souls have departed from their bodies,
and begun to be put upon trial in the several stories of the heavens,
with reference to the engagement (under which they have come to Jesus),
and to be questioned about those hidden mysteries of the heretics, they
must then confess before the real powers and the real men,—the
Teleti, The perfect. The
spell-resisting. The steadfast. In support of my
cause. More literally,
“How long shall we suffer the third race!” The
Christians are meant; the first race being the heathen, and the second
the Jews.—Tr.
Chapter XI.
In the same manner, therefore, we maintain that
the other announcements too refer to the condition of martyrdom.
“He,” says Jesus, “who will value his own life also
more than me, is not worthy of me,” See note 1, cap.
iv. p. 637, supra.
Chapter XII.
Who, now, should know better the marrow of the
Scriptures than the school of Christ itself?—the persons whom the
Lord both chose for Himself as scholars, certainly to be fully
instructed in all points, and appointed to us for masters to instruct
us in all points. To whom would He have rather made known the veiled
import of His own language, than to him to whom He disclosed the
likeness of His own glory—to Peter, John, and James, and
afterwards to Paul, to whom He granted participation in (the joys of)
paradise too, prior to his martyrdom? Or do they also write differently
from what they think—teachers using deceit, not truth? Addressing
the Christians of Pontus, Peter, at all events, says, “How great
indeed is the glory, if ye suffer patiently, without being punished as
evildoers! For this is a lovely feature, and even hereunto were
ye called, since Christ also suffered for us, leaving you Himself as an
example, that ye should follow His own steps.”
Chapter XIII.
But how Paul, an apostle, from being a persecutor,
who first of all shed the blood of the church, though afterwards he
exchanged the sword for the pen, and turned the dagger into a plough,
being first a ravening wolf of Benjamin, then himself supplying
food as did Jacob, Should be Philippians:
i.e.
Chapter XIV.
No doubt the apostle admonishes the
Romans
Chapter XV.
Now, then, the epistles of the apostles also are
well known. And do we, (you say), in all respects guileless
souls and doves merely, love to go astray? I should think from
eagerness to live. But let it be so, that meaning departs from their
epistles. And yet, that the apostles endured such sufferings, we
know: the teaching is clear. This only I perceive in running
through the Acts. I am not at all on the search. The
prisons there, and the bonds, and the scourges, and the big stones, and
the swords, and the onsets by the Jews, and the assemblies of the
heathen, and the indictments by tribunes, and the hearing of causes by
kings, and the judgment-seats of proconsuls and the name of Cæsar,
do not need an interpreter. That Peter is struck, It has been thought
that the allusion is to the breaking of the legs of the crucified to
hasten their death, not to the beating to which the apostles were
subjected by the Jewish council: James the brother of
our Lord, not the James mentioned
Appendix.
Against all Heresies. [On p. 14, this
volume, see nearly all that need be said, of this spurious treatise. I
add a few references to Routh, Opuscula, Vol. 1. p. 160 etc. His
honouring it with a place in his work must be my apology for not
relegating it to the collection of spurious Tertulliana,
sub fine.]
[Translated by Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Earliest
Heretics: [Routh says he
inadvertently changed his title to read Advs. Hæreticos,
but that it is better after all, in view of the opening sentence.]
Of which heretics I will
(to pass by a good deal) summarize some few particulars. For of
Judaism’s heretics I am silent—Dositheus the Samaritan, I
mean, who was the first who had the hardihood to repudiate the
prophets, on the ground that they had not spoken under inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. Of the Sadducees I am silent, who, springing from the
root of this error, had the hardihood to adjoin to this heresy the
denial likewise of the resurrection of the flesh. See Pharisees =
Separatists.
Of these the first of all is Simon Magus, who in
the Acts of the Apostles earned a condign and just sentence from the
Apostle Peter. See I use Virtue in this
and similar cases in its Miltonic sense. Mundum. Or,
“intelligence.” Or, “but
had undergone a quasi-passion.”
After him Menander, his disciple (likewise a
magician Magus.
Afterwards, again, followed Saturninus: he, too,
affirming that the innascible
Innascibilem;” but Fr. Junius’
conjecture, “innoscibilem,” is agreeable to the
Greek “ἄγνωστος.” Mundum. The text here is
partially conjectural, and if correct, clumsy. For the sense, see
de Anima, c. xxiii. ad init.
Afterwards broke out the heretic Basilides. He
affirms that there is a supreme Deity, by name Abraxas, Or, Abraxes, or
Abrasax. Or, Power. Potestates. Mundum. Mundum. Mundum. i.e. probably
“Simon the Cyrenian.” See
A brother heretic Alter hæreticus.
But Fr. Junius suggests “aliter.” See So Oehler gives in his
text. But his suggestion, given in a note, is perhaps preferable:
“and of execrable embraces and permixtures, and obscene
conjunctions.” See
Chapter II.—Ophites, Cainites, Sethites.
To these are added those heretics likewise who are
called Ophites: Or,
“Serpentarians,” from ὄφις, a serpent. See See Eucharistia (neut.
pl.) = εὐχαριστεῖα
(Fr. Junius in Oehler): perhaps “the place in which
they celebrate the eucharist.” These words are
intended to give the force of the “illo” of the
original. Roberston
(Ch. Hist. i. p. 39, note 2, ed. 2. 1858) seems to take this
word to mean “Son of Darkness or Chaos.” “Seque”
Oehler reads here, which appears bad enough Latin, unless his
“se” after “extendisse” is an error. Or,
“heaven.” Or, “what the
upper regions were.” Filio Deo. Or, “she;”
but perhaps the text is preferable. See
Moreover, also, there has broken out another
heresy also, which is called that of the Cainites. See de Bapt. c.
i. Mundi.
But, again, the heresy has started forth which is
called that of the Sethites. Or, Sethoites.
“Dicerent;” but Routh (I think) has conjectured
“disceret” “when she learned,”
etc., which is very simple and apt. See Cf.
Chapter III.—Carpocrates, Cerinthus, Ebion.
Carpocrates, furthermore, introduced the following
sect. He affirms that there is one Virtue, the chief among the upper
(regions): that out of this were produced angels and Virtues, which,
being far distant from the upper Virtues, created this world Mundum.
After him brake out the heretic Cerinthus,
teaching similarly. For he, too, says that the world Mundum. “Ab illis”
is perhaps an error for “ab angelis,” by absorption of the
first syllable. So Routh has conjectured before me. “Ab
angelis:” an erroneous notion, which professed probably to derive
support from
His successor was Ebion, Al. Hebion. Al. Hebion. See i.e., as Rig.’s
quotation from Jerome’s Indiculus (in Oehler) shows,
“because in so far as, Christ observed it.”
Chapter IV.—Valentinus, Ptolemy and Secundus, Heracleon.
Valentinus the heretic, moreover, introduced many
fables. These I will retrench and briefly summarize. For he
introduces the Pleroma and the thirty Æons. These Æons,
moreover, he explains in the way of syzygies, that is, conjugal
unions Conjugationes. Cowper
uses our word “conjugation” in this sense in one of his
humorous pieces. [“Pairing-time.”] The
“syzygies” consisted of one male
and one female Æon each. Oehler separates
“in primis;” but perhaps they ought to be
united—“inprimis,” or
“imprimis”—and taken as ="primo ab initio.” Bythus. Hominem. “Sermone:”
he said “Verbum” before. In defectione
fuisse. Cf. adv.
Valent. cc. x. xiv. [Routh says that this IAO (see note 8) is
wanting in the older editions. It was borrowed from the Adv.
Valentin. to eke out a defect.] Such appears to be the
meaning of this sentence as Oehler gives it. But the text is here
corrupt; and it seems plain there must either be something lost
relating to this “Achamoth,” or else some capital error in
the reading, or, thirdly, some gross and unaccountable confusion in the
writer: for the sentence as it stands is wholly irreconcilable with
what follows. It evidently makes “Achamoth” identical with
“the thirtieth Æon” above-named; and yet, without
introducing any fresh subject, the writer goes on to state that this
despondent Œon, who “conceived and bare,” was itself
the offspring of despondency, and made an infirm world out of the
infirm materials which “Achamoth” supposed it with. Now it
is apparent from other sources—as, for instance, from Tert.
adv. Valentin, above referred to—that the
“thirtieth Æon” was supposed to be female,
Sophia (Wisdom) by name, and that she was said to be the
parent of “Achamoth,” or “Enthymesis”
(see adv. Valentin. cc. ix. x. xi. xiv. xxv.), while
“Achamoth” herself appears by some accounts to be also
called κάτω
Σοφία. The name “Achamoth”
itself, which Tertullian (adv. Valentin. c. xiv. ad
init.) calls an “uninterpretable name,” is believed to
be a representation of a Hebrew word meaning “wisdom;” and
hence, possibly, some of the confusion may have arisen,—from a
promiscuous use, namely, of the titles “Achamoth” and
“Sophia.” Moreover, it would appear that some words lower
down as to the production by “Achamoth” of
“Demiurgus,” must have dropped out. Unless these two
omissions be supplied, the passage is wholly unintelligible. Can
the fact that the Hebrew word which “Achamoth” represents
is a fem. pl. in any way explain this confused medley, or help
to reconcile conflicting accounts? The ἄνω and
κάτω
Σοφία seem to point in some degree to
some such solution of some of the existing difficulties.
“Iao,” again, is a word which has cause much perplexity.
Can it possibly be connected with ἰάομαι, “to heal?” [See note
8.] Mundum. Oehler’s
suggestion is to vary the pointing so as to give this sense:
“The resurrection of this flesh he denies. But of a sister-Law
and prophets,” etc. But this seems even more harsh than the
other.
After him arose the heretics Ptolemy and Secundus, who agree throughout with Valentinus, differing only in the following point: viz., whereas Valentinus had feigned but thirty Æons, they have added several more; for they first added four, and subsequently four more. And Valentine’s assertion, that it was the thirtieth Æon which strayed out from the Pleroma, (as falling into despondency,) they deny; for the one which desponded on account of disappointed yearning to see the First-Father was not of the original triacontad, they say.
There arose, besides, Heracleon, a
brother
“Alter,” i.e., perhaps another of the same
class. It seems almost
necessary to supply some word here; and as “Monade”
follows, it seemed simple to supply “Monada.”
Chapter V.—Marcus and Colarbasus.
After these there were not wanting a Marcus and a
Colarbasus, composing a novel heresy out of the Greek alphabet. For
they affirm that without those letters truth cannot be found; nay more,
that in those letters the whole plenitude and perfection of truth is
comprised; for this was why Christ said, “I am the Alpha and the
Omega.” See Denique Jesum Christum
descendisse. So Oehler, who does not notice any conjectural emendation,
or various reading, of the words. If correct, his reading would refer
to the views of a twofold Jesus Christ—a real and a phantasmal
one—held by docetic Gnostics, or to such views as
Valentine’s, in whose system, so far as it is ascertainable from
the confused and discrepant account of it, there would appear to have
been one Æon called Christ, another called Jesus, and a human
person called Jesus and Christ, with whom the true Jesus associated
Himself. Some such jumble of ideas the two heretics now under review
would seem to have held, if Oehler’s be the true reading. But the
difficulties are somewhat lessened if we accept the very simple
emendation which naturally suggests itself, and which, I see, Semler
has proposed and Routh inclines to receive, “in Jesum
Christum descendisse,” i.e. “that Christ descended
on Jesus.” See Habere
secum numerum DCCCI. So Oehler, after Jos. Scaliger, who,
however, seems to have read “secum hunc numerum,”
for the ordinary reading, “habere secundum
numerum,” which would mean, “represents, in
the way of numerical value, DCCCI.”
Chapter VI.—Cerdo, Marcion, Lucan, Apelles.
To this is added one Cerdo. He introduces two
first causes, Initia duo. Sævum. Mundi.
After him emerged a disciple of his, one Marcion
by name, a native of Pontus, “Ponticus
genere,” lit. “a Pontic by race,” which
of course may not necessarily, like our native, imply actual
birth in Pontus. [Note—“son of a bishop:” an
index of early date, though not necessarily Ante-Nicene. A mere forgery
of later origin would have omitted it.] Rig., with whom Oehler
agrees, reminds us that neither in the de Præscr. nor in
the adv. Marc., nor, apparently, in Irenæus, is any such
statement brought forward. See
After him arose one Lucan by name, a follower and disciple of Marcion. He, too, wading through the same kinds of blasphemy, teaches the same as Marcion and Cerdo had taught.
Close on their heels follows Apelles, a disciple
of Marcion, who after lapsing, into his own carnality, See de
Præscr. c. xxx., and comp. with it what is said of Marcion
above. Mundum. Mundi.
“Aëream,” i.e., composed of the air, the
lower air, or atmosphere; not
“aetheream,” of the upper air, or
ether. Phaneroseis. Oehler
refers to de Præscr. c. xxx. q. v. φιλουμένη,
“loved one.”
Chapter VII.—Tatian, Cataphrygians, Cataproclans, Catæschinetans.
To all these heretics is added one Tatian, a
brother-heretic. This man was Justin Martyr’s
disciple. After Justin’s death he began to cherish
different opinions from his. For he wholly savours of Valentinus;
adding this, that Adam cannot even attain salvation: as if, when
the branches become salvable, Salvi. Perhaps if it
be questionable whether this word may be so rendered in a correct
Latinist, it may be lawful to render it so in so incorrect a one as our
present author.
Other heretics swell the list who are called
Cataphrygians, but their teaching is not uniform. For there are (of
them) some who are called Cataproclans; i.e. followers of
Proclus. i.e. followers of
Æschines. So this writer takes “Cataphryges” to mean
followers of the Phrygians.”
Chapter VIII.—Blastus, Two Theodoti, Praxeas.
In addition to all these, there is likewise Blastus, who would latently introduce Judaism. For he says the passover is not to be kept otherwise than according to the law of Moses, on the fourteenth of the month. But who would fail to see that evangelical grace is escheated if he recalls Christ to the Law?
Add to these Theodotus the Byzantine, who, after
being apprehended for Christ’s Name, and apostatizing, Negavit. See de
Idol. c. xxiii. note 1. Hominem solitarium
atque nudum. The words seems to mean, destitute of anything
superhuman.
After him brake out a second heretical Theodotus,
who again himself introduced a sister-sect, and says that the human
being Christ Himself Et ipsum
hominem Christum tantummodo. I rather incline to read, as in the
preceding sentence, “et ipse”:
“and himself affirms Christ to have been merely human, conceived
alike,” etc. See The Latin here is very
careless, unless, with Routh, we suggest “et” for
“eo,” and render: “and that what Christ does,”
etc., “Melchizedek does,” etc. See
But after all these, again, one Praxeas introduced
a heresy which Victorinus Who he is, no one
knows. Oehler (following the lead of Fabricius on Philaster, cap. 49,
p. 102) believes the name to be a mistake for Victor, a bishop of Rome,
who (see Adv. Prax. c. i.) had held the episcopate when Praxeas
was there. His successor was Zephyrinus; and it is an ingenious
conjecture of Oehler, that these two names, the one written as a
correction of the other, may have been confused: thus,
Victor/Zephrynus; and thus of the two may have been made
Victorinus. The form and order of
the words here used are certainly remarkably similar to the expressions
and order of the “Apostles’ Creed.”
————————————
Part Third.
I.
On Repentance. [We pass from
the polemical class of our author’s writings to those of a
practical and ethical character. This treatise on Penitence is the
product of our author’s best days, and may be dated a.d. 192.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Of Heathen Repentance.
Repentance, men
understand, so far as nature is able, to be an emotion of the mind
arising from disgust “Offensa
sententiæ pejoris;” or possibly, “the
miscarriage of some,” etc. Thesaurus. Sæculo. [Erasmus
doubted the genuineness of this treatise, partly because of the
comparative purity of its style. See Kaye, p. 42.]
Chapter II.—True Repentance a Thing Divine, Originated by God, and Subject to His Laws.
But if they acted as men who had any part in God,
and thereby in reason also, they would first weigh well the importance
of repentance, and would never apply it in such a way as to make it a
ground for convicting themselves of perverse self-amendment. In
short, they would regulate the limit of their repentance, because they
would reach (a limit) in sinning too—by fearing God, I
mean. But where there is no fear, in like manner there is no
amendment; where there is no amendment, repentance is of necessity
vain, for it lacks the fruit for which God sowed it; that is,
man’s salvation. For God—after so many and so great sins of
human temerity, begun by the first of the race, Adam, after the
condemnation of man, together with the dowry of the world Sæculi dote. With
which he had been endowed. Comp. i.e., man. Orbi. Componeret. Comp. i.e., man’s
salvation. See the latter part of
c. i. Viderit. Or,
“defending.”
Chapter III.—Sins
May Be Divided into Corporeal and Spiritual. Both Equally Subject, If
Not to Human, Yet to Divine Investigation and Punishment. [Without reference to
Luther’s theory of justification, we must all adopt this as the
test of “a standing or falling church,” viz. “How
does it deal with sin and the sinner.”]
What things, then, they be for which repentance
seems just and due—that is, what things are to be set down under
the head of sin—the occasion indeed demands that I should
note down; but (to do so) may seem to be unnecessary. For when the Lord
is known, our spirit, having been “looked back
upon” Or, “briefly to
lay down the rule.” i.e., in the
judgment-day. Compare the phrase “that day and that hour”
in Scripture. Mediocritas. Prævaricatorem:
comp. ad Ux.b. ii. c. ii. ad init.
Chapter IV.—Repentance Applicable to All the Kinds of Sin. To Be Practised Not Only, Nor Chiefly, for the Good It Brings, But Because God Commands It.
To all sins, then, committed whether by flesh or
spirit, whether by deed or will, the same God who has destined
penalty by means of judgment, has withal engaged to grant pardon by
means of repentance, saying to the people, “Repent thee, and I
will save thee;” Comp. The substance of this
is found in Compare Comp. c. xii.
sub fin. [Ut naufragus alicuius tabulæ fidem;
this expression soon passed into Theological technology, and as
“the plank after shipwreck” is universally known.] Penes. Obsequii.
To reckon up the good, of repentance, the
subject-matter is copious, and therefore should be committed to great
eloquence. Let us, however, in proportion to our narrow abilities,
inculcate one point,—that what God enjoins is good and best. I
hold it audacity to dispute about the “good” of a divine
precept; for, indeed, it is not the fact that it is good which binds us
to obey, but the fact that God has enjoined it. To exact the rendering
of obedience the majesty of divine power has the prior Or,
“paramount.” See ref. 1 on the
preceding page. The phrase is “as I live” in the English
version.
“Asseveratione:” apparently a play on the word, as compared
with “perseverare,” which follows. Or,
“enjoyment.”
Chapter V.—Sin Never to Be Returned to After
Repentance. [The formidable
doctrine of
For what I say is this, that the repentance which,
being shown us and commanded us through God’s grace, recalls us
to grace i.e., favour. Which is solemnly done
in baptism. Adglutinaris. “Timent,”
not “metuunt.” “Metus” is the word Tertullian
has been using above for religious, reverential fear. Timor.
Chapter VI.—Baptism Not to Be Presumptously Received. It Requires Preceding Repentance, Manifested by Amendment of Life.
Whatever, then, our poor ability has attempted to
suggest with reference to laying hold of repentance once for all, and
perpetually retaining it, does indeed bear upon all who are
given up to the Lord, as being all competitors for salvation in earning
the favour of God; but is chiefly urgent in the case of those young
novices who are only just beginning to bedew i.e., by baptism. Adulantur.
“Commeatus,” a military word ="furlough,” hence
“holiday-time.” i.e., repurchase. Adulter; see de
Idol. c. i. i.e., in baptism. Symbolum mortis
indulget. Comp. i.e., in baptism. See Metus integer. Metus. Or,
“disappoints,” i.e., the hasty recipient himself.
Chapter VII.—Of Repentance, in the Case of Such as Have Lapsed After Baptism.
So long, Lord Christ, may the blessing of learning
or hearing concerning the discipline of repentance be granted to Thy
servants, as is likewise behoves them, while learners, i.e.,
before baptism. [Elucidation I.
See infra, this chapter, sub fine.] [When our author wrote
to the Martyrs, (see cap. 1.) he was less disposed to such remorseless
discipline: and perhaps we have here an element of his subsequent
system, one which led him to accept the discipline of Montanism. On
this general subject, we shall find enough when we come to Cyprian and
Novatian.]
Moreover, man’s fear Timor. “Mortis
opera,” or “deadly works:” cf. de Idol. c. iv.
(mid.), “perdition of blood,” and the note there. Or, “has
permitted somewhat still to stand open.” [See cap. vii.
supra.] To accept the
satisfaction.
Chapter VIII.—Examples from Scripture to Prove the Lord’s Willingness to Pardon.
This if you doubt, unravel Evolve: perhaps simply
="read.” Or,
“suffered.” Cf. Publicly enrolled as
such in baptism; for Tertullian here is speaking solely of the
“second repentance.” See
Chapter IX.—Concerning the Outward Manifestations by Which This Second Repentance is to Be Accompanied.
The narrower, then, the sphere of action of this second
and only (remaining) repentance, the more laborious is its probation;
in order that it may not be exhibited in the conscience alone, but may
likewise be carried out in some (external) act. This act, which is more
usually expressed and commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is
ἐξομολόγησις
, Utter confession. For the meaning
of “satisfaction,” see Hooker Eccl. Pol. vi. 5,
where several references to the present treatise occur. [Elucidation
II.] Sordibus. Cf. Tertullian changes
here to the second person, unless Oehler’s “tuum” be
a misprint for “suum.”
“Suæ,” which looks as if the “tuum” above
should be “suum.” [St.
Chapter X.—Of Men’s Shrinking from This Second Repentance and Exomologesis, and of the Unreasonableness of Such Shrinking.
Yet most men either shun this work, as being a
public exposure [Elucidation III.] Prodactæ. Per. But
“per,” according to Oehler, is used by Tertullian as
="propter” —on your account, for your sake. Metus. In uno et altero. See i.e. as being His
body. Or, “the
Son.” Comp. Or, “by the
grace.”
Chapter XI.—Further Strictures on the Same Subject.
What if, besides the shame which they make the
most account of, men dread likewise the bodily inconveniences;
in that, unwashen, sordidly attired, estranged from gladness, they must
spend their time in the roughness of sackcloth, and the horridness of
ashes, and the sunkenness of face caused by fasting? Is it then
becoming for us to supplicate for our sins in scarlet and purple?
Hasten hither with the pin for panning the hair, and the powder for
polishing the teeth, and some forked implement of steel or brass for
cleaning the nails. Whatever of false brilliance, whatever of feigned
redness, is to be had, let him diligently apply it to his lips
or cheeks. Let him furthermore seek out baths of more genial
temperature in some gardened or seaside retreat; let him enlarge his
expenses; let him carefully seek the rarest delicacy of fatted fowls;
let him refine his old wine: and when any shall ask him, “On whom
are you lavishing all this?” let him say, “I have sinned
against God, and am in peril of eternally perishing: and so now I am
drooping, and wasting and torturing myself, that I may reconcile God to
myself, whom by sinning I have offended.” Why, they who go about
canvassing for the obtaining of civil office, feel it neither degrading
nor irksome to struggle, in behalf of such their desires, with
annoyances to soul and body; and not annoyances merely, but likewise
contumelies of all kinds. What meannesses of dress do they not affect?
what houses do they not beset with early and late visits?—bowing
whenever they meet any high personage, frequenting no banquets,
associating in no entertainments, but voluntarily exiled from the
felicity of freedom and festivity: and all that for the sake of the
fleeting joy of a single year! Do we hesitate, when eternity is
at stake, to endure what the competitor for consulship or
prætorship puts up with? Quod securium
virgarumque petitio sustinet.
“Quæ,” neut. pl.
Chapter XII.—Final Considerations to Induce to Exomologesis.
If you shrink back from exomologesis, consider in your heart the
hell, Gehennam. Comp. ad
Ux.ii. c. vi. ad fin. Fumariola, i.e. the
craters of volcanoes. Superbissimi: perhaps
a play on the word, which is connected with “super” and
“superus,” as “haughty” with
“high.” For Tertullian’s
distinction between “the Lord’s baptism” and
“John’s” see de Bapt. x. Or
“celandine,” which is perhaps only another form of
“chelidonia” (“Chelidonia major,”
Linn.). Proelium.
“Ministerium,” the abstract for the concrete: so
“servitia” = slaves.
Why should I add more touching these two
planks See c. iv.
[Tabula was the word in cap. iv. but here it becomes
planca, and planca post naufragium is the theological
formula, ever since, among Western theologians.] See de Bapt.
xii. sub init. Lit. “of
all brands.” Comp. c. vi.: “Does the
soldier…make satisfaction for his
brands.” Cf.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Such as have lapsed, cap. vii. p. 660.)
The penitential system of the Primitive days, referred to in our author, began to be changed when less public confessions were authorized, on account of the scandals which publicity generated. Changes were as follows:
1. A grave presbyter was appointed to receive and examine voluntary penitents as the Penitentiary of a diocese, and to suspend or reconcile them with due solemnities—circa a.d. 250.
2. This plan also became encumbered with difficulties and was abolished in the East, circa a.d. 400.
3. A discipline similar to that of the Anglican Church
(which is but loosely maintained therein) succeeded, under St.
Chrysostom; who frequently maintains the sufficiency of confession
according to Le Confesseur, par
L’Abbé * * * p. 15, Brussels 1866.
4. Particular, but voluntary confessions were now made in the East and West, but with widely various acceptance under local systems of discipline. The absolutions were precatory: “may God absolve Thee.” This lasted, even in the West, till the compulsory system of the Lateran Council, a.d. 1215.
5. Since this date, so far as the West is
concerned, the whole system of corrupt casuistry and enforced
confession adopted in the West has utterly destroyed the Primitive
doctrine and discipline as to sin and its remedy wherever it prevails.
In the East, private confession exists in a system wholly different and
one which maintains the Primitive Theology and the Scriptural
principle. (1) It is voluntary; (2) it is free from the corrupt system
of the casuists; (3) it distinguishes between Ecclesiastical Absolution
and that of Him who alone “seeth in secret;” (4) it admits
no compromise with attrition, but exacts the contrite
heart
II.
(The last hope, cap. vii. p. 662.)
How absolutely the Lateran Council has overthrown
the Primitive discipline is here made manifest. The spirit of the
latter is expressed by our author in language which almost prompts to
despair. It makes sin “exceeding sinful” and even
Ecclesiastical forgiveness the reverse of easy. The Lateran
System of enforced Confession makes sin easy and restoration to a
sinless state equally so: a perpetual resort to the confessor being the
only condition for evil living, and a chronic state of pardon and
peace. But, let the Greek Church be heard in this matter, rather
than an Anglican Catholic. I refer to Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza and
Rector of the Theological Academy of St. Petersburg, as
follows: Theol. Dogmat.
Orthodoxe, pp. 529–541, etc.
Now, he contrasts with this the system of Rome,
and condemns it, on overwhelming considerations. 1. It makes
penances compensations Couc. Trident.
Sess. xiv. cap. 8.
2. It introduces a false system of indulgences, as the consequence of its false premisses.
3. He demonstrates the insufficiency of attrition, which respects the fear of punishment, and not sin itself. But the Council of Trent affirms the sufficiency of attrition, and permits the confessor to absolve the attrite. Needless to say, the masses accept this wide gate and broad way to salvation rather than the strait gate and narrow way of hating sin and reforming the life, in obedience to the Gospel.
III.
(Among brethren, cap. x., p. 662.)
A controversial writer has lately complained that Bp. Kaye speaks of the public confession treated of by our author in this work, and adds—“Tertullian nowhere used the word public.” The answer is that he speaks of the discipline of Exomologesis, which was, in its own nature, as public as preaching. A Gallican writer, less inclined to Jesuitism in the use of words, says frankly: “When one studies this question, with the documents before his eyes, it is impossible not to confess that the Primitive discipline of the Church exhibits not a vestige of the auricular confession afterwards introduced.” See Irenæus, Adv. Hæres. Vol. I. p. 335, this Series. The Lii. of the canons called Apostolical, reflects a very simple view of the matter, in these words: “If any Bishop or Presbyter will not receive one who turns from his sins, but casts him out, let him be deposed: for he grieves Christ, who said, There shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.” The ascetic spirit of our author seems at war with that of this Canon.
(Exomologesis, cap. xii., p. 663.)
To this day, in the Oriental Churches, the examination of the presbyter who hears the voluntary confession of penitents, is often very primitive in its forms and confined to general inquiries under the Decalogue. The Casuistry of (Dens and Liguori) the Western Schemata Practica has not defiled our Eastern brethren to any great extent.
In the office The Great Euchologion,
p. 220, Venice, 1851.
The plural (We therein confiding) is
significant and a token of Primitive doctrine: i.e. of
confession before the whole Church, (
On Baptism.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Introduction. Origin of the Treatise.
Happy is our i.e. Christian
(Oehler). Rationibus. This curious allusion
it is impossible, perhaps, to render in our language. The word
ΙΧΘΥΣ
(ikhthus) in Greek means “a
fish;” and it was used as a name for our Lord Jesus, because the
initials of the words ᾽Ιησοῦς
Χριστὸς Θεοῦ
Υἰὸς Σωτήρ
(i.e. Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Savior), make up that
word. Oehler with these remarks, gives abundant
references on that point. [Dr. Allix suspects Montanism here, but see
Kaye, p. 43, and Lardner, Credib. II. p. 335. We may date it
circa a.d. 193.] As being a woman. See
Chapter II.—The Very Simplicity of God’s Means of Working, a Stumbling-Block to the Carnal Mind.
Well, but how great is the force of perversity for
so shaking the faith or entirely preventing its reception, that
it impugns it on the very principles of which the faith
consists! There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds
more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible
in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised
thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so
great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of
preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and
amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises
again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment
of eternity Consecutio
æternitatis. Admirationem. i.e. that the simple
be vain, and the grand impossible.
Chapter III.—Water Chosen as a Vehicle of Divine Operation and Wherefore. Its Prominence First of All in Creation.
Mindful of this declaration as of a conclusive
prescript, we nevertheless proceed to treat the question,
“How foolish and impossible it is to be formed anew
by water. In what respect, pray, has this material substance merited an
office of so high dignity?” The authority, I suppose, of the
liquid element has to be examined. Compare the
Jews’ question, Its authority. Impolita. Incomposita. Ferebatur. Liquor. Animas. Animare. Rebus.
Chapter IV.—The Primeval Hovering of the Spirit of God Over the Waters Typical of Baptism. The Universal Element of Water Thus Made a Channel of Sanctification. Resemblance Between the Outward Sign and the Inward Grace.
But it will suffice to have thus called at
the outset those points in which withal is recognised that primary
principle of baptism,—which was even then fore-noted by the very
attitude assumed for a type of baptism,—that the Spirit of
God, who hovered over (the waters) from the beginning, would continue
to linger over the waters of the baptized. Intinctorum. Redundat. Alveo. Medicatis. See c. vi. ad
init., and c. v. ad fin.
Chapter V.—Use Made
of Water by the Heathen. Type of the Angel at the Pool of
Bethsaida. Bethesda, Eng.
Ver.
“Well, but the nations, who are strangers to
all understanding of spiritual powers, ascribe to their idols the
imbuing of waters with the self-same efficacy.” (So they do) but
they cheat themselves with waters which are widowed. i.e., as Oehler
rightly explains, “lacking the Holy Spirit’s presence and
virtue.” Or,
“purify.” [Diabolus Dei
Simius.] Gestationem. Euripi. Rapere. Necaverunt.
“Nympholeptos,” restored by Oehler, = νυμφολήπτους. So Tertullian reads,
and some copies, but not the best, of the New Testament in the place
referred to, Compare Qui: i.e. probably
“angeli qui.” Vitia. Or,
“health”—salutem. Conservant
populos.
Chapter VI.—The Angel the Forerunner of the Holy Spirit. Meaning Contained in the Baptismal Formula.
Not that in Compare c.
viii., where Tertullian appears to regard the Holy Spirit as given
after the baptized had come out of the waters and received the
“unction.” Arbiter. [ Sponsores. Sponsio. Compare de
Orat. c. ii. sub fin. Compare the de
Orat. quoted above, and de Patien. xxi.; and see
Chapter VII.—Of the Unction.
After this, when we have issued from the
font, Lavacro. See i.e.
“Anointed.” Aaron, or at least the priest, is actually so
called in the LXX., in Civitate.
Chapter VIII.—Of the Imposition of Hands. Types of the Deluge and the Dove.
In the next place the hand is laid on us, invoking
and inviting the Holy Spirit through benediction. [See Bunsen,
Hippol. Vol. III. Sec. xiii. p. 22.] Concorporationem. The reference is
to certain hydraulic organs, which the editors tell us are described by
Vitruvius, ix. 9 and x. 13, and Pliny, H. N. vii. 37. i.e. Man. There may be
an allusion to Compare i.e. Ephraim. In Christum. See c. iv. p. 668. Ipso. The ancients
held this. Argumento. Pacem. Paci. Dispositione. See de Orat.
iv. ad init. Lavacro. Compare de
Idol. xxiv. ad fin. [
Chapter IX.—Types of the Red Sea, and the Water from the Rock.
How many, therefore, are the pleas
Patrocinia—“pleas in
defence.” “Libere
expeditus,” set free, and that without any conditions, such as
Pharaoh had from time to time tried to impose. See
“Extinxit,” as it does fire. Sæculo. See “The Tree of
Life,” “the True Vine,” etc. Agape. See de
Orat. c. 28, ad fin. Dilectionis. See de
Patien. c. xii.
Chapter X.—Of John’s Baptism.
We have spoken, so far as our moderate ability
permitted, of the generals which form the groundwork of the
sanctity Religionem.
The baptism announced by John formed the subject,
even at that time, of a question, proposed by the Lord Himself indeed
to the Pharisees, whether that baptism were heavenly, or truly
earthly: Constanter. Potestate. See It is difficult to see
how this statement is to be reconciled with Agebatur.
Chapter XI.—Answer to the Objection that “The Lord Did Not Baptize.”
“But behold, “say some, “the
Lord came, and baptized not; for we read, ‘And yet He used not to
baptize, but His disciples!’” For instances of this,
compare Cf. Lavacri.
Chapter XII.—Of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation.
When, however, the prescript is laid down that
“without baptism, salvation is attainable See
And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply
to them who affirm “that the apostles were unbaptized.” For
if they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were longing for
that of the Lord, then since the Lord Himself had defined
baptism to be one; See “Volenti,”
which Oehler notes as a suggestion of Fr. Junius, is adopted here in
preference to Oehler’s “nolenti.” Exerta. Comp. c.
xviii. sub init.; ad Ux. ii. c. i. sub
fin.
Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly
“that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their
little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that
Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the
sea.” Sæculo. Sæculum.
Now, whether they were baptized in any manner
whatever, or whether they continued unbathed Illoti. Lavacrum.
[ i.e. of being the
first to be chosen.
“Remittentur” is Oehler’s reading;
“remittuntur” others read; but the Greek is in perfect
tense. See i.e. faith, or perhaps
the “compendious grace of baptism.”
Chapter XIII.—Another Objection: Abraham Pleased God Without Being Baptized. Answer Thereto. Old Things Must Give Place to New, and Baptism is Now a Law.
Here, then, those miscreants i.e. probably the
Cainites. See c. ii. i.e. the sacrament, or
obligation of faith. See beginning of chapter. i.e. from the time
when the Lord gave the “law.” i.e. not till
after the “law” had been made. See
Chapter XIV.—Of Paul’s Assertion, that He Had Not Been Sent to Baptize.
But they roll back an objection from
that apostle himself, in that he said, “For Christ sent me
not to baptize;”
Chapter XV.—Unity of Baptism. Remarks on Heretical And Jewish Baptism.
I know not whether any further point is mooted to
bring baptism into controversy. Permit me to call to mind what I have
omitted above, lest I seem to break off the train of impending thoughts
in the middle. There is to us one, and but one, baptism; as well
according to the Lord’s gospel Oehler refers us to c.
xii. above, “He who hath once bathed.” i.e. the Epistle to
the Ephesians especially. i.e. us Christians; of
“Catholics,” as Oehler explains it. i.e. touching the
“one baptism.” Ademptio
communicationis. [See Bunsen, Hippol. III. p. 114, Canon
46.] Comp. Lavacrum. Compare de
Orat. c. xiv. In
Chapter XVI.—Of the Second Baptism—With Blood.
We have indeed, likewise, a second
font, Lavacrum. [See
Aquinas, Quæst. lxvi. 11.] See Lavacrum. [The three
baptisms: fluminis, flaminis,
sanguinis.]
Chapter XVII.—Of the Power of Conferring Baptism.
For concluding our brief subject, Materiolam. Summus sacerdos.
Compare de Orat. xxviii., “nos…veri
sacerdotes,” etc.: and de Ex. Cast. c. vii.,
“nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus?” Census. Disciplina. i.e. the powers of
administering baptism and “sowing the word.” [i.e.
“The Keys.” Scorpiace, p. 643.] Dicatum. Or, as Oehler explains
it, of your power of baptizing, etc. Quintilla. See c.
i. Evenerit. Perhaps
Tertullian means literally—though that sense of the word is very
rare—“shall issue out of her,” alluding to his
“pariet” above. See c. i. ad
fin. The allusion is to a
spurious work entitled Acta Pauli et Theclæ. [Of
which afterwards. But see Jones, on the Canon, II. p. 353, and
Lardner, Credibility, II. p. 305.] Decessisse. Mulieri. Fœminæ.
Chapter XVIII.—Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism is to Be Administered.
But they whose office it is, know that baptism is
not rashly to be administered. “Give to every one who beggeth
thee,” “Exertam,”
as in c. xii.: “probatio exerta,” “a conspicuous
proof.” Comp. Tertullian seems to
have confused the “Judas” with whom Saul stayed
( See note 24, [where
Tertullian has
already allowed (in c. xvi) that baptism is not indispensably
necessary to salvation. Or, “whither
they are coming.” i.e. in baptism. Sæcularibus. See beginning of
chapter, [where Virginibus; but he is
speaking about men as well as women. Comp. de Orat. c.
xxii. [I need not point out the bearings of the above chapter, nor do I
desire to interpose any comments. The Editor’s interpolations,
where purely gratuitous, I have even stricken out, though I agree with
them. See that work of genius, the Liberty of Prophesying, by
Jer. Taylor, sect. xviii. and its candid admissions.]
Chapter XIX.—Of the Times Most Suitable for Baptism.
The Passover affords a more than usually
solemn day for baptism; when, withal, the Lord’s passion, in
which we are baptized, was completed. Nor will it be incongruous to
interpret figuratively the fact that, when the Lord was about to
celebrate the last Passover, He said to the disciples who were sent to
make preparation, “Ye will meet a man bearing
water.” [He means the
whole fifty days from the Paschal Feast till Pentecost, including the
latter. Bunsen Hippol. III. 18.] Lavacris. Frequentata, i.e. by
His frequent appearance. See Comp.
Chapter XX.—Of Preparation For, and Conduct After, the Reception of Baptism.
They who are about to enter baptism ought to pray with
repeated prayers, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the
night through, and with the confession of all Perhaps Tertullian is
referring to See de Orat.
c. xxiii. ad fin., and the note there. What passage is
referred to is doubtful. The editors point us to Lavacrum. Lavacro. Compare the
beginning of the chapter. Viz. by their
murmuring for bread (see Aquam: just as
St. Paul says the Israelites had been “baptized” (or
“baptized themselves”) “into Moses in the
cloud and in the sea.” Lavacro. In prayer: comp. de
Orat. c. xiv. i.e. the Church: comp.
de Orat. c. 2. [The translator,
though so learned and helpful, too often encumbers the text with
superfluous interpolations. As many of these, while making the reading
difficult, add nothing to the sense yet destroy the terse, crabbed
force of the original, I have occasionally restored the spirit of a
sentence, by removing them.]
Elucidation.
————————————
The argument (p. 673, note 6,) is conclusive, but not
clear. The disciples of John must have been baptized by him,
(
III.
On Prayer.
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—General
Introduction. [After the discipline
of Repentance and of Baptism the Laws of Christian Living come into
view. Hence this is the logical place for this treatise. See the
Prolegomena of Muratori and learned annotations, in Routh,
Opuscula I. p. 173, et sqq. We may date it circa
a.d. 192. For much of the Primitive Discipline,
concerning Prayer, see Bunsen, Hippol. III. pp. 88–91,
etc.]
The Spirit of God, and the
Word of God, and the Reason of God—Word of Reason, and Reason and
Spirit of Word—Jesus Christ our Lord, namely, who is both the one
and the other, Oehler’s
punctuation is followed here. The sentence is difficult, and has
perplexed editors and commentators considerably. Routh suggests,
“fortase quâ sensit,” referring to
the Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. Sermone. This is
Oehler’s punctuation. The edition of Pamelius reads: “So
the prayer composed by Christ was composed of three parts: of the
speech, by which it is enunciated; of the spirit, by which alone it
prevails; of the reason, by which it is taught.” Rigaltius
and subsequent editors read, “of the reason, by which it is
conceived;” but this last clause is lacking in the mss., and Oehler’s reading appears, as he says, to
“have healed the words.” [Oehler’s punctuation must
stand; but, the preceding sentence justifies the interpolation of
Rigaltius and heals more effectually.]
The prayer begins with a testimony to God, and
with the reward of faith, when we say, “Our Father who art in the
heavens;” for (in so saying), we at once pray to God, and commend
faith, whose reward this appellation is. It is written, “To
them who believed on Him He gave power to be called sons of
God.” “i.e., together
with the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Oehler); “His Son and
His church” (Dodgson).
Chapter III.—The Second Clause.
The name of “God the Father” had been
published to none. Even Moses, who had interrogated Him on that very
point, had heard a different name. i.e., “any
other god.”
Chapter IV.—The Third Clause.
According to this model, Mr. Dodgson
renders, “next to this clause;” but the
“forma” referred to seems, by what Tertullian
proceeds to add, to be what he had said above, “not that it
becomes us to wish God well,” etc. We learn from
this and other places, that the comparative adverb was wanting in some
ancient formulæ of the Lord’s Prayer. [See
Routh, Opuscula I. p. 178.] See note 3. For this use of the
word “provoke,” see [Something we
might think other than good.]
Chapter V.—The Fourth Clause.
“Thy kingdom come” has also reference
to that whereto “Thy will be done” refers—in
us, that is. For when does God not reign, in whose hand is the
heart of all kings? Or,
“world,” sæculo. Or,
“world,” sæculi. See altari. So Dodgson aptly
renders “dirigitur a.” [See Ad
Nationes, p. 128, supra.]
Chapter VI.—The Fifth Clause.
But how gracefully has the Divine Wisdom arranged
the order of the prayer; so that after things
heavenly—that is, after the “Name” of God, the
“Will” of God, and the “Kingdom” of
God—it should give earthly necessities also room for a petition!
For the Lord had This is a slight
mistake of Tertullian. The words referred to, “Seek ye
first,” etc., do not occur till the end of the chapter in
which the prayer is found, so that his pluperfect is out of place. [He
must have been aware of this: he only gives logical order to the
thought which existed in the divine mind. See note 10, p.
682.] Tertullian seems to
refer to
Chapter VII.—The Sixth Clause.
It was suitable that, after contemplating the
liberality of God, In the former
petition, “Give us this day our daily bread.” Such as “daily
bread.” That is, if we
are just to be fed and fattened by them in body, as a bull which
is destined for sacrifice is, and then, like him,
slain—handed over to death?
Chapter VIII.—The Seventh or Final Clause.
For the completeness of so brief a prayer He
added—in order that we should supplicate not touching the
remitting merely, but touching the entire averting, of acts of
guilt—“Lead us not into temptation:” that is, suffer
us not to be led into it, by him (of course) who tempts; but far be the
thought that the Lord should seem to tempt, See Implied in the one
hypothesis—ignorance. Implied in the
other—wishing to overthrow faith. i.e. no children even.
The reference is apparently to See Routh refers us to
De Bapt. c. 20, where Tertullian refers to the same event. [Note
also his reference to De Fuga, cap. ii.]
Chapter
IX.—Recapitulation. Here comes in the
Codex Ambrosianus, with the title, “Here begins a treatise of
Tertullian of divers necessary things;” and from it are taken the
headings of the remaining chapters. (See Oehler and Routh.)
In summaries of so few words, how many utterances of the prophets, the Gospels, the apostles—how many discourses, examples, parables of the Lord, are touched on! How many duties are simultaneously discharged! The honour of God in the “Father;” the testimony of faith in the “Name;” the offering of obedience in the “Will;” the commemoration of hope in the “Kingdom;” the petition for life in the “Bread;” the full acknowledgment of debts in the prayer for their “Forgiveness;” the anxious dread of temptation in the request for “Protection.” What wonder? God alone could teach how he wished Himself prayed to. The religious rite of prayer therefore, ordained by Himself, and animated, even at the moment when it was issuing out of the Divine mouth, by His own Spirit, ascends, by its own prerogative, into heaven, commending to the Father what the Son has taught.
Chapter X.—We May Superadd Prayers of Our Own to the Lord’s Prayer.
Since, however, the Lord, the Foreseer of human
necessities, See
That we may not be as far from the ears of God as
we are from His precepts, Oehler divides these
two chapters as above. The generally adopted division unites this
sentence to the preceding chapter, and begins the new chapter with,
“The memory of His precepts;” and perhaps this is the
preferable division. altare.
[ Perhaps there may be
an allusion to See chap. vii. above,
and compare “Ab
initio” probably refers to the book of Genesis, the
initium, or beginning of Scripture, to which he is about to
refer. But see likewise See See
Chapter XII.—We Must Be Free Likewise from All Mental Perturbation.
Nor merely from anger, but altogether from
all perturbation of mind, ought the exercise of prayer to be
free, uttered from a spirit such as the Spirit unto whom it is sent.
For a defiled spirit cannot be acknowledged by a holy Spirit,
Chapter XIII.—Of Washing the Hands.
But what reason is there in going to prayer with
hands indeed washed, but the spirit foul?—inasmuch as to our
hands themselves spiritual purities are necessary, that they may be
“lifted up pure” Or,
“sorceries.” See By Pilate. See
i.e. in baptism.
Chapter XIV.—Apostrophe.
Albeit Israel washed daily all his limbs over, yet
is he never clean. His hands, at all events, are ever
unclean, eternally dyed with the blood of the prophets, and of the Lord
Himself; and on that account, as being hereditary culprits from their
privity to their fathers’ crimes, See I do not know
Tertullian’s authority for this statement. Certainly
Solomon did raise his hands ( i.e. from the
expansion of the hands on the cross. Or, “give
praise.”
Chapter XV.—Of Putting Off Cloaks.
But since we have touched on one special point of
empty observance, i.e. the
hand-washing. Or, “reasonable
service.” See Or, “Gentile
practices.” See
Chapter XVI.—Of Sitting After Prayer.
Again, for the custom which some have of sitting
when prayer is ended, I perceive no reason, except that which children
give. i.e. that they have
seen it done; for children imitate anything and everything
(Oehler). [Vol. II. p. 18
(Vision V.), this Series. Also, Ib. p. 57, note 2. See
Routh’s quotation from Cotelerius, p. 180, in Volume before
noted.] Routh and Oehler
(after Rigaltius) refer us to
Chapter XVII.—Of Elevated Hands.
But we more commend our prayers to God when we
pray with modesty and humility, with not even our hands too loftily
elevated, but elevated temperately and becomingly; and not even our
countenance over-boldly uplifted. For that publican who prayed with
humility and dejection not merely in his supplication, but in his
countenance too, went his way “more justified” than the
shameless Pharisee.
“And I do understand the mute, and plainly
hear the speechless one.” Herod. i. 47.
Do the ears of God wait for sound? How, then,
could Jonah’s prayer find way out unto heaven from the depth of
the whale’s belly, through the entrails of so huge a beast; from
the very abysses, through so huge a mass of sea? What superior
advantage will they who pray too loudly gain, except that they annoy
their neighbours? Nay, by making their petitions audible, what less
error do they commit than if they were to pray in public? Which is forbidden,
Chapter XVIII.—Of the Kiss of Peace.
Another custom has now become prevalent. Such as
are fasting withhold the kiss of peace, which is the seal of prayer,
after prayer made with brethren. But when is peace more to be concluded
with brethren than when, at the time of some religious
observance, Such as fasting. See i.e. “Good
Friday,” as it is now generally called.
Chapter XIX.—Of Stations.
Similarly, too, touching the days of
Stations, The word Statio
seems to have been used in more than one sense in the ancient
Church. A passage in the Shepherd of Hermas, referred to above
(B. iii. Sim. 5), appears to make it ="fast.” “Ara,” not
“altare.” For receiving at
home apparently, when your station is over. See
Chapter XX.—Of Women’s Dress.
So far, however, as regards the dress of women,
the variety of observance compels us—men of no consideration
whatever—to treat, presumptuously indeed, after the most holy
apostle, See
Chapter XXI.—Of Virgins.
But that point which is promiscuously observed
throughout the churches, whether virgins ought to be veiled or no, must
be treated of. For they who allow to virgins immunity from
head-covering, appear to rest on this; that the apostle has not defined
“virgins” by name, but “women,”
Chapter XXII.—Answer to the Foregoing Arguments.
They who make this concession As to the distinction
between “women” and “virgins.” These words are
regarded by Dr. Routh as spurious, and not without reason. Mr. Dodgson
likewise omits them, and refers to de Virg. Vel. cc. 4 and
5. In de Virg.
Vel. 5, Tertullian speaks even more strongly: “And so
you have the name, I say not now common, but proper to a
virgin; a name which from the beginning a virgin
received.” γυνή. Mr. Dodgson
appears to think that there is some transposition here; and at first
sight it may appear so. But when we look more closely, perhaps there is
no need to make any difficulty: the stress is rather on the words
“by interpretation,” which, of course, is a
different thing from “usage;” and by
interpretation γυνή appears to come
nearer to “femina” than to
“mulier.” θηλεῖα. Or,
“unveiled.” For a similar use of
the word “virgin,” see See i.e. according
to their definition, whom Tertullian is refuting. i.e. If
married women had been meant, either word,
“uxores” or “feminæ,” could have
been used indifferently. i.e. long hair. i.e. veiling. i.e.
“exempts.” i.e. from her
creation. Of the
“universal veiling of women.” i.e. as above, the
Sermon on the Mount. i.e. mere infancy. Routh refers us to
de Virg. Vel. c. 11. i.e. the redundance of
her hair. i.e. by a veil. i.e. says Oehler,
“lest we postpone the eternal favour of God, which we hope for,
to the temporal veneration of men; a risk which those virgins seemed
likely to run who, when devoted to God, used to go veiled in public,
but bareheaded in the church.” i.e. in church. i.e. in public;
see note 27, supra. i.e. as Muratori,
quoted by Oehler, says, your “pious” (?) fraud in
pretending to be married when you are a virgin; because
“devoted” virgins used to dress and wear veils like married
women, as being regarded as “wedded to Christ.” i.e. each president of
a church, or bishop. i.e. “are known
to be such through the chastity of their manner and life”
(Oehler). “By appearing in
public as married women, while in heart they are virgins”
(Oehler). Does Tertullian refer
to
Chapter XXIII.—Of Kneeling.
In the matter of kneeling also prayer is
subject to diversity of observance, through the act of some few who
abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension is
particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord will give His
grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else indulge their
opinion without offence to others. We, however (just as we have
received), only on the day of the Lord’s Resurrection ought to
guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of
solicitude; deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the
devil. i.e. abstaining
from kneeling: kneeling being more “a posture of
solicitude” and of humility; standing, of
“exultation.” i.e. at fasts
and Stations. [Sabbath = Saturday, supra.] For the meaning
of “satisfaction” as used by the Fathers, see Hooker,
Eccl. Pol. vi. 5.
Chapter XXIV.—Of Place for Prayer.
But how “in every place,” since we are
prohibited Paul and Silas
( I have followed
Muratori’s reading here. Mr. Dodgson renders
“celebrated the Eucharist;” but that rendering appears very
doubtful. See
Chapter XXV.—Of Time for Prayer.
Touching the time, however, the
extrinsic Mr. Dodgson supposes
this word to mean “outward, as contrasted with the inward,
‘praying always.’” Oehler interprets, “ex vita
communi.” But perhaps what Tertullian says lower down in
the chapter, “albeit they stand simply without any precept
enjoining their observance,” may give us the true clue to his
meaning; so that “extrinsecus” would ="extrinsic to
any direct injunction of our Lord or His apostles.” Communitatis omnis
(Oehler). Mr. Dodgson renders, “of every sort of common
thing.” Perhaps, as Routh suggests, we should read
“omnium.” Vasculo. But in Acts
it is, σκεῦός τι ὡς
ὀθόνην
μεγάλην [Small
is here comparatively used, with reference to Universality of
which it was the symbol.]
Chapter XXVI.—Of the Parting of Brethren.
You will not dismiss a brother who has entered
your house without prayer.—“Have you seen,” says
Scripture, “a brother? you have seen your
Lord;” I have ventured to
turn the first part of the sentence into a question. What
“scripture” this may be, no one knows. [It seems to me a
clear reference to I have followed
Routh’s conjecture, “feceris” for
“fecerit,” which Oehler does not even notice.
Chapter XXVII.—Of Subjoining a Psalm.
The more diligent in prayer are wont to subjoin in
their prayers the “Hallelujah,” Perhaps “the
great Hallelujah,” i.e. the last five psalms. [The author seems to
have in mind (
Chapter XXVIII.—Of the Spiritual Victim, Which Prayer is.
For this is the spiritual victim Sacerdotes; comp.
de Ex. Cast. c. 7. Or,
“provided.” “Agape,” perhaps “the love-feast.” Or,
“procession.” Altare.
Chapter XXIX.—Of the Power of Prayer.
For what has God, who exacts it ever
denied Routh would
read, “What will God deny?” i.e. “the
angel who preserved in the furnace the three youths besprinkled, as it
were, with dewy shower” (Muratori quoted by Oehler).
[Apocrypha, The Song, etc., i.e. in brief,
its miraculous operations, as they are called, are suspended in
these ways. Or,
“inflict.” See
Apolog. c. 5 (Oehler). See [A reference to
Jacob’s wrestling. Also, probably, to Or, “her armour
defensive and offensive.” Or, “pens and
dens.” As if in prayer. This beautiful passage
should be supplemented by a similar one from St. Bernard: “Nonne
et aviculas levat, non onerat pennarum numerositas ipsa? Tolle eas, et
reliquum corpus pondere suo fertur ad ima. Sic disciplinam Christi, sic
suave jugum, sic onus leve, quo deponimus, eo deprimimur ipsi:
quia portat potius quam portatur.” Epistola, ccclxxxv. Bernardi
Opp. Tom. i. p. 691. Ed. (Mabillon.) Gaume, Paris, 1839. Bearing the
cross uplifts the Christian.]
IV.
Ad Martyras. Written in his
early ministry, and strict orthodoxy. [It may be dated circa
a.d. 197, as external evidence will
shew.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.
Blessed Martyrs
Designate,—Along with the provision which our lady mother the
Church from her bountiful breasts, and each brother out of his private
means, makes for your bodily wants in the prison, accept also from me
some contribution to your spiritual sustenance; for it is not good that
the flesh be feasted and the spirit starve: nay, if that which is weak
be carefully looked to, it is but right that that which is still weaker
should not be neglected. Not that I am specially entitled to exhort
you; yet not only the trainers and overseers, but even the unskilled,
nay, all who choose, without the slightest need for it, are wont to
animate from afar by their cries the most accomplished gladiators, and
from the mere throng of onlookers useful suggestions have sometimes
come; first, then, O blessed, grieve not the Holy Spirit, [He favours this
resource as sanctioned by custom, and gently persuades them, by
agreeing as to its propriety, to bestow peace upon others. But,
the foresight of those who objected was afterwards justified, for in
Cyprian’s day this practice led to greater evils, and he was
obliged to discourage it (ep. xi.) in an epistle to confessors.]
Chapter II.
Other things, hindrances equally of the soul, may have
accompanied you as far as the prison gate, to which also your relatives
may have attended you. There and thenceforth you were severed from the
world; how much more from the ordinary course of worldly life and all
its affairs! Nor let this separation from the world alarm you; for if
we reflect that the world is more really the prison, we shall see that
you have gone out of a prison rather than into one. The world has the
greater darkness, blinding men’s hearts. The world imposes the
more grievous fetters, binding men’s very souls. The world
breathes out the worst impurities—human lusts. The world contains
the larger number of criminals, even the whole human race. Then,
last of all, it awaits the judgment, not of the proconsul, but of God.
Wherefore, O blessed, you may regard yourselves as having been
translated from a prison to, we may say, a place of safety. It is full
of darkness, but ye yourselves are light; it has bonds, but God has
made you free. Unpleasant exhalations are there, but ye are an odour of
sweetness. The [Who ministered to
their fellow-Christians in prison, for the testimony of Jesus. What
follows is a sad picture of social life among heathens.]
Chapter III.
Grant now, O blessed, that even to Christians the prison
is unpleasant; yet we were called to the warfare of the living God in
our very response to the sacramental words. Well, no soldier comes out
to the campaign laden with luxuries, nor does he go to action from his
comfortable chamber, but from the light and narrow tent, where every
kind of hardness, roughness and unpleasantness must be put up with.
Even in peace soldiers inure themselves to war by toils and
inconveniences—marching in arms, running over the plain, working
at the ditch, making the testudo, engaging in many arduous
labours. The sweat of the brow is on everything, that bodies and minds
may not shrink at having to pass from shade to sunshine, from sunshine
to icy cold, from the robe of peace to the coat of mail, from silence
to clamour, from quiet to tumult. In like manner, O blessed ones, count
whatever is hard in this lot of yours as a discipline of your powers of
mind and body. You are about to pass through a noble struggle, in
which the living God acts the part of superintendent, in which the Holy
Ghost is your trainer, in which the prize is an eternal crown of
angelic essence, citizenship in the heavens, glory everlasting.
Therefore your Master, Jesus Christ, who has anointed you with His
Spirit, and led you forth to the arena, has seen it good, before the
day of conflict, to take you from a condition more pleasant in itself,
and has imposed on you a harder treatment, that your strength might be
the greater. For the athletes, too, are set apart to a more stringent
discipline, that they may have their physical powers built up. They are
kept from luxury, from daintier meats, from more pleasant drinks; they
are pressed, racked, worn out; the harder their labours in the
preparatory training, the stronger is the hope of victory. “And
they,” says the apostle, “that they may obtain a
corruptible crown.”
Chapter IV.
From the saying of our Lord we know that the flesh
is weak, the spirit willing. [He is said to
have perished circa a.d.
170.]
Chapter V.
I leave out of account now the motive of glory. All these same cruel and painful conflicts, a mere vanity you find among men—in fact, a sort of mental disease—as trampled under foot. How many ease-lovers does the conceit of arms give to the sword? They actually go down to meet the very wild beasts in vain ambition; and they fancy themselves more winsome from the bites and scars of the contest. Some have sold themselves to fires, to run a certain distance in a burning tunic. Others, with most enduring shoulders, have walked about under the hunters’ whips. The Lord has given these things a place in the world, O blessed, not without some reason: for what reason, but now to animate us, and on that day to confound us if we have feared to suffer for the truth, that we might be saved, what others out of vanity have eagerly sought for to their ruin?
Chapter VI.
Passing, too, from examples of enduring constancy having
such an origin as this, let us turn to a simple contemplation of
man’s estate in its ordinary conditions, that mayhap from things
which happen to us whether we will or no, and which we must set our
minds to bear, we may get instruction. How often, then, have
fires consumed the living! How often have wild beasts torn men in
pieces, it may be in their own forests, or it may be in the heart of
cities, when they have chanced to escape from their dens! How many have
fallen by the robber’s sword! How many have suffered at the hands
of enemies the death of the cross, after having been tortured first,
yes, [After the defeat and
suicide of Albinus, at Lyons, many persons, some of Senatorial rank,
were cruelly put to death.]
Appendix.
Introductory Notice to the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas.
[Translated by the Rev. R. E. Wallis, Ph.D.]
————————————
Nobody, will blame me for
placing here the touching history of these Martyrs. It
illustrates the period of history we are now considering, and sheds
light on the preceding treatise. I can hardly read it without tears,
and it ought to make us love “the noble army of martyrs.” I
think Tertullian was the editor of the story, not its
author. Cap. lv. He calls her
fortissima martyr, and she is one of only two or three
contemporary sufferers whom he mentioned by name.
Perpetua and Felicitas suffered martyrdom in the
reign of Septimius Severus, about the year 202 a.d. Tertullian mentions Perpetua, [In the De
Anima, cap. lv. as see above.]
The “Acta,” detailing the sufferings
of Perpetua and Felicitas, has been held by all critics to be a genuine
document of antiquity. But much difference exists as to who was the
compiler. In the writing itself, Perpetua and Saturus are mentioned as
having written certain portions of it; and there is no reason to doubt
the statement. Who the writer of the remaining portion was, is not
known. Some have assigned the work to Tertullian; some have maintained
that, whoever the writer was, he was a Montanist, and some have tried
to show that both martyrs and narrator were Montanists. [Yet see the sermons
of St. Augustine (if indeed his) on the Passion of these Saints. Sermon
281 and 282, opp. Tom. v. pp. 1284–5.]
Dean Milman says, “There appear strong
indications that the acts of these African martyrs are translated from
the Greek; at least it is difficult otherwise to account for the
frequent untranslated Greek words and idioms in the text. Hist. of
Christianity, vol. i. ch. viii.
The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas was edited by Petrus Possinus, Rome, 1663; by Henr. Valesius, Paris, 1664; and the Bollandists. The best and latest edition is by Ruissart, whose text is adopted in Gallandi’s and Migne’s collections of the Fathers.
The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas.
————————————
Preface. [Both Perpetua and
Felicitas were evidently Montanistic in character and impressions, but,
the fact that they have never been reputed other than Catholic, goes
far to explain Tertullian’s position for years after he had
withdrawn from communion with the vacillating Victor.]
If ancient illustrations
of faith which both testify to God’s grace and tend to
man’s edification are collected in writing, so that by the
perusal of them, as if by the reproduction of the facts, as well God
may be honoured, as man may be strengthened; why should not new
instances be also collected, that shall be equally suitable for both
purposes,—if only on the ground that these modern examples will
one day become ancient and available for posterity, although in their
present time they are esteemed of less authority, by reason of the
presumed veneration for antiquity? But let men look to it, if they
judge the power of the Holy Spirit to be one, according to the times
and seasons; since some things of later date must be esteemed of more
account as being nearer to the very last times, in accordance with the
exuberance of grace manifested to the final periods determined for the
world. For “in the last days, saith the Lord, I will pour out of
my Spirit upon all flesh; and their sons and their daughters shall
prophesy. And upon my servants and my handmaidens will I pour out of my
Spirit; and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
dream dreams.” [Routh notes this as
undoubted evidence of a Montanistic author. Reliquiæ,
Vol. I. p. 455.] [St. Augustine takes
pains to remind us that these Acta are not canonical. De
Anima, cap. 2, opp. Tom. x. p. 481.]
Chapter I.—Argument.—When the Saints Were Apprehended, St. Perpetua Successfully Resisted Her Father’s Pleading, Was Baptized with the Others, Was Thrust into a Filthy Dungeon. Anxious About Her Infant, by a Vision Granted to Her, She Understood that Her Martyrdom Would Take Place Very Shortly.
1. The young catechumens, Revocatus and his fellow-servant Felicitas, Saturninus and Secundulus, were apprehended. And among them also was Vivia Perpetua, respectably born, liberally educated, a married matron, having a father and mother and two brothers, one of whom, like herself, was a catechumen, and a son an infant at the breast. She herself was about twenty-two years of age. From this point onward she shall herself narrate the whole course of her martyrdom, as she left it described by her own hand and with her own mind.
2. “While” says she, “we were still
with the persecutors, and my father, for the sake of his affection for
me, was persisting in seeking to turn me away, and to cast me down from
the faith,—‘Father,’ said I, ‘do you see, let
us say, this vessel lying here to be a little pitcher, or something
else?’ And he said, ‘I see it to be so.’ And I
replied to him, ‘Can it be called by any other name than what it
“Refrigeravit,” Græce ἀνέπαυσεν,
scil. “requiem dedit.” i.e. the grace of
martyrdom. Sibi vacabant.
3. “Then my brother said to me, ‘My
dear sister, you are already in a position of great dignity, and are
such that you may ask for a vision, and that it may be made known to
you whether this is to result in a passion or an
escape.’ Commeatus.
“Sustineo,” Græce ὑπομένω, scil.
“exspecto.” This was an ordinary
mode of picturing our Lord in the oratories and on the sacred vessels
of those days. [This passage will recall the allegory of Hermas, with
which the martyr was doubtless familiar.]
Chapter II.—Argument. Perpetua, When Besieged by Her Father, Comforts Him. When Led with Others to the Tribunal, She Avows Herself a Christian, and is Condemned with the Rest to the Wild Beasts. She Prays for Her Brother Dinocrates, Who Was Dead.
1. “After a few days there prevailed a report that
we should be heard. And then my father came to me from the city, worn
out with anxiety. He came up to me, that he might cast me down, saying,
‘Have pity my daughter, on my grey hairs. Have pity on your
father, if I am worthy to be called a father by you. If with these
hands I have brought you up to this flower of your age, if I have
preferred you to all your brothers, do not deliver me up to the scorn
of men. Have regard to your brothers, have regard to your mother and
your aunt, have regard to your son, who will not be able to live after
you. “Catasta,”
a raised platform on which the martyrs were placed either for trial or
torture.
2. “Another day, while we were at dinner, we
were suddenly taken away to be heard, and we arrived at the town-hall.
At once the rumour spread through the neighbourhood of the public
place, and an immense number of people were gathered together. We
mount the platform. The rest were interrogated, and confessed. Then
they came to me, and my father immediately appeared with my boy, and
withdrew me from the step, and said in a supplicating tone, ‘Have
pity on your babe.’ And Hilarianus the procurator, who had just
received the power of life and death in the place of the proconsul
Minucius Timinianus, who was deceased, said, ‘Spare the grey
hairs of your father, spare the infancy of your boy, offer sacrifice
for the well-being of the emperors.’ And I replied, ‘I will
not do so.’ Hilarianus said, ‘Are you a Christian?’
And I replied, ‘I am a Christian.’ And as my father stood
there to cast me down from the faith, he was ordered by
Hilarianus to be thrown down, and was beaten with rods. And my
father’s misfortune grieved me as if I myself had been beaten, I
so grieved for his wretched old age. [St. August. opp. iv.
541.]
3. “After a few days, whilst we were all
praying, on a sudden, in the middle of our prayer, there came to me a
word, and I named Dinocrates; and I was amazed that that name had never
come into my mind until then, and I was grieved as I remembered his
misfortune. And I felt myself immediately to be worthy, and to be
called on to ask on his behalf. [The story in
“Oromate.” [This vision, it must be observed, has
nothing to do with prayers for the Christian dead, for this
brother of Perpetua was a heathen child whom she supposed to be in
the Inferi. It illustrates the anxieties Christians felt
for those of their kindred who had not died in the Lord; even for
children of seven years of age. Could the gulf be bridged and they
received into Abraham’s bosom? This dream of Perpetua
comforted her with a trust that so it should be. Of course this story
has been used fraudulently, to help a system of which these times knew
nothing. Cyprian says expressly: “Apud Inferos confessio,
non est, nec exomologesis illic fieri potest.”
Epistola lii. p. 98. Opp. Paris, 1574. In the Edinburgh
series (translation) this epistle is numbered 51, and elsewhere
54.] [There is not the
slightest reason to suppose that this child had been baptized: the
father a heathen and Perpetua herself a recent catechumen.
Elucidation.] “Diadema,”
or rather “diastema.” [Borrowed from
4. “Then, on the day on which we remained in
fetters,
“Nervo.”
Chapter III.—Argument. Perpetua is Again Tempted by Her Father. Her Third Vision, Wherein She is Led Away to Struggle Against an Egyptian. She Fights, Conquers, and Receives the Reward.
1. “Again, after a few days, Pudens, a
soldier, an assistant overseer Optio. [St. Aug. Opp. Tom. v.
p. 1284.]
2. “The day before that on which we were to
fight, I saw in a vision that Pomponius the deacon came hither to the
gate of the prison, and knocked vehemently. I went out to him, and
opened the gate for him; and he was clothed in a richly ornamented
white robe, and he had on manifold calliculæ. It seems uncertain
what may be the meaning of this word. It is variously supposed to
signify little round ornaments either of cloth or metal attached to the
soldier’s dress, or the small bells on the priestly robe. Some
also read the word galliculæ, small sandals. [Concerning these
visions, see Augustine, De Anima, cap. xviii. el
seq.] “Afa” is
the Greek word ἁφή, a grip; hence used
of the yellow sand sprinkled over wrestlers, to enable them to grasp
one another. [ This was the way by
which the victims spared by the popular clemency escaped from the
amphitheatre.
Chapter IV.—Argument. Saturus, in a Vision, and Perpetua Being Carried by Angels into the Great Light, Behold the Martyrs. Being Brought to the Throne of God, are Received with a Kiss. They Reconcile Optatus the Bishop and Aspasius the Presbyter.
1. Moreover, also, the blessed Saturus related this his
vision, which he himself committed to writing:—“We had
suffered,” says he, “and we were gone forth from the flesh,
and we were beginning to be borne by four angels into the east; and
their hands touched
“Cadebant;” but
“ardebant”—“were
burning”—seems a more probable reading. [The imitations of
the Shepherd of Hermas, in this memoir hardly need pointing
out.]
2. “And we came near to place, the walls of
which were such as if they were built of light; and before the gate of
that place stood four angels, who clothed those who entered with white
robes. And being clothed, we entered and saw the boundless light, and
heard the united voice of some who said without ceasing, ‘Holy!
Holy! Holy!’ Agios.
3. “And we went forth, and saw before the
entrance Optatus the bishop at the right hand, and Aspasius the
presbyter, a teacher, A presbyter,
that is, whose office was to teach, as distinct from other presbyters.
See Cyprian, Epistles, vol. i. More probably,
“rest and refresh yourselves.” [“Go and enjoy,”
or, “play,” or “take pleasure,” in the section
preceding.]
Chapter V.—Argument. Secundulus Dies in the Prison. Felicitas is Pregnant, But with Many Prayers She Brings Forth in the Eighth Month Without Suffering, the Courage of Perpetua and of Saturus Unbroken.
1. The above were the more eminent visions of the
blessed martyrs Saturus and Perpetua themselves, which they themselves
committed to writing. [To be regarded
like the Shepherd of Hermas, merely as visions, or allegorical
romances.]
2. But respecting Felicitas (for to her also the
Lord’s favour approached in the same way), when she had already
gone eight months with child (for she had been pregnant when she was
apprehended), as the day of the exhibition was drawing near, she was in
great grief lest on account of her pregnancy she should be
delayed,—because pregnant women are not allowed to be publicly
punished,—and lest she should shed her sacred and guiltless blood
among some who had been wicked subsequently. Moreover, also, her
fellow-martyrs were painfully saddened lest they should leave so
excellent a friend, and as it were companion, alone in the path of the
same hope. Therefore, joining together their “The
gaolers,” so called from the “cataracta,” or
prison-gate, which they guarded.
3. Since then the Holy Spirit permitted, and by
permitting willed, that the proceedings of that exhibition should be
committed to writing, although we are unworthy to complete the
description of so great a glory; yet we obey as it were the command of
the most blessed Perpetua, nay her sacred trust, and add one more
testimony concerning her constancy and her loftiness of mind. While
they were treated with more severity by the tribune, because, from the
intimations of certain deceitful men, he feared lest they should be
withdrawn from the prison by some sort of magic incantations, Perpetua
answered to his face, and said, “Why do you not at least permit
us to be refreshed, being as we are objectionable to the most noble
Cæsar, and having to fight on his birth-day? [A gentle banter, like
that of St. Lawrence on the gridiron.]
4. Moreover, on the day before, when in that last meal, which they call the free meal, they were partaking as far as they could, not of a free supper, but of an agape; with the same firmness they were uttering such words as these to the people, denouncing against them the judgment of the Lord, bearing witness to the felicity of their passion, laughing at the curiosity of the people who came together; while Saturus said, “To-morrow is not enough for you, for you to behold with pleasure that which you hate. Friends today, enemies to-morrow. Yet note our faces diligently, that you may recognise them on that day of judgment.” Thus all departed thence astonished, and from these things many believed.
Chapter VI.—Argument. From the Prison They are Led Forth with Joy into the Amphitheatre, Especially Perpetua and Felicitas. All Refuse to Put on Profane Garments. They are Scourged, They are Thrown to the Wild Beasts. Saturus Twice is Unhurt. Perpetua and Felicitas are Thrown Down; They are Called Back to the Sanavivarian Gate. Saturus Wounded by a Leopard, Exhorts the Soldier. They Kiss One Another, and are Slain with the Sword.
1. The day of their victory shone forth, and they
proceeded from the prison into the amphitheatre, as if to an assembly,
joyous and of brilliant countenances; if perchance shrinking, it was
with joy, and not with fear. Perpetua followed with placid look, and
with step and gait as a matron of Christ, beloved of God; casting down
the luster of her eyes from the gaze of all. Moreover, Felicitas,
rejoicing that she had safely brought forth, so that she might fight
with the wild beasts; from the blood and from the midwife to the
gladiator, to wash after childbirth with a second baptism. And when
they were brought to the gate, and were constrained to put on the
clothing—the men, that of the priests of Saturn, and the women,
that of those who were consecrated to Ceres—that noble-minded
woman resisted even to the end with constancy. For she said, “We
have come thus far of our own accord, for this reason, that our liberty
might not be restrained. For this reason we have yielded our minds,
that we might not do any such thing as this: we have agreed on
this with you.” Injustice acknowledged the justice; the
tribune yielded to their being brought as simply as they were. Perpetua
sang psalms, already treading under foot the head of the Egyptian;
Revocatus, and Saturninus, and Saturus uttered threatenings against the
gazing people about this martyrdom. When they came within sight of
Hilarianus, by gesture and nod, they began to say to Hilarianus,
“Thou judgest us,” say they, “but God will judge
thee.” At this the people, exasperated, demanded that they should
be tormented with scourges as they passed along the rank of the
venatores. A row of men drawn up
to scourge them as they passed along, a punishment probably similar to
what is called “running the gauntlet.”
2. But He who had said, “Ask, and ye
3. Moreover, for the young women the devil
prepared a very fierce cow, provided especially for that purpose
contrary to custom, rivalling their sex also in that of the beasts. And
so, stripped and clothed with nets, they were led forth. The populace
shuddered as they saw one young woman of delicate frame, and another
with breasts still dropping from her recent childbirth. So, being
recalled, they are unbound. Ita revocatæ
discinguntur. Dean Milmam prefers reading this, “Thus recalled,
they are clad in loose robes.” [Routh, Reliq.
Vol. I. p. 360.]
4. The same Saturus at the other entrance exhorted
the soldier Pudens, saying, “Assuredly here I am, as I have
promised and foretold, for up to this moment I have felt no beast. And
now believe with your whole heart. Lo, I am going forth to that beast,
and I shall be destroyed with one bite of the leopard.” And
immediately at the conclusion of the exhibition he was thrown to the
leopard; and with one bite of his he was bathed with such a quantity of
blood, that the people shouted out to him as he was returning, the
testimony of his second baptism, “Saved and washed, saved and
washed.” A cry in mockery of
what was known as the effect of Christian baptism. [Routh,
Reliquiæ, Vol. I. p. 358.]
O most brave and blessed martyrs! O truly called and
chosen unto the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ! whom whoever magnifies,
and honours, and adores, assuredly ought to read these examples for the
edification of the Church, not less than the ancient ones, so that
Elucidations.
————————————
(Dinocrates, cap. ii. p. 701.)
The avidity with which the Latin controversial
writers seize upon this fanciful passage, (which, in fact, is
subversive of their whole doctrine about Purgatory, as is the text from
the Maccabees) makes emphatic the utter absence from the early
Fathers of any reference to such a dogma; which, had it existed, must
have appeared in every reference to the State of the Dead, and in every
account of the discipline of penitents. Arbp. Usher Republished, Oxford,
1838. See Opp. Tom. xi. p.
657. Ed. Migne.
Of Patience. [Written
possibly as late as a.d. 202; and is credited
by Neander and Kaye, with Catholic Orthodoxy.]
[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]
————————————
Chapter I.—Of Patience Generally; And Tertullian’s Own Unworthiness to Treat of It.
I fully confess unto the
Lord God that it has been rash enough, if not even impudent, in
me to have dared compose a treatise on Patience, for
practising which I am all unfit, being a man of no
goodness; “Nullius
boni;” compare [Elucidation I.] i.e. who are strangers
to it. Or, “striving
after.” Or,
“heathendom”—sæculi. Sæculo.
Chapter II.—God Himself an Example of Patience.
To us i.e. us
Christians. i.e. cynical =
κυνικός = doglike. But
Tertullian appears to use “caninæ” purposely, and I
have therefore retained it rather than substitute (as Mr. Dodgson does)
“cynical.” i.e. the
affectation is modelled by insensibility. See Because they see no
visible proof of it. Sæculo.
Chapter III.—Jesus Christ in His Incarnation and Work a More Imitable Example Thereof.
And this species of the divine patience
indeed being, as it were, at a distance, may perhaps be esteemed as
among “things too high for us;” So Mr. Dodgson; and La
Cerda, as quoted by Oehler. See I have followed
Oehler’s reading of this very difficult and much disputed
passage. For the expression, “having been trained,” etc.,
compare Or, “yet had
there been need of contumelies likewise for the undergoing of
death?”
Chapter IV.—Duty of Imitating Our Master Taught Us by Slaves. Even by Beasts. Obedient Imitation is Founded on Patience.
Therefore, if we see all servants of probity and
right feeling shaping their conduct suitably to the disposition of
their lord; if, that is, the art of deserving favour is
obedience,
“Obsequium,” distinguished by Döderlein from
“obedientia,” as a more voluntary and spontaneous thing,
founded less on authority than respect and love. Obsequii.
“Pollicetur,” not “promittit.” Obedientiam.
“Subnixis.” Perhaps this may be the meaning, as in
Virg. Æn. iv. 217. But Oehler notices
“subnexis” as a conjecture of Jos. Scaliger, which
is very plausible, and would mean nearly the same. Mr. Dodgson renders
“supported by their slavery;” and Oehler makes
“subnixis” ="præditis,”
“instructis.” [Elucidation II.] Obsequii. Pecudibus,” i.e.
tame domestic cattle. “Bestiis,”
irrational creatures, as opposed to “homines,” here
apparently wild beasts. Obsequii. For the
sentiment, compare Obsequii. See above,
“the creatures…acknowledge their
masters.” Obsequio. Obsequio.
“Oblectatur” Oehler reads with the mss. The editors, as he says, have emended
“Obluctatur,” which Mr. Dodgson reads. See the previous
chapter. See the previous
chapter. See chap. i. [All our
author’s instances of this principle of the
Præscriptio are noteworthy, as interpreting its use in the
Advs. Hæreses.]
Chapter V.—As God is the Author of Patience So the Devil is of Impatience.
Nevertheless, the proceeding
“Procedere:” so Oehler, who, however, notices an ingenious
conjecture of Jos. Scaliger—“procudere,” the
hammering out, or forging. Tertullian may
perhaps wish to imply, in prayer.
Let us therefore consider, concerning
Impatience, whether just as patience in God, so its adversary
quality have been born and detected in our adversary, that from this
consideration may appear how primarily adverse it is to faith. For that
which has been conceived by God’s rival, of course is not
friendly to God’s things. The discord of things is the
same as the discord of their authors. Further, since God is
best, the devil on the contrary worst, of beings, by their own
very diversity they testify that neither works for Facere. But Fulv.
Ursinus (as Oehler tells us) has suggested a neat
emendation—“favere,” favours. See Compare the expression
in de Idol. iv., “perdition of blood” ="bloody
perdition,” and the note there. So here “angel of
perdition” may ="lost angel.” Mulier. See de
Orat. c. xxii. Impetu. Colonus. Sapere. See de
Idol. c. i. sub fin. Homo. Matrix. Mr.
Dodgson renders womb, which is admissible; but the other
passages quoted by Oehler, where Tertullian uses this word, seem to
suit better with the rendering given in the text. Compare a similar
expression in de Idol. ii. ad init. Which Tertullian
has just shown to be the result of impatience. i.e. murder. i.e. unable to
restrain. i.e. want of power or
patience to contemn gain.
“Ordinatur;” but “orditur” has been very
plausibly conjectured. Mr. Dodgson refers to
ad Uxor. i. 5, q. v. sub fin. Or,
“unduteous of duteousness.” i.e.
impatient. I have departed
slightly here from Oehler’s punctuation. i.e. the water which
followed them, after being given forth by the smitten rock. See
See Free, i.e. from the
bondage of impatience and of sin.
Chapter VI.—Patience Both Antecedent and Subsequent to Faith.
Accordingly it is patience which is both
subsequent and antecedent to faith. In short, Abraham believed God, and
was accredited by Him with righteousness; See i.e. the trial
was necessary not to prove his faith to God, who knows all whom
He accounts righteous, but “typically” to
us. Composuit. See
Chapter VII.—The Causes of Impatience, and Their Correspondent Precepts.
Now, however, while we run through the causes of
impatience, all the other precepts also will answer in their own
places. If our spirit is aroused by the loss of property, it is
commonished by the Lord’s Scriptures, in almost every place, to a
contemning of the world; Sæculo. Subjacet. This appears to be the
sense of this very difficult passage as Oehler reads it; and of Fr.
Junius’ interpretation of it, which Oehler approves. De proximo. See above,
c. v. Deo de proximo amicus, “a most intimate
friend to God.” Sæculum. “Alluding to
Christ’s words in
Chapter VIII.—Of Patience Under Personal Violence and Malediction.
We who carry about our very soul, our very body,
exposed in this world Sæculo. Delibatione. i.e. money and the
like. Compare Improbitas. Constrictus. I have
rendered after Oehler: but may not the meaning be
“clenched,” like the hand which deals the blow? As Oehler says
“the blow” is said to “receive” that which,
strictly, the dealer of it receives. Improbum.
Communicari—κοινοῦσθαι.
See Reatum. See de
Idol. i. ad init., “the highest impeachment of
the age.” Dispungetur: a word
which, in the active, means technically “to balance
accounts,” hence “to discharge,” etc.
Chapter IX.—Of Patience Under Bereavement.
Not even that species of impatience under the loss
of our dear ones is excused, where some assertion of a right to grief
acts the patron to it. For the consideration of the
apostle’s declaration must be set before us, who says, “Be
not overwhelmed with sadness at the falling asleep of any one, just as
the nations are who are without hope.” Desiderandus.
Chapter X.—Of Revenge.
There is, too, another chief spur of impatience,
the lust of revenge, dealing with the business either of glory or else
of malice. But “glory,” on the one hand, is everywhere
“vain;” See Nunquam non. i.e. perhaps
superior in degree of malice. i.e. of the world and
its erroneous philosophies. Fastidientes,
i.e. our loathing or abhorrence of sin. Perhaps the reference
may be to Servulis.
Præsumpsissent. i.e. the penalty which
the law will inflict.
Chapter XI.—Further Reasons for Practising Patience. Its Connection with the Beatitudes.
After these principal material causes of
impatience, registered to the best of our ability, why should we wander
out of our way among the rest,—what are found at home, what
abroad? Wide and diffusive is the Evil One’s operation, hurling
manifold irritations of our spirit, and sometimes trifling ones,
sometimes very great. But the trifling ones you may contemn from their
very littleness; to the very great ones you may yield in regard of
their overpoweringness. Where the injury is less, there is no necessity
for impatience; but where the injury is greater, there more necessary
is the remedy for the injury—patience. Let us strive,
therefore, to endure the inflictions of the Evil One, that the
counter-zeal of our equanimity may mock the zeal of the foe. If,
however, we ourselves, either by imprudence or else voluntarily, draw
upon ourselves anything, let us meet with equal patience what we have
to blame ourselves for. Moreover, if we believe that some inflictions
are sent on us by the Lord, to whom should we more exhibit patience
than to the Lord? Nay, He teaches Docet. But a plausible
conjecture, “decet,” “it becomes us,” has been
made. Exultationis
impatientiæ.
Chapter XII.—Certain Other Divine Precepts. The Apostolic Description of Charity. Their Connection with Patience.
As regards the rule of peace, which i.e. peace. Impatientiæ
natus: lit. “born for impatience.” Comp. de
Pæniten. 12, ad fin. “nec ulli rei
nisi pænitentiæ natus.” Oehler reads
“sed,” but the “vel” adopted in the text is a
conjecture of Latinius, which Oehler mentions. Septuagies septies.
The reference is to Gubernet. What the cause
is is disputed. Opinions are divided as to whether Tertullian
means by it “marriage with a heathen” (which as Mr. Dodgson
reminds us, Tertullian—de Uxor. ii. 3—calls
“adultery”), or the case in which our Lord allowed
divorce. See i.e. patience. Peccatricem,
i.e. the ewe. Dilectio = ἀγάπη. See Trench, New
Testament Syn., s. v. ἀγάπη; and with the rest of this
chapter compare carefully, in the Greek, Protervum = Greek
περπερεύεται. Proterit = Greek
ἀσχημονεῖ. Excidet = Greek
ἐκλείπει, suffers
eclipse.
Chapter XIII.—Of Bodily Patience.
Thus far, finally, of patience simple and uniform,
and as it exists merely in the mind: though in many forms
likewise I labour after it in body, for the purpose of
“winning the Lord;” “Invecta,”
generally = "movables", household furniture. Or, mortification,
“adflictatio.” i.e. fleshly
mortification is a “victim,” etc. Or,
“mourning.” Comp. de Pæn. c. 9. [The
“water vs. wine” movement is not a discovery of our
own times. “Drink a little wine,” said St. Paul
medicinally; but (as a great and good divine once remarked) “we
must not lay stress on the noun, but the adjective; let
it be very little.”] Christi dei. Ad. It seems to mean
flesh has strength given it, by patience, to meet the hardships of the
flight. Compare the πρὸς
πλησμονὴν
τῆς σαρκὸς, of
St. Paul in Præveniat:
“prevent” us, before we have time to flee. Solo. [Elucidation III.] i.e. martyrdom. Comp.
“Adversus,” like the “ad” above, note 21, p.
713.
Chapter XIV.—The Power of This Twofold Patience, the Spiritual and the Bodily. Exemplified in the Saints of Old.
With this strength of patience, Esaias is cut
asunder, and ceases not to speak concerning the Lord; Stephen is
stoned, and prays for pardon to his foes. Job. See
“Feretrum”—for carrying trophies in a triumph, the
bodies of the dead, and their effigies, etc. Compare i.e. with rage and
disappointment. Operarius. See
Chapter XV.—General Summary of the Virtues and Effects of Patience.
So amply sufficient a Depositary of patience is
God. If it be a wrong which you deposit in His care, He is an Avenger;
if a loss, He is a Restorer; if pain, He is a Healer; if death, He is a
Reviver. What honour is granted to Patience, to have God as her Debtor!
And not without reason: for she keeps all His decrees; she has to do
with all His mandates. She fortifies faith; is the pilot of peace;
assists charity; establishes humility; waits long for repentance; sets
her seal on confession; rules the flesh; preserves the spirit; bridles
the tongue; restrains the hand; tramples temptations under foot; drives
away scandals; gives their crowning grace to martyrdoms; consoles the
poor; teaches the rich moderation; overstrains not the weak; exhausts
not the strong; is the delight of the believer; invites the Gentile;
commends the servant to his lord, and his lord to God; adorns the
woman; makes the man approved; is loved in childhood, praised in youth,
looked up to in age; is beauteous in either sex, in every time of life.
Come, now, see whether Si. This is
Oehler’s reading, who takes “si” to be ="an.”
But perhaps “sis” (="si vis”), which is Fr.
Junius’ correction, is better: “Come, now, let us, if
you please, give a general sketch of her mien and habit.” Pura; perhaps
“smooth.” Compare with this
singular feature, i.e., as
Rigaltius (referred to by Oehler), explains, after the two
visions of angels who appeared to him and said, “Arise and
eat.” See
Chapter XVI.—The Patience of the Heathen Very Different from Christian Patience. Theirs Doomed to Perdition. Ours Destined to Salvation.
This is the rule, this the discipline, these the
works of patience which is heavenly and true; that is, of
Christian patience, not false and disgraceful, like as is that
patience of the nations of the earth. For in order that in this also
the devil might rival the Lord, he has as it were quite on a par
(except that the very diversity of evil and good is exactly on a par
with their magnitude One is finite, the
other infinite. Obsequii. And thus getting a
place in their wills. i.e. professional
“diners out.” Comp.
Elucidations.
————————————
I.
(Unless patience sit by his side, cap. i. p. 707.)
Let me quote words which, many years ago, struck
me forcibly, and which I trust, have been blest to my soul; for which
reason, I must be allowed, here, to thank their author, the learned and
fearless Dean Burgon, of Chichester. In his invaluable
Commentary on the Gospel, which while it abounds in the fruits
of a varied erudition, aims only to be practically useful, this pious
scholar remarks: “To Faith must be added Patience, the
‘patient waiting for God,’ if we would escape the snare
which Satan spread, no less for the Holy One (i.e. in the Temp.
upon the Pinnacle) than for the Israelites at Massah. And this is
perhaps the reason of the remarkable prominence given to the
grace of Patience, both by our Lord and His Apostles; a
circumstance, as it may be thought, which has not altogether
attracted the See—A
Plain Commentary on the Four Gospels, intended chiefly for
Devotional Reading. Oxford, 1854. Also (Vol. I. p. 28)
Philadelphia, 1855.
II.
(Under their chin, cap. iv. p. 709.)
The reference in the note to Paris, as represented by Virgil and in ancient sculpture, seems somewhat to the point:
“Et nunc ille Paris, cum semiviro comitatu.
Mæonia mentum mitra crinemq, madentem,
Subnixus, etc.”
He had just spoken of the pileus as a “Cap of freedom,” but there was another form of pileus which was just the reverse and was probably tied by fimbriæ, under the chin, denoting a low order of slaves, effeminate men, perhaps spadones. Now, the Phrygian bonnet to which Virgil refers, is introduced by him to complete the reproach of his contemptuous expression (semiviro comitatu) just before. So, our author—“not only from men, i.e. men so degraded as to wear this badge of extreme servitude, but even from cattle, etc. Shall these mean creatures outdo us in obedience and patience?”
III.
(The world’s misusage, cap. xiii. p. 716.)
The Reverend Clergy who may read this note will
forgive a brother, who begins to be in respect of years, like
“Paul the aged,” for remarking, that the reading of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers often leads him to sigh—“Such
were they from whom we have received all that makes life tolerable, but
how intolerable it was for them: are we, indeed, such as they would
have considered Christians?” God be
praised for His mercy and forbearance in our days; but, still it is
true that “we have need of patience.” Is not much of all
that we regard as “the world’s misusage,” the
gracious hand of the Master upon us, giving us something for the
exercise of that Patience, by which He forms us into His own image?
( Œuvres, Tom. vi.
pp. 133–5. Ed. Paris, 1824.
Genesis
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:6-7 1:6-8 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:11-12 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:16 1:20-21 1:21-22 1:22 1:24 1:24 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26-27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:31 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7-8 2:15 2:15 2:16 2:16 2:16-17 2:17 2:17 2:18 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:23-24 2:24-25 2:27 3:1 3:1-7 3:1-7 3:2-3 3:3 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:9 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:11 3:16 3:16 3:18 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:19 3:22 3:22 3:22 3:24 3:31 4:1-7 4:2 4:2-14 4:6-7 4:10 4:11 4:15 4:24 5:22 5:24 5:24 5:24 6:1-4 6:1-4 6:2 6:2 6:2 6:3 6:6 6:9 6:18 7:1 7:23 9:1-2 9:3 9:5 9:5-6 9:6 9:7 9:19 11:31 12 12:5 14 14:18 15:6 15:13 17 17 18 18 18:14 18:21 19 19:1-29 19:17 19:23-29 19:24 21:5 22:1-10 22:1-14 22:17 22:18 22:30 23:4 24:64-65 25:7 25:21-23 25:22-23 25:26 25:26 25:34 27:25 27:28 27:39 28:12-17 32 32:28 32:30 34:25-31 35:8 37 45:24 47:20 49:5-7 49:5-7 49:6 49:11 49:27
Exodus
1:18 1:22 2:13-14 2:15-21 3:2 3:8 3:8 3:13-16 3:17 3:17 3:21 3:22 3:22 3:22 4:2-9 4:3-4 4:6-7 4:6-7 4:6-7 4:9 4:10-12 4:24-26 4:25 7 7:12 8:19 8:25 8:28 10:2 10:10-11 10:24 12 12:1-11 12:6 12:16 12:16 12:16 12:34-35 12:40-42 13:2 14:15-31 14:27-30 15:22 15:22-26 15:24-25 15:27 16:3 16:7 17:8-16 17:11-12 18:23 18:32 19:1 20:2 20:4 20:4 20:4 20:7 20:7 20:8 20:8-11 20:9 20:9-10 20:10 20:12 20:12 20:12-17 20:13-16 20:14 20:14 20:15 20:16 20:17 20:22-23 21:24 21:24 21:24-25 23:13 23:13 23:13 23:20-21 23:20-21 24:8 28:13-21 29:7 30:22-33 32 32 32:1 32:1 32:1 32:4 32:6 32:6 32:10 32:23 32:32 33:11 33:11 33:11 33:13 33:13 33:13-23 33:20 33:20 33:20 33:20 33:20 33:20 33:20 33:23 34:29 34:35
Leviticus
4:5 4:16 4:18 6:30 8:12 10:9 13 13:2-6 14 15 15:19 16 16:5 16:7 17:1-9 18:8 19:17 19:17-18 19:18 19:18 19:18 19:18 20:10 20:13 20:15 21:1 23:5 24:2 24:17-22 25:4 25:55 26:1 26:1
Numbers
6:6-7 11 12:2 12:5-8 12:6-8 12:6-8 13:16 14:27 20:1-6 21 21:4-9 21:4-9 21:5 21:8-9 22 22 25:1 33:9 33:9
Deuteronomy
5:8 5:12 5:15 5:16-21 5:26 6:2 6:4 6:4-5 6:5 6:5 6:12 8:3 8:4 8:12-14 8:12-14 10:16 10:16 11:26 11:27 12:1-26 12:2-3 12:30 13:1 13:6 13:6-10 13:16 14 15:2 15:4 15:7-8 16:10 17:6 18:1-2 18:15 18:19 19:11-21 19:15 19:15 19:15 19:15 21:21 21:22-23 21:23 21:23 21:23 21:23 21:23 22 22:5 22:28-29 23:3 24:1 24:12-13 25:4 25:4 25:4 25:4 25:5 25:5-6 26:9 26:15 27:15 28:65 29:5 29:5 29:5 30:11-13 30:19 32:2 32:20-21 32:21 32:25 32:35 32:35 32:35 32:39 32:39 32:39 32:39 33:9 33:9 33:17 33:17
Joshua
3:9-17 5:2-9 6:1-20 10:13 23:7
Judges
2:8-13 2:20-21 9:2 13:12 13:22
1 Samuel
2:6 2:6-8 2:7-8 2:8 2:8 9 9:2 10:6 10:6 10:11 13 13:14 14:43-45 14:45 15:11 15:28 15:29 16:7 18:8-9 21:2-6 28:6-16
2 Samuel
5:6-8 5:8 6:17 7:12 7:13 11 12:13 12:13 12:13 12:14 16:7 22:44-45 24:1
1 Kings
1:39 3:5-13 4:25 8:54 11:4 11:14 11:29-39 12:15 12:25-33 17:7-16 18 19:4-13 19:8 19:12 21:27 21:29 21:29
2 Kings
1 1 1:9-12 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:16 2:23-24 2:23-24 4:23 4:26 4:29 4:42-44 4:42-44 5:9-14 6:1-7 10:29-31 14:9 17:7-17 17:15 18:4 19:14 20 20:3 20:5
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
1 1:12 2 2:8 5:12-13 5:13 10:10 10:10
Psalms
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-3 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:4 2:1 2:1-2 2:1-2 2:1-2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2 2:2-3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:4 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7-8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:9 3:1 3:4 4:4 4:4 4:7 5:6 7:9 8:2 8:4-6 8:4-8 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5-6 8:5-6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:7 9:17-18 9:18 13 16:4 16:10 18:26 18:43-44 19:4 19:4 19:4 19:4 19:5 19:5-6 19:7 19:10 19:11 20:1 20:7 22 22:1 22:2 22:6 22:6 22:6 22:6 22:7 22:7 22:8 22:8 22:9 22:9-10 22:10 22:15 22:16 22:16 22:16 22:16 22:16 22:16 22:16-17 22:17 22:18 22:18 22:18 22:21 22:22 22:25 24:1 24:4 24:4-5 24:7 24:8 24:10 26:9 28:2 29:1-2 29:3 30 31:5 32:1 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:18-19 34:13-14 34:14 34:19 34:20 34:22 35:12 38:8 38:17 38:17 41:9 44:1 44:4 44:5 45:1 45:1 45:1 45:1 45:1 45:2 45:2 45:2 45:2-3 45:3 45:3 45:3 45:4 45:4 45:4 45:5 45:5 45:5 45:5 45:5 45:6-7 48 48:12 49:11 49:16-17 49:18 49:20 49:20 50:13 50:13 50:14 51:12 51:12 51:17 55:17 55:23 59:11 59:11 60:12 61 62:4 62:11 62:12 64:7 67:6 68:18 68:19 68:25 68:26 69:4 69:21 69:21 69:22 70:8 70:9 70:11 70:17 70:17 70:18 70:19 71:18 72:1 72:4 72:6 72:10 72:10 72:11 72:12-14 72:15 72:15 73 74:23 78:2 78:24 78:25 82:1 82:1 82:1 82:3-4 82:6 82:6 82:6 85:12 86:15 87:4-5 87:5 88:4-5 88:30 88:36 88:37 88:38 89:3-4 89:29 89:35-37 91:11 91:13 91:13 92:12 92:12-15 94:1 94:11 95 96:5 96:7-8 96:10 96:10 97:1 97:3 97:5 97:5 102:25 102:25-26 103 103:22 104:4 106:19-22 106:33 107:16 108:13 109:8 110 110 110 110 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1 110:1-2 110:3 110:3 110:3 110:4 110:4 110:4 110:4 111:10 111:10 112:4 113:5-8 113:7 113:7 115:4 115:4-8 115:8 116:15 116:15 117 118:4 118:8 118:8-9 118:9 118:9 118:9 118:21 118:22 118:22 118:26 126:5 126:5 130 131:1 132:11 132:11 132:17 133:1 133:2 135:15 139:23 140:3 143:6 145:8 147:6 150:4
Proverbs
1:7 1:20-21 3:11-12 8 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22-23 8:22-25 8:24 8:25 8:27 8:27 8:27-30 8:27-31 8:28 8:28 8:30 9:2 9:10 21:1 24:12 28:13
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
1 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2-3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:7 1:7-8 1:7-8 1:7-8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:10 1:10 1:10 1:11 1:11 1:11 1:11-12 1:11-14 1:11-14 1:13 1:13-14 1:13-14 1:13-14 1:14 1:14 1:15 1:15 1:16-17 1:17 1:17 1:17-18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:20 1:22 2:2 2:2-3 2:2-3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3-4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:12 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:20 2:20 3:1 3:1-3 3:2-3 3:3 3:3 3:3-4 3:12 3:13 3:13-14 3:14-15 3:16-24 5 5:2 5:2 5:5 5:6-7 5:6-7 5:7 5:7 5:11-12 5:12 5:14 5:18 5:20 5:20 5:21 5:23 5:26 6:3 6:9 6:9 6:9-10 6:10 6:10 6:10 7:4 7:9 7:9 7:9 7:13-14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:15 8:4 8:4 8:4 8:4 8:4 8:8 8:10 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:14 9:1-2 9:2 9:6 9:6 9:6 10:1-2 10:2 10:14 10:23 10:23 10:33 11:1 11:1 11:1-2 11:1-2 11:1-3 11:1-3 11:2 11:6 11:8-9 14:13-14 14:14 19:1 25:8 25:8 26:19 26:20 26:20 27:1 27:11 28 28:11 28:14 28:16 28:16 28:16 28:16 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:13 29:14 29:14 29:14 29:14 29:18 30 30:18 30:27 30:30 31 32:9-10 33:14 33:14-16 33:17 33:18 34:4 35:1 35:2 35:3 35:3 35:3 35:3 35:4 35:4-6 35:5 35:5 35:6 35:6 35:8-9 35:10 35:10 37:22 38:12-13 38:16 38:21 39 39:6 40 40:3 40:3 40:3 40:4 40:5 40:5 40:6 40:7 40:7 40:8 40:8 40:9 40:9 40:12 40:13 40:13 40:13 40:13-14 40:14 40:14 40:15 40:15 40:15 40:15 40:15 40:15 40:17 40:18 40:25 40:28 41:4 41:4 41:8 41:17 41:18-19 42:1 42:2-3 42:2-3 42:4 42:4 42:4 42:4 42:5 42:6 42:6 42:6 42:6 42:6 42:6-7 42:6-7 42:15 42:19 42:19 43:18-19 43:18-19 43:18-19 43:19 43:19 43:19 43:20 44:5 44:5 44:6 44:6 44:8 44:8 44:20 44:24 44:24 44:24 44:25 44:25 44:26 45:1 45:1 45:1 45:1-2 45:3 45:3 45:3 45:5 45:5 45:5 45:5 45:5 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:7 45:14-15 45:18 45:18 45:18 45:23 46:9 46:9 46:12-13 46:12-13 48:12 48:13 48:13 49 49:6 49:6 49:6 49:12 49:18 49:18 49:18 49:21 50:3 50:4 50:4 50:4 50:4 50:4 50:6 50:6 50:10 50:10 50:10 50:11 50:11 51:7 51:9 52:5 52:5 52:5 52:5 52:6 52:7 52:7 52:7 52:7 52:7 52:11 52:11 52:14 52:14 52:14 53 53:1 53:1-2 53:2 53:2 53:2 53:2 53:2-3 53:3 53:3 53:3 53:3 53:3 53:3-4 53:4 53:4 53:5 53:5-6 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7 53:7-8 53:7-8 53:8 53:8-10 53:9 53:9 53:12 53:12 53:12 53:12 53:12 55:3 55:3 55:4 55:4-5 55:5 55:6-7 56:2 57 57:1 57:1 57:1 57:2 57:2 57:16 57:16 58:1-2 58:6 58:6 58:6 58:7 58:7 58:7 58:7 58:7 58:8 58:13 59:4 60:8 60:8 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:2 61:2 61:3 61:10 63:1 63:3 63:3 63:3 63:9 63:9 64:6 64:8 65:2 65:5 65:13 65:13 65:13-14 65:13-16 65:17 65:17 66:1 66:5 66:14 66:22 66:23 66:23 66:24
Jeremiah
1:5 1:5 1:9 2:10-12 2:10-13 2:31 2:31 4:3 4:3 4:3-4 4:3-4 4:4 4:4 4:4 7:23 7:24 7:25 7:26 8:4 8:9 9:23-24 9:23-24 11:8 11:19 11:19 11:19 15:14 16:16 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:8 17:8 17:9 17:9 17:10 18:11 20:12 22:3 22:5 25:4 26:5 31:8 31:15 31:20 31:27 31:29 31:31-32 31:31-32 31:32 31:34 32:7-15 32:19 35:15 44:4 51:15 52:9
Lamentations
Ezekiel
8:12-9:6 9:4 11:22-23 16:3 16:3 16:45 18:7 18:8 18:16 18:23 18:23 18:30 18:32 22:2 22:8 23 28:11-16 31 33:11 33:11 33:11 33:11 33:11 36 36:20 36:20 36:23 36:23 37:1-14 43:2 48:30-35
Daniel
1:8-14 2:1 2:19-20 2:34 2:34-35 2:34-35 2:35 2:35 2:44 2:44 2:45 2:45 3 3 3:12 3:16 3:21 3:21 3:25 3:25-26 3:27 3:28-29 4:25 4:33 4:33-37 4:34 4:37 6 6 6:10 7:10 7:13 7:13 7:13 7:13 7:13 7:13 7:13-14 7:13-14 7:13-14 7:14 7:14 9 9:23 9:24 9:26 9:26 10:2 13:32 24
Hosea
1:6 1:9 1:10 2:11 2:11 2:17 2:23 5:15 6:1 6:1-2 6:6 6:6 6:6 6:6 6:6 8:6 8:14 10:6 11:8 12:4 13:14 14:2
Joel
2:10 2:22 2:28 2:28 2:28-29 2:28-29 2:28-29 3:1 3:1 3:9-15 3:18 3:28 3:28 3:30-31
Amos
2:6 2:12 3 4:13 4:13 4:13 4:13 5:21 6:1 6:1-6 8:9 8:9 8:9-10 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6
Jonah
1:17 2:10 3:8 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:10 4:2 4:2
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
2:4 2:4 2:4 3:2 3:9-12 3:10 3:13
Haggai
Zechariah
1:14 2:8 3 3 3:8 4:3 4:7 4:14 6:11 6:12 7:10 8:16 8:17 9:15-16 10:9 11:12 11:12-13 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:10 12:12 12:12 13:2 13:9 14:4 14:14 14:14
Malachi
1 1 1:10-11 1:10-11 1:10-11 2:15 3:1 3:1-3 4:2-3 4:5 4:5
Matthew
1:1 1:16 1:20 1:21 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23 2 2:1 2:1-12 2:3-6 2:11 2:16-18 2:16-18 3:1-2 3:3 3:6 3:7-8 3:7-9 3:7-12 3:9 3:9 3:10 3:10 3:10 3:11 3:11-12 3:12 3:12 3:13-17 3:13-17 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:17 4:1-4 4:1-11 4:3 4:3 4:4 4:4 4:6 4:6 4:7 4:10 4:10 4:12-16 4:14 4:16 4:21-22 4:21-22 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:9 5:9 5:10 5:10 5:11-12 5:11-12 5:14 5:15 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:20 5:21-22 5:21-22 5:21-22 5:22 5:22 5:22-23 5:23-24 5:25 5:25 5:25 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:27-28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:32 5:34-37 5:37 5:37 5:37 5:38 5:39 5:40 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:44-45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:45 5:48 6:5-6 6:5-6 6:6 6:8 6:9 6:12 6:14-15 6:16-18 6:21 6:24 6:24 6:24 6:24 6:25 6:25 6:27 6:28 6:31 6:32 6:33 6:34 6:34 6:38 7:1 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:9 7:12 7:13 7:15 7:15 7:16 7:17 7:17 7:18 8:5 8:5 8:5-6 8:12 8:15 8:20 8:24 8:29 9:4 9:4 9:9 9:9 9:13 9:13 9:16-17 9:16-17 10:5 10:7 10:10 10:16 10:16 10:16 10:19 10:21 10:22 10:24 10:24 10:24 10:27 10:28 10:29 10:30 10:31 10:32-33 10:33 10:33 10:33 10:34 10:34 10:37 10:37 10:37 10:37-38 10:39 10:39 10:42 11 11:2-6 11:8 11:10 11:11 11:12 11:13 11:13 11:14 11:22 11:25 11:25-26 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 12:7 12:8 12:19-20 12:21 12:21 12:36 12:37 12:37 12:40 12:41-42 12:48 12:48 12:48 12:48 12:48 13:3 13:10 13:11 13:12 13:13 13:25 13:30 13:31-43 13:34 13:42 13:54 13:55 14:3 14:25 14:28-29 15:10-11 15:13 15:14 15:17-20 15:22 15:24 15:24 15:24 15:26 15:26 15:26 16:13 16:16 16:16 16:17 16:17 16:17 16:18 16:19 16:19 16:23 16:24 16:24 17:1-8 17:2-4 17:3 17:3 17:3-8 17:5 17:6 17:12 18:8 18:15 18:16 18:16 18:16 18:20 18:20 18:21-22 18:21-22 18:21-35 18:22 19:4 19:6 19:8 19:9 19:12 19:12 19:14 19:21 19:26 19:26 19:26 19:27-30 19:28 20:16 20:16 20:20 20:20-23 21:15 21:16 21:23 21:23 21:25 21:31 21:32 21:33-41 21:45 22:11-12 22:13 22:21 22:21 22:21 22:21 22:23 22:23-32 22:30 22:30 22:30 22:34-40 22:37 22:37 22:37-40 22:44 23:9 23:9 23:25-26 23:26 23:27 23:31 24:3 24:4 24:11 24:13 24:24 24:24 24:24 24:29 24:32 24:33 24:35 24:36 25:30 25:36 25:38 25:40 25:41 25:41 25:41 25:45 25:45 26:7-12 26:17 26:26 26:27-28 26:38 26:38 26:41 26:41 26:41 26:41 26:41 26:52 26:53 26:56 27:3-10 27:9 27:11-14 27:20-25 27:24 27:24 27:24-25 27:25 27:32 27:34 27:34-35 27:35 27:45 27:45 27:46 27:46 27:46 27:50-52 28:18 28:18 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19-20
Mark
1:2 1:4 1:4 1:9-11 1:19-20 1:24 2:5 2:8 2:8 2:14 2:21-22 4:34 4:34 4:36 6:1-9 6:3 7:15 7:27 8:34 8:38 8:38 9:4 9:6 9:37 10:14 10:29-30 10:35 10:52 11:30 12:17 12:18-27 12:28-34 13:32 14:12 14:12 14:13 14:21 14:31 15:1-5 15:8-15 15:21 15:33 15:37 15:38 16:9 16:15-16 16:18 16:19 16:19
Luke
1 1 1 1:1 1:11 1:20 1:22 1:26-38 1:27 1:31 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:37 1:41 1:41-45 1:42 1:43 1:46 1:47-48 1:52 1:52 1:52 1:62 1:63 1:76 1:76 1:78 1:78-79 2 2:1-7 2:1-7 2:8 2:13 2:22-24 2:23 2:25-33 2:25-35 2:32 2:34 2:34 2:36-38 2:49 3:1 3:1 3:1-2 3:4-5 3:4-6 3:11 3:12-13 3:21-22 3:22 3:22 3:49 4 4:8 4:14-18 4:16-30 4:18 4:22 4:23 4:24 4:27 4:27 4:27 4:27 4:27 4:29 4:30 4:31 4:31 4:32 4:32 4:33-34 4:34 4:40 4:40 4:41 4:42 4:42-43 5:1-11 5:10-11 5:12-14 5:14 5:16-26 5:27-39 5:29 5:31 5:31 5:34-35 5:36-37 6:1-4 6:5 6:7 6:9 6:12 6:13-19 6:14 6:20 6:20 6:20 6:20 6:21 6:21 6:21 6:21 6:22 6:22-23 6:23 6:24 6:25 6:26 6:26 6:27 6:27-28 6:28 6:29 6:29 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:30 6:31 6:31 6:34 6:35 6:35 6:36 6:37 6:37 6:37 6:37-38 6:39 6:39 6:40 6:40 6:41-45 6:43 6:43-44 6:46 7 7:1 7:1-10 7:3 7:7 7:11-17 7:16 7:16 7:18-23 7:20 7:21-22 7:25 7:25 7:26-27 7:27 7:28 7:29-30 7:36-50 8:8 8:11 8:16 8:17 8:17 8:18 8:18 8:18 8:18 8:19 8:20 8:20-21 8:21 8:25 8:28 8:30 8:43-46 8:48 8:48 9:1-6 9:7-8 9:10-17 9:20 9:20 9:21 9:22 9:23 9:24 9:26 9:26 9:26 9:28 9:28-36 9:30 9:33 9:35 9:35 9:41 9:47-48 9:51-56 9:51-56 9:56 9:57-58 9:58 9:59-60 9:59-60 9:59-60 9:62 10 10:4 10:4 10:5 10:5 10:7 10:9 10:11 10:11 10:16 10:18 10:18 10:19 10:20 10:21 10:21 10:21 10:21 10:22 10:22 10:22 10:23-24 10:25 10:25 10:25-28 10:27 10:27 11:1 11:2 11:3 11:4 11:5 11:5-8 11:5-9 11:8 11:9 11:9 11:9 11:9 11:11 11:11-13 11:14 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:21-22 11:27 11:27-28 11:27-28 11:29 11:29 11:30-32 11:33 11:37-52 11:39 11:40 11:41 11:42 11:42 11:46 11:47 11:48 11:49-51 11:52 12:1-21 12:2 12:4 12:5 12:6 12:8 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:11-12 12:13-14 12:16-20 12:16-20 12:22-24 12:22-28 12:23 12:24-27 12:27 12:28 12:28 12:28 12:29 12:30 12:30 12:30 12:31 12:31 12:32 12:35 12:35 12:36 12:38 12:39 12:41 12:41-46 12:49 12:50 12:50 12:51 12:53 12:56 12:57 12:58-59 13 13:1-5 13:15 13:20-21 13:25 13:25-28 13:28 13:28 13:29-35 14:12-14 14:14 14:16 14:18 14:18-20 14:21 14:23 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:26-27 14:27 14:28-30 15:1-10 15:3-6 15:3-7 15:7 15:8 15:8-10 15:10 15:11-31 15:11-32 15:11-32 15:29-32 16:9 16:11 16:12 16:13 16:13 16:13 16:15 16:15 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:18 16:19-31 16:19-31 16:23 16:23-24 16:23-24 16:26 16:26 16:29 16:29 17:1-2 17:3 17:4 17:10 17:11-19 17:12-14 17:14 17:15 17:17 17:19 17:19 17:20-21 17:21 17:25 17:26-30 17:32 18:1 18:1-8 18:2-3 18:7 18:7-8 18:9-14 18:10-14 18:16 18:18-20 18:19 18:19 18:20 18:21-22 18:22 18:27 18:27 18:27 18:31-33 18:38 18:38 18:39 18:40 18:42 18:42 18:42 19:1-10 19:8 19:9 19:9 19:10 19:10 19:10 19:12-13 19:20-24 19:22 19:27-47 19:41-44 20:4 20:4 20:5 20:6 20:8 20:8-18 20:16 20:19 20:20 20:25 20:25 20:27-33 20:27-38 20:33 20:34 20:35-36 20:35-36 20:35-37 20:36 20:36 20:36 20:36 20:36 20:37 20:37-38 20:38 20:39 20:41 20:41-44 20:49 20:50-51 21:1-22 21:7 21:8 21:8 21:9 21:9-11 21:12-13 21:12-14 21:16-17 21:19 21:19 21:20 21:22 21:23 21:24 21:25-26 21:25-26 21:26 21:26-28 21:27-28 21:28 21:29-30 21:29-31 21:31 21:31 21:31-33 21:33 21:33 21:34-35 21:34-38 21:35-36 21:36 21:37 21:37 21:38 22 22:3 22:7 22:7 22:10 22:15 22:15 22:15-20 22:19 22:19-20 22:20 22:22 22:28 22:28-29 22:29 22:30 22:34 22:40 22:42 22:47-49 22:54-62 22:61 22:66-67 22:67 22:69 22:70 22:70 22:71 23:1-2 23:2 23:3 23:7 23:8-9 23:13-25 23:25 23:26 23:31 23:33 23:43 23:43 23:44-45 23:45 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:46 23:47-55 23:51 24 24:1 24:3 24:4 24:4 24:6-7 24:13-19 24:21 24:25 24:25 24:26-27 24:27 24:37-39 24:39 24:39 24:41 24:42 24:44 24:45-48 24:47 24:49
John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-3 1:1-3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:6-36 1:9 1:9 1:12 1:13 1:13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:16-17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:21 1:23 1:29 1:29 1:29-34 1:33 1:36 1:49 1:49 1:50 2:1-10 2:1-11 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:5 2:16 2:19 2:21 3:5 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:13 3:14 3:14 3:16 3:17-18 3:30 3:30 3:30-31 3:31-32 3:35 3:35 3:35-36 4:2 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:12 4:20 4:22 4:23-24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:25 4:34 5:1-9 5:1-9 5:17 5:17-18 5:19 5:19-27 5:21 5:22 5:22 5:24 5:25 5:28-29 5:29 5:31 5:35 5:36-37 5:37 5:39 5:43 5:43 5:43 5:43 5:43 6 6:15 6:29 6:30 6:31 6:31-32 6:32 6:33 6:35 6:37-45 6:38 6:38 6:38 6:39 6:39 6:40 6:44 6:44 6:46 6:49 6:51 6:51 6:53 6:58 6:63 6:63 6:63 6:66 6:66 6:67 6:67 6:68 6:68 6:70 7 7:5 7:28-29 7:33 7:35 7:37-38 7:37-39 7:39 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:19 8:19 8:26 8:26 8:27 8:28-29 8:38 8:40 8:40 8:42 8:44 8:49 8:54-55 8:56 9:4 9:35-38 10:15 10:15 10:17 10:18 10:24 10:25 10:25 10:26-28 10:29 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:31-33 10:32 10:34 10:34-38 10:37-38 11:25 11:27 11:41 11:41-42 11:41-42 12:27-28 12:28 12:28 12:30 12:34 12:44 12:45 12:49 12:50 13:1 13:1-5 13:1-12 13:1-17 13:3 13:8 13:9-10 13:9-10 13:10 13:10 13:16 13:25 13:31 13:32 14:2 14:5-7 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9-10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:11 14:11 14:11 14:16 14:16 14:26 14:28 14:28 15:1 15:25 15:26 16:6-7 16:12-13 16:13 16:13 16:14 16:15 16:20 16:20 16:20 16:24 16:28 16:30 17:1 17:6 17:6 17:11 17:14 18:20 18:28 18:36 18:36 19:8-12 19:12 19:12 19:12-16 19:17 19:17 19:23-24 19:26 19:28 19:31 19:31 19:32-37 19:34 19:34 19:37 19:37 20:17 20:17 20:27 20:28 20:29 20:31 20:31 21:18 21:19 21:20 21:23 56
Acts
1:3 1:9 1:10 1:10 1:10-11 1:11 1:11 1:11 1:15-20 2:1-4 2:5 2:9-10 2:14 2:15 2:16-33 2:17 2:17 2:17-18 2:17-18 2:22 2:22 2:22 2:30 2:36 3:1 3:5 3:13 3:19-21 4:25-30 4:27 4:27 5:31 5:39 5:40 6:1-6 6:15 7:6 7:38 7:38-41 7:39-40 7:39-40 7:51-52 7:53 7:55 7:59 7:59-60 7:59-60 8:9 8:9-24 8:9-24 8:18-21 8:21 8:26-40 8:26-40 8:28 8:30 8:32 8:33 9:1-31 9:2 9:3-8 9:11 9:43 10:9 10:14-15 10:38 12:2 12:15 12:23 13:6-11 13:8 13:17 13:47 14:10 14:15-17 15:1-31 15:5-29 15:20 16:3 16:16 16:25 17:21 17:23 17:24 17:32 19:1-7 19:2 19:4 19:5 19:9 19:23 20:29-30 21:11 21:23-26 22:11 23:6 23:8 26:18 26:22 26:26 27:35 28:2 28:3
Romans
1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:7 1:8 1:16-17 1:16-17 1:18 1:18 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20-23 1:25 1:26 2:2 2:2 2:6 2:12-16 2:14 2:16 2:21 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:24 2:28 2:28-29 2:29 3:10 3:13 3:19 3:21-22 4 4:3 4:7 4:9 4:11 4:11 4:22 4:25 5:1 5:3 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:21 5:21 6:2 6:3-4 6:3-4 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:6 6:6 6:6 6:8 6:8 6:11 6:11 6:11 6:12-13 6:14-15 6:19-23 7:4 7:4 7:4-6 7:7 7:7 7:8 7:13 7:14 7:17 7:18 7:20 7:20 7:23 7:23 7:23 8:2 8:2-3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:3 8:5 8:5-13 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:8 8:8-9 8:9 8:10 8:10 8:11 8:11 8:11 8:11-10:2 8:12-13 8:17 8:17-18 8:18 8:19 8:20 8:21 8:32 8:32 8:35 9:5 9:5 9:5 9:10-13 9:20 9:28 9:32-33 9:32-33 9:33 10:2-4 10:10 10:14-17 10:15 10:17 10:18 10:18 10:21 11:18-21 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:33 11:34 11:34 11:34 11:34 11:34-35 11:34-35 12:1 12:1 12:9 12:9 12:10 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:19 12:19 12:19 12:19 13:1 13:1 13:4 13:4 13:6 13:8 13:9 13:9 14:17 14:23 14:23 15 15:12 16 16:16
1 Corinthians
1:3 1:3 1:10 1:10 1:11-12 1:12-15 1:14 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:19 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:21 1:21 1:22 1:23 1:23 1:24 1:25 1:25 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:29 1:31 2:2 2:6-7 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:14 2:14 3:1 3:3-4 3:6-9 3:10 3:10 3:11 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:18 3:19 3:19 3:19-20 3:21 3:21-22 3:22 3:23 3:25 4:5 4:5 4:7 4:9 4:15 5:1 5:4-5 5:5 5:5 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:11 5:13 5:13 5:13 6:2-3 6:3 6:3 6:11 6:13 6:14 6:15 6:15 6:15 6:19 6:20 6:20 6:20 6:20 7:3 7:7-8 7:9 7:10 7:10-11 7:13 7:14 7:14 7:14 7:20 7:27 7:29 7:29 7:29 7:31 7:31 7:34 7:34-35 7:39 7:39 7:39-40 8 8:2 8:4 8:4 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:5 8:6 8:10 8:10 9:1 9:7 9:9 9:9 9:9-10 9:10 9:13 9:13-14 9:15 9:16 9:19 9:20 9:20 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:25 10:2 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:6 10:6 10:6 10:7 10:7 10:7-10 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:14 10:19 10:21 10:23 10:25-27 10:27-29 10:28 10:32-33 11:1-16 11:3 11:3 11:3-16 11:4 11:5 11:5 11:5-6 11:7 11:7 11:9 11:10 11:10 11:10 11:10 11:10 11:14 11:14 11:16 11:18 11:18 11:18-19 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:19 11:23-29 11:25 12:1 12:1-11 12:4-11 12:4-12 12:8 12:8-11 12:12-30 12:23 12:26 12:31 13 13:1 13:3 13:12 13:13 14 14 14:15 14:20 14:21 14:25 14:26 14:32 14:34 14:34-35 14:34-35 15:3 15:3 15:3 15:3 15:3-4 15:3-4 15:4 15:4 15:8 15:11 15:11 15:12 15:12 15:12 15:12-18 15:13-18 15:14 15:17 15:18 15:19 15:21 15:21 15:22 15:23 15:24-25 15:25 15:25 15:26 15:27 15:27 15:27-28 15:29 15:29 15:29 15:30 15:31 15:32 15:32 15:35 15:35 15:36 15:37 15:37-38 15:37-38 15:38 15:38 15:39 15:39 15:39-41 15:40 15:41 15:41 15:41 15:41 15:42 15:42 15:42-43 15:42-43 15:42-44 15:44 15:44-45 15:45 15:45 15:45 15:45 15:45 15:45 15:45 15:46 15:46 15:46 15:46 15:46 15:47 15:47 15:47 15:47 15:48 15:48 15:49 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:51-52 15:51-53 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:53 15:54 15:54-56 15:55 15:55 15:55 15:55 16:20
2 Corinthians
1:3 1:3 1:8 1:21-22 1:22 2:10 3:6 3:6 3:7 3:7-8 3:13 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:18 3:18 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:6 4:6 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:8 4:8-12 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:11 4:11 4:14 4:14 4:14 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16-18 4:17-18 5:1 5:1 5:2-3 5:2-3 5:3 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:4 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:6 5:6-7 5:8 5:8 5:9-10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:10 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:17 6:7 6:14 6:14 6:16 6:17 7:1 7:5 7:5 10:4 10:13 11:2 11:3 11:13 11:14 11:14 11:14 11:14 11:14-15 11:23 12:2-4 12:4 12:4 12:5 12:7-8 12:9 12:9 12:9 12:9 12:10 13:1 13:1 13:1 13:1 13:2 13:10 13:12
Galatians
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:6 1:6-7 1:6-7 1:6-9 1:7 1:7 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8-9 1:10 1:11-24 1:13 1:15-16 1:18 1:24 2:1-2 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:3-4 2:4 2:4 2:4-5 2:9 2:9 2:9-10 2:10 2:12 2:12 2:12-13 2:13-14 2:14 2:16 2:16 2:18 2:19 3 3:1 3:6 3:6 3:6-8 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:9 3:11 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:15 3:15 3:15-4:3 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:19 3:22 3:26 3:27 3:27 3:29 4 4:3 4:3 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:5 4:5 4:6 4:8 4:8-9 4:9 4:9 4:10 4:19 4:21-26 4:22 4:24 4:26 4:26 4:31 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:2 5:5 5:6 5:6 5:7 5:10 5:11 5:12 5:12 5:14 5:16 5:17 5:17 5:19 5:19-21 5:20 5:21 5:26 6:2 6:7 6:7 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:10 6:14 6:17 6:17
Ephesians
1:9-10 1:10 1:10 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:19-22 1:23 2:1-2 2:2 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:11-12 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:15-16 2:16 2:17 2:17-20 2:20 2:20 2:20-21 3:8-9 3:10 3:14 3:17 4:4-6 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:8 4:8 4:9 4:11 4:16 4:22 4:22 4:22 4:22-24 4:25 4:25-32 4:26 4:26 4:26 4:26 4:27 4:30 4:30 4:31 5:5 5:5 5:8 5:11 5:11-12 5:18 5:19 5:22 5:23 5:23 5:24 5:25 5:28 5:29 5:31-32 5:31-32 5:31-32 5:32 5:32 6:1 6:2 6:4 6:11 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:14-17 6:17 6:18 6:18 6:19-20
Philippians
1:10 1:14-17 1:18 1:23 1:23 1:29-30 2:3 2:6 2:6 2:6-7 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:15 2:17 3:1-2 3:4-6 3:5 3:7 3:8 3:8 3:9 3:11-12 3:12 3:15 3:19 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20-21 3:20-21 3:21 3:21 4:3 4:6-7 4:8
Colossians
1:5-6 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:16 1:16 1:19 1:20 1:21 1:21 1:22 1:24 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:12 2:13 2:13 2:14-15 2:14-15 2:16-17 2:18 2:18-19 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:21 2:22 2:23 3:1-2 3:3 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:5
1 Thessalonians
1:9-10 1:9-10 2:15 2:19 3:13 4:3-4 4:4 4:5 4:8 4:11 4:13 4:13-17 4:13-17 4:15-17 4:15-17 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16-17 4:17 4:17 5:1-3 5:17 5:18 5:19-20 5:21 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:26
2 Thessalonians
1:4 1:6-8 1:8 1:8-9 1:9 2:1-7 2:3-4 2:4 2:8-10 2:9 2:10 2:10-12 2:11 2:13 3:6-12 3:10
1 Timothy
1:4 1:4 1:4 1:4 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:19 1:20 1:20 2:1 2:2 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9-10 2:11-12 3:1 3:16 4:1 4:1-3 4:3 4:3 5:3 5:9 5:10 5:17 5:21 5:22 5:23 6:3-4 6:10 6:10 6:13 6:13 6:14-15 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:20 6:20
2 Timothy
1:7 1:8 1:14 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:16-18 1:17 1:18 1:18 2:1 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:8 2:11 2:12 2:14 2:17 2:17 2:19 3:8 4:1-4 4:6 4:8 4:8 4:13 4:13 4:14 4:19
Titus
1:12 1:12 1:15 3:1 3:9 3:10 3:10-11 3:10-11 3:14
Hebrews
1:3 1:5 1:14 2:2 2:5-9 2:6-9 4:12 4:13 4:15 5:5-10 5:7 5:8 5:10 7:1-3 7:1-3 7:10 7:15 7:17 8:8-13 8:11 9:8 9:14 9:19 10:22 10:24 10:26-27 10:29 10:30 10:30 10:35 11:4 11:5 11:5 11:7 11:9 11:26 11:32-38 12:3 12:5-6 13:2 13:10 13:10-13
James
1:13 1:22 2:23 2:23 3:1 3:8 5:12 5:16 5:16 5:17-18
1 Peter
1:1 1:11 2:4 2:4-5 2:4-8 2:5 2:8 2:10 2:13 2:20 2:22 3:1-6 3:3 3:7 3:9 3:9 3:18-20 3:19 3:19 3:20 3:21 4:8 4:12 5:14
2 Peter
1 John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:2 1:3 1:5 2:19 2:22 3:2 3:9 3:15 3:16 3:20 4:1-3 4:2-3 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:3 4:12 4:15 4:18 5:1 5:6 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:12 5:16-17 5:18 5:21
3 John
Revelation
1:7 1:7 1:7 1:8 1:10 1:13 1:13 1:16 1:16 2:4 2:6 2:7 2:7 2:10 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:14-15 2:17 2:20 2:24 2:26-27 2:27 2:29 3:2 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:10 3:13 3:17 3:19 3:21 3:21 3:21 4:4 4:8 5:9 6:2 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:9-10 6:9-11 6:10 6:13 6:14 7:14 7:17 8:3-4 10:1 11:3 12:9 12:9 12:10 14:3 14:4 14:4 16 17 17:6 17:14 18 18:2 18:4 19:4 19:15 19:21 20:2 20:3 20:4-6 20:10 20:11 20:12-14 20:13-15 21:1 21:1 21:2 21:4 21:6 21:6 21:8 21:10-23 22:1 22:13 22:14 22:15 22:17 22:18-19
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon
Baruch
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
2 Esdras
i iii v 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 237 239 240 241 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 693 694 695 696 697 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718