|82

-------------------------------------------------
NOTES AND COMMENTARY
-------------------------------------------------

TITLE

In modern English 'flesh' has a more materialistic sound than
'body'. In Greek and in Latin the opposite is the case. Sw~ma
hardly ever seems to forget its Homeric meaning 'dead body',
and though both sw~ma and corpus come to signify the bodies of
living men and animals, they can also refer to the 'mass' of an
inanimate object. On the other hand sa&rc, caro, can only refer to
flesh actually or potentially alive: it denotes the material of which
the animate body consists, and in the case of actually living bodies
is understood to involve the soul, anima, that principle or entity
or ratio (differently conceived of by different philosophers, and
differently again by Christian theologians) which gives to the
material elements of the body their unity, life, and cohesion. The
subject of the present treatise is not the Body of Christ in either
the natural or the mystical or the sacramental sense of that phrase,
but his Flesh: that is, the substance, nature, attributes, and origin
of the whole of that human nature which the divine Word
assumed at the Incarnation. The question under discussion is one
of substance, even of material: not of body as the organized
vehicle and instrument of human life, but of the verity of the
whole human nature of Christ as involved in the statement that
his flesh is truly flesh and his soul is truly soul, both the one and the
other derived by natural descent from the progenitors of all
mankind.

CHAPTER I

Those who interpret 'resurrection of the dead' in such a sense as
to exclude the flesh are also disposed to make difficulties as to the
truth of Christ's incarnation: logically so, for if Christ's body
which rose again was of flesh such as ours, this constitutes a 
presumption that our bodies also will rise again. So we have to build
up our case from the point at which these break it down, and the

|83

purpose of the present discourse is to lay foundations for that
which will follow. Our subject here is the flesh of Christ, its
existence, its provenance, and its quality. The verdict in this case
will serve as precedent for the proof of our own resurrection. Our
adversaries are Marcion who denied Christ's flesh and his nativity,
Apelles who admitted the flesh while denying the nativity, and
the Valentinians and others, who profess to acknowledge both,
but in a non-natural sense. Actually Marcion, who alleged that
the flesh was 'putative', might just as well have acknowledged a
putative nativity and a putative growth to maturity.

1 istos Sadducaeorum propinquos. Tertullian supposes 
himself in court and refers to his adversaries as though they were
present. The Sadducees said there was no resurrection, neither
angel, nor spirit: Acts 23. 8.

2 moratam. This, followed by ita (Rigaltius), is undoubtedly the
right reading. Rhenanus, in the note quoted by Oehler, seems to
read the word as moratam (stabilem et firmam et inconcussam): so also
Oehler, whose index does not distinguish between the present
instance and De Pat. 4, moratus secundum dominum: De Anima 33,
integre morati: Adv. Marc. iv. 15, aliquid et cum creatore moratus nec
in totum Epicuri deus (which last is rightly interpreted in a note by
Rigaltius, Oehler ad loc.). Here however we must surely read
moratam; cf. Juvenal vi. 1 Pudicitiam Saturno rege moratam in terris
visamque diu, where the word stands for the non-existent past
participle of manere.

3 merito: logically, with good reason (as far as they are concerned). 
Cf. §4, si Christus creatoris est, suum merito amavit: §17,
si primus Adam ita traditur, merito sequens: and frequently. Cf. also
Novatian, De Trin. 10, quoted below on §2.

4 distrahunt. So all the MSS. except A (the oldest) which has
distruunt (an impossible word), on the strength of which Mercer,
followed by Kroymann, reads destruunt, which they observe
occurs in the following sentence. This would be good enough
stylistic reason for it not to occur here, and in any case the
sentences are not parallel. Here the point is that the flesh of
Christ is pulled asunder with inquisitions, like a body on the rack:

|84

for quaestio can mean either a judicial inquiry (as in the republican
quaestiones perpetuae) or the examination of slave witnesses by
torture: e.g. Cicero, pro Milone 21. 57, facti enim in eculeo quaestio
est, iuris in iudido. In the following sentence there is a change of
metaphor: Tertullian supposes that the aspirations of the flesh for
eternal life (carnis vota) are being pulled down or dismantled
(destruunt), and that it is his business to lay again their foundations
(praestruere) by establishing the verity of Christ's flesh and of its
resurrection. For the metaphor from building-works cf. Adv.
Marc. II. i, aliud subruere necesse habuit ut quae vellet exstrueret: sic
aedificat qui propria paratura caret: and De Res. Carnis 4, statim
incipiunt et inde praestruunt, dehinc interstruunt.

4 tanquam aut nullam omnino. This was the view of 
Marcion, who regarded everything material as the work of the creator,
the enemy of the good god, and therefore evil. Consequently
in his view Christ, the representative of the good god, could
not have been in possession of a real body, and that which he
seemed to have was none at all. Cf. Adv. Marc. v. 20 for the
Marcionite comment on Philippians 2. 6, plane de substantia Christi
putant et hic Mardonitae suffragan apostolum sibi quod phantasma
carnis fuerit in Christo, cum dicit quod in effigie dei constitutus non
rapinam existimavit pariari deo sed exhausit semetipsum accepta effigie
servi, non veritate, et in similitudine hominis, non in homine, et figura
inventus homo, non substantia, id est non carne. Tertullian in reply
quotes Colossians 1.15, 'image of the invisible God', and remarks
that if the Philippians text means that Christ is not truly Man,
then the Colossians text must mean that he is not truly God.

4 aut quoquo modo aliam. Marcion's disciples apparently so
far improved on their master's teaching as to admit that there is a
certain celestial matter or substance which is not evil, and suggested 
that Christ's flesh was of stellar origin: cf. §6, de sideribus,
inquiunt, et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem.
Others, apparently not Marcionites but Valentinians, were of
opinion that Christ's flesh was constituted of condensed (or 
otherwise transmuted) soul. Marcion's view is discussed §§1-5, his
disciples' §§6-9, the others' §§10-16. Quoquo modo would

|85

naturally mean 'in any and every way', 'at all events', as in
§12 (twice) and Adv. Marc. II. 9, quoquo tamen, inquis, modo substantia 
creatoris delicti capax invenitur cum afflatus dei, id est anima, in
homine deliquit: it is echoed here by omni modo, 'in every way',
'at all events', later in the sentence. But conceivably Tertullian
could have written quoquo when he meant aliquo,' in some way or
other', and that may be his meaning here.

7 carnis vota. Oehler compares De Res. Carnis 4, nimirum haec
erunt vota carnis recuperandae, iterum cupere de ea evadere. But the
sentences are not parallel. Here carnis vota (a subjective genitive)
are the hope of the flesh concerning its own future: vota carnis
recuperandae (an objective genitive) are the soul's hope that it will
be again united to the flesh from which death has separated it.

8 examinemus . . . certum est. Tertullian perhaps had in mind
Quintilian, Inst. Orat. xii. 3. 6, omne ius quod est certum aut scripto
aut moribus constat: dubium aequitatis regula examinandum est: where
Lewis and Short (s.v. examine, ad fin.) are wrong in saying that
the reference is to judicial examination: rather it is to the advocate
preparing his case, and examinare (as in Tertullian) has not lost its
primary sense of 'weigh', 'estimate the value of'.

9 caro quaeritur etc. This reading, with the common 
punctuation of these sentences, is almost certainly right. The second
hand of T, and Mesnart, have carnis (dependent on veritas), which
makes sense, though not the best sense. It is not true that the
verity of Christ's flesh was being sought for, but that the flesh
itself was the subject of a judicial inquiry (quaestio). The subject
of the present treatise (retractatur) is its verity (an fuerit) and its
quality, which last involves the two further questions of its
origin (unde fuerit) and its attributes (cuiusmodi fuerit). Kroymann's
punctuation, with a semicolon after eius, spoils the rhythm of the
sentence without affecting the meaning. Qualitas is practically the
same as natura, the essential attributes by which an object is what
it is, but with a further suggestion of the worth or dignity attendant 
upon that: see a note on §3 periculum enim status sui.

11 renuntiatio eius. Kroymann wrongly observes, hoc est
responsio carnis. Renuntiatio cannot mean a speech in reply to an

|86

accusation or in support of a plea: it means the official declaration
either of the result of an election or (as here) of the judicial verdict.
Eius is an objective genitive, standing not for carnis but for veritatis. 
Cf. Cicero, Pro Murena 8. 18, non eundem esse ordinem
dignitatis et renuntiationis, propterea quod renuntiatio gradus habeat,
dignitas autem sit persaepe eadem omnium. The verdict passed 
concerning the verity of Christ's flesh will constitute a leading case
(dabit legem) concerning our own resurrection: for (as already
observed) it is really our resurrection which these people wish to
impugn when they deny that Christ's flesh is of the same origin
and quality as ours.

13 invicem sibi testimonium responderent (A), the 
superficially more difficult reading, looks like the original: it is 
perfectly good Latin, of Tertullian's kind, though sufficiently unusual
to have provoked variants. Testimonium redderent (T) has the
appearance of an attempt at interpretation. The other readings are
evident conflations, and serve merely to show that both the older
variants were known to the copyists of M and P. Kroymann's
invicem sibi responderent hardly meets the case, for it means no
more than 'correspond' or 'form the counterpart of one another'.
What is required is not mutual correspondence but mutual testimony, 
and that is what A gives us. For other senses of respondere
cf. Apol. 9, cum propriis filiis Saturnus non pepercit, extraneis utique
non parcendo perseverabat, quos quidem ipsi parentes sui offerebant et
libentes respondebant (either 'acceded to his demand' or, more
probably, 'answered in the affirmative the priest's challenge as to
whether they were making a willing gift'): De Corona ii,
credimusne humanum sacramentum divino superduci licere et in alium
dominum respondere post Christum, a reference to the responsio fidei at
baptism.

15 licentia often retains its natural sense of 'permission': e.g.
De Exhort. Cast. 8, multum existimo esse inter licentiam et salutem:
de bono non dicitur 'licet', quia bonum permitti non expectat sed assumi:
so also Ad Uxorem I. 2, per licentiam tunc passivam materiae subsequentium 
emendationum praeministrabantur, 'general permission',
and Adv. Marc. I. 29, vacat enim abstinentiae testimonium cum licentia

|87

eripitur. But there are places where it means a permission assumed
rather than granted, something of the nature of presumption, as
seems to be the case here, and at Adv. Marc. i. 3, an duos deos liceat
induct poetica et pictoria licentia, et tertia iam haeretica.

16 Apelles, according to Hippolytus, Philos. vn. 38, said that
Christ ou0k e0k parqe/nou gegenh~sqai, ou)de\ a1sarkon ei)nai . . . a)ll'
e0k th~j tou~ panto_j ou)si/aj metalabo&nta merw~n sw~ma pepoihke/nai,
toute/sti qermou~ kai\ yuxrou~ kai\ u(grou~ kai\ chrou~. For his relation
to Marcion see De Praescr. Haer. 30.

18 confessus, the reading of most MSS., should probably be
retained. Professus (T Kroy.) is the wrong word in this context.
Its correct use is of things personal to the professor, e.g. artem
aliquam, philosophiam, etc. Its appearance here will be due to
editing by T or his archetype, on the ground that confessus is too
good a word for the supposedly insincere admission of a truth:
hence the substitution of professus in its medieval sense 'pretend to
acknowledge'. For confiteri in this sense cf. Adv. Marc. i. 6, deum
vero confessus utrumque (sc. et potiorem et quem credit minorem) duo
summa magna confessus est.

18 aliter illas interpretari: so ATB^mg. : illis of the other MSS.
makes no evident sense. According to Irenaeus, whose account of
the matter is adopted by Tertullian and Hippolytus, the Valentinian 
doctrine was briefly this: There are two Christs, both of
them distinct from (though one of them comes into a loose
association with) Jesus. The superior Christ, who is, and must
remain, totally unknown to any except his four superiors in the
pleroma, is the last-born fruit of the pleroma. Along with his
consort Holy Spirit he was emitted by Mind, after the expulsion
of Achamoth, with the function of teaching the aeons that Abyss
and Silence, the primary aeons, are forever unknowable and
incomprehensible. This gospel of the unknowable so delighted
the aeons that each of them contributed the best it possessed, and
the combination of all their gifts produced Jesus, the perfect fruit
of the pleroma. The lower Christ is in no way connected with the
above. He was fabricated by Craftsman, the non-divine creator of
the world, and (like his maker) is of 'spiritual' (i.e. non-divine)

|88

constitution. This Christ appeared on earth in an 'animal' body,
i.e., a body constructed of soul (anima), being born 'through'
(not 'of') a virgin. At his baptism in Jordan he was taken
possession of by that composite almost-divine Jesus-Saviour. In
this manner the Valentinians, admitting Christ's flesh, 'otherwise
interpreted it' as being constructed of soul: and, admitting his
nativity, they could explain it in any or all of four ways—as 
confection by all the aeons, as fabrication by Craftsman, as birth
through a virgin, or as possession by Jesus-Saviour descending in
the form of a dove. The third of these, birth through a virgin, in a
body constructed of soul, is chiefly in Tertullian's mind here and in
§§10-16. The above description is condensed from Tertullian,
Adv. Valentinianos, Irenaeus, Haer. I, Hippolytus, Philos. vi.

19 sed et must be retained. Kroymann, without MS. authority,
writes scilicet, which is out of place in introducing an author's
explanation of his own remarks, its proper function being to
indicate his deductions (with which he suspects the other will not
agree) from the theories or expressions of his adversary. The
sentence refers to Marcion, who denied the flesh of Christ by
alleging it to be merely putative, and (removing all Matthew and
the beginning of Luke from the Gospel) denied the nativity
altogether, suggesting that Christ appeared on earth full-grown,
without antecedents, by the bank of Jordan in the fifteenth year
of Tiberius Caesar, in a form which was not flesh, but merely
looked like it. Tertullian retorts that he might just as well have
retained the nativity, arguing that it was only a phantasm of a
nativity in the same way as what had all the appearance of flesh
was merely putative flesh. Cf. Adv. Marc. iii. 8, phantasma vindicans 
Christum; and below, iam nunc cum mendacium deprehenditur
Christus caro, sequitur ut et omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt
mendacio gesta sint, congressus, contactus, convictus, ipsae quoque
virtutes: and again, sic nec passiones Christi eius (sc. Marcionis) fidem
merebuntur: nihil enim passus est qui non vere est passus: vere autem
pati phantasma non potuit.

20 nativitatem (A Oeh. Kroy.) receives support from mendacium
Christus caro in the previous quotation: all the other MSS., with

|89

Rhenanus and Mesnart, have nativitatis, which makes no difference
to the general sense, but runs better with phantasma confingere and
may be what Tertullian wrote.

21 infantis ordo, 'birth and growth of the Child': cf. Adv. Marc.
iv. 21, where ordo appears in the same connexion: quando nec 
confusionis materia conveniat nisi meo Christo, cuius ordo magis pudendus
ut etiam haereticorum conviciis pateat, omnem nativitatis et educationis
foeditatem et ipsius etiam carnis indignitatem quanta amaritudine possunt
perorantibus. Oehler, in a note to De Pud. 9, ordinem filii prodigi,
suggests that ordo means 'narrative', which in some cases is
possible, but not at Adv. Marc. iv. 7, reliquum ordinem descensionis
expostulo, 'the concomitants of that alleged descent'.

22 tw~| dokei=n haberentur. Kroymann marks a lacuna here,
which he suggests should be filled out with magis esse quam haberent
ut eosdem etc. If this meant what it is supposed to mean, it would
indicate that Tertullian was a partial, but not a thoroughgoing,
docetist: which is not the case. Also it would throw fefellissent
into the wrong tense. The sentence is perfectly clear, and no
alteration is called for.

23 elusit, T (and, by implication, A) Rig. Oeh. Kroy.: the other
authorities have illusit. The sense required is apparently 'mocked
at', 'played tricks with', which would be illusit (which would
require a dative object, as at Tacitus, Ann. xvi. 1): eludere more
commonly means 'escape by guile', as at Petronius 97, scrutantium
eluderet manus (like Ulysses escaping from the Cyclops), but it
can approach to the sense here required, as at Tacitus, Hist. I. 26
quaedam apud Galbae aures praefectus Laco elusit. For the general
sense cf. Adv. Marc. v. 20 (commenting on Philippians 2. 8) et
mortem crucis: non enim exaggeraret atrocitatem extollendo virtutem
subiectionis quam imaginariam phantasmate scisset, frustrate potius eam
quam experto, nec virtute functo in passione sed lusu.

CHAPTER II

Marcion repudiates the prophecies, and deletes from his gospel the
narratives, of Christ's conception, birth, and childhood. We can
guess his reasons for this, while denying his authority to do it.

|90

If he is a Christian he ought to believe the Christian tradition.
But he is not a Christian: his own action in denying the Christian
belief he once held at once shows this and proves that that former
belief is older than the heresy he has invented, and is therefore the
original belief, and is the truth. This appeal to antiquity is my
standing refutation of all heresies, and would of itself be sufficient
in the present case: yet, to fortify my argument still further, I
proceed to examine the reasons he alleges.

1 quid illi etc. Cf. Adv. Marc. v. 6, quid illi cum exemplis dei
nostri? Similar phrases frequently occur. On the rejection of the
Old Testament cf. Adv. Marc. I. 19, separatio legis et evangelii
proprium et principale opus est Marcionis. Gabriel, though mentioned
in the Gospel (but in those chapters which Marcion rejected),
belongs to the original creation and not (Marcion would say)
to the father of Marcion's Christ. Adnuntiatur, in the language
of the public spectacles, would refer to the (spoken) programme:
inducitur to entrance on the scene: but the theatrical metaphor is so
remote as to be almost out of view.

2 et in virginis utero etc. Utero (TB) (since inducitur follows)
is more likely to have been altered to uterum than conversely.
Conceptus, balancing nativitas, will be the substantive, not the
participle: there is no question of the child conceived being introduced 
into the womb, but rather of Isaiah's prophecy concerning
conception in a virgin's womb bringing that fact to public notice.

2 cum [Esaia) propheta creatoris? Esaia (XR) may be a
marginal note on propheta. A reads cum esset a propheta creatoris,
which is meaningless. For esset a TB (followed by Kroymann)
have essentia (omitting propheta), which is almost as meaningless,
for what has the essence of the Creator to do with the present
subject? The passages of Quintilian referred to by Kroymann
simply state that essentia was a word newly invented by Sergius
Flavius or by Plautus the Stoic: they have no relevance to the
present passage. Evidently Tertullian's point is that though we
refer to Gabriel and Isaiah for testimony to the reality of the
nativity and conception, Marcion repudiates both, as belonging
to the older dispensation: for according to him the new dispensation

|91

began, not with any annunciation, but with the unheralded
appearance of Christ at the baptism in Jordan. Cf. Adv. Marc. i.15,
at nunc quale est ut dominus anno xii Tiberii Caesaris revelatus sit? and
ibid. 19, anno xv Tiberii Christus Iesus de caelo manare dignatus est,
spiritus salutaris. This discrepancy in the dates is explained by
referring xii to the beginning of the ministry, xv to Pentecost:
but Luke 3. I has 'fifteenth year' for the former (unless perhaps
Marcion altered it to 'twelfth'). See also Adv. Marc. iv. 7 (quoted
in the following note).

3 qui subito etc. Cf. Adv. Marc. iii. 2, atquin nihil putem a deo
subitum, quia nihil a deo non dispositum. Novatian, De Trin. 10,
ut merito haereticorum istorum testamenti veteris auctoritatem respuentium 
nescio cui commenticio et ex fabulis anilibus ficto Christo atque
fucato passim vere et constanter dicere, Quis es? unde es? a quo missus
es? quare nunc venire voluisti? quare tails? vel qua venire potuisti?
vel quare non ad tuos abisti, nisi quod probasti [leg. probas te] tuos non
habere dum ad alienos venis? etc. Novatian's argument is that the
Incarnation was the climax of a long preparation and the fulfilment 
of many prophecies: like Tertullian, he observes that
Marcion's Christ comes without preparation (subito) and as a
trespasser upon another's property. Cf. Adv. Marc. i (passim) and
iv. 7, anno xv principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem 
Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris in quod de suo
ante descenderat... apparere subitum ex inopinato sapit conspectum qui
semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit... quid autem illi
cum Galilaea, etc.?

4 aufer hinc, inquit, etc. These will not be supposed to be
Marcion's actual words: it is a common enough rhetorical trick
to put words into one's opponent's mouth which may reasonably
be supposed to express the consequences of his thought.

6 deum suum etc. As the angels belonged to the Creator's
dispensation it would have been their own God whom they
praised if Luke 2. 14 had been included in Marcion's gospel.
Viderit etc. seems to mean: 'What they meant by this, and what
particular bearing it has on nativity, is their own concern, and I,
Marcion, refrain from inquiring into it.' AF, followed by Oeh.,

|92

Kroy., read, dominum: Tertullian usually, but not invariably, says
deus for the Father and dominus for the Son: by this rule, in view
of Luke 2. 14 deum would be correct, unless perchance honorans
refers not to the angels' song in particular, but to their presence in
honour of the new birth. Noctibus = noctu, as Kroymann observes:
but De Cor. 11 is not in point, as the sense there is distributive.

8 glorietur, i.e. at having his prophecy fulfilled: Jer. 31. 15,
quoted at Matt. 2. 17.

10 oblationis. I have adopted this reading of TB with some
hesitation: it is an obvious correction for anyone to make who
found obligations in his text, whereas there seems no reason for a
change in the other direction. Sumptu obligations would mean
'the expense to which the Law bound them', with a reference to
the thrice repeated 'Law of the Lord' in Luke 2. 22-24.

11 senem moriturum... contristet has the more abundant
MS. testimony. Tertullian makes Marcion misunderstand the
text. Simeon was not sad at the approach of death, but relieved at
the prospect of departure.

12 ne fascinet puerum. According to the superstition (still
current on the continent, and not unknown in parts of England)
the evil eye is put upon children by their having kind words
addressed to them by strangers, especially old women. Cf. De
Virg. Vel. 15 (quoted in part by Oehler): nam est aliquid etiam apud
ethnicos metuendum, quod fascinum vacant, infeliciorem laudis et gloriae
enormioris eventum: hoc nos interdum diabolo interpretamur, ipsius est
enim boni odium: interdum deo deputamus, illius est enim superbiae
iudicium, extollentis humiles et deprimentis elatos. The latter, however,
is not 'evil eye', but more akin to what Homer calls ne/mesij.

12 originalia instrumenta. Instrumentum means documentary
authority: Lewis and Short give examples of this sense from
Quintilian and Suetonius: so also Apol. 18, instrumentum litteraturae,
'literary evidence', i.e. the Old Testament (where Oehler gives a
number of parallels). For originalia cf. De Praesc. Haer. 21, ecclesiis
apostolids matricibus et originalibus fidei, 'seedbeds and nurseries of
the faith': De Monog. 7, vetera exempla originalium personarum,
referring back to ibid. 6, sed adhuc nobis quaeramus aliquos originis

|93

principes, 'our spiritual fathers from whom we trace our origin',
e.g. Adam, Noah, St Paul, Abraham in respect of faith, not of
polygamy, Joseph, Moses, Aaron: Apol. 21, dudum Iudaeis erat
apud deum gratia ubi et insignis iustitia et fides originalium auctorum, 'in
so far as they continued in the notable righteousness and faith
of the patriarchs from whom they took their origin': Adv.
Marc. ii. 9, nec potest (inquis) non ad originalem summam referri
corruptio portionis—in Marcion's view, the fall of man, resulting
from the corruption of that breath of life, the soul, which the
Creator breathed into Adam, proves that the originalis summa, the
original account on which (so to speak) the cheque was drawn,
i.e. the substance of the Creator, is delicti capax (which to Tertullian 
is blasphemy): Adv. Hermog. 19, ad originale instrumentum
Moysi provocabo, 'Moses' narrative of the creation'. So here
originalia instmmenta are the documents which testify to Christ's
origin, the nativity stories of the Gospel, which are as it were his
birth-certificate, and which Marcion has presumed to suppress.
At De Anima 3, by argumentations originales, id est philosophicas, we
must understand not (as Junius suggests) theories drawn from
natural principles, but theories which the philosophers have 
constructed concerning the origins of things.

14 ex quo, oro te: etc. Oehler's correction of A (quo for qua)
is apparently intended to mean, 'Since how long ago, pray?',
and gives a good sense in conformity with Tertullian's general
criticism of the recent emergence of the heresies: cf. e.g. De
Praesc. Haer. 30, where however we have ostendant mihi ex qua
auctoritate prodierint. Kroymann, with more than his usual felicity,
takes the reading of TX, adding exhibe from A, ex qua oro te
auctoritate? exhibe, which could find parallels in Cicero, e.g. Pro
Flacco 32. 78, litteras...quas ea de muliere ad me datas...requisivit:
recita (though here recita is addressed to the clerk of the court).
For the general sense of the passage cf. Adv. Marc. i. 21, exhibe
ergo aliquam (sc. ecclesiam) ex tuis apostolici census et obduxeris... non
esse credendum deum quem homo de suis sensibus composuerit, nisi plane
prophetes, id est non de suis sensibus: quod si Marcion poterit did,
debebit etiam probari.

|94

15 si apostolicus. Cf. De Praesc. Haer. 32, 33, where the
following phrases occur, in this order: aetas apostolica: ecclesiae
apostolicae (plural): ab apostolis in episcopatum constitutes apostolici
seminis traduces: apostolica doctrina: apostolicus (sc. vir): apostolici
(viri). Also Adv. Marc. i. 21, apostolica traditio: apostolic census
ecclesiam: ibid. IV. 2, apostolicos (Mark and Luke, as distinguished
from Matthew and John): ibid. v. 2, scriptura Apostolicorum (the
Acts). Also De Pud. 21, exhibe igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica 
exempla, ut agnoscam divinitatem, addressed to the Roman
pontiff, with whose policy concerning second marriages Tertullian 
does not agree: apparently the pope described himself as
apostolicus: possibly so also did Marcion, with less justification.

16 si tantum Christianus es, for dummodo Christianus sis, seems
somewhat lame, but is not impossible: si autem (T) and si 
tantummodo (F) seem to be editorial attempts at improvement.

20 rescindendo quod retro credidisti: cf. Adv. Marc. i. 1,
non negabunt discipuli eius primam illius fidem nobiscum fuisse...ut
him iam destinari possit haereticus qui deserto quod priusfuerat id postea
sibi elegerit quod retro non erat: ibid. iv. 4, adeo antiquius Marcione est
quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit. To
the same effect De Praesc. Haer. 30, with a brief history of the
various sects.

Retro is Tertullian's regular word for antea: he even says retrosiores 
for aetate priores (Apol. 19). There is precedent for it in
Horace, Carm. iii. 29. 46, non tamen irritum | quodcunque retro est
efficiet, neque | diffinget infectumque reddet | quod fugiens semel hora vexit.
But there may be a Christian reason for Tertullian's practice. The
ancients, facing with hopeless longing towards a vanished golden
age, regarded the past as in front of them (e1mprosqen, antea) and
the future as behind them (o1pisqen, postea). The Christian,
looking for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world
to come, takes the opposite view: and, in spite of the inveterate
usage of the Latin language, the change of thought is reflected
in Tertullian's vocabulary. Philippians 3. 13 ta_ me\n o)pisw
e0pilanqano&menoj toi=j de\ e1mprosqen e0pekteino&menoj (a metaphor 
from running a race) may have influenced Tertullian to the

|95

regular use of a word which Horace used in this sense only once.
But I am not aware that other Christian writers copied him: nor,
for that matter, does modern English.

21 et nostri probant: wrongly omitted by Kroymann: what
he means by saying that they break the rule of the clausula is not
clear: they have precisely the same rhythm as those he leaves by
removing them. The circumstances are those referred to Adv.
Marc. i. i, non negabunt discipuli eius primam illius fidem nobiscum
fuisse, ipsius litteris testibus: cf. ibid. iv. 4, quid nunc si negaverint
Marcionitae primam apud nos fidem eius adversus epistulam quoque
ipsius? quid si nec epistulam agnoverint? certe Antitheses non modo
fatentur Marcionis sed et praeferunt: ex his mihi probatio sufficit.
It is not clear what this letter was. It can hardly have been a
profession of faith exacted by the Roman church on Marcion's
arrival from Pontus: there is no evidence that at that date or for
centuries later any church exacted such written professions, even
from the clergy. It appears from the second quotation (above)
that the Marcionites denied the authenticity of the letter, so that
Tertullian is prepared to waive it and prove his point from the
Antitheses alone.

24 aliter fuisse is intelligible, though somewhat concise, and
need not be altered. Kroymann inserts creditum tibi, meaning
presumably abs te creditum: there is no need for it. Cf. De Praesc.
Haer. 38, ex illis (sc. scripturis) sumus antequam aliter fuit, antequam a
vobis interpolarentur, where the text is doubtful: ibid. 30, quidquid
emendat ut mendosum retro alterius fuisse demonstrat, where Ursinus'
suggestion of anterius would simply duplicate retro, so probably
read and punctuate ut mendosum, retro aliter fuisse etc.: ibid. 32,
nisi illi qui ab apostolis didicerunt aliter praedicaverunt.

29 ex abundanti retractamus. The general rejection of all
heresies on the ground of their recent emergence would have been
sufficient to cover this present case: but, offering more proof
than our cause strictly requires, we proceed to discuss Marcion's
reasons for denying Christ's nativity. Tertullian dislikes argumentation, 
but he will use it under protest to prepare the way for
scriptural exposition: cf. Adv. Marc. i. 16, nunc enim communibus

|96

plurimum sensibus et argumentationibus iustis secuturae scripturarum
quoque advocationi fidem sternimus. Cf. Quintilian, Inst. Orat. iv. 5.
15, egregie vero Cicero pro Milone insidiatorem primum Clodium
ostendit, tum addidit ex abundanti, etiam si id non fuisset, talem tamen
civem cum summa virtute interfectoris et gloria necari potuisse: ibid. v.
6. 2, the wise litigant will not rest his case on his own affidavit,
nor will he challenge his adversary to that course, but will prove
his case on argument or testimony and will introduce the affidavit,
if at all, ex abundanti.

CHAPTER III

Marcion's reasons for denying Christ's nativity can only be either
that to God such a birth is impossible or else that it does not be-
seem him. We discuss first the question of impossibility, on
which we observe: (1) That to God nothing is impossible except
that which is not his will, and thus we have to inquire whether
this was his will. We submit that if it had not been his will to be
born he would have abstained from showing himself in human
form and thus giving the impression of having been born: for
this would have been a false impression, unworthy of God.
(2) There is no force in the objection that it was enough that
Christ should know the truth about himself, and that it was men's
own fault if they received a false impression of him: the fact
would remain that he had forfeited our confidence by giving the
false impression. (3) Ill-founded also is the suggestion that if he
had really been born and had truly taken manhood upon him,
that is, if God had really been changed into man, he would have
ceased to be God. In ordinary cases, we admit, by changing into
something else a thing ceases to be what it was. But God, being
unchangeable, is not subject to this law, and it is in his power to
change into man without ceasing to be God. (4) We add that
angels are reported to have assumed real human bodies and yet
remained angels: if angels have this power (and they, according to
Marcion, belong to an inferior God), a fortiori Marcion's superior
god must have it. And Marcion dare not say that these angels
had only a phantasm of a body: for this would put the Creator's
angels on a level with Marcion's Christ. (5) Similar was the case

|97

of the Holy Spirit descending in bodily form as a dove—except
that this is not in Marcion's gospel. If asked what afterwards
became of those bodies, we answer that they were withdrawn
into the nothingness from which they had been brought into
being: and, in any case, what the Scripture says must be true.

1 quatenus stands for quandoquidem: cf. Apol. 19, habetis quod
sciam, et vos sibyllam, quatenus appellatio ista verae vatis veri dei
passim super ceteros qui vatidnari videbantur usurpata est. Hoc, the
judgement which Marcion considered himself competent to
make, non natum esse Christum. Arbitrium is strictly speaking a
judgement in equity concerning not the fact of obligation but the
amount: cf. Cicero, Pro Rosc. Com. 4. 10, iudicium est pecuniae
certae, arbitrium incertae. It is from the other (also classical) sense of
arbitrium, 'power', 'authority' (e.g. Tacitus, Ann. vi. 51, rei
Romanae arbitrium, the imperial power), that we obtain the
expression liberum arbitrium, 'freedom of choice'.

3 voluerit is the reading of all the MSS. Ursinus, followed by
Kroymann, reads noluerit, wrongly. The catch is in the particle an.
Tertullian uses these interrogative particles in ways peculiar to
himself: e.g. Apol. 1 (Hoppe, line 15), an = nonne: ibid. 9 (line 37),
necubi = annon alicubi: ibid. 19 (line 65) and frequently, non =
nonne: ibid. 35 (line 24), ne forte = an forte. Here an stands for
annon, and no alteration is called for.

4 compendium may prossibly be used here in its original sense of
weighing two things in the same balance: Lewis and Short give
several examples. The two questions, whether God was incompetent, 
and whether it was unseemly, could be treated as one. God
did consent to give the impression of manhood, and consequently
of having been born. That establishes the seemliness of it: and as
God's veracity requires that the impression given should correspond 
with the truth, we have also the answer to the question of
fact, and therefore of competence as well as seemliness. But the
question of seemliness is pursued further in the following chapter.
It appears then more likely that compendium here means a short
cut: cf. Adv. Marc. I. 1, nunc quatenus admittenda congressio est,
interdum ne compendium praescriptionis ubique advocatum diffidentiae

|98

deputetur, regulam adversarii prius retexam, ne cui lateat in qua
principalis quaestio dimicatura est: ibid. ii. 29, quodsi utraque pars
bonitatis atque iustitiae dignam plenitudinem divinitatis efficiunt omnia
potentis, compendia interim possum Antitheses retudisse.

10 illud is in all MSS. except A, and should no doubt be
restored. Kroymann rightly indicates that it is the object of
patiatur, not the subject of interest: but his reading falsam (sc.
opinionem) is unnecessary and unjustified. On the sentence as a
whole cf. Adv. Marc. i. 11, quid ergo tantopere notitiam sui procuravit,
ut in dedecore carnis exhiberetur, et quidem maiore si falsae? nam hoc
turpius, si et mentitus est substantiam carnis.

11 conscientia in common Latin usage is either (a) joint 
knowledge, knowledge shared with others, or (b) consciousness, or
(c) a good or bad conscience (not necessarily with bona or mala).
In Tertullian it seems to take its meaning from the Pauline text
(1 Cor. 4. 4) ou)de\n ga_r e0mautw~|, and to indicate that
which one is conscious of in one's own judgement of oneself,
though it may not of necessity be within the cognisance of others.
Cf. Adv. Prax. 13, ceterum si ex conscientia ('that private Christian
knowledge') qua scimus dei nomen et domini et patri et filio et spiritui
sancto convenire deos et dominos nominaremus etc. The word appears
again at the end of the following sentence almost in its modern
sense of 'conscience'.

15 quantum ad fiduciam etc. This reading of A is apparently
correct. Quam tu, of the other authorities, is somewhat lame, and
tu is redundant. Fiducia apparently means our confidence or trust
in Christ: 'If his birth and his manhood were an acted lie, how
could we trust him in anything?' From Apol. 39, fidem sanctis
vocibus pascimus, spem erigimus, fiduciam figimus, it seems likely that
fides refers to the formal content of the faith, while fiducia is the
Christian's personal trust in Christ.

19 hominem vere induisset. Homo is Tertullian's regular
word (and in this he is followed by the other Latin fathers, 
including St Augustine) for Christ's human nature, with nowhere
any suggestion that the use of this term might be mistaken (in a

|99

Nestorian sense) to indicate a distinct human person. Cf. Adv.
Prax. 30, hominem eius, and my note.

20 periculum enim status sui etc. Cf. Adv. Marc. I. 6, non
est autem dei desinere de statu suo, id est de summo magno. Status, I
have suggested elsewhere (Adv. Prax., Introduction, pages 50-53),
represents the copulative verb in so far as it introduces attributes
which are essential and permanent, and constitute the natura of an
object: in that case, it also involves the idea of stability. And as
substantia represents the existential verb, being the thing as it is in
itself, in the case of God both substantia and status are ex hypothesi
indestructible and eternal: and as status represents the sum total
of the necessary attributes, the properties, the meaning here is that
whatever it is that God does with himself there is no danger of his
losing all or any of those properties (of eternity, immortality, etc.)
by which as God he is distinguished from all that is not God:
if there were, it would be conceivable that he could amittere quod
erat dum fit quod non erat.

21 conversum. Cf. Adv. Prax. 27, quaerendum quomodo sermo
caro sit factus, utrum quasi transfiguratus in carne an indutus carnem,
and the answer to this question there given. On the term con-
versum and its subsequent rejection I venture to refer to my note
on the above passage (page 320) and to my Introduction, pages 72,
73: to which I would now add that it seems possible that it was
Marcion who said conversum, and that Tertullian, to avoid com-
plicating the argument, accepts the word without protest and (for
the moment) argues from it without remarking on its un-
suitability.

24 non competit ergo etc. A alone has eius cui (T is here
defective). Kroymann's (inexact) quotation from Ad Nat. i. 5
is apparently intended to show that competere can be used 
absolutely, to mean 'is possible'—which is true enough, though the
clause quoted does not exemplify this.

25 ea lege est is conceivably equivalent to a verb of commanding, 
and so is followed by ne instead of the more correct ut
non: cf. Adv. Marc. i. 3, conditions, et ut ita dixerim lege quae summo
magno nihil sinit adaequari.

|100

27 nihil deo par est literally means that nothing is on a level
with God: from which it follows that there is nothing which can
be used as an analogy to suggest that what happens to it in certain
circumstances will happen to God in like circumstances: cf. Adv.
Marc. I. 4, de deo agitur, cuius hoc principaliter proprium est, nullius
exempli capere comparationem, quoting Isaiah 40. 18, 25, and adding,
divinis forsitan comparabuntur humana, deo non ita: aliud enim deus,
aliud quae dei.

27 ab omnium rerum conditione: so ATP, the others having
condicione. The words are often confused, not by Tertullian, but
by his copyists. See a separate note, p. xxxix, in which it is suggested 
that conditio (when it does not mean the act or process of
creation, or the created world or rerum natura) refers to those
natural attributes or relationships which accrue to an object by
virtue of its natura, but looking outward rather than inward:
whereas condicio refers also to outward relationships, but of a more
fortuitous or transitory character. Here apparently conditione is
correct, (a) as contrasting the natural attributes of things with the
essential attributes of God, and (b) as suggesting that, being
created things, they will necessarily be subject to influences to
which the Creator is not subject.

30 diversitas means more than 'difference': in many cases
'opposition' will not be too strong, as in the common expression
diversa pars, 'my opponents'. Here the suggestion is that just
because created things are in this way affected by change, the
opposite must be the case with God, and that he cannot be
affected, even by change.

33 quorum utique etc. In the clause as usually punctuated
ut (added by Kroymann before in omnibus) seems necessary, unless
(as is very unlikely) utique can stand for sicut. But this makes
a very ugly sentence, and probably the easiest way out is to correct
the punctuation, placing a colon after non est.

34 angelos creatoris etc. The narrative of Genesis 18 and 19,
if carefully read, indicates that the Lord appeared to Abraham
accompanied by two angels: that after Abraham's hospitality
and the conversation with Sarah the two angels went away to

|101

Sodom while the Lord remained behind in conversation with
Abraham: that the angels alone entered into Sodom and rescued
Lot: and that when they had come out of the city the Lord rained
fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven and destroyed it.
It was assumed by Tertullian (as by Justin and by practically all
commentators until the fourth century) that the Lord here is God
the Son—a point however upon which Tertullian does not insist
in the present context, being concerned only to refute the
Marcionite suggestion about the angels. His observations here are
a summary of what he writes Adv. Marc. iii. 9, where his argument 
is as follows: Marcion's suggestion that the flesh of Christ
can be taken to have been putative because the angels appeared to
Abraham and to Lot in phantasmate, putativae utique carnis, must be
rejected, because (1) non admitteris ad eius dei exempla quem destruis,
for, the better and more perfect you suppose your god to be, the
less do the Creator's precedents apply to him: (2) The angels' flesh
was not putative, it being just as easy for God to provide veram
substantiam carnis as to exhibit real sensations and actions in putative 
flesh: (3) Marcion's god, who has created no flesh (nor anything 
else), might perhaps be allowed a phantasm of flesh, whereas
our God, who had made flesh out of clay, would have been able
to make for the angels flesh out of any material he wished: for it
was much easier for him to do this than to make the world out of
nothing, by his mere word: (4) The God whom Marcion acknowledges 
promises to men veram substantiam angelorum (Luke 20. 36):
why then shall not our God have given to the angels veram substantiam 
hominum, undeunde sumptam? (5) The verity of their flesh
is attested by three witnesses, sight, touch, and hearing: and it is
more difficult for God to deceive than to produce true flesh, undeunde : 
(6) Other heretics allege that the angels' flesh ought to have
been born of flesh: we reply that their flesh had to be human for
purposes of human converse, but needed not to be born because
the reason for their appearance was not (as Christ's was) to reform
our nativity by nativity and to destroy our death by resurrection:
for which reason Christ himself appeared to Abraham in veritate
quidem carnis, sed nondum natae quia nondum moriturae, sed et discentis
iam inter homines conversari: (7) Since 'he maketh his angels spirits

|102

(breaths or winds) and his apparitors a flaming fire', truly winds
and truly fire, he also made them truly flesh.

38 adeo detinebatur. It does not appear from Oehler's or
Kroymann's data who was responsible for this obvious correction
of the MSS. a deo. T's reading is easy to explain, and may safely
be disregarded.

39 inferioris dei . . . potentiori deo. It is necessary (though,
in view of his language, not always easy) to remember that
Tertullian's God, the God of Christians, is the Creator of the
world, the God of the Old Testament as well as of the New.
Expressions such as the present (which are sufficiently frequent)
are therefore ironical, arguing against Marcion on Marcion's own
ground. Cf. Adv. Marc. i. 11, nam et quale est ut creator quidem
ignorans esse alium super se deum... tantis operibus notitiam sui
armaverit...ille autem sublimior sciens inferiorem deum tam instructum
nullam sibi prospexerit agnoscendo paraturam? Also ibid. ii. 1, nam
qui in inferiorem deum caecutis, quid in sublimiorem? and ibid. ii. 27,
si enim deus, et quidem sublimior, tanta humilitate fastigium maiestatis
suae stravit ut etiam morti subiceret, et morti amis, cur non putetis
nostro quoque deo aliquas pusillitates congruisse? The above reading
(of A alone) is therefore undoubtedly correct.

42 hominem indutus: see above, hominem induisset.

43 sed non audebis etc. Precisely because Marcion has ascribed
to Christ a phantasm of flesh, he is bound to maintain that the
flesh assumed by the angels was real: otherwise there will be
parallel action between the New Testament and the Old, and it
will follow that the same God is responsible for both—which
Marcion would not care to admit. A specious argument, but
hardly convincing.

48 qui spiritus cum esset. Hoc is without meaning, and must
be removed, as Mesnart suggested. Spiritus here is a general
term, the predicate of the sentence, 'and though he was spirit'.
From John 4. 24, deus spiritus est, Tertullian deduces that 'spirit'
is a generic term descriptive of the divine being, the kind of
'substance' God is. The meaning here is that although (or because)

|103

the Holy Spirit who descended upon Jesus was God, he was no
less truly a dove than he was God, yet his assumption of that new
thing which he had not previously been, involved no destruction
of that divine Thing which is unalterably himself. Cf. Adv.
Prax. 26.

55 corporis soliditas. Cf. Cicero, De Nat. Deorum I. 19. 49,
who says that according to Epicurus the gods are perceived non
sensu sed mente, nec soliditate quadam nec ad numerum ut ea quae
ille propter firmitatem stere/mnia appellat, sed imaginibus similitudine 
et transitione perceptis. This is probably the sense Tertullian
has in mind here. For other meanings of solidus see a note on § 6.

CHAPTER IV

Having disposed of the suggestion of impossibility, we turn to the
complaint of unseemliness. It is possible to make great play with
the inconveniences, even the sordidness, of conception, pregnancy,
childbearing, and infancy. These are really sacred things, the
concern of all men alike, and those who think ill of them despise
our common humanity—which indeed Christ did not despise,
but loved it, redeeming it at great cost. In loving our humanity
he loved all that appertains to it, nativity and flesh included, for
these are inseparable from it. During his ministry he cleansed the
flesh from all manner of diseases, and finally from death itself.
If he had appeared among men in a form lower than human, this
in our human judgement might have been accounted foolish.
But 'God hath chosen the foolish things of the world'—and what
is it that the world counts as foolish? Not, surely, the conversion
of mankind from idolatry and their instruction in all virtues, but
that God should be born, born of a virgin, born in human
fashion with all its inconveniences. In spite of the fables of its
mythology the world can imagine no greater foolishness than
this.

2 corporatio seems to be a new coinage. Swma&twsij is used by
Hermes Trismegistus (apud Stobaeum, Eclog. I, page 730) for the
eternal fact or process by which bodies are brought into existence
so as to be the object or instrument of the eternal operations of

|104

science and art: for since science and art are eternal there must
eternally exist, or be coming into existence, in the transcendental
sphere, bodies for them to work on. This is certainly not what
Tertullian means by the word: the whole tenor of his argument
shows that by corporatio he means not the genesis of a body but the
assumption of one, either fabricated for the purpose, as in the
Theophanies, or drawn from the stock of Adam, as in the Incarnation. 
The word in this sense is a synonym of incarnatio, and by
implication scriptural: though it remains conceivable that in the
present context it is due not to Tertullian but to Marcion, who
may have wished to becloud the Incarnation by the use of a term
borrowed from an alien philosophy.

3 perora, age iam etc. Cf. Adv. Marc. iii. 11, age iam, perora,
in illa sanctissima et reverenda opera naturae, invehere in totum quod es.
Tertullian is an inveterate plagiarizer from himself. Cf. Adv.
Marc. iv. 20, where it is objected that Marcion's Christ, being
incapable of these indignitates, must also be incapable of confusio,
quoting Luke 9. 26, 'Of him shall the Son of man be ashamed.'

5 coagula etc. The punctuation used in the text seems to be
the best: Kroymann's is ingenious, but breaks the flow of the
sentence. All difficulty would disappear if we could insert sordes
after carnis.

6 in diem (TB) should perhaps be restored, if only on the 
principle that the longer text is usually the correct one.

9 honorandum is almost certainly correct: cf. infra, ham
venerationem naturae, and Adv. Marc. iii. 11, quoted above. 
Horrendum (T) gives exactly the wrong sense, as horres, in the next
sentence, shows.

10 utique et oblitum. dedignaris quod etc. So I read, and
punctuate, following exactly neither set of authorities. Ablutum
would also make sense, 'even when he has been washed you
despise him because he is straightened out etc.' But the more
forcible word is better: Tertullian is making Marcion insist to the
full on the unseemliness of the process.

16 certe Christus dilexit etc. Cf. Adv. Marc. I. 14, postremo
te tibi circumfer, intus ac foris considera hominem: placebit tibi vel hoc

|105

opus dei nostri quod tuus dominus, ille deus melior, adamavit, propter
quem in haec paupertina elementa de tertio caelo descendere laboravit,
cuius causa in hac cellula creatoris etiam crucifixus est: and ibid. i. 29
(of Marcion's god, who forbids marriage), quomodo diligit cuius
originem non amat?

20 magno redemit, from i Cor. 6. 20, h0gora&sqhte ga_r timh~j,
where Lat. vg. has pretio magno: cf. ibid. 7. 23, timh~j h)gora&sqhte
(Lat. vg. pretio empti estis).

26 qui redemit. Qui, my own correction of what I took to be
a misprint in Oehler, seems also to have occurred to the corrector
of T.

31 si revera etc. This piece of bad taste is not without parallel:
it neither can nor need be excused. Opinor is commonly used
ironically, of an opinion attributed to the adversary, but with
which the writer does not agree: here the suggestion is the
writer's, and neither party ought to have entertained such an idea.

34 de nostro sensu etc. So I read, following A. We have a
perfect right, even a duty, to judge according to our own best
mind concerning things it is suggested that God might have
done. If any alteration is needed, it is the substitution of est for si
or sit before plane stultum.

35 si tamen non delesti. Marcion retained this text, 1
Corinthians 1. 27, 28. Cf. Adv. Marc. v. 5, etiam Marcion servat.
quid est autem stultum dei sapientius hominibus nisi crux et mors
Christi? quid infirmum dei fortius homine nisi nativitas et caro dei?
ceterum si nec natus ex virgine Christus nec carne constructus, ac per hoc
neque crucem neque mortem vere perpessus est, nihil in illo fuit stultum
et infirmum, nec iam stulta mundi elegit deus ut confundat sapientiam
etc. Tertullian often quotes this text: e.g. De Praesc. Haer. 7,
de ingenio sapientiae saecularis quam dominus stultitiam vocans stulta
mundi in confusionem etiam philosophiae ipsius elegit.

45 apud. For the practical equivalence of apud and penes, cf.
De Anima 14 and Waszink's note. At Apol. 17, desinunt tamen
Christiani haberi penes nos, it appears that penes has quite lost its
'internal' significance.

|106

CHAPTER V

Since we are speaking of 'foolish things', things supposedly
unworthy of God, are not the passion of Christ, and its accompaniments, 
more foolish in appearance even than his birth and incarnation? 
Why does not Marcion excise these? Possibly because, as a
phantasm, Christ can have had no sensation of them. Therefore
we have to ask, was Christ really crucified, and did he really die?
If not, the apostle was at fault in claiming to know nothing save
Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and in insisting that he was buried
and that he rose again. In such a case our faith also is false and
our hope in Christ is a phantasm: also Christ's murderers will be
excusable, for they will be found not to have really killed him.
But all this is simply to deny the world's only hope. Our faith
has to have something for men to be ashamed of—else why did
our Lord warn us of the consequences of being ashamed of him?
It is precisely these things that can be considered a matter of shame :
yet how can they have been real in him, unless he was real in himself, 
having real flesh like ours? This in fact was the reason for his
becoming the Son of Man, that he might have wherewith to
suffer these indignities: and he cannot have been man without
flesh, or have possessed flesh without birth from a human parent,
any more than he can have been God without the divine substance, 
begotten of God as Father. This is how he is presented to
us, at the same time God with divine powers and man subject to
human weaknesses, his miracles showing the one, his passion
showing the other. It is not permissible to make out that Christ
was half a lie, for he is wholly the Truth: his manhood must be as
real as his godhead, and manhood involves human birth and the
possession of a body like ours. On his own testimony we may
not think of him as a phantasm, either before his resurrection or
after: and Marcion in particular has no right to think so, for he
derives his Christ from a god wholly good and candid and
veracious. But Marcion's Christ ought not to have come down
from heaven, but out of a troupe of wonder-working magicians—
except that, even so, he would have been a real man.

|107

[This is one of the most lucid sections of Tertullian's work, in
which his Latin flows with unwonted ease and perspicuity. There
was therefore the less reason for Kroymann to have disturbed the
text with a multitude of alterations of words and punctuation.
The text printed is that commonly received, with perhaps one or
two minor improvements.]

7 sed non eris... credendo. This sentence, as Kroymann
remarks, is not necessary to the argument. But it is precisely the
kind of aside which would have been interpolated by a pleader
making a speech with his adversary present: and this is what
Tertullian is pretending to do.

8 passiones... non rescidisti. Marcion retained St Luke's
narrative of the passion, though he excised the parting of the
garments so as to avoid the acknowledgement of Psalm 22. See
Adv. Marc. iv. 40-42 for Tertullian's comments which (except for
the tone of voice in which they are made) seem entirely justified.
Apparently Marcion said that 'the Christ' deserted the phantasm
of a body at the supposed moment of death, and returned to
heaven: he omitted to consider what it was that was left behind,
or what it was for which Joseph provided burial—though this too,
with the narrative of the Easter appearances, was retained in his
gospel.

9 diximus retro, i.e. in §1.

10 nativitatis... imaginariae. Imaginarius apparently in this
connexion means no more than 'unreal': cf. De Corona 13, omnia
imaginaria in saeculo et nihil veri: so Adv. Marc. iii. 8, 11 caro
imaginaria. But there are places where it (still meaning 'unreal')
refers to the imaginary (supposedly real) entities of the gnostic
ideal worlds; e.g. Adv. Val. 27, ita omnia in imagines urgent, plane
et ipsi imaginarii Christiani: and other places where it seems to
mean imaginative (if I understand these two passages aright) in a
reprehensible sense, as at De Monog. 10, the widow habet secum
animi licentiam, qui omnia homini quae non habet imaginario fructu
repraesentat, and Adv. Val. 17, of the conceptual effects of Achamoth's 
imagination.

|108

11 interfector may conceivably have the sense assigned to it
by Tertullian's compatriot Appuleius, in the phrase interfectae
virginitatis.

11 crucifixus est deus: so all the MSS. except T, which has
dominus: but cf. passiones dei, deum crucifixum, above. The whole
context requires deus.

15 igitur means 'in that case', and there is no need to make the
present sentence into a question. It is the necessary deduction
from an affirmative answer to the questions preceding.

20 qui me confusus fuerit: Mark 8. 38, Luke 9. 26, conflated
with Matthew 10. 32. Cf. Apol. 4, bonorum adhibita proscriptio
suffundere maluit hominis sanguinem quam effundere, 'is more a
matter of exaction than of execution'. Confusus, for pudore
suffusus, unknown in classical and pagan Latin, appears first in
the versions of the above texts. As appears from Irenaeus, Haer.
iii. 19. 4, the verb can be active, or deponent (with an accusative
object), or passive: et confusurum qui confundentur confessionem eius
...a Christo confundentur. It belongs to that class of expressions
which developed in the popular speech which lies behind the
biblical versions, and is older than Christian Latin literature,
having become necessary in view of the new Christian attitude
towards certain moral acts or experiences. The Roman was 
incapable of personal shame or personal repentance: the most he
could arrive at was the impersonal pudet me, poenitet me. Christians
found that impersonality was not good enough, and developed
expressions like confusus sum, poenitentiam ago (which does not
mean 'do penance') to describe what was to them a personal act.
Rigaltius, and subsequent editors, altered me of the MSS. to mei,
apparently to balance eius in the following clause: the versions of
the Gospel all read confusus me fuerit... confundetur eum: Rönsch,
Itala und Vulgata, p. 354, makes no mention of genitive government.

23 bene impudentem. On first reading this (in Oehler's text)
I thought there was possibly a misprint for bene imprudentem,
which would balance better with feliciter stultum: but cf. non
pudet etc., below. Imprudens and impudens were often confused

|109

by the copyists: cf. e.g. Cicero, De Lege Agraria ii. 17. 46, an is
impudenter populo Romano per legis fraudem surripiatur, where
Lauredanus rightly suggests imprudente: ibid. iii. 2. 5, multo 
impudentior, where one group of MSS. have (wrongly) imprudentior:
ibid. iii. 2. 8, nemo est tam impudens istorum, where all the MSS.
have imprudens (corrected by Naugerius).

30 novit, almost equivalent to potest, is unusual in Latin,
especially with a non-personal subject. Tertullian may have been
copying the Greek idiom, e.g. Demosthenes, Phil. 1. 40, proba&l-
lesqai d' h2 ble/pein e0nanti/on ou1t' oi]den ou1t' e0qe/lei. Posse to
Tertullian is a matter of power: whereas being born, and dying,
are in a sense a restraint of power, for which nosse is more suitable.
See the critical note for a possible difference of reading and
punctuation.

33 nisi si aut aliud etc. The sequence of thought is perfectly
clear, and no alteration is called for. It is admitted that Christ is
'man' and 'son of man', for so it is written in St Luke's Gospel.
If then, as Marcion demands, we deny the obvious deduction
from this, that Christ was possessed of human flesh, we need to
find some other means of justifying those expressions: which can
only be either (a) that 'man' signifies not human flesh but 
something else, or (b) that human flesh can have some origin other
than human birth, or (c) that Christ's mother is not human, or
(d) that the father of Marcion's Christ, Marcion's 'good god',
is human. The second and third suggestions are hardly in point
here: but they fill out a good rhetorical sequence, and there is no
reason for thinking that Tertullian did not write them.

37 nec deus sine spiritu dei. 'Spirit', once more, means the
divine substance: see above on §3, qui spiritus cum esset.

38 utriusque substantiae census, a pregnant expression, very
difficult to translate. Census means both origin, and the rank or
quality which depends upon origin. Perhaps 'the rank (or
quality) deriving from the two substances'.

40 quae proprietas conditionum etc. Cf. Adv. Prax. 27,
secundum utramque substantiam in sua proprietate distantem...et adeo

|110

salva est utriusque proprietas substantiae ut spiritus res suas egerit in
illo...et caro passiones suas functa sit, where Tertullian's argument
is that the facts of the case, recorded in the Gospel and referred to
by St Paul, preclude us from thinking that the Incarnation involved 
such a confusion or mixture of godhead and manhood as
would have produced neither the one nor the other but something
in between. Proprietas does not mean 'property' in any sense
involving possession, but the fact that each of the substances, and
the conditiones, is what it is and is not the other. On conditio see a
note on page xxxix.

44 perinde is the reading of A: the other authorities have
proinde. There are indications that, either by second-century
writers or by their medieval copyists, the two words were either
confused or treated as equivalent, as in several places in this
treatise. In the Medicean codex of Tacitus proinde occurs several
times in the sense of perinde: e.g. Hist. ii. 27, haud proinde id
damnum Vitellianos in metum compulit quam ad modestiam composuit:
ibid. ii. 39 and 97, where Rhenanus in the editio princeps substituted
perinde.

46 maluit, credo, nasci etc. Cf. Adv. Prax. 11 (with C. H.
Turner's brilliant emendation), unum tamen veritus est, mentiri
veritatis auctorem semetipsum et suam veritatem. I have ventured to
write credo for the MSS. crede or credi (the latter is certainly
wrong): though with some hesitation, for in Latin oratory this
interjected credo seems to be usually ironical, and not to express
the speaker's real opinion: e.g. Cicero, Phil. x. 7. 15, qui autem
hos exercitus ducunt? ei credo qui C. Caesaris res actas everti, qui
causam veteranorum prodi volunt: and ibid. 9. 18, non sunt enim
credo innumerabiles qui pro communi libertate arma capiant.

57 ecce fallit etc. This theme is developed more fully Adv.
Marc. iii. 8, especially: et ideo Christus eius, ne mentiretur, ne falleret,
et hoc modo creatoris forsitan deputaretur, non erat quod videbatur et
quod erat mentiebatur, caro nec caro, homo nec homo, proinde deus
Christus nec deus: cur enim non etiam dei phantasma portaverit?...
quomodo verax habebitur in occulto tam fallax repertus in aperto?...
iam nunc cum mendacium deprehenditur Christus caro, sequitur ut et

|111

omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt mendacio gesta sint, congressus, 
contactus, convictus, ipsae quoque virtutes... sic nec passiones
Christi eius (sc. Marcionis) fidem merebuntur: nihil enim passus est qui
non vere est passus, vere autem pati phantasma non potuit. eversum est
igitur totum dei opus etc. The subject is continued ibid. iii. 10, and
frequently recurs.

60 nec deum praeter hominem. Tertullian regularly uses
praeter as a conjunction ( = nisi), e.g. De Res. Carn. 22, nec ulli
praeter patri notum: Adv. Prax. 13, nemo alius praeter unus deus. But
I can find no parallel to the present case, where praeter is equivalent
to sine.

CHAPTER VI

Some of Marcion's disciples (of whom Apelles is one) are prepared 
to admit the reality of Christ's flesh, while still denying
that it was born. Apelles' informant is alleged to have been an
angel who spoke in (or to) the woman Philumena: the apostle (at
Galatians 1. 8) has provided us with a reply to this. Their statement 
is that Christ 'borrowed' flesh from the substances of the
superior world, and they support it by pointing out that in the
Scriptures angels are reported to have assumed human bodies
without being born. But (1) since they have assigned the Old
Testament to a god whose works they repudiate, they have no
right to apply its precedents to their own god. However, we
shall not press this objection, for our case is strong in itself.
(2) The purposes in those cases were different from the purpose of
Christ's incarnation. Christ came with the intention of dying
(which the angels did not) and consequently must needs be born.
And in fact, on the occasions referred to it was the Lord himself
who appeared in flesh not yet born because not yet to die. (3) Yet
since our adversaries do not admit that it was the Lord who thus
appeared, we shall challenge them to prove their case as if it were
angels. This they cannot do, for it is not so written: and we for
our part are justified (in default of contrary evidence) in suggesting 
that the angels' bodies were created out of nothing for each
occasion. (4) Neither are we told what happened to those bodies
afterwards, and so may well be right in suggesting that they

|112

reverted to the non-existence from which they came. (5) Even if
we should allow that those bodies were formed out of some
material, it is more natural to suppose it to have been material
from the earth than from heaven, for they fed on earthly food.
And if it is objected that heavenly bodies could feed on earthly food
no less than earthly bodies on the manna that came from heaven,
we revert to our primary contention that the circumstances, like
the purposes, of Christ's incarnation were different from these,
and demanded a real birth as a precondition of a real death.

The question of the nature and origin of the corporal substance
assumed by the angels who appeared to Abraham and to Lot
(Genesis 18, 19) is discussed Adv. Marc. iii. 9, under the following
heads: (a) The Marcionite postulate of a superior and more perfect
god demands that his methods also should be better than those of
the Creator, his presumed inferior: and consequently non admitteris
ad eius dei exempla quem destruis. (b) We do not admit that the
flesh assumed by those angels was putative: for if it was easy for
the Creator (as Marcion alleges) to have provided the semblance
of putative flesh, it was even easier for him, being the creator of
human flesh, to provide actual human flesh to act upon the perceptions 
of the observers, (c) Marcion's god (i.e. not the Creator),
being incapable of creation, would necessarily have to produce a
phantasm, being unable to provide the reality: whereas our God,
who formed flesh in the beginning out of the dust of the ground,
could equally well have formed flesh for the angels out of any
material whatsoever, (d) As the Marcionite gospel (Luke 20. 36)
records the promise that men will possess angelic substance, what
is to prevent our God from making angels possess human substance 
undeunde sumptam? (e) As Marcion does not feel bound to
explain from whence this angelic substance will be derived, neither
are we bound to explain the origin of that human substance, but
are at liberty to postulate its real impact upon the three senses of
vision, touch, and hearing: difficilius deo mentiri quam carnis 
veritatem undeunde producere, licet non natae. (f) The flesh assumed by
the two angels was true flesh, as also was that of the Lord who
appeared with them: but in neither case would it have been

|113

proper for that flesh to be produced by process of birth. For
birth is the antecedent of death, and the angels were not going to
die, as neither was the Lord at that time. Afterwards, when the
Lord came with intent to die for our redemption, he would obtain
his flesh by birth: but the time for that was not yet. The angels,
therefore, neque ad moriendum pro nobis dispositi brevem carnis commeatum 
non debuerunt nascendo sumpsisse, sed undeunde sumptam et
quoquo modo omnino dimissam, mentiti eam tamen non sunt. (g) Since
the Creator 'maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flaming
fire', he is equally capable of making them flesh, (h) And finally,
the promise of reshaping men into angels (Luke 20. 36) is made
by the same God who had in former time shaped angels into men:
from which it appears that the same God is the God of both
Testaments.

The argument of the present chapter covers only the section
numbered (f) of the foregoing analysis. The suggestion that the
bodies of the angels may have been created especially for the
occasion seems to be Tertullian's own. The statement that one of
the three who appeared to Abraham was the Lord himself appears
in Justin Martyr and remains common form until the fourth
century (cf. supra, p. 100): it undoubtedly provides the most
reasonable account of the narrative. Cf. Adv. Prax. 14, and my
note (page 269). Irenaeus, Haer. iv. 14, referring to Genesis 18. 1
says deum... qui in figura locutus est humana ad Abraham, without
going more fully into the matter.

4 de calcaria in carbonariam. This ancient equivalent of
'out of the frying-pan into the fire' is not in the Adagia of Erasmus,
and seems to be otherwise unknown.

7 solidum Christi corpus. Solidus is used by Tertullian in two
senses: (a) 'Solid', as opposed to hollow, ethereal, or unstable:
e.g. Adv. Val. 16, exercitata vitia (sc. of Achamoth) et usu viriata
confudit (sc. Soter) atque ita massaliter solidata defixit seorsum in
materiae corporalem paraturam: Adv. Marc. iii. 9, caro verae et solidae
substantiae humanae: so also De Exhort. Cast. 2, solida fides, and
here, solidum corpus, 'a body in three dimensions', (b) In a sense
derived from testamentary usage, 100 per cent: e.g. Ad Uxor. I. 1,

|114

tu modo ut solidum capere possis hoc meae admonitionis fideicommissum
deus faciat: De Monog. 16, aliud est si apud Christum legibus Iuliis
agi credunt, et existimant caelibes et orbos ex testamento dei solidum non
posse capere ( = haeredes ex asse fieri non posse): hence De Monog. 3,
etiam si totam et solidam (complete and entire) virginitatem sive
continentiam paracletus hodie determinasset, ut ne unis quidem nuptiis
fervorem carnis despumare permitteret: and De Res. Carn. 36, solidam
resurrectionem (i.e., as appears from the context, utriusque substantiae 
humanae).

8 suscepit ab ea carries an unobtrusive reference to the Roman
father's act of lifting up his wife's child from the ground and thus
acknowledging it as his own: the two preceding words make it an
oxymoron.

8 et angelo quidem etc. Cf. Adv. Marc. iii. 11, nam et Philumene 
illa magis persuasit Apelli ceterisque desertoribus Marcionis ex fide
quidem Christum circumtulisse carnem, nullius tamen nativitatis, utpote
de elementis eam mutuatum. The citation of Galatians i. 8 is repeated
from De Praesc. Haer. 6, where there is the comment, providerat
iam tunc spiritus sanctus futurum in virgine quadem Philumene angelum
seductionis transfigurantem se in angelum lucis, cuius signis et praestigiis
Apelles inductus novam haeresim induxit (? introduxit): cf. ibid. 30,
where the angel becomes an energema.

11 his vero quae insuper etc. The apostolic text being sufficient
to rebut the claim to angelic inspiration, our own task is to controvert 
their supporting arguments. On argumentantur see a note
on §17 (page 156).

12 seqq. Kroymann's reconstruction of this passage is rash and
unnecessary: the traditional text makes perfectly good sense.
Moreover he is wrong in his observation that qualitas idem fere
quod substantia: Tertullian is too careful with his words for this
kind of equivocation, and ex ea qualitate in qua videbatur stands, by a
common enough ellipsis, for ex eius qualitatis materia in qua 
videbatur.

22 sed utantur etc. Here, as frequently elsewhere, Tertullian
will not insist on his praescriptio, having a sound case on other

|115

and more general grounds. Cf. Adv. Prax. 2, sed salva ista praescriptione 
ubique tamen... dandus est etiam retractatibus locus, etc.

28 comparent velim et causas etc. Causa, except where it
means an action at law, seems to be used by Tertullian almost
always for the final cause or purpose, while ratio refers to the
precedent cause or preliminary reasoning: these two aspects of
the same matter are indicated below, consequens erat, immo praecedens, 
etc. So also §10, et hic itaque causas requiro, where, once
more, final causes alone are brought under review. Cf. Adv.
Marc. ii. 4, videbimus causas quae hoc quoque a deo exegerunt... si legis
imponendae ratio praecessit, sequebatur etiam observandae: ibid. ii. 11,
ita prior bonitas dei secundum naturam, severitas posterior secundum
causam: and especially ibid. ii. 6, where the causa for which men
have freedom of will is, oportebat dignum aliquid esse quod deum
cognosceret, while ratio is the reasoning by which God thought out
this plan.

36 forma is the architect's or surveyor's plan: therefore 
'purpose' or 'intention'.

40 pro quo, by ellipsis for pro eo pro quo.

44 qui iam tunc etc. Cf. Adv. Marc. iii. 9 (referred to above),
ideoque et ipse tunc apud Abraham in veritate quidem carnis apparuit,
sed nondum natae quia nondum moriturae, sed et discentis iam inter
homines conversari, but with the caveat that the 'learning' was for
our sake rather than his, so that we might the more easily
believe that he had come for our salvation if we knew that he had
done something of the kind already.

46 nisi prius... annuntiarentur, i.e. until the prophetic 
announcement of his birth and death (by Isaiah and others) had
prepared for him and ensured his recognition.

47 carnem de sideribus concepisse (A), as the more difficult
reading, should perhaps stand: the other may well have been a
marginal paraphrase of this, avoiding the apparently inappropriate
word concepisse.

50 etsi corporis alicuius: the angels, being of spiritual substance, 
have a body, for spirit is body, of its own kind—on the

|116

Stoic principle that everything that exists is 'body' of some kind.
Cf. Adv. Prax. 7, quis enim negabit deum corpus esse? and my notes
on pages 232, 234.

52 ad tempus: cf. Adv. Marc. iii. 9, brevem carnis commeatum.
The text as printed, with this punctuation, seems to me best to
account for the variants: but there is little to choose between
them.

67 fuerit, omitted by the MSS. of the Cluny group, seems to be
necessary as introducing the following sentence, which modifies
the preceding: it admits a point scored by a supposed interruption
in court from the opposite party. But, though we make this
admission, non tamen infringitur etc.—the point scored, and in fact
the whole question of the theophanies, has no bearing on the case:
for at the Incarnation the circumstances (condicio) and purposes
(causa) were entirely different, in that, as Christ was to die, he
must of necessity be born, and his flesh must needs be veritable
human flesh.

CHAPTER VII

Whenever this subject is discussed, a suggestion is advanced that
our Lord's question, 'Who is my mother, and who are my
brethren?' constitutes a repudiation of those relationships and (by
implication) a denial of his human birth and his possession of
human flesh. Our answer is:

(1) Evidently the person who made the announcement was convinced 
that the mother and brethren were really who he said they
were.

(2) The suggestion that the announcement was made for the
purpose of tempting cannot be sustained:

  (a) because the text of the Gospel does not say so, although
elsewhere when persons ask questions 'tempting him' the fact is
remarked upon:

  (b) this was not a suitable occasion for tempting him in respect
of his nativity:

(a) because such a question had never been raised, and there
is nothing in the context to lead up to it:

|117

(b) because a denial of one's present possession of a mother
and brethren is not necessarily a denial of nativity—the
mother might be dead, and the brethren never have existed:

  (c) they would have been more likely to be testing his divine
knowledge by making a false statement—though even this will
not serve, for apart from divine insight he might have had private
information which assured him that they could not possibly be
there.

(3) The true explanation of his answer is that he denies them
because of their unbelief, giving preference to others who were
interested in the work he was doing. For a denial of human
relationships a different occasion would have been required.
Moreover, he is here doing what he instructs his disciples to do,
giving the kingdom of God preference over earthly ties.

(4) The episode is also an allegory of the rejection of the Synagogue 
and the acceptance of the Church.

(5) Our Lord's answer to the exclamation of a woman from
among the multitude is to be interpreted on the same lines.

The reference is to Matthew 12. 46-50, Mark 3. 31-35: Luke 8.
19-21 omits the question, 'Who is my mother and my brethren?'
but retains' My mother and my brethren are these which hear the
word of God, and keep it.' The passage is also discussed Adv.
Marc. iv. 19, for which see a note below: at Adv. Marc. iii. 11 the
woman's exclamation (Luke ii. 27) and the announcement of our
Lord's mother and brethren (Luke 8. 19) are cited by Tertullian
himself as proof that qui homo videbatur natus utique credebatur, with
a promise of further discussion, which is given at iv. 19 and 26.

3 negare esse se natum. I have ventured to insert se, which
could easily have fallen out after esse. Kroymann, improving on
A, has negasse se, which comes to the same thing, except that the
present tense seems more natural: so Adv. Marc. iv. 19, ipse,
inquiunt, contestatur se non esse natum. But in view of Adv. Marc.
iv. 26 (quoted below) possibly we should read, with T, negare
natum.

|118

4 audiat igitur etc. The reference is to Adv. Marc. iv. 19,
where the argument follows the same lines as here, with some
verbal coincidences but with sufficient difference to indicate that
Tertullian is not here transcribing his earlier work but rehearsing
such of it as he carries in mind. This is, he says, the constantissimum
argumentum of those who question our Lord's nativity. Heretics
make a practice of either complicating the meaning of plain statements, 
or else of the overdue simplifying of statements conditioned 
by their context or by the thought behind them (condicionales 
et rationales). The latter is what they are doing here. Our
answer is: (1) The announcement that his mother and brethren
stood without could only have been made on the assumption that
he had a mother and brethren, quos utique norat qui annuntiarat vel
retro notos vel tunc ibidem compertos dum eum videre desiderant vel
dum ipsi nuntium mandant. (2) The common response to this
proposition is that the announcement was made temptandi gratia:
but (a) the Scripture does not say this, though it is accustomed to
remark on such occasions. This reply would have been sufficient,
but (b) ex abundanti causas temptationis expostulo: if (a) for the purpose 
of ascertaining whether he had been born or not, I object
that the question had never arisen: his human characteristics made
it perfectly evident that he had been born, and they found it
easier to see in him a man and a prophet than God and Son of
God. Again (b) even supposing there were need for this enquiry
quodcumque aliud argumentum temptationi competisset quam per earum
personarum mentionem quas potuit etiam natus non habere. More-
over (g) they could have settled that question by consulting the
census roll. Consequently, the suggestion of temptation falls to
the ground, and we conclude that his mother and brethren were
really there. (3) Then what was in his mind when he asked the
question? He asked it non simpliciter, but ex causae necessitate et
condicione rationali, being rightly indignant that, while strangers
were within intent upon his words, these close relations should
stand without and even seek to divert him from his task: non tam
abnegavit quam abdicavit, as he explains by adding nisi qui audiunt
verba mea et faciunt ea (Luke 8. 21), thus transferring to others those
terms of relationship. But there could have been no transference

|119

if there had not been those from whom (as well as to whom)
to transfer. The substitution of others then was meritorum condicione, 
non ex proximorum negatione, and he was giving an example
in himself of what he said to others elsewhere, qui patrem aut
matrem aut fratres praeponeret verbo dei non esse dignum discipulum
(Luke 14. 26). Thus his denial of his mother and his brethren is
itself an acknowledgement of their existence: quod alios adoptabat,
confirmabat quos ex offensa negavit, quibus non ut veriores substituit sed
ut digniores. Finally, there would be no significance in his preferring 
adherents to blood relations, if he had had no blood
relations, si fidem sanguini praeposuit quem non habebat.¹

6 materiam pronuntiationis. Below (twice) materia temptationis 
seems to mean the raw material out of which a temptation
could be constructed. So here it seems likely that the meaning
is 'the circumstances which gave ground for that remark'.

11 ista: Matthew 13. 55, 56: Mark 6. 3: John 6. 42. Luke has
nothing parallel to this. Creditum is of course Tertullian's insertion, 
safeguarding the truth which was unknown to those whose
words he is quoting.

18 quod nemo etc. The sentence is admittedly awkward. The
easiest way out would be to punctuate after significari, omitting
temptandi gratia factum as being a marginal explanation of quod.
But this would leave the end of a hexameter, a clausula which
Tertullian avoids. Kroymann's eo quod, with a comma after
factum, makes the beginning of the sentence ugly and breaks the
force of non recipio etc.

21 putaverint (A) seems the correct form: 'what can they
have thought a fit subject of temptation in him?' I have marked
the following sentence as the Apelleasts' supposed answer to this
question: logically, of course, it is a petitio principii.

23 eius de quo stands for eius rei de qua: so Adv. Prax. 30, de
isto = hac de re: and frequently.

32 adhuc potest quis etc. I have ventured to insert quis:
though possis would have served, except that it is too far from the

¹ With this interpretation the alteration by Fr. Junius of quem to quam becomes
unnecessary.

|120

MSS. Kroymann's potes is too abrupt. Possibly female mortality
was at such a high rate that a man was more likely to have his
father living than his mother: but I can conceive of no reason
why a man was more likely to have maternal uncles than brothers.

33 adeo stands for ideo or quapropter: so in §16, q.v.

41 nota ei iam, Kroymann's excellent correction of AT.

44 simplicitas here means 'honesty', or what our grandfathers 
called 'candour': the person meant what he said. So also
Adv. Val. 2, simplices notamur apud illos, 'guileless', 'simpletons'.
Frequently the adjective and its derivatives indicate the literal, as
distinguished from the allegorical, sense of scripture: e.g. Ad
Uxor. i. 2, ut tamen simpliciter interpretemur, as opposed to figuraliter.

44 nuntiatoris seems to have the better MS. testimony: the
following subjunctive is of indirect narration dependent on it
(as in quia dixerit above).

44 vere is not so much Tertullian's comment on this, as what he
supposes to have been in the messenger's mind, that certainty
which would have fortified his reaffirmation if challenged.

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

48 mater aeque etc. This is apparently intended to suggest
more than it says, namely, that there is no direct evidence in the
Gospels that our Lord's mother was in sympathy with his work.
It might be added that there is equally no evidence that she was
not. The statement about the brethren is made at John 7. 5: at
Acts i. 14 they are shown to have changed their minds. Martha et
Mariae aliae is my reading: the MSS. vary. There was in fact one
Martha and several Marys.

52 tam, proximi may conceivably be emphatic for tam propinqui: 
so Adv. Marc. iv. 19, tam proximas personas...magis proximos. 
But possibly Tertullian has forgotten that the word is a
superlative.

57 si forte tabula ludens etc. This kind of ill-mannered
innuendo is almost a commonplace of the rhetoric of the schools.
It is imitated from Cicero (e.g. Philippic ii. 17. 42 seqq.—the

|121

admitted model of all speeches), who however had the excuse that
his strictures were true.

63 alius fuisset etc. Oehler (followed by Kroymann) is
insistent that alius is a genitive, to be construed with sermonis.
In view of eius following they may be right, though this makes a
very awkward sentence. I should prefer to place a comma after
tempus and remove that after sermonis: 'He could have found a
different place and occasion, and a turn of phrase such as could
not have been used even by one who had a mother and brethren.'

74 sed et alias etc. This reference to the synagogue is omitted
Adv. Marc. iv. 19, no doubt because it might have led to further
argument as to why this is not a point in Marcion's favour.

79 eodem sensu etc. Cf. Luke 11. 27, 28: Adv. Marc. iv. 26,
exclamat mulier de turba beatum uterum qui illum portasset et ubera
quae illum educassent: et dominus, Immo beati qui sermonem dei
audiunt et faciunt. quia et retro sic reiecerat matrem aut fratres dum
auditores et obsecutores dei praefert... adeo nec retro negaverat natum.
I had thought perhaps we should insert mulieris cuiusdam after illi:
but illi exclamationi means 'that much canvassed remark', and the
addition is unnecessary.

CHAPTER VIII

A further suggestion they make is that as the created world was
the result of the sinful act of an errant angel, it would have been
unseemly for Christ to become contaminated with earthly flesh,
which is the product of sin: and so he must be supposed to have
taken to himself not earthly flesh, but a celestial substance from the
stars. We answer that this leaves us where we were: for the sky
itself is part of creation, and if creation was a sin the matter which
composes the stars is no less sinful than earthly matter. Moreover
the text, 'The second man is from heaven', when rightly interpreted, 
supports our case, not theirs. The subject the apostle has
under discussion is not the creation nor the constitution of Christ's
human nature, but the contrast between man's earthly origin
and the celestial attributes he receives from Christ. Consequently,
since redeemed man is in Christ at once terrestrial and celestial,

|122

it follows that Christ, with whom he is equated, was not only
celestial in his godhead but also became truly terrestrial in his
manhood.

5 quam volunt etc. Cf. De Praesc. Haer. 34, facilius de filio
quam de patre haesitabatur donec ... Apelles creatorem angelum 
nescioquem gloriosum superioris dei faceret deum legis et Israelis, illum
igneum affirmans: also De Res. Carn. 5, frivolum istud corpusculum . . .
ignei alicuius exstructio angeli, ut Apelles docet : and De Anima 23,
Apelles sollicitatas refert animas terrenis escis de supercaelestibus sedibus
ab igneo angelo deo Israelis et nostro, qui exinde illis peccatricem 
circumfinxerit carnem. Thus what Tertullian reports here is not that the
seduced souls were transmuted into flesh, but that sinful flesh was
constructed for them: the material of which it was constructed is
left unspecified.

9 nominant. The name was actually mentioned, but is 
suppressed by Tertullian. Apparently it was the divine 
tetragrammaton in its triliteral Greek form IAW, for which see Adv.
Val. 14 ( = Irenaeus, Haer. i. 1. 7).

11 The libellus is not one of Tertullian's extant works. This
seems to be the only reference to it.

13 de figura erraticae ovis. According to Irenaeus, Haer. i.
1. 17, the Valentinians interpreted this of the transgression of
Achamoth, and her recovery by Soter. Tertullian refers to the
parable Adv. Marc. iv. 32, remarking that evidently the person
who seeks for a sheep or a coin must be the one who has lost it,
and consequently we must conclude that the world already
belonged to God who sent his Christ to recover it.

20 de peccatorio censu, 'by reason of its sinful origin ' — almost
'ancestry ' : cf. Adv. Prax. 5 , imago et similitude censeris, and my note.

22 Christo dedignantur inducere: so AT: the other, a much
weaker, reading seems to be an attempt to smooth out the
difficulties of this : strictly speaking it would require dedignetur.
Inducere here means 'clothe', but with a secondary sense of 'veil'
or 'becloud': at De Praesc. Haer. 6 (quoted above on §6), if the

|123

text is correct inductus means 'misled' and induxit means 
'introduced' or 'imported'.

25 legimus plane indicates that the Apelleasts quoted 1 Corinthians 15. 47 
in favour of their own views. At De Res. Carn. 49
Tertullian has Primus, inquit, homo de terra choicus, id est limaceus,
id est Adam, secundus homo de caelo, id est sermo dei, id est Christus,
non alias tamen homo, licet de caelo, nisi quia et ipse caro atque anima,
quod homo, quod Adam: at Adv. Marc. v. 10 he reads Primus, inquit,
homo de humo terrenus, secundus dominus de caelo. On this we
observe (1) that it does not appear what was the origin of the
form de terrae limo, as quoted here: (2) that whether or not
Tertullian has the interpolation o( ku&rioj, he takes that to be the
meaning of St Paul's words, and not (as some modern commentators 
suggest) some supposed 'resurrection body' of heavenly
origin: and (3) that as he reads dominus de caelo only in controverting 
Marcion, there is a possibility that he is refuting Marcion
from Marcion's own text—that is, that the interpolated word is
due to Marcion. Both versions of the text were known to
Origen: it appears not to be quoted by Irenaeus or by any earlier
writer.

29 ad spiritum, i.e. Christ's divine substance, by virtue of
which, even in hac carne terrena (meaning, apparently, both in
this present life and after the resurrection), Christians are caelestes.

33 qualis et Christus. Et has stronger MS. authority than
est. The sense really requires est, to contrast with fiunt, which is
possibly why some copyists wrote it.

CHAPTER IX

A further argument against the celestial origin of Christ's flesh is
that everything derived from some previously existent material
retains traces of the quality of that from which it was drawn.
Thus the human body has manifest affinities with the earth from
which it was moulded. All these earthly and human attributes
were plainly observable in the flesh of Christ, and it was these
alone which gave rise to the short-sighted view that he was a man

|124

and nothing more. In no respect did his body show signs of
celestial origin. It was in his words and works alone that men
found anything to marvel at, though they would certainly have
remarked upon it if they had observed anything unusual in his
physical constitution. It was solely because his manhood was not
miraculous that they were astonished at his doctrine and his
miracles. Moreover his form was of even less than ordinary
comeliness, as the prophets testify, and as the indignities to which
he was subjected bear witness. There is thus no reason for regarding 
his flesh as celestial, and every reason for knowing it to be
terrestrial. It was terrestrial for the express purpose that it might
be the object of contumely and reproach.

1 praetendimus adhuc, a further argument to the same effect.
Oehler, in a note on De Pud. 17, observes: 'praetendere castrense
verbum est, significans praesidio esse.' He gives a number of
examples from late authors which serve to prove it a military
term, but its meaning in all of them is not 'defend' but 'contend'.
So also Tertullian, De Pud. 17, apostoli...pro sanctitate praetendunt:
Adv. Marc. ii. 6, ut et contra malum homo fortior praetenderet: ibid,
iii. 13, et Iudas praetendet apud Hierusalem (quoted from Zechariah
14. 14, parata&cetai, [Hebrew] R.V. 'fight'). So here, 'we assert'.
Ut is concessive, and equivalent to quamvis.

4 in novam proprietatem. Proprietas rarely, or perhaps never,
in Tertullian means property or quality, but the fact that a thing
is what it is and not something else. See my notes on Adv. Prax.
7 and 11, and ibid. 27, secundum utramque substantiam in sua proprietate 
distantem...salva est utriusque proprietas substantiae. So here
'a new identity'.

5 de limo figulatum: Genesis 2. 7: LXX e1plasen: Lat. vg.
formavit. Tertullian regularly uses figulare in this connexion:
e.g. De Exhort. Cast. 5, cum hominem figulasset. At De Bapt. 3
we have hominis figurandi opus, where apparently none of the
editors has suggested figulandi. Tertullian could hardly have used
formare here: it would have meant 'made into a pattern or rule':
cf. De Exhort. Cast. 5, contestans quid deus in primordio constituent

|125

informant posteritati recensendam, 'a rule (sc. of monogamy) which
was to need to be re-enacted for future generations'.

5 ad fabulas nationum veritas transmisit. Ovid, Metam. i.
80, has a kindred word to Tertullian's figulare, and something
approaching 'in his own image' : '. . . sive recens tellus seductaque
nuper ab alto | aethere cognati retinebat semina cadi, | quam satus Iapeto
mixtam fluvialibus undis | finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta deorum : |
. . . sic modo quae fuerat rudis et sine imagine tellus | induit ignotas
hominum conversa figuras.' Veritas, not truth in the abstract, but
the Truth of divine revelation: so Adv. Prax. 8, viderit haeresis si
quid de veritate imitata est. It was common form among the apologists 
to allege that any correspondences between Christian and
pagan ideas were due to borrowing by the pagans : cf. Theophilus,
Ad Autol. I. 14, w{n timwriw~n proeirhme/nwn u(po_ tw~n profhtw~n
metagene/steroi geno&menoi oi9 poihtai\ kai\ filo&sofoi e1kleyan e0k tw~n
a(gi/wn grafw~n, where Otto gives references to Justin, Apol. I. 44,
Tatian, Orat. 40, Athenagoras, Suppl. 9 : so also Tertullian, Apol. 47,
quis poetarum, quis sophistarum, qui non omnino de prophetarum fonte
potaverit? inde igitur philosophi sitim ingenii sui rigaverunt: and (in
greater detail) Ad Nat. ii. 2.

6 utrumque originis elementum, now that it has the support 
of T, is the better attested reading : but the other is attractive,
as being logically less accurate and thus more likely to have
provoked the editorial hand.

7 nam licet alia etc. The punctuation of this and the following
sentence is mine. If (as Oehler and Kroymann seem to think)
hoc est etc. were a parenthetic explanation of the preceding clause,
we should need to read fiat: with fit, these seven words must be
its apodosis. In any case, ceterum introduces a further step in the
argument, and the question it introduces cannot (by its subject-
matter) be the apodosis of nam licet etc.

17 humana extantem substantia. So I have ventured to
write, this arrangement of the words seeming best to account for
extantem (A alone), and the position of the not very apposite
tantum (T alone). But it is tempting to read, with the Cluny

|126

group, ex humana substantia : for though exstare, equivalent to esse,
'exist', is classical and sufficiently common, and may easily
enough come to mean 'consist' (as here), in Tertullian's usage a
thing does not 'consist' of substance, but rather it 'is' substance:
so that possibly extantem is wrong, and tantum could have crept
in from tantummodo, three words back.

26 despicientium formam eius. Forma here is a reminiscence
of 'form or comeliness' (LXX ei]doj ou)de\ do&ca) at Isaiah 53. 2, a
text frequently quoted, but usually to make the contrast between
human weakness and heavenly glory: so Adv. Marc. iii. 7, where
Isaiah 53. 2-14, 8. 14, Psalm 8. 6 and 22. 7 are brought into contrast 
with Daniel 2. 34, 7. 13 seqq. and other such texts: the same
set of texts, on both sides, are rehearsed at Adv. Iud. 14. At Adv.
Marc. iii. 17 Isaiah 52. 14 is quoted in the form, Quemadmodum
expavescent multi super te, sic sine gloria erit ab hominibus forma tua,
and Tertullian proceeds, Certainly David says, Thou art fairer
than the children of men, but that is in an allegoric sense: ceterum
habitu incorporabili (i.e. eo habitu quem cum corpore induturus
erat) apud eundem prophetam vermis etiam et non homo, ignominia
hominis et nullificamen populi (Psalm 22. 7): cf. De Idol. 18, vultu
denique et aspectu inglorius, sicut et Esaias pronuntiaverat. The present
is apparently the only place in which Tertullian, led away by his
argument, suggests definite ugliness: so below, nisi merentem. At
De Pat. 3, sed contumeliosus insuper sibi est, Oehler has a long note,
with citations from Tertullian (as above), Origen, Augustine,
and some moderns, in the last four lines of which he gives his
own, evidently correct, interpretation of that phrase.

28 apud vos quoque, i.e. Apelles and his followers, as well as
Marcion, rejected the prophets. Nos (FB Oeh.) seems insufficiently
attested: if it is accepted the meaning is 'even though we, like
you, were to reject the prophets'.

30 probaverunt is not in AT: if it is rejected we shall need to
extract affirmant out of the preceding loquuntur—which does not
seem very natural.

37 opinor is evidently ironical: see the note on maluit, credo,
nasci (§5).

|127

37 inquam is evidently correct: inquitis would require an
answer, and moreover the question is not one which the opponents
would ask.

38 sicut et dixit: Matthew 16. 21 ( = Mark 8. 31, Luke 9. 22),
and elsewhere.

CHAPTER X

The suggestion of some others, that Christ's flesh was made out
of soul, equally breaks down on examination. Christ's purpose in
assuming to himself a human soul was to save human soul, which
cannot be saved except in him: but there is no reason for supposing
that soul only becomes capable of salvation if turned into flesh.
Christ saves our souls while they not only remain souls, but even
when (in death) they are disjoined from the flesh: even less did
that soul which he took to himself need to become flesh so that it
might obtain salvation. Further, since these people assume that
Christ came to save the soul alone, and not the flesh, why should
he be supposed to change that which he was saving into that
which he was not saving? If it was his purpose to deliver our
souls by the agency of his soul, then his soul must needs have been
of the same fashion as ours—and whatever that fashion is, it is
not a fleshly one. It follows that if his soul was a fleshly one it was
none of ours, and as it did not save ours it is of no concern to us.
Moreover, soul that was not ours stood in no need of salvation.
But as it is common ground among us that soul was saved, it
follows that it was our sort of soul that Christ had, and not one
turned into flesh. So then, as Christ's soul was not turned into
flesh, neither was his flesh made out of soul.

This is clever debating, but of more than dubious theological
import. There seems to be an underlying suggestion that the soul
and flesh assumed by Christ needed to be brought to a state of
salvation so that ours could be saved through them. This is a form
of adoptionism of which there are traces in Hernias (e.g. Similitude
V. 6), who could not be expected to know any better, and it
might have pleased Nestorius: but the suggestion is not one
which Tertullian would really regard as tolerable. Elsewhere he

|128

affirms that Christ's soul and flesh, though of the stock of Adam
(on which he insists most strongly), because they were not conceived 
by the ordinary process of human generation are exempt
from the consequences of Adam's sin (see especially § 16). So we
must surmise that in the present instance he has been carried away
by the implications of his opponents' supposition, which he is
content to controvert without sufficiently safeguarding his own
view of the truth.

It is not clearly indicated who these opponents were. That they
were gnostics of some sort seems probable, since it appears from
§12 that they introduced the concept of salvation by knowledge.
If they were, it is likely enough that when they said 'soul ' they
did not mean soul in the ordinary sense, but some sort of semi-
celestial 'matter', a kind of substantification of the 'passion' of
Achamoth. Tertullian was no doubt aware of this equivocation,
but preferred to argue on simpler grounds.

In this translation animalis is represented by 'composed of soul',
carnalis by 'turned into flesh', carneus by 'fleshly'. Evidently the
terms have taken on a special meaning from their context.
Carneus appears to differ from carnalis as referring to attributes
rather than constitution: so that anima carnalis will mean soul
turned into flesh, while anima cornea will be soul which has
acquired fleshly characteristics.

1 convertor ad alios etc. Cf. Adv. Val. 26, in hoc ( = ei0j
tou~to) et Soterem in mundo repraesentatum, in salutem scilicet animalis
(sc. substantiae). alia autem compositione monstruosum volunt illum
(i.e. that 'Christ' composed of four elements) prosicias ( =porricias:
Irenaeus ta_j a)parxa&j) earum substantiarum induisse quarum summam
saluti esset redacturus, ut spiritalem quidem susceperit ab Achamoth,
animalem vero quem mox a Demiurgo induit Christum, ceterum corporalem 
ex animali substantia, sed miro et inenarrabili rationis ingenio
constructam administrationis causa ideo tulisse [incontulisse, A : quaero
an legendum circumtulisse] quo congressui et conspectui et contactui et
defunctui ingratis (=frustra) subiaceret: materiale autem nihil in illo
fuisse, utpote salutis alienum. The exposition is continued ibid. 27.
Sibi prudentes, Romans 11. 25, 12. 16 par' e(autoi=j fro&nimoi.

|129

4 causas require. Evidently throughout this context causa
means the final cause or purpose: see a note on §6.

8 animas...a carne disiunctas. Cf. De Anima 58, omnes ergo
animae penes inferos, inquis? velis ac nolis et supplida iam illic et
refrigeria, which are anticipations of those which will follow the
final judgement.

10 item cum praesumant. Praesumere and praesumptio 
invariably in Tertullian refer to opinions formed without any
foundation of evidence or reasoning: 'assume' and 'assumption'
usually give the proper sense. See a note by Heraldus (quoted by
Oehler on Apol. 49) who observes that the same word is used by
Appuleius, Metam. ix. 14, of Christian belief in one God: spretis
atque calcatis divinis numinibus, in vicem certae religionis mentita
sacrilega praesumptione dei quem praedicaret unicum, confictis observationibus 
vacuis, fallens omnes homines et miserum maritum decipiens etc.
So Apol. 16, atque ita inde praesumptum opinor nos quoque ut Iudaicae
religionis propinquos eidem simulacro initiari, where Souter has
'presumed' (a Scoticism for 'assumed'): ibid. 21, quasi sub umbraculo 
insignissimae religionis... aliquid propriae praesumptionis abscondat
(Souter, 'some of its own arrogance'—better, 'some assumptions
of its own'): ibid., neque aliter de deo praesumimus (Souter, correctly, 
'nor is our idea of God different from that of the Jews'):
ibid. 25, illa praesumptio dicentium Romanos pro merito religiositatis
diligentissimae in tantum sublimitatis elatos (Souter, 'prejudiced 
assertion'—better, 'unfounded statement'): ibid. 49, hae sunt quae in
nobis solis praesumptiones vocantur (Souter, 'vain assumptions'—
'assumptions' would be enough): ibid., quae expedit vera praesumi
...in vobis itaque praesumptio est haec ipsa quae damnat utilia (Souter,
'presumed to be true', again meaning 'assumed': 'this very
prejudice', better, 'is neither more nor less than an assumption'):
ibid. 50, nec praesumptio perdita nec persuasio desperata (Souter,
'neither reckless prejudice nor desperate persuasion'—perhaps,
'reckless assumption', 'criminal conspiracy'). In the passage
before us the point is that the gnostic and Marcionite doctrine
that the flesh, being material, is incapable of salvation, is a mere
assumption, based neither on scriptural evidence nor on natural

|130

reason or observed facts: it is mere guesswork or surmise, erected
into a dogma. At sed animae nostrae Codex Agobardinus ends.

15 illam quoque etc. The reading of T (followed by Kroymann) 
makes a sentence which will just construe but has no
apparent bearing on the words that follow. Kroymann's punctuation 
here is impossible. Forma in this context has its original
meaning 'shape'. Evidently soul, being corpus sui generis, has
some sort of shape, though this is in occulto, not visible to the eye.
At De Anima 9 it is alleged that when God breathed soul into
Adam the fluid 'set' like a jelly in a mould, taking its shape from
the body, omni intus linea expressum esse (sc. flatum vitae) quam
densatus impleverat et velut in forma gelasse.

22 non carnea is evidently equivalent to the preceding nostra,
not to non nostra.

24 iam ergo etc. clinches the first part of Tertullian's reply to
the postulate of an animal flesh. In it he assumes by simple conversion 
that animal flesh implies carnal soul, which, on the
ground of the doctrine of the Atonement, he shows to be inconceivable. 
The adversaries are now supposed to accept this argument 
by conversion and to suggest the causa demanded earlier in
the chapter, 'for the purpose of making soul visible'—a suggestion
dealt with in the next chapter.

CHAPTER XI

When we point out that the supposition that Christ's flesh was
made out of soul involves the consequence that his soul was
changed into flesh, our opponents offer as a reason for this
latter, that it was God's intention that soul, of whose existence
and attributes the impediment of the flesh had caused some 
uncertainty, should now be made visible in Christ: and consequently, 
they allege, in Christ soul was turned into body so that
we might see it being born and dying and rising again. This is as
much as to say that soul was made dark so that it might have
power to shine. Moreover, the statement that soul was invisible
implies that it already possessed body, an invisible one: so that,

|131

supposing it to have been God's purpose to make it visible, he
could with greater veracity have made it visible in its own body
than in the body of something else. Also, to make soul visible in
the guise of flesh is not to display it but to hide it. Even if (per
impossible) soul, as in