Tertullian: Against Marcion, Books I–V

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 Rom. viii. 3 , must be referred not only to σάρξ , but also to the epithet τῆς ἁμαρτίας ” ( Greek Testament, in loc. ).

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 Rom. viii. 5–13 .

1 Cor. xv. 50 .

Non ad reatum substantiæ sed ad conversationis pertinebunt.

Rom. viii. 10 .

Understand “ corpus ” (Oehler).

Rom. viii. 11 .

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 Rom. viii. 11 to x. 2 . “However, we are informed by Origen (or rather Rufinus in his edition of Origen’s commentary on this epistle, on xiv. 23 ) that Marcion omitted the last two chapters as spurious, ending this epistle of his Apostolicon with the 23d verse of chap. xiv . It is also observable that Tertullian quotes no passage from chaps. xv., xvi . in his confutation of Marcion from this epistle” (Lardner).

Rom. x. 2–4 .

The god of the New Testament, according to Marcion.

Isa. i. 3 .

Isa. xxix. 13 (Sept.)

Ps. ii. 2 .

Rom. xi. 33 .

In fidem Christi ex lege venientem. By “the law” he means the Old Testament in general, and probably refers to Rom. x. 17 .

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 Rom. xi. 33 ; hence the argument in this sentence.

Isa. xlv. 3 .

Isa. xl. 13 , quoted (according to the Sept.) by the apostle in Rom. xi. 34, 35 .

Plane: ironically.

Rom. xii. 9 .

Ps. xxxiv. 14 .

Rom. xii. 10 .

Lev. xix. 18 .

Rom. xii. 12 .

Ps. cxviii. 9 .

Rom. xii. 12 .

Ps. xx. 1 .

Rom. xii. 12 .

Rom. xii. 16 .

Isa. v. 21 .

Rom. xii. 17 .

Lev. xix. 17, 18 .

Rom. xii. 19 .

Rom. xii. 19, quoted from Deut. xxxii. 25 .

Rom. xii. 18 .

Rom. xiii. 9 .

Ironically said. He has been quoting all along from Marcion’s text of St. Paul, turning its testimony against Marcion.

Matt. v. 17 .

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.

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).

1 Thess. ii. 15 .

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.

1 Thess. iv. 3, 4 .

1 Thess. iv. 5 .

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.

1 Thess. iv. 15–17 .

Gal. iv. 26 .

Isa. lx. 8 .

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.

Amos ix. 6 .

1 Thess. v. 19, 20 .

Nihil fecit. This is precisely St. Paul’s ἐξουθενεῖν , “to annihilate” (A.V. “ despise ”), in 1 Thess. v. 20 .

Formam.

Celebratur.

Si quando corpus in hujus modi prænominatur.

1 Thess. v. 23 . For a like application of this passage, see also our author’s treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis , cap. xlvii. [Elucidation I.]

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.

Circumferri.

Utriusque meriti: “of both the eternal sentences.”

2 Thess. i. 6–8 .

2 Thess. i. 8, 9 .

Crematoris Dei.

2 Thess. i. 8 .

Non omnibus scibilis.

2 Thess. i. 9 .

Isa. ii. 19 . The whole verse is to the point.

2 Thess. ii. 3, 4 .

The prophets of the Old and the New Testament.

1 John iv. 1–3 .

Solventes Jesum. This expression receives some explanation from the Vulgate version of 1 John iv. 3 : “Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum Christum ex Deo non est.” From Irenæus, Vol. I., 443 (Harvey, ii. 89), we learn that the Gnostics divided Jesus from Christ: “Alterum quidem Jesum intelligunt, alterum autem Christum,”—an error which was met in the clause of the creed expressing faith in “ One Lord Jesus Christ .” Grabe, after Socrates, Hist. Eccles. vii. 32, says that the oldest mss. of St. John’s epistle read πᾶν πνεῦμα ὅ λύει τὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν . If so, Tertullian must be regarded as combining the two readings, viz., that which we find in the received text and this just quoted. Thus Grabe. It would be better to say that T. read ver. 2 as we have it, only omitting ᾽Ιησοῦν ; and in ver. 3 read the old lection to which Socrates refers instead of πᾶν πνεῦμα ὅ μὴ ὁμολογεὶ .

2 Thess. ii. 9 .

Instinctum fallaciæ.

2 Thess. ii. 10–12 .

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.

2 Thess. ii. 11 .

Plagis: “heavy strokes,” in opposition to the previous “ beneficiis .”

Prædicationibus: see Rom. i. 20 .

Productus est.

Materia.

2 Thess. iii. 10 .

Deut. xxv. 4 .

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.”

Eph. i. 9, 10 .

Eph. i. 12 .

He explains “præsperasse by ante sperasse.”