Книга II

Chapter 1. Two books of the treatise are devoted to the false god and the true God. However, the true God should be revered rather than explored 1. Thanks to the accident which led to the transformation of this little work (we began the first book with the words about what happened to it), we were able, in reviewing the case against Marcion concerning the two gods, to give to each of them a volume 279 dedicated to him, in accordance with the division of the material, establishing that one god does not exist at all, and asserting that the other is justly God, since it pleased the Pontius: one to introduce, the other to exclude. For he could not create a lie without destroying the truth. He found it necessary to undermine one thing in order to build what he wanted. One who does not have his own materials for construction builds in a similar way. 2. It was necessary to reduce the entire discussion to the thesis that he who is added to the Creator is not god, so that after the rejection of the false god with the help of reliable criteria establishing the uniqueness and perfection of the divine nature, all research into the true God should be stopped. Insofar as His existence is evident (and this despite the fact that nothing is known about the existence of another god), so befitting is it to accept Him without objection, whatever He may be - more worthy of worship than condemnation, more subject to propitiation than analysis [or fearful by His severity]. 280 3. For what is more necessary for a person than the veneration of the true God, whom he, so to speak, stumbled upon, since there was no other god? Chapter 2. Heretics, not knowing God, accuse Him; their wisdom is foolishness before God, for they, who have not received the Spirit, are not able to comprehend the things of God. Adam's sin as the first heresy 1. However, the concern now is with Almighty God, the Lord and Creator of the Universe. I consider Him such because He was known from the very beginning, that He never hid, that He always shone, even before Romulus, not to mention Tiberius. Was He only unknown to the heretics who trouble Him by supposing the existence of another god, since He, whose existence is well known, they can rather blame than deny, weighing God on the basis of the verdict of their feelings, just as a blind person or someone suffering from an eye disease is therefore inclined to assume the existence of another sun, softer and more healing, because he does not see the one he looks at. 2. The sun, O man, is the only one that rules this world. And although you don’t think so, it is the best and most useful; and although it is too bright and cruel for you, or even unclean and stained, it corresponds to its purpose. If you are unable to comprehend this destiny, you will not be able to endure the rays of any other sun, even if it were the rays of a greater sun. 3. After all, you, who see the “lower” God poorly, how can you resist the higher one? Wouldn't it be better for you to spare your weakness and stop reaching for danger, since you have a God who is clear and undoubted and, thanks to this circumstance, visible as much as necessary? After all, you should first of all notice that He is the One whom you do not know, except in part, as much as He willed. But you do not deny God, as one who knows Him, but as one who does not know Him, you subject him to analysis; you even accuse Him as if you knew, although if you knew Him, you would not accuse Him and would not even investigate. By giving Him a name, you deny what stands behind this name, that is, greatness, (which is called God,] 281 not recognizing this greatness as such, which, if a person knew it comprehensively, would not be greatness. 4. Himself, already [the apostle,] 282 knowing in advance the hearts of heretics, says: Who knew the thought of the Lord and who was His adviser? Or with whom did He consult? Or who showed Him the way of understanding and knowledge? 283 The apostle echoes him: Oh, the abyss of the wealth and wisdom of God! How unsearchable are His judgments - of course, God the Judge - and how unsearchable are His ways, 284 - of course, the ways of understanding and knowledge, which no one showed Him, except the censors of divinity, saying: “God should not act this way” and “Rather He should act this way,” as if anyone knew what was in God except the Spirit of God. 285 5. Having the spirit of this world, without comprehending the wisdom of God in the wisdom of God, 286 they began to seem to themselves more knowledgeable than God, for just as the wisdom of the world is the foolishness of God, so the wisdom of God is the foolishness of the world. But we know that the foolish of God is wiser than people and the weak of God is stronger than people. 287 6. Thus, God then turns out to be greatest when He is insignificant in the eyes of man, and then He is especially good when He is not good from a human point of view, and then exclusively unique when for man He doubles or becomes even more numerous. And if man, being originally endowed with a soul, 288 not accepting that which is spirit, considered the law of God foolish, since he neglected to fulfill it, and therefore, through lack of faith, even what he seemed to have was taken away from him, 289 - the grace of paradise and intimacy with God, thanks to whom he could have known all things of God, if he had remained in His subjection - what wonder if, being returned to the substance from which he was taken, and expelled to the hard labor of cultivating the land, in the very act of bending down and bending to the earth, the spirit of the world, received from it, he passed on to his entire family, at least endowed only with a soul and heretical, not accepting what belongs to God? 7. Or who will hesitate to declare this Adam’s sin itself, which Adam committed by choosing his own rather than God’s will, to be heresy? Didn’t Adam ever say to his Creator 290: “Thou hast not fashioned me wisely”? 291 He confessed his fall and did not hide his temptress. He remained only an uneducated heretic. He disobeyed, however, did not blaspheme the Creator and did not blame the Creator, whom from the very beginning he considered both good and best and himself, perhaps, made Him the Judge. [From the very beginning.] 292 Chapter 3. The goodness of the Creator existed from the beginning 1. It follows, therefore, that we, when we enter into an inquiry concerning the known God, when it comes to the circumstances under which He became known, begin with His works, which are earlier than man, so that His goodness, made known at the same time as Himself, and then established and determined, may inspire us with some sense of understanding how the subsequent distribution of things came about. 2. The disciples of Marcion, considering the goodness of our God, can recognize it as worthy on the same grounds on which we show it as unworthy in their God. The very thing that serves as material for His knowledge, He did not find from another, but made from His own for Himself. The first thing in which the goodness of the Creator is manifested is that God did not want to hide forever, that is, He wanted something to exist to which He, as God, would become known. 3. Indeed, what is as good as knowing God and enjoying God? After all, even if it had not yet been discovered that this was a good, for there was no one yet to whom it would be revealed, God knew in advance what good was to appear, and therefore left His highest goodness, the executor of the future good, not suddenly revealed, not related to an accidental or caused excitement, as if its beginning was traced back to the time when it began to act. 4. After all, if she herself appointed the initial moment at which she began to act, then she did not have a beginning when she created it. When the beginning was laid by it, 293 the calculation of times was also generated, since constellations and celestial bodies were located to distinguish and designate them. For he says: They will be for times, months and years. 294 Consequently, time did not exist before the appearance of time in the one who created time, just as the beginning was absent before its appearance in the one who created it. 5. So, being deprived of both the establishment of a beginning and the measure of time, the goodness of the Creator will be assessed as infinite and boundless throughout the centuries and cannot be considered as suddenly appearing, accidental or caused by anything, without having in its past the moment from which its age would be counted, i.e. without having something related to the concept of time. It must be thought of as eternal, integral from God and constant and because of this worthy of Him, shaming for this reason alone the goodness of Marcion’s god, inferior in ancient times not only to the beginnings and times, but also to the very malice of the Creator, if only malice could be realized by goodness. Chapter 4. The goodness of the Creator prepared a wonderful abode for man, created man, settled him in paradise, gave him an assistant, prescribed the law and warned against breaking it 1. After the goodness of God Himself took care of man, giving him the knowledge of God, she also added to this ministry of hers that she first invented a dwelling for man - a certain [subsequently] 295 great community, 296 and subsequently even greater, 297 so that in the great, as if in a less significant one, he would be prepared and increased, and thus advance from God's good (i.e. from the great) to His highest good (i.e. to the greater abode). She assigned the best servant to the good work - her Word: “My heart poured out,” he says, “the best Word.” 298 2. Let Marcion from this learn the first best fruit, and, moreover, from the best tree. 299 A completely ignorant peasant, he grafted a bad tree onto a good one. 300 But the cutting of blasphemy will not take root; it will dry up along with its craftsman, and thus the nature of the good tree will be confirmed. Look at the main thing: what fruits the Word brought: And God said: Let it be, and it was, and God saw that it was good 301 - not as one who does not know good until he sees it, but having seen it, He, because what He created was good, glorified, confirmed and completed the goodness of the deeds by deigning to inspect them. 3. He blessed the fact that he did well so that the whole God would be presented to you: good both in words and in deeds. The Word did not yet know curses, because it did not know atrocities. Let us consider the circumstances that also demanded this from God. The world so far consisted of only good, sufficiently showing how much good was prepared for the one for whom all this was prepared. Indeed, who else would be worthy of living among God’s works, if not the image and likeness of God Himself? 302 4. This image was also created by goodness, and moreover, more active, not with a commanding word, but with a friendly hand, still prefacing it with an affectionate word: Let us make man in Our image and likeness. 303 Goodness said; goodness molded man from clay into such a majestic corporeal entity, erected from one substance, but possessing so many properties. Goodness breathed into the soul, not dead, but alive; 304 goodness gave him the power to use everything, manage everything and also give names to everything. 305 Goodness also gave man joy, so that, although he owned the whole world, he remained in a more pleasant area of ​​it, being transferred to the Garden of Eden 306 - already then from the world to the Church. And this same goodness also provided for a helper for him, so that he would have nothing but good. 5. For it is not good, he says, for a man to be alone. 307 She knew that the sex of Mary, and subsequently the Church, would help him. 308 But even the law that you accuse, which you distort in disputes, was given by kindness, caring for man, so that he, being devoted to God, would seem free rather than abandoned, equal to his servants, other living beings, independent of God and free from tutelage; so that only one person could be proud that he alone was worthy to receive the law from God, and so that he, a rational living being, capable of understanding and knowing, would be restrained by rational freedom, submitting to the One who subjected everything to him. 6. Goodness also gave a reason for observing this law: In the day that you eat, you will surely die. 309 Very kindly showed the result that the violation would lead to, so that ignorance of the danger would not contribute to neglect of obedience. Further, if first there was a reason for establishing a law, then it was followed by a reason for observing it, so that punishment was inflicted for violation; however, the One who spoke about it earlier did not want it to follow. 310 Recognize the goodness of our God, at least until this moment, from His good deeds, from blessings, from forbearance, from forethought, from laws and warnings good and friendly. Chapter 5. Refutation of the argument of the Marcionites, who say that God, who allowed the Fall, is not good, foreseeing and powerful: the works of God prove His goodness, greatness and ability to foresee; The reason for the Fall is in the free will of man 1. From this moment on, all † questions, oh dogs, 311 driven out of the doors by the Apostle, 312 barking at the God of truth. Here are the bones of evidence that you are gnawing at: “If God is good, foreseeing the future and able to avert evil, why did He allow that man, who is also His image and likeness, moreover, His essence (thanks to the soul descending from Him), being deceived by the devil, fell from obedience to the law into death. 2. After all, if He, not wanting this to happen, is good and, not being ignorant of future events, foreseeing, and being able to prevent them, powerful, then in no way would anything happen that could not happen under these three conditions of the existence of divine greatness. If this happened, the opposite becomes obvious: God should not be considered either good, or foreseeing, or powerful; for as much as it is impossible for anything like this to happen if God were such, that is, good, foreseeing and powerful, it is so obvious that this happened because God is not like that.” 3. In answering this, it is necessary first of all to prove that the Creator has these qualities that are being questioned; I'm talking about goodness, foresight and power. I will not dwell on this point, following the direction of Christ Himself to test by works. 313 The works of the Creator confirm both: His goodness, for they, as we have shown, are good, and His power, for they are so impressive, and, moreover, created from nothing. Indeed, if they were created from some substance, as some claim, 314 would still be created from nothing, since they were not what they are. 4. In short, just as deeds are great because they are good, so God is powerful because everything belongs to Him, from which it follows that He is omnipotent. What can I say about foresight, which has as many witnesses as it has made prophets? However, why declare the foreknowledge of the Creator of all things, Who 315 foresaw the Universe 316, in any case, ordering it, and ordered it, foreseeing? In particular, He foresaw a violation of the law, regarding which, if He had not known in advance, He would not have given a warning, threatening death. 5. So, if God possessed these abilities, because of which nothing bad could or should have happened to a person, but, nevertheless, happened, we should also consider the condition of man: was it not because of him that something happened that could not happen because of God. I find man created by God free, able to make his own decisions and dispose of himself, and I do not find in him any more noticeable image and likeness of God than the image of this His right. After all, neither in face nor in the outlines of the body, which are so different in the human race, does man copy the uniform God. But in this essence, which he received from God Himself, that is, in his soul, he had the image of God, guaranteeing him freedom and the possibility of choice. This right of his was also confirmed by the law established by God at that time. 7. After all, the law is not established for those who do not have control over obedience to the law, and the threat of death would not be imposed for violation if disregard for the law were not attributed to freedom of choice. So in the subsequent laws of the Creator, who offers man good and evil, life and death, 318 you will find that the entire course of education through the commandments is taught by the calling, threatening and encouraging God only to the free and free to choose obedience or resistance to man. Chapter 6. Free will was given to man in order to make him a true image of God. Only by having the opportunity to choose does a person acquire ownership of a good. Retribution cannot be assigned to someone who does something out of necessity. 1. But from this moment it is already clear that for this purpose we affirm the complete power of man over his choice, so that if something happens, what happened will be blamed on him, and not on God; and lest you henceforth object that man should not have been so constituted, if his freedom and power of choice were to prove detrimental to him, I will first of all argue that man should have been so constituted, in order to prove all the better that he was so constituted, and was formed worthy of God, since the best reason is the reason why he was so constituted. The kindness of God and His reasonableness will also patronize this arrangement, agreeing in everything with each other in our God. 2. After all, rationality without kindness is not rationality, and kindness without rationality is not good. It is different, perhaps, only with Marcion’s god, who is unreasonably good, as we have shown. God had to be known. This, of course, is good and reasonable. There had to be something worthy to know God. What can be found as worthy as the image and likeness of God? 3. And this, without a doubt, is good and reasonable. So, it was necessary that the image and likeness of God should be arranged in such a way that he had the freedom to make decisions and dispose of himself, so that in him this very freedom and the possibility of choice would be considered as the image and likeness of God. For this purpose, man was given an essence that would possess this ability - the breath of God, of course, free and in control of itself. And how could it even be that a person who owns the whole world would not reign over it through, first of all, power over his soul, would be the master of others, but the servant of himself? 319 4. You can know both the goodness of God from His favor, and the reasonableness from His arrangement. Let at this moment only goodness be considered as what has given man such a great gift, that is, free will; let rationality defend something else for itself: this course of action. Indeed, only God is good by nature. For He who has something that does not have a beginning in Him, has it not by institution, but by nature. Man, who owes his existence entirely and completely to what was established for him by God, having a beginning, together with the beginning received the form in which he exists, and thus is not by nature inclined to good, but by institution, not having the ability to be good as his own, since he is not by nature inclined to good, but by institution, in accordance with Him who establishes good, that is, in accordance with the Creator of goods. 5. Consequently, in order for a person to have the good given to him by God to become his own and so that he already has the right of ownership of the good, and to a certain extent - its nature, when established, freedom and power to dispose of himself were determined for him, like a weigher 320 of the good provided by God, which allows a person to create good as his own of his own free will - for this was also required by the principle of goodness, which should be shown voluntarily, i.e. exercising free will, impartial and not pleasing to the establishment - so that, in this way, a person becomes good if he turns out to be good in accordance with the establishment given to him, but according to his own will, as if according to the natural right of property, so that in the same way, a person resists evil (after all, God, of course, foresaw it too) as stronger, namely, being free and powerful over himself, for if he were deprived of this right and If he did good not voluntarily, but out of necessity, he would also become suitable for evil because of the weakness of his servile state, just as much a servant of evil as of good. 6. So, complete freedom of choice is given to a person in both cases, so that he, being a master over himself, confidently faces both good, voluntarily serving it, and evil, voluntarily avoiding it, since it was necessary that a person under God's judgment in other situations should show it justly in relation to what he deserved by his choice, of course, freely. 7. However, neither for good nor for evil is reward assigned to those who turn out to be good or evil out of necessity, and not of their own free will. For this purpose, the law was established, not excluding, but experiencing freedom in voluntary obedience and in the voluntary commission of a crime: thus, in both outcomes, freedom of choice was revealed. Consequently, if both the goodness and reasonableness of God are revealed in connection with the freedom of choice entrusted to man, then one should not, having lost sight of the basic definition of goodness and reasonableness, which must be given at the very beginning of the discussion, then, on the basis of what happened, conclude that God should not have arranged it this way because the result turned out differently than befitted God, but, having considered that He should have arranged it this way, and leaving intact what was considered, one must examine the rest. 8. However, it is easy for people who are suddenly annoyed by the fall of man and have not first considered his condition to blame what happened on the Creator, since they did not consider His intention. Finally, the goodness of God, subjected to consideration from the very beginning of his deeds, will convince that nothing evil can come from God, and the freedom of man, upon reflection, will reveal itself to be guilty of what it has done, rather itself. Chapter 7. God, being faithful to what he had once established, could not limit the freedom of man. Had He done so, Marcion would have been the first to accuse Him of inconstancy 1. In accordance with this definition, everything is reserved with God: the nature of goodness, and the reasonableness of establishment and foreknowledge, and the abundance of power. However, you must demand from God the greatest steadfastness and exceptional reliability in all His institutions, so as to stop investigating whether anything can happen against the will of God. After all, defending the inflexibility and faithfulness of God, which must concern His good 321 and reasonable institutions, you will not be surprised that God does not oppose what He did not want to happen, in order to preserve what He wanted. 2. For if He once 322 granted man freedom of choice and power, and did it in a manner worthy of Himself, as we have shown, then, of course, He, by the very authority of the institution, provided the opportunity to use them, use, as far as it is in His knowledge, in accordance with Himself, that is, in accordance with God, that is, for the good - for who would grant something against himself? - How much is this within the control of a person, in accordance with the motives of his freedom - for who does not allow someone to whom he has once given something for use to dispose of it in accordance with his nature and at his own discretion? The consequence of this was that God gave up the freedom to influence the freedom that He had once given to man, that is, that He began to retain within Himself His foresight and power, through which He could prevent 323 man from getting into trouble if he began to use his freedom to harm. 3. For if He had prevented this, He would have taken away the free will which He had granted in accordance with reason and goodness. Let’s even assume that He prevented, let’s say, took away free will, calling it away from the tree, not allowing the deceiver-serpent himself to communicate with a woman: wouldn’t Marcion exclaim: “O Master, flighty, unfaithful, unreliable, abolishing what He Himself established! Why did He provide freedom of choice if He then prevented its implementation? Why did he prevent it if he provided it? Let him choose where to blame himself for his mistake: during the establishment or during the abolition.” 4. Wouldn't He have seemed more deceived by ignorance of the future when He resisted? Who would not say that He was lenient, as if He did not know the outcome? But if He knew that man would use His institutions to harm, then what could be more worthy of God than inflexibility, than fidelity to any of His institutions? Let it be on the conscience of a person if he mistreated what he received in the best possible way. Let man himself be guilty of breaking the law he did not want to obey, and not God. Or did the Lawgiver Himself break the law, not allowing His command to be fulfilled? 324 5. This accusation could rightfully be thrown at the Creator if He, with foresight and power, as you demand, opposed human free will; Now mutter to yourself about the Creator, who showed in His statutes, as reasonable and good, both inflexibility, [and patience], 325 and fidelity. Chapter 8. Man was able to resist the temptation of the devil. Now free will makes man a victor over his wiles 1. After all, God first only called man to life, 326 not to a correct life, that is, correct from the point of view of God and His Law. So, He provided him with the opportunity to live, making him a living soul, and instructed him to live correctly, prompting him to obey the Law. Thus God, who 327 now desires to restore man 328 to life, preferring the repentance of the sinner to his death, 329 shows that man was not destined 330 for death. 2. Therefore, just as God gave man the ability to live, so man doomed himself to death; and this did not happen because of weakness or because of ignorance, so nothing should be imputed to the Creator. In fact, even if the one who seduced was an angel, the one who was seduced was free and capable of controlling himself, and the image and likeness of God is stronger than an angel, and the breath of God is nobler than the material spirit of which angels are composed: He creates, he says, spirits as angels and servants - a flame of fire 331 for God would not subject the universe to the power of a person who is not strong enough to rule, and not superior to the angels, to whom he has not subjected anything like that. 3. Likewise, the burden of the Law, if the Law is heavy, He would not place on someone who could not bear it, and He would not impose a death sentence on someone whom He considered to be excused due to weakness. Finally, it was not because of the provision of freedom and the power of choice that He would create man infirm, but rather because of their absence. Moreover, the same man, the same essence of the soul, the same status of Adam, the same freedom of choice and power to make decisions make conquerors over the same devil when exercised in obedience to 332 laws. Chapter 9. The sin of the breath of God, that is, man, cannot be imputed to God: the image is always deprived of the power of the original. Also, the existence of death is on the conscience of man. 1. “Be that as it may,” you say, “however, the essence of the Creator turns out to be susceptible to sin, since the breath of God, that is, the soul, has sinned in man, and the depravity of a part cannot but be attributed to the whole source.” In answering this, it will be necessary to interpret the nature of the soul. First of all, we should not lose sight of what the Greek Scripture means when it speaks of breath and not spirit. 333 2. After all, some translators from the Greek, not noticing the difference between the words and not paying attention to their special meanings, put spirit instead of breath 334 and give heretics the opportunity to discredit the Spirit of God, that is, God Himself, with sin. And the issue has been discussed more than once. So, understand that breath 335 is less than spirit, 336 being its breath, 337 and although it comes from the spirit, it is not spirit. For the breath 338 is weaker than the wind, and although the breath is from the wind, it is, however, not the wind. [Blow] 339 breath can even be called an image of the spirit. 3. Indeed, for this reason man is the image of God, that is, the Spirit, for God is Spirit. 340 Therefore, breath is an image of the Spirit. Further, the image will not completely coincide with the original. After all, it is one thing to correspond to the original, and another to be the original itself. Likewise, the breath, since it is the image of the Spirit, cannot so arrange the image of God 341 that, due to the fact that the original, i.e. the Spirit, i.e., God, is devoid of sin, the image, i.e. the breath, 342 should not allow sin. 4. In this, the image will be less than the original, and the breath will be lower than the spirit, having, of course, those features of God, thanks to which it has immortality, [the soul -] 343 freedom and power to make decisions, for the most part - the gift of foresight, reason, the ability to understand and know, however, even in this it remains an image and does not acquire the very power of the Divine; does not acquire purity from sin, for this suits only God, that is, the original, and this alone is not accessible to the image. 5. After all, just as the image, although it reflects all the features of the original, is nevertheless deprived of its very power, having no movement, so the soul, the image of the Spirit, could not reflect only His power, that is, the happiness of sinlessness. Otherwise it would not be a soul, but a Spirit, and not a person who received a soul, but God. 6. And in general, not everything that belongs to God will be considered God, so you cannot demand that because the breath is God, it should be God, that is, free from sin. After all, if you blow into a flute, you do not make it a person, although you blow from your soul, just as God does from His Spirit. Finally, when Scripture clearly declares that God breathed into the face of man and man became a living soul, 344 and not a life-giving spirit, it separates it from the Creator. 7. After all, it is inevitable that the matter should be other than the master, that is, below the master. For even a jug made by a potter will not itself become a potter; so the breath produced by the Spirit will not become the Spirit because of this. Look, the very fact that the breath was called the soul did not pass from the state of breathing into some worse quality? “Consequently,” you say, “you have given the soul weakness, which you previously denied it.” Of course, when you demand that she be equal to God, i.e. sinless, I speak of her weakness; when it turns out to be opposed to an angel, I argue that the master of the universe, whom the angels serve, 345 who will also judge them, 346 will inevitably be stronger if he stands in God's law, which he did not want at the very beginning. 8. Now the breath of God could commit this crime; it could, but it shouldn't. It had this opportunity because of the weakness of its essence, being a breath and not a Spirit, but it had no such necessity, since it had the power of choice, like a free man, and not a slave; in addition, he was helped by the injunction not to sin under threat of death, which reinforced the weakness of the essence and indicated the path for freedom of choice. So, there is no reason to believe that the soul sinned because it has something in common with God, i.e., breathing, and not because of what was attached to the essence, i.e., freedom of choice, wisely granted by God, but exercised by man at his own discretion. 9. If this is the case, then any institution of God is free from reproach. For freedom of choice transfers its guilt not to the One by whom it was granted, but to the one by whom it was used in a way that it should not have been used. What evil will you attribute to the Creator? If we are talking about the sin of man, then what belongs to man will not be God’s, and the one who turns out to be forbidding it and even condemning it should not be considered the culprit of sin. If we are talking about death, then the presence of death will inspire hatred as its culprit, not towards the One who threatened it, but towards the one who despised the threat. After all, having despised, he created one who, of course, would not have appeared if he had not despised her. Chapter 10. God, who created the angel who subsequently seduced man, good, but possessing free will, is not guilty of the Fall. Man, being free, will defeat the devil 1. But if, instead of man, you accuse the devil of the presence of evil as the instigator of sin, in order in this way to shift the blame also to the Creator - Who creates - , 347 - angels of spirits, 348 - as the creator of the devil, then what God created him, that is, an angel, will belong to Him who created; what God did not create him to be, that is, the devil, that is, the accuser, 349 he will be as if he had created himself, bringing a false accusation against God, firstly, that God forbade them to eat from every tree, 350 then that they would not die if they ate it, 351 thirdly, that God, out of envy, denied them divinity. 352 2. Where, then, does the malice come from, which gave rise to lies and deceit towards people and bad rumors towards the Creator? Of course, not from God, Who, following the example of good deeds, created 353 angels to be good. Moreover, he is declared to be the wisest before his transformation into the devil, 354 unless wisdom is evil. And if you open the prophecy of Ezekiel, you will easily notice that that angel was as good by ordinance as he was evil by his own will. 3. Indeed, by the name of Prince Sora (Tyre) the devil is meant: And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, begin to lament for Prince Sora and say: This is the Lord saying: You are the one in whom the likeness is sealed, that is, you have removed the seal from the purity of the image and likeness, the crown of beauty - this was said to him as the most outstanding of the angels, as the archangel, as the wisest of all; - you were born among the delights of the paradise of your God - where God created angels in the second act of creation 355 in the form of animals 356 - you were dressed in precious stones: sardonyx, topaz, emerald, carbuncle, sapphire, jasper, lincurium, agate, amethyst, chrysolite, beryl, onyx; and you filled your warehouses and your treasuries with gold. From the day you were created, I placed you with the Cherubim on the holy mountain of God; you were among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your days from the day you were created until the harm from you was revealed: from the vastness of your enterprise you filled your storehouses and sinned, 357 - and the rest, which obviously refers to the reproach of the angel, and not to that prince himself, because none of the people was born in God's paradise, not even Adam himself, who was rather transferred there; 358 and no one was placed with the Cherubim on the holy mountain of God, that is, on the heavenly peak, from which the Lord testifies about the fall of Satan; 359 and no one was among the fiery stones, among the sparkling rays of the flaming constellations, from where Satan was also cast out like lightning. 360 4. But in the person of sinful man, the author of evil himself is branded, previously flawless from the day of his creation, created by God for good, as if by the good Creator of flawless creatures, 361 and adorned with all the angelic glory, and placed next to God as good with the Good, but subsequently, through his own fault, deviated to evil. Until that moment,” he says, “when the harm from you was revealed, 362 - blaming him for the damage that he caused to man, tearing him away from obedience to God. 5. And he sinned from the moment he sowed sin, and as a result of this, from then on he began to engage in the expansion of business, 363 i.e., increasing the degree of the sins of his malice, being, as a spirit, no less endowed with freedom of choice. After all, God would not place anything deprived of this kind of freedom so close to Himself. However, having condemned him in advance, He testified that he, due to his own attraction to voluntarily conceived malice, deviated from the pattern of His institution, and showed the reasonableness of His goodness by allowing the works of him to be carried out, with the same intention of postponing the destruction of the devil with which the restoration of man. 6. For He gave time for the competition, so that man, with the help of the same free will, would crush the enemy, because of which he succumbed to him, confirming his own, and not God's guilt, and as a result, in a worthy manner through victory, he would again find salvation, and the devil, finally defeated by the one whom he had previously crushed, would be punished more severely, and so that God would more obviously appear good, awaiting the return of man, who had become more glorious from life to paradise with permission to pluck fruit from the tree of life. Chapter 11. The goodness of God is primary, severity is secondary; justice, which is good as much as injustice is evil 1. So, before the fall of man, God from the very beginning appeared only to the good; then - a stern Judge 365 and, as the Marcionites say, fierce. 366 Immediately the woman is condemned to give birth in pain and to slavery to her husband; 367 but earlier, during the blessing, she heard only unclouded words about the increase of the human race: Be fruitful and multiply; 368 and she was intended to help her husband, 369 and not to be his slave. Immediately the earth is cursed, 370 but before it was blessed; thorns and thistles immediately appear, 371 but before there were herbs, grains and fruit trees; immediately - sweat and labor to get bread, 372 but first - food from every tree without effort 373 and guaranteed nutrition. 374 2. From that moment on, man came to the earth, but earlier – from the earth; from now on - to death, but previously - to life; from now on he is in leather clothes, 375 but before he was naked and was not embarrassed. Thus, the goodness of God is primary according to nature, His severity is secondary and has its cause. The first is integral, the second is accidental; the first is own, the second is accepted; the first is outgoing, the second is attached. After all, natural goodness could not be inactive, and if there was a reason for severity, it could not be avoided or hidden. The first - God discovered by Himself, the second - due to the prevailing circumstances. 3. Now begin to accuse the title of judge as being involved in evil, because you invented another god, wholly good, because you cannot imagine a god who is a judge. Although we show your god as a judge; and if not as a judge, then, without a doubt, as a vicious and empty establisher of order, the safety of which is not ensured in any way, that is, not guaranteed by the court. By approving a God who is not a judge, you do not eliminate God the Judge: you, without a doubt, will have to blame justice itself, which appoints judges, dare to rank it among the category of evils, that is, attribute injustice to goodness. 4. After all, then justice becomes evil, if injustice becomes good. Further, if you are forced to declare injustice to be something worse, you are thereby forced to recognize justice as something best. For everything that is hostile to evil is good, just as everything that is hostile to good is evil. Therefore, to the extent that injustice is evil, justice is good. And it must be considered not only as a type of goodness, but also as its defense, for goodness, if it is not governed by justice in order to be just, will not be goodness if it is unjust. 376 For nothing is good that is unjust, but everything that is just is good. Chapter 12. The goodness of the Creator and His justice are inherent in Him from the beginning 1. So, if the community and agreement of goodness and justice does not allow their separation, then how can you establish a difference between the two gods in their separation, separating the good God and the just God? There is goodness, where justice is. In general, from the very beginning the Creator was as good as he was just. Both His qualities appeared simultaneously. God's goodness created the world, God's justice ordered it, which, when it decided that it should be created from goodness, made this decision on the advice of goodness. 2. It is a matter of justice that a division is declared between light and darkness, 377 between day and night, 378 between heaven and earth, between the upper and lower waters, 379 between the assembly of the seas and the mass of land, 380 between the greater and lesser luminaries, the day and the night, 381 between man and woman, between the tree of knowledge [of death] 382 and life, 383 between peace and paradise, between animals born in water and animals born on land. Just as goodness planned everything, so justice distributed it. 3. Everything in general according to this verdict was located and ordered. Every position, appearance, action, movement, state, emergence and death of individual elements are the decisions of the Creator, so that you do not believe that He should be considered a Judge from the moment evil arose, and thus do not discredit justice by associating it with evil. Thus, we showed that she appeared together with the creator of everything - goodness, and that she, revealed in the Lord as a judge of His deeds, should be considered inherent in God, that is, natural, and not accidental. Chapter 13. The punitive actions of God's justice pursue a good goal: to keep a person from sin. Justice reveals God as both Father and Lord 1. But when evil subsequently broke free, and God's goodness from that moment began to collide with its opponent, the same Divine justice also received another matter - the work of governing goodness already in accordance with resistance, so that this goodness, having limited its freedom, because of which God is naturally good, would be distributed in accordance with the merits of each, appearing to the worthy, denying the unworthy, being taken away from the ungrateful, and thus taking revenge on all opponents. 2. Thus, the whole work of justice consists in taking care of goodness: what it, having subjected to judgment, sentences, what, having sentenced, it punishes, what, as you say, it rages - all this contributes to good, and not to evil. In short, fear of judgment promotes good rather than evil. After all, a good already in difficulty because of its rival could not impose itself. After all, even if it is capable of doing this, it, however, as defenseless against the enemy, can only be preserved under the protection of a certain force of intimidation, which would force them to seek and protect the good even of those who do not want it. 3. However, with so many temptations of evil befalling good, who would strive for something that can be neglected with impunity? Who would take care of something that can be lost without risk? You read that the path of evil is wide and very many follow it: 384 wouldn’t everyone go over to it if there was nothing frightening there? We are afraid of the terrible threats of the Creator, but, however, we can hardly tear ourselves away from evil. What would happen if nothing threatened? Do you call justice that does not favor evil evil? Do you refuse to be good to someone who cares about good? What must God be like to please you? How useful is it for God to make you happy? One under whose rule sins would rejoice? One that the devil would mock? 4. Would you really consider a god good who could make a person worse by guaranteeing him impunity? Who is the creator of good, if not the one who is also its guardian? Accordingly, who will be alien to evil, if not the one who is its enemy? Who will be the enemy if not the conqueror? Who will be a conqueror if not a punisher? Thus, God is entirely good, since He is on the side of good in everything. Thus, He is omnipotent, for He can sustain and destroy. Less power is only to help, because in this case the possibility of doing anything else is excluded. What degree of confidence will I have in receiving good from someone who can only do good? How will I strive for the reward of integrity if I do not consider the reward of depravity? 5. I will inevitably doubt whether he who is not able to reward each of the two will also reward the opposite side. Justice in the highest degree will be the fullness of the divine nature itself, revealing God as perfect both Father and Lord: Father - through forbearance, Lord - through the establishment of order; The Father - thanks to the gentle power, the Lord - thanks to the harsh power; The Father, Whom should be loved with reverence, The Lord, Whom should of necessity be feared; to love because He prefers mercy to sacrifice, 385 to fear because He does not desire sin; to love, because He prefers the repentance of the sinner to his death, 386 to fear, because He opposes unrepentant sinners. Therefore, the Law establishes two precepts: Love God 387 and Fear God. 388 One concerns the submissive, the second concerns the disobedient. Chapter 14. The evil of sin and the “evil” of punishment have different sources. The “evil” of punishment, while just, is not evil 1. Always and in everything you encounter the same God: the one who strikes, but also the one who heals; killing, but also quickening; humiliating, but also elevating; producing evil, but also creating peace, so here too I will have to object to the heretics. After all, they say: “He Himself declares Himself as the creator of evil, saying: I am the One who produces evil 389.” 2. For they, having seized on the commonality of name, due to which there is a confusion of two types of evil, since both sins and punishments are called evil, they want Him to be thought of as the creator of evil indiscriminately, in order to declare Him also the author of evil. We, paying attention to the difference between both types, separating the evil of sin and the evil of punishment, the evil of guilt and the evil of punishment, determine that each part of evil has its own culprit: the devil - for the evil associated with sin and guilt, and God the Creator - for the evil associated with punishment and punishment, so that that part is attributed to malice, this part - to justice, producing the evil of judgment against the evil of sin. 3. Consequently, the Creator declares the evil that a judge should create. It is evil for those to whom it is rewarded, but in itself it is good, since it is fair, protects the good, is hostile to sins, and on this basis is worthy of God. or prove that this evil is unjust in order to prove that it belongs to evil, that is, that it is the evil of injustice, for if it belongs to justice, it will no longer be evil, but good, and evil only for those who, instead of evil, directly condemn good. 4. In this case, affirm that man, who voluntarily despised the divine law, unjustly suffered what he did not want to be deprived of; 390 that the malice of the previous century was unjustly beaten by downpours, 391 and then by fire; 392 that Egypt, the most disgusting, superstitious, and, moreover, persecutor of alien people, was unjustly struck with ten plagues! 393 God hardens the heart of Pharaoh, 394 but he who has already denied God, 395 who arrogantly drove out ambassadors so many times, 396 who has already increased the labor obligation of the people, deserves to be left to destruction; 397 finally, being an Egyptian, Pharaoh had long been guilty before God of pagan idolatry, worshiping the ibis and crocodile rather than the living God. God destroyed the people themselves, but because of their ingratitude. 398 He sent bears to kill children, but because of their disrespect for the prophet. 399 The insolence of a generation that should be modest had to be punished. Chapter 15. Explanation of the Creator’s words about punishing children for the sins of their fathers 1. So, first consider the justice of the Judge: if its reasonableness is confirmed, then both severity and the way in which it manifests itself will be recognized as reasonable and just. And so that we do not delay in examining many subjects, also bring [certain] 400 objections to challenge the verdicts; justify sins to blame the courts! Do not blame the Judge, but expose Him as an evil judge! After all, if He exacted from the sons the sins of the fathers, 401 then the use of this medicine was required by the hard-heartedness of the people, so that people, at least taking care of their descendants, would observe the divine law. For who does not care more about the salvation of his sons than about his own? 2. But if the blessing given to the fathers was also intended for their seed, without any previous merit, why should not the guilt of the fathers also extend to the sons, [both mercy and disfavor] so that both mercy and disfavor would pass on to the whole race? 402 At the same time, what should have been established later is not canceled: that they will not say that the fathers ate sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge, 403 i.e. neither the father will accept the sin of his son, nor the son the sin of the father, but each will be responsible for his own sin, so that when the hard-heartedness of the people disappears, justice, having curbed the harshness of the law, will no longer judge the race, but individuals. 3. Although, if you accept the true Gospel, you will understand to whom the sentence of the One who repays the sins of the fathers applies to the children, namely to those who had to pronounce this sentence on themselves of their own free will: His blood - on our heads and on our children? So, God's providence determined for man 404 what was heard before. Chapter 16. The wrath of God is inseparable from His justice. His feelings are different from human ones 1. Therefore, severity is good, because it is fair, if the Judge is good, that is, fair. In the same way, everything else through which the good work of good severity is carried out is good - be it anger, jealousy or ferocity. After all, they are all inseparable from severity, just as severity is inseparable from justice. [The insolence of a generation to which modesty is due had to be punished.] 405 And then they will not be able to reproach the judge with what belongs to him, if it is devoid of guilt, like the judge himself. What will happen if you say that a doctor must exist, but blame his metal instruments that cut, cauterize, cut and compress? 2. For a doctor cannot exist without the tools of his craft. Blame the one who dissects poorly, the one who cuts off inappropriately, the one who cauterizes recklessly - and only in this case condemn the instruments as bad servants. After all, the same thing happens when you admit that God is a Judge, and reject those movements and feelings with which He judges. We learn about God from the prophets and from Christ, and not from philosophers and Epicurus. 3. Believing that God dwelt even on earth and took on the humiliation of human form for the sake of man’s salvation, we are far from the thoughts of those who deny that God has any concern for anything. From here the heretics borrow a position of this kind: if God is angry or jealous, or exalted, or upset, then, consequently, He will decline and die. Fortunately, Christians believe that God died and yet lives forever. 4. The stupidest of people are those who judge the divine on the basis of human affairs, so that, since passions of this kind in man are associated with his fallen nature, they attribute a similar state to God. Distinguish the essences and endow each with feelings peculiar to it, which differ as much as the essences require, even if it seems that these feelings have the same names - after all, we read about the right hand, 406 and about the eyes, 407 and about the feet of God, 408 and, however, they will not be compared with human ones because of the common name; no matter how great the difference will be between the divine and human body 409 with the same names of the members, just as great will be the difference between the divine and human spirit even with the same names of feelings, which are made just as defective by the defectiveness of the human essence, as the perfection of the divine essence makes them perfect in God. You obviously recognize the Creator as God. 5. Of course, you say. Therefore, how can you suppose that there is something human in God, and not just something divine? That God, whom you do not deny, you recognize as inhuman, because, recognizing Him as God, you have predetermined that He is devoid of all human properties. Further, if you equally recognize that man was transformed by the breath of God into a living soul, and not God was created by man, then it will be very absurd that you place the human in God rather than the divine in man, and rather clothe God in the image of man than man in the image of God. 6. And therefore the image of God must be considered to be manifested in man in this way: the human spirit has the same movements and feelings that God has, although not the same as God; after all, in accordance with their essence and condition, the results differ. Finally, the opposite feelings, I mean gentleness, patience and mercy, and their very source is goodness, why do you consider them divine? We, however, do not master them perfectly, for only God is perfect. Likewise, we experience the previously mentioned types of mental disturbances, I mean anger and irritation, not so happily, for only God is happy thanks to the possession of incorruptibility. 7. For He will be angry, but not *, 410 will be irritated, but will not be tested, will move, but will not be overturned. He inevitably uses everything for the sake of everything, as many feelings as there are reasons for them: anger because of the criminal, and indignation because of the ungrateful, and jealousy because of the arrogant, and everything else that hinders the evil. So is mercy because of those who are lost, and patience because of [not] 411 those who look back, 412 and benevolence because of those who deserve it, and everything else that the good need. He endures all this in the manner characteristic of Him, in which it is fitting for Him to endure it; Because of Him, man endures the same thing, also in a way characteristic of himself. Chapter 17. Examples of God's Mercy in the Old Testament 1. These things, when thus considered, show that all the manifestations of God the Judge realize and, to speak more correctly, protect His universal supreme goodness, which the Marcionites, free from the feelings inherent in the judge and irreproachable in their condition, do not want to recognize in the same God, who sends rain on the good and the evil and makes His sun rise on the just and the unjust, 413 which no other god does at all. After all, even if Marcion dared to remove this testimony of Christ about the Creator from the Gospel, the world itself is covered with writings confirming this, and everyone’s conscience reads about it. 2. And this very patience of the Creator will be a condemnation of Marcion, that patience which waits more for the repentance of the sinner than for his death and prefers mercy to sacrifice, 414 averting the death already destined for the Ninevites 415 and prolonging his life through the tears of Hezekiah 416 and returning royal power to the Babylonian tyrant after his repentance. 417 I mean that mercy which restored Saul’s son, who was to die by vow, to the people, 418 and removed the guilt from David, who confessed his sin against the house of Uriah, 419 and restored Israel itself as many times as it condemned, encouraged as many times as it scolded. 3. So, looking at Him not only as a Judge, turn to those examples that demonstrate Him as the most good. Noticing when He takes revenge, consider when He is lenient. Balance His severity with gentleness. When you discover both in the Creator, you will also find in Him that which makes you believe in another god. Finally, turn to consider His teachings, instructions, commandments and advice. You will probably say that this is all determined by human laws. But Moses and God were before all the Lycurgus and Solons. Everything that follows takes for itself from the original. 4. However, it was not from your god that my Creator learned to prescribe: Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not covet the things of others, honor your father and mother 420 and love your neighbor as yourself? 421 These fundamental orders regarding innocence and modesty, justice and filial devotion are also attached to the orders of humanity: when in the seventh year slaves are set free, 422 when at the same time people refrain from cultivating the fields, giving way to those in need, 423 424 even the threshing ox's mouth bridle is loosened to reward for the work performed, 425 so that it will be easier humanity, tested on animals, was perfected for human comfort. Chapter 18 1. But which good of the law will I rather defend, if not that which heresy seeks to overthrow? 426 As, for example, the order of retribution, which is equal in force to a crime, requiring an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth 427 and a bruise for a bruise. 428 After all, this injunction does not mean permission to mutually commit injustice, but cares entirely about curbing violence, so that for now, since the people are very hard-hearted and unfaithful towards God, it seemed long or even impossible to expect vengeful protection from God, which was later to be announced through the prophet: Vengeance is mine, I will take vengeance, says the Lord, 429 - the commission of injustice is restrained by the fear of the immediate retribution, and permission retribution became a prohibition of incitement, in order to put an end to violence that is safe from itself 430, when with the second permitted, the first is feared, and with the first feared, the second is not committed, for in general the fear of retribution is more easily aroused in anticipation of the same suffering. After all, nothing is worse than experiencing the same thing that you did to others. 2. And if the Law removes from the diet certain foods or declares certain animals unclean, 431 which were previously blessed, 432 understand this advice to practice self-control and know the bridle imposed on that gluttony which, when it ate the bread of angels, lusted after Egyptian cucumbers and pumpkins. 433 Learn in the same way about foresight regarding the companions of gluttony, that is, lust and luxury, which grow cold 434 when gluttony is restrained - after all, the people ate and drank and got up to play. 435 In the same way, in order to partially reduce the thirst for money where it is justified by the need to have means of subsistence, the ambitious desire for expensive food is suppressed. Finally, to make it easier for a person to tune in to fasting in God, he got used to eating sparse and unrefined food, so that in the future he would not desire anything too refined. 436 3. Of course, the Creator should be condemned for taking food from His people, and not from the more ungrateful Marcionites. Also, let no one blame the burden of sacrifices and the troublesome scrupulousness of rites and offerings, as if God, who so clearly exclaims, desired this for Himself: Why do I need the multitude of your sacrifices? 437 and who demanded this at your hands? 438 But let man feel the vigilance of God with which He wished to bind a people inclined to idolatry and violation of the Law to His religion by similar ceremonies by which the superstition of this age is carried out, in order to tear them away from this superstition, commanding that ceremonies be performed for Him, as if He wished, so that the people would not sin by making idols. Chapter 19. The Law of the Creator was given to improve the faith of the people. His prophets worked in the same direction, teaching good deeds 1. But in the very affairs of life and human communication at home and outside the home, the Law ordered everything, right down to taking care of the dishes, 439 so that, everywhere encountering the order prescribed by the Law, people would not forget about God for a single moment. For what can make a person happy if it is not his will in the Law of the Lord and in the 440 Law of the Lord he meditates day and night? 441 This law was established not by the cruelty of its Author, but by the reasonableness of the highest goodness, rather taming the rigidity of the people and trimming the inexperienced in obedience of faith with difficult ceremonies: I will not touch on anything from the secret meanings of the Law, namely, the spiritual and prophetic Law and in almost all symbolic elements. 2. For now it is enough that he simply tied man to God, so that no one except those who did not want to please God could blame him. To promote this good work of the Law, and not its burden, the same God's goodness also sent prophets who taught what is worthy of God: to remove wickedness from the soul, to learn to do good, to seek justice, to judge in favor of the orphan and to deal fairly with the widow, 442 to love investigations, 443 to avoid communication with the wicked, to let the injured go unharmed, 444 to reject an unjust record, 445 to break off Bring bread to the hungry and the homeless into your house; if you see the naked, cover it, and do not despise the household of your seed, 446 keep your tongue and mouth from evil, so as not to deceive, turn away from evil and do good, seek peace and follow it, 447 be angry - and not sin, 448 i.e., do not persist in anger and do not rage, do not walk in the counsel of the wicked, do not stand in the way of sinners, and do not sit in the seat of the wicked. 449 But where? 3. See how good and pleasant it is for brothers to live together, 450 meditating day and night in the Law of the Lord, 451 for it is better to trust in the Lord than in man, and to trust in God than in man. 452 For what is God's reward for man? And it will be like a tree planted near a fountain of water, which will yield its fruit in its season, and its leaf will not fall, and everything that it does will prosper. 453 But he who is innocent and pure in heart, who will not take the name of God in vain and swear falsely to his neighbor, will receive a blessing from the Lord and mercy from God his Savior. 454 4. After all, the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear Him, who trust in His mercy, so that He will free their souls from death - of course, eternal - and to satisfy them in hunger, 455 - of course, eternal life. For the righteous have many hardships, and the Lord will free them from them all. 456 Glorious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints? 457 The Lord will take care of all their bones, and they will not be broken, 458 The Lord will deliver the souls of His servants. 459 We have cited these few quotations from such a great number of Scriptures of the Creator, and I think there is no longer a lack of evidence to provide evidence of God as the best, which is sufficiently confirmed by the commandments of goodness and promises. Chapter 20. Justification of the Creator, who ordered the Jews to take gold and silver vessels from the Egyptians 1. But these cuttlefish, 460 conventionally designated by the Law, also forbade this type of fish to be eaten, 461 when they feel that they are being exposed to shame, they begin to spew out the darkness of blasphemy and thus scatter the already concentrated attention of everyone, 462 spreading and confirming that which obscures the radiant goodness of the Creator. 463 But even in this darkness we will pursue depravity and bring to light the inventions of darkness that impute to the Creator, perhaps most of all, the damage and theft of gold and silver that He entrusted to the Jews in relation to the Egyptians. 464 2. Well, oh, unfortunate heretic, I call you yourself as an arbitrator; first understand both people, and only then will you be able to judge the Author of the injunction. The Egyptians demand that the Jews return their gold and silver vessels. The Jews, for their part, put forward a counterclaim, arguing that for the sake of the same ancestors, according to the same testimony of Scripture, they are owed payment for that slave labor: for making bricks and for building cities and estates. 465 3. What will you decide, having chosen the best god for yourself? That the Jews need to acknowledge the damage, or that the Egyptians need reparations? After all, they say that this is how the envoys of both sides handled things: the Egyptians, demanding the return of the vessels, and the Jews, insisting on reward for their labors. And yet the latter, to their detriment, abandoned these labors from the Egyptians: 466 today, contrary to the Marcionites, the Jews claim more, denying that to compensate for that gold and silver, even the work of six hundred thousand people for so many years is valued at one coin per day. 4. Which part is more numerous: the one that demands the return of the vessels, or the one that lives in estates and cities? 467 What is more significant: the complaint of the Egyptians or the service of the Jews? If Jews, free people, forced into slave labor; As soon as they began a case against the Egyptians regarding the wrongs caused, if they would only show their secretary from their benches their backs, mutilated by the disgraceful cruelty of the whips, they would declare, 468 that not with a few cups and bowls of a very few rich people, but with everyone everywhere and their fortune, 469 and the contributions of all the inhabitants, the damage done to the Jews should be compensated. So, if the cause of the Jews is just, the cause is also just, that is, the order of the Creator, Who made the Egyptians, who were not aware of it, grateful, and provided His people with some consolation of secret compensation during the difficult time of the exodus. Of course, He commanded to demand less. After all, the Egyptians had to return their sons to the Jews as well. Chapter 21. Explanation of the “contradiction” of the Creator: the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath concerns only human affairs, enclosing the ark around Jericho is a divine matter 1. So in the rest, you reproach Him as changeable and fickle for the contradictions of His instructions, forbidding work on the Sabbath 470 and ordering the ark to be carried around for eight days, that is, also on the Sabbath, during the siege of the city of Jericho. 471 You do not carefully consider the law of the Sabbath, which prohibits human works, but not divine ones. For He says: Six days you shall work and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God; don't do anything to it. 472 Which? Of course it's yours. From this it follows that He removes from the Sabbath those works that He previously appointed for six days, namely your works, that is, human and everyday. 2. The encircling of the ark cannot be considered an everyday or human affair, but extraordinary, sacred and, by virtue of God’s very order at that time, divine. I would tell you what it means, if it weren’t for too long to explain the images that you may not recognize, all the manifestations of the Creator. But it is more than enough if you are refuted on the basis of mere facts by the simplicity of truth, and not by trying to satisfy curiosity; since in this case there is a clear definition of the Sabbath, which prohibits human, and not divine, works. Therefore, the one who was then collecting wood on the Sabbath was put to death. 474 After all, he was doing his own thing, which was prohibited by the Law. Those who carried the ark on the Sabbath did so with impunity. After all, they did not their own, but God’s work at the command of Himself. Chapter 22. Explanation of the seeming contradictions between the prohibition to make images and the command to make a brass serpent; between establishing sacrifices and rejecting them 1. In the same way, while forbidding the making of the likeness of everything that is in heaven, on earth and in water, He also explains the reasons [limiting the means of idolatry]. 475 For He adds: Do not worship them or serve them. 476 The image of the copper serpent, which the Lord subsequently ordered Moses to make, does not refer to what falls under the definition of idolatry, but to the healing of those who suffered from snakes. 477 At the same time, I say nothing about the image of this healing remedy. So are the golden Cherubim and Seraphim 478 to give symbolism to the ark, being, undoubtedly, a simple decoration. 2. They, intended for high things, had entirely different reasons than the requirements of idolatry, on account of which the making of an image is prohibited; they obviously do not oppose the law prohibiting images by not having the property of images that makes them prohibited. We spoke about the establishment of sacrifices consistent with reason, 479 namely, about the one that tears away from idols, those rites to God, which even if He rejected again, saying: Why do I need your multitude of sacrifices? - He wanted it to be clear that He did not demand them for Himself personally. After all, I will not drink, he says, the blood of bulls, 480 - for in another place he declares: The Eternal God experiences neither hunger nor thirst. 481 3. After all, even if He condescended to the offerings of Abel 482 and willingly inhaled the burnt offerings of Noah, 483 then what is the pleasure from the entrails of rams or from the offspring of flaming sacrifices? But the simple and God-fearing soul of those who sacrificed to Him what they received from Him - both from food and from pleasant incense - acquired mercy in the face of God, who demanded not what was done, but what was done for the sake of, namely, because of the worship of God. If a dependent person brings some insignificant gift to a rich man or a king who does not need anything, will the rich man and the king be upset by the quantity and quality of the gift, or will the expression of devotion please him? 4. But if a subject brings him gifts either of his own free will or by order and celebrates a festival in honor of the king, but does it insincerely, not from a pure heart and not with complete submission in other matters, 484 then won’t the consequence of this be that that king or the rich man will exclaim: “Why do I need your many gifts?” 485 *** 486 I am satiated, 487 and celebrations, and holidays, and your Sabbaths, speaking 488, which people, celebrating in accordance with their desires, and not in accordance with their reverent attitude towards God, have already made their own, and not God's. Thus He showed that the rejection of what He ordered to be done is subject to certain conditions and reasonable. Chapter 23. Explanation of the changes in the Creator’s attitude towards people at different moments in their lives 1. And if you also wish to consider Him, in regard to persons, either changeable, when He condemns those whom He previously approved, or lacking foresight, when He approves those who were later subject to condemnation, as if He either condemned His previous decisions or ignored future ones; however, nothing suits both the good and the judge so much as to reject or choose according to their merits at the time. He chooses Saul, 489 but not yet the prophet Samuel. 490 He rejects Solomon, but he has already become dependent on foreign women and submitted to the idols of the Moabites and Sidonians. 491 2. What should the Creator have done to avoid being attacked by the Marcionites? Is it still good for those who have acted so far to be condemned in advance for subsequent sins? But it was not proper for a good God to condemn in advance those who had not yet deserved it. Shouldn't He also have rejected those who sin now for the sake of their former good deeds? But it was not appropriate for a just Judge to forgive crimes that had already lost their force. Or which of the people is so alien to sin that God always chooses him, who can never be rejected by Him? 3. Or which of the people is so alien to a good work that God always rejects him, who cannot be chosen by Him? Show someone who always remains kind, and such a person will never be rejected; show someone who always remains evil, and he will never be chosen. However, if *** 492 a person is one and the same (i.e., unchangeable), turning out to be either good or evil at one time or another, then he is rewarded in one and another capacity by God, Who is both Good and Judge, who does not change sentences because of His variability or improvidence, but distributes reward for each moment of time, on the basis of a thorough analysis with a view to the future. Chapter 24. About God's repentance 1. So you misinterpret His repentance, as if He repented in the same way because of His fickleness or inability to foresee, or even because of the recollection of the sin He had committed, since He said: I repented of making Saul king; 493 you think that repentance a priori implies the recognition of some evil deed or mistake. But this is not always the case. After all, in good deeds there is also a confession of repentance to express reproach and censure to the one who, in response to a good deed, showed himself to be ungrateful. 2. So then with regard to the accusation 494 of the person of Saul by the Creator, Who was not mistaken when Saul was installed as king and exalted by the Holy Spirit; for He chose the best until now, quite deservedly: Who, he says, was not among the children of Israel. 495 But He was not ignorant of what would happen. After all, no one will support you in attributing the absence of foresight to that God, Whom, without denying His divinity, you recognize as foreseeing. After all, He has this inherent property of divinity. But the Creator, as I said, blames the evil deed of Saul, declaring His repentance, which, in the absence of sin in regard to the election of Saul, should be understood rather as a reproach than as self-accusation. “Behold,” you say, “I find self-accusation regarding the Ninevites in the words of the book of Jonah: And the Lord repented of the calamities (malitia), which he said he would do to them, and did not. 496 Just as Jonah himself says to God: Because of this, I fled to Tarshish in advance, for I knew that You are merciful and compassionate, patient and abounding in mercy, repenting of adversity.” 497 3. So, it is good that he began by defining God as the most kind, that is, most patient towards the wicked and abounding in mercy and compassion for those who acknowledge and mourn their sins, like the Ninevites of that time. After all, if the most kind is such, then you will first have to admit regarding Him, 498 that contact with evil (malitia) does not correspond to such, that is, the most kind. And since Marcion asserts that a good tree cannot also bear bad fruit, but, however, ***, 499 calls evil (malitia), which the most kind does not accept, is there not some interpretation of these evils (malitiae), capable of coming into contact with the most good? Exists. 4. We affirm that in this case we are not talking about that evil (malitia), which relates to the nature of the Creator as evil (malus), but about that which relates to His power as a Judge, according to which He declared: I am the One who does evil (mala), 500 and: Behold, I will bring evil upon you. 501 - not sinful, but punishing, the bad rumor about which we have sufficiently refuted that it corresponds to the Judge. Just as evil, although it is called evil, is not condemned in a judge and by this name does not show the judge as evil, so it will now be necessary to understand this evil, which, being assessed as that judicial evil, is appropriate for the Judge along with it. 5. Indeed, among the Greeks, the word “malice” (malitia) is sometimes used to denote shocks and grief, and not malice, 502 as in this passage. And even if the Creator, like the creation, 503 repented of those disasters (malitia), namely, those that were to be rejected and considered henceforth as an offense, then even then nothing criminal could be imputed to the Creator, Whose city, mired in injustices, deservedly and deservedly condemned to destruction. 6. Therefore, since He justly appointed, not doing so out of malice, He appointed it in justice, and not out of malice (malitia). But he calls punishment itself evil (malitia) because of the, albeit deserved, evil that suffering itself brings. “Consequently,” you say, “if you justify evil (malitia) in the name of justice, since He justly doomed the Ninevites to death, then He who repented of a just deed, which, of course, should not be repented, is still subject to accusation.” I will say that, of course, God will not repent of a just act, and we have yet to learn what God’s repentance is. After all, if a person repents mostly when remembering a sin, and sometimes because of ingratitude in response to some good deed, then it does not follow that God repents in the same way. 7. For since God does not commit evil and does not condemn good, there is no room in Him for repentance for good or evil. After all, this same Scripture confirms this for you with the words of Samuel to Saul: The Lord has snatched the kingdom of Israel out of your hand today and will give it to your neighbor who is better than you; and Israel will be torn in two; and will not turn back and will not repent, for He is not inclined, like man, to repentance. 504 8. So, this definition establishes a different type of divine repentance in all respects, which, unlike human, cannot be explained either by lack of foresight, or by frivolity, or by any condemnation of a good or evil deed. What will be the nature of divine repentance? This is already clear if you do not relate it to human circumstances. After all, it cannot be understood otherwise than as a simple change in a previous decision, which can occur even without condemnation of this decision; can happen even to a person, not to mention God, any decision of Whose is devoid of guilt. Indeed, in the Greek language, the word denoting repentance does not come from the recognition of sin, but from a change of mind, 505 which, as we show, with God occurs depending on the conflict between various circumstances. Chapter 25. About the “ignorance” of God 1. Now, in order for me to get rid of everything like this, I will begin to explain and cleanse what you consider other insignificance, weakness and inconsistency. “God exclaims: Adam, where are you? 506 You have to think without knowing where he is; and, hearing as an excuse the words about shame in front of nakedness, 507 asks if he ate from the tree, 508 of course, doubting this.” Of course, He did not doubt whether sin had been committed, and was not ignorant of Adam's whereabouts. In fact, it was necessary that the one who hid himself in the awareness of sin, being called, should come out before the face of the Lord, not only because he was called by name, but as already reproached for what had been done. 509 2. After all, it is not in the usual way, that is, with a questioning intonation, that one should read: Adam, where are you? - but persistently, with emphasis, accusingly: Adam, where are you! That is: “You are lost”; that is, “You are no longer here,” so that this exclamation may be understood as a result as an expression of censure and sorrow. However, a certain part of paradise was able, one must think, to hide from the eyes of the One who embraces the whole world with his hand, like a nest, 510 Whose throne is heaven, and the earth is the footstool of His feet, 511 so that Adam was not visible to Him, wherever he was, 512 until God turned to him, both at the moment when he was hiding, and at the moment when he ate from the forbidden tree! 3. A hare 513 or a thief will not hide from the watchman of your vineyard or garden, and from God, consider him to see better from a higher place, nothing that lies below can escape. It is a fool that you turn up your nose at such an important confirmation of God's greatness and the teaching given to people. God asks, as if he were doubting, in order to, confirming here too that a person is free to make a decision, to give him the opportunity, in a situation where he can deny guilt or confess, to voluntarily confess sin - and thereby alleviate it. So also from Cain He found out where his brother was, 514 as if he had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying out from the earth, 515 [but] 516 so that Cain would have the opportunity, thanks to the same power over making a decision, to voluntarily deny sin and thereby aggravate it, and so that we too would be given examples that it is better to confess sins than to deny them, so that from then on the Gospel teaching would begin: From your mouth You will be justified and you will be condemned from your mouth. 517 4. For even if Adam, in accordance with the established law, was given over to the power of death, hope was preserved for him, since the Lord said: Behold, Adam has become like one of Us, 518 - meaning the future participation of man in divinity. What comes next? And now, as if he would never stretch out his hand and take from the tree of life and begin to live forever. 519 By inserting “and now,” a word indicating the present tense, He shows that He gave a temporary extension of life that concerns only the present moment. And therefore He did not curse 520 Adam himself, nor Eve, as candidates for restoration, as those who alleviated their guilt by confessing, but He cursed Cain, 521 and forbade the one who wanted to wash away his sin with death to die until the time 522 as aggravated beyond what he had done, also by denying it. This will be the ignorance of our God, the appearance of which will be created so that a sinning person will not remain in ignorance of what he should do. 6. And going down to Sodom and Gomorrah, He says: I will see whether they act in accordance with the cry that comes to Me or not, so that I may know. 523 And here it seems to be necessary to think, He doubts due to ignorance and wants to find out. Isn’t it necessary here to imply the intonation with which people are addressed, expressing, under the guise of research, not doubt, but threat? And if you laugh at the descent of God, as if He could not otherwise carry out judgment if He had not descended, be careful that you do not also strike your god. After all, he too came down to accomplish what he wanted. Chapter 26. About God's oath and request 1. “But God also swears.” Is Marcion really the god? “No,” he says, “it’s much more meaningless: “By Myself 524.” What would you like 525 for Him to do if there was no other god in His consciousness, swearing precisely that there is absolutely no other besides Him? So, do you accuse Him of swearing falsely or in vain? But He who, as you say, did not know about the existence of another god cannot seem to swear falsely. After all, while He truly swore what He knew, He did not swear a false oath. But His oath that there is no other god was not empty. 2. After all, He would have sworn in vain if there had been no believers in other gods: then - worshipers of idols, now - heretics. Consequently, He swears by Himself, so that at least you may believe that you swear to God that there is no other god at all. You too, Marcion, forced God to do this, because even then He foresaw you. Accordingly, if He swears in promises or threats, achieving faith that was difficult to instill at the very beginning, then there is nothing unworthy of God in inducing faith in God. 3. God is quite insignificant in His very savagery when, angry with the people because of the consecration of the calf, He asks His servant Moses: Allow Me, and, overwhelmed by anger, I will destroy them and turn you into a great nation. 526 On this basis you usually assert that Moses, who turns away anger and even prevents it, is kinder than his God. Ведь он говорит: Да не сделаешь этого, или и меня вместе с ними уничтожь 527 . 4. You, along with the people, are worthy of pity, not recognizing that under the guise of Moses, Christ is depicted, the Intercessor with the Father and laying down His soul for the salvation of the people. Но в данный момент довольно и того, что народ был помилован лично ради Моисея. So that the servant could ask this (i.e., the salvation of the people) from the Lord, the Lord asked this (i.e., the destruction of the people) from him. Indeed, for this reason He said to the servant: Let Me, and I will destroy them, so that he, asking and offering himself as a sacrifice, would not allow, and so that thanks to this you would learn how much God allows a believer and a prophet. Chapter 27. God the Creator is invisible, incomprehensible; The Son of God is visible and accessible; that which, according to the Marcionites, is worthy of God belongs to the Creator, that which is unworthy belongs to the Son 1. Now, in order for me to deal with the rest in one fell swoop, everything that you are still picking up for the overthrow of the Creator as insignificant, weak and unworthy, I will explain simply and clearly: God could not enter into communication with people if he had not perceived human feelings and affects, through which the power of His greatness, which, of course, does not tolerate human mediocrity, was tempered by humility, unworthy of Him, but necessary for man, and thus already worthy of God, for there is nothing so worthy of God as the salvation of man. 2. I would talk a lot about this if I were talking to the pagans - although the argument with heretics is not very different - but since you yourself already have faith that God was in human form and possessed other things that are inherent in the human condition, then you, of course, will not insist on further proof that God made Himself like man, and you find yourself convicted by your own faith. After all, if God, and, moreover, the highest one, brought down the pinnacle of his greatness with such strong humiliation that he submitted to death, and the death of the cross, 528 then why don’t you think that something insignificant is due to our God, however, more tolerable than Jewish insults, the crossbar and burial? 3. Is this not such a nonentity, which from now on will immediately have to show that Christ, subject to human passions, belongs to that God, whose human manifestations you condemn? For we confess that Christ always acted in the name of God the Father, being from the very beginning in communion, in connection with the patriarchs and prophets, 529 the Son of the Creator, His Word, whom He, deducing from Himself, made the Son 530 and then placed over all His institution and will, diminishing Him a little before the angels, 531 as it is written with Him. 4. Through this humiliation He was appointed by the Father also for that which you condemn as human, having studied from the very beginning [already from then on man] 532 what He was destined to become in the end. He is the One who descends, the One who asks, the One who asks, the One who swears. However, our common Gospel will testify that the Father is not visible to anyone, in the words of Christ: No one knew the Father except the Son. 533 5. After all, He declared this in the Old Testament: No one will see God, lest after this he die, 534 - defining the Father as invisible, in the power and in whose name He Himself was God, Who appeared as the Son of God. But also in the person of Christ, Christ is accepted among us, 535 therefore and in this way He is ours. 6. Therefore, everything that you demand as worthy of God is in the Father - invisible, inaccessible, peace-loving and, so to speak, “the God of the philosophers”; and everything that you condemn as unworthy will be attributed to the Son - both visible and audible and accessible, the mediator between the Father and His servant, who united in Himself man and God, in virtues - God, in weaknesses - man, in order to add as much to man as He took from God. 7. In general, everything that, in your opinion, is a dishonor to my God, is a sacrament of human salvation. God began to act 536 to teach man to act in a divine way. God turned out to be insignificant so that man could become the greatest. You, despising such a God, do not know whether you really believe in the crucified God? So, how excessive is your perversity when confronted with both ways of manifestation of the Creator? 8. You point to Him as the Judge, and the severity of the Judge, in accordance with the merits of the deeds, * 537 corresponding, you scold as ferocity; you demand that God be the kindest, and His gentleness, corresponding to kindness, acting humbly, in accordance with the abilities of human mediocrity, you blaspheme as insignificance. He does not suit you either as great or small, or as a judge, or as a friend. What if the same thing happens in your god? We have already shown in the book dedicated to him that he is a judge, and if a judge, then he is inevitably harsh, and if he is harsh, then he is also ferocious, if only ferocious. Chapter 28. Comparison of the “sins” of the Creator and Marcion’s god 1. Now about insignificance and malice and about other dishonor, I myself will draw up rival antitheses against Marcion. If my God did not know that there was another god above Him, then yours was completely unaware of the existence of another God below him. For what does the famous Heraclitus the Dark say? Same way up and down. 539 Further, if he had not been ignorant of Him, he would have opposed Him from the very beginning. Sin and death and the very culprit of sin - the devil, and all the evil, the existence of which my God allowed, was also allowed by yours, who allowed Him to allow. Our God changes His decisions. Yours does the same. After all, the one who so late turned his gaze to the human race changed the decision by which he had not looked at it for so long. 2. Our God repents of something. 540 But so is yours. For by the fact that he finally turned to the salvation of man, he realized repentance for previous neglect, the repentance that follows a bad deed. Moreover, neglect of human salvation, corrected only by repentance on the part of your god, will be considered an evil act. Our God has commissioned theft, 541 but the theft of gold and silver. As much as a person is more valuable than gold and silver, so much more insidious is your god, who kidnaps a person from his Master and Creator. Our God demands an eye for an eye, 542 but your God, by prohibiting retribution, makes injustice more often repeated. For who does not strike again without receiving a retaliatory blow? Our God did not know those whom He chose. Therefore, yours too. After all, he would not have chosen Judas the traitor if he had known in advance. If you say that the Creator lied somewhere, then there is a much greater lie in your Christ, whose body was not true. Many have been destroyed by the cruelty of my God. 3. Likewise, your god condemns those whom he does not save to destruction. My God commanded that someone should be killed. Thy wished that he himself should be killed, no less a murderer in relation to himself than in relation to the one by whom he wanted to be killed. I will prove to Marcion that his god has killed many. After all, he made a murderer, 543 of course, destined for death, unless [the people] 544 sinned in anything against Christ. But the power of truth usually manifests itself in a few. Many lies will be necessary. Chapter 29. Antitheses of Marcion and antitheses (oppositions) of the Creator 1. However, I would also directly destroy Marcion’s “Antitheses” themselves, if a more thorough refutation of them required the defense of the Creator as being as good as the Judge, in accordance with the examples of both spheres, which, as we have shown, are due to God. And if both spheres - the sphere of goodness and the sphere of justice - form a worthy completeness of the Divinity, which is omnipotent, I can, with the help of a few words for now, reflect the “Antithesis”, which seeks, on the basis of the qualities of characters or laws, or deeds, to separate and thus alienate Christ from the Creator, as the most kind - from the Judge, as soft - from the fierce, as saving - from the destructive. 2. After all, “Antitheses” rather unite Them, endowing Them with those differences that correspond to God. Take away Marcion's name, design and purpose of this work itself, and *, 545 that it does not provide anything other than the image of one and the same God, the most kind and the Judge, for both converge in one single God. After all, the very desire to contrast Christ with the Creator in these examples rather leads to their unification. 3. For so united was the divine essence, 546 good and severe, that 547 in the same examples and in almost the same manifestations in which it had previously shown severity, it wished to show its goodness, 548 for a change in time should not be surprising if subsequently God, who was formerly more severe to the untamed, turns out to be gentler to the tamed. Thus, with the help of the Antithesis, it can be more easily shown that the order of the Creator by Christ was rather transformed than rejected, and rather restored than abolished, especially when you separate your god from all unpleasant excitement and, therefore, from rivalry with the Creator. 4. After all, if this is the case, how can the Antithesis portray Him as competing with the individual ideas of the Creator? Therefore, with their help I recognize Him (i.e. Marcion's Christ) my jealous God, who with full right from the very beginning took care of the strengthening of His creations and their achievement of perfection, resorting to good, in so far as it is reasonable, competition. His antitheses (i.e. oppositions) are also recognized by His world itself, harmoniously composed of opposing elements, in accordance, however, with the highest rationality. As a result, O Marcion, who is distinguished by his recklessness, you had to show one - the god of light, and the other - the god of darkness, so that it would be easier for you to convince of the existence of one - the god of goodness and the other - the god of severity. However, antitheses (contradictions) will belong to the Same One in Whose world they are located. Kroymann notes that Tertullian, creating his third work, created two (I and II) from one of his previously written books. At the same time, he added words that are now at the end of the first book (Tert. Adv. Marc., I, 29, 9) and at the beginning of the second (Tert. Adv. Marc., II, 1, 1). Interpolation, according to van der Vliet. Interpolation, according to Kroymann. Wed: Luke. 8:18; 19:26 ; Mk. 4:25; Matt. 13:12; 25:29. Cp.: Tert. Adv. Marc., I, 2, 1. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “Grafted a good tree onto a bad one.” On the comparison between Eve and Mary, see also: Iust. Dial., 100, 5; Iren. V, 19, 1; Tert. De carn., 17, 5–6. The words: “Goodness has also given a reason for observing this law: In the day that you eat, you will die. Very kindly showed the result to which the violation would lead, so that ignorance of the danger would not contribute to neglect of obedience,” according to Kroymann, belong to the second edition. The words “Further, if first there was a reason for establishing a law, then it was followed by a reason for observing it, so that punishment was imposed for violation; however, He who spoke about it earlier did not want it to follow” are in good agreement with the words in: Tert. Adv. Marc., II, 4, 5. Another hint that Marcion comes from the same city as the “dog philosopher” Diogenes. Wed: Rev. 22:15; cf.: Matt. 7:6, Phil. 3:2. Wed: In. 10:25.38; 14:11 ; cf.: In. 5:36 ; Some heretics, for example, Hermogenes, against whom Tertullian wrote one essay, believed that matter, the source of evil, is eternal and God creates the world from it. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “by means of which (foresight).” Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “freedom and opportunity.” Compare: “What delusions are possessed by people who are eager to extend their right of possession overseas, who consider themselves happiest if they occupy many provinces by military force, annexing new ones to old ones - and do not know what the boundless power equal to God consists of! To command oneself is the right of the greatest of rulers (ignari quod sit illud ingens parque dis regnum: imperare sibi maximum imperium est)” (Sen. Epist., 113, 30). Weigher during manipulation. The Roman lawyer Gaius (2nd century after AD) reports that during a mancipation (a specially formalized purchase and sale), at least five witnesses must be present, and the one who holds the copper scales, called the weigher (Gaius. Inst., I, 119). If these conditions were not met, the deal was void. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: "For upholding the steadfastness and faithfulness of the good God, which must concern His reasonable ordinances." Semel. Compare: “always obeys, once commands (semper paret, semel iussit)” (Sen. Dial., I, 5, 8). A play on words: “The consequence of this was that God refused (secederet from se-cedere) the freedom to influence the freedom that was once given (concessa from con-cedere) by Him to man, that is, that He began to retain in Himself His foresight and power, by means of which He could prevent (intercesisse from inter-cedere) that man, having begun to use his freedom to harm, would get into trouble.” According to Kroymann, the words “Wouldn’t He have seemed more deceived by ignorance of the future when He opposed? Who would not say that He was lenient, as if He did not know the outcome? But if He knew that man would use His institutions to harm, then what could be more worthy of God than inflexibility, than fidelity to any of His institutions? Let it be on the conscience of a person if he mistreated what he received in the best possible way. Let man himself be guilty of breaking the law he did not want to obey, and not God. Or did the Lawgiver Himself break the law, not allowing His command to be fulfilled?” are part of an earlier version of the treatise. Thus, the fifth paragraph that follows should be immediately adjacent to the third. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “God not only called man to life.” Compare: Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9. See: Ps. 104 / 103:4. It is curious that Tertullian here uses the word apparitor “junior official, low technical employee (lictor, scribe, etc.).” The Vulgate uses the word minister. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “His.” “breath” – πνοή (cf.: Gen. 2:7), “spirit” – πνεῦμα (cf.: Gen. 1:2). Compare: “But the present study prompts me to call the soul spirit, since breathing is attributed to another entity (i.e., spirit). Since we consider this to be a property of the soul, which we recognize as homogeneous and simple, it is necessary that we declare it a spirit under a certain condition: not because of a state, but because of an action, not as an essence, but as a deed, because it breathes, and not because it is, in fact, a spirit. After all, blowing means breathing. Thus, the soul, which we define based on its originality, that is, as a breath, we declare here to be a spirit out of necessity; be that as it may, contrary to Hermogenes, who declares that it consists of matter, and not of the breath of God, we consider it as, in fact, a breath. For he, neglecting the testimony of Scripture itself, turns the breath into spirit, so that the soul is believed to consist of matter rather than of the spirit of God, since it is incredible that the spirit of God should come to sin and then to judgment. Therefore, we affirm there that the soul is a breath, and not a spirit, according to Scripture and according to the distinction of spirit, and here we declare it a spirit reluctantly, in accordance with the similarity of breath and breath. There is a question of essence; for to breathe is the action of the essence” (Tert. Dean., 11, 1–2). Wed: In. 4:24 (πνεῦμα ὁ θεός). Kroymann insert. In the manuscript: “also breath, that is, an image.” The Greek word means διάβολος “slanderer.” The first act of creation is the creation of the ideal world (Gen. 1:1 2:3); the second act of creation is the creation of the real world (Gen. 2:4–25). According to E. Evans, the idea that animals from Gen. 2:18–20 are angels, a fantasy of Tertullian. Wed: Luke. 10:18 ; cf.: Isa. 14:12 ; Open 9:1. A die conditionis conditus ut a bono conditore conditionum. Ex quo apparuerunt laesurae tuae, - Tertullian does not strive to accurately quote even the biblical text that he himself just cited: donec inventae sunt laesurae tuae. Lit.: “measures provisions.” Lit.: “Judging and severe.” These words contradict the statement in Tert. Adv. Marc., II, 12, 3. Let us note that when polemicizing with heretics who reject martyrdom, Tertullian, speaking about the cruelty of the Christian God (crudelem deurn, qui non intellegit, credit - Tert. Scorp., 7, 5), makes His image similar to the image of Saturn (See: Stockmeier P. Gottesverstandnis und Satumkult bei Tertullian/Studia patristica. 1979. Vol. 17. S. 830, 832). Inmunis. Compare: “without coercion (inmunis) the earth gave everything” (Ου. Met., I, 101–102). Two combined options: 1) “for goodness, if it is not governed by justice in order to be fair, will not be goodness,” 2) “for goodness will not be goodness if it is unjust.” Wed: Matt. 7:13. See: Isa. 45:7. Kroymann places these words at the end of chapter 14. Wed: Os. 6:6; Proverbs 21:3; Matt. 9:13; 12:7. See: Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37 ; Mk. 12:30; OK. 10 and other places. See: Lev. 19:14, 32; Proverbs 24:21 ; 1 Peter 2:17. Punishment by death: a person ate the forbidden fruit and thus did not wish to remain immortal. There is a reading “wished”. Ref. 1:11–14; Ref. 5:7–19. Wed: Ref. 20:5; 34:7; Number 14:18; Ps. 109/108:14; Jer. 32:18 and in other places. Kroymann corrects the text as follows: “so that both favor and disgrace pass on to the whole race.” Wed: Jer. 31 /38:29; Ezek. 18:2–4. Conjecture by A. Engelbrecht. In the manuscript: “God’s providence determined everything.” Kroymann places these words at the end of the 14th chapter. Wed: Ref. 15:6 and in other places. Wed: 2 Kings 19:16 and in other places. Wed: 2 Samuel 22:10 and in other places. In his essay “Against Praxeus” (Tert. Adv. Pgach., 7) Tertullian writes: “For who will deny that God is a body, even if God is a Spirit? After all, the Spirit is a body of its kind in its own image (Quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie).” Lacuna, according to Kroymann. A word is missing that means “will be alarmed” or “will be confused.” Wed: Os. 6:6; Proverbs 21:3. Wed: Ref. 21:1, 1Bmop. 15:12; Jer. 34:14. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “which heresy thirsts?” See: Rome. 12:19 ; Heb. 10:30; Wed: Deut. 32:35. A se tuta, - correction by Kroymann. In the manuscript: astuta “evil”; there is a reading aestuata “blazing”. Frigescunt. Cp.: sine Cerere et Libero friget Venus “without Ceres (= bread) and Liber (= wine) Venus (= love) grows cold” (Ter. Eun., 732). Kroymann's correction. In the manuscript: “Finally, so that it would be easier for a person accustomed to sparse and unrefined food and not wanting anything too refined in the future to tune in to fasting in God.” Wed: Lev. 6:28; 11:32–33; 15:12, 2 Kings 21:13; Mk. 7:8. In lege. In the Septuagint: ἐν τῷ νόμῷ. “ἐν is the most commonly used preposition in documents translated from Hebrew or Aramaic, but is much less common in the original Greek text. The reasons for this phenomenon: a) the greater frequency of the preposition נ in Hebrew and Aramaic, b) translators of Semitic documents usually represented נ with the help of ἐν, c) the absence or rare use in Semitic languages of prepositions that could have their equivalent in Greek διά, εἰς, κατά, περί, πρός and ὑπό.” See: Martin R. A. Syntactical evidence of Semitic sources in Greek documents. 1974. P. 5. Cp.: Idem. Syntax criticism of Johannine Literature, the Catholic Epistles, and the Gospel passion accounts//Studies in Bible and early Christianity. Vol. 18.1989. P. 165–166. Cp:. Is. 1:16–17; Bmop. 10:18. Diligere quaestiones. See: Bmop. 19:18. In this regard, the comparison with Tert is interesting. De an., 2.7: “infinitas enim quaestiones apostolus prohibet (after all, the apostle prohibits endless debate).” Wed: Deut. 22:13–19; Deut. 26–29. Wed: Deut. 19:16–19; Ref. 23:1. See: Ps. 1:2. For prepositional case construction in the Law, see above. Cuttlefish, as living creatures without scales, were considered non-kosher food, cf.: Lev. 11:10–12; Deut. 14:10. Another understanding: “they scatter (i.e. turn into nothing) the efforts of each individual when it is almost crowned with success.” Wed. Clement of Alexandria has similar colorful comparisons: “... the hypocrites exuding poison and lies, who plot the machinations of justice, He once called the brood of vipers. But if one of these snakes voluntarily repents by following His word, he will become a man of God. Others He allegorically calls wolves in sheep's clothing, hinting at predators in human form. And all these very wild animals, and these stones, this heavenly song transformed into people obedient to it” (C l. Protr., 4, 3). “But let your wildness be enchanted by heavenly singing. Heed our short speech and spew out the deadly poison from yourself, so that you may be freed from death, like snakes from their old skin. Listen to me and don’t close your ears, don’t block the way to the words, but accept them with your soul! The medicine of immortality is wonderful: get up and crawl no more, because the enemies of the Lord will lick the dust, says Scripture, lift your head from the ground, look at the sky, admire its appearance, stop plotting against the heels of the righteous and making the path to the truth difficult. Become smart and harmless! Then the Lord, perhaps, will give you the wings of simplicity (He planned to provide them to earth-born), so that, leaving the holes, you will dwell in the heavens” (C l. Protr., 106, 1–3). Wed: Ref. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35–36. Kroymann's conjecture. According to the manuscripts, “and yet the Egyptians justly renounced their claims.” That is, there are fewer Egyptians who lost gold and silver vessels because of the Jews than there are Egyptians who use the cities and villages built by the Jews. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “would announce.” Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “not with the few cups and bowls of the rich, of whom there are fewer everywhere, but with everything and their fortune.” Wed: Ref. 20:9–10; 23:12 ; Deut. 5:12–14. Kroymann's conjecture. Another reading: “went to collect firewood.” Wed: Number. 21:8–9; lust. Dial., 94. See: Tert. Adv. Marc., II, 18, 3. Van der Vleet's conjecture. According to the manuscripts: “and not with a heart full of other manifestations of submission.” Kroymann believes that there is a gap here. The translation of the missing words could be: “in the same way God rejects the ministry of His people.” - insert in the edition of Jacob Pamelius (Antwerp, 1579). According to Kroymann, there is a gap here: “not always.” Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “glorification”. According to another interpretation: “refuse the statement.” According to Kroymann, there is a lacuna here: “God the Creator is the punishment that he intended to carry out against the Ninevites.” See, for example: ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς, sufficit diei malitia sua, wickedness prevails over the day (Matthew 6:34). Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “And even if the Creator repented of that evil, namely, the rejection of creation and its condemnation.” We are talking about the word μετάνοια. In a similar way, St. Theophilus of Antioch noted that God, asking where Adam was, did so not out of ignorance, but to induce man to repentance (Theoph. II, 26). Wed: Is. 66:1 and other places. Lepus - Kroymann correction. In the manuscript - lupus "wolf". “nor” is Kroymann’s insertion. Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “He might want.” Justin already wrote that in the Old Testament God the Son appeared to people (see: lust. Dial., 56). Let us not accuse Tertullian of Arianism, who was carried away by the play on words: Quem ex semetipso proferendo filium fecit et exinde omni dispositioni suae voluntatique praefecit. Interpolation. Kroymann, however, suggests that two options are combined here: 1) having been studying man since then; 2) being studying from the very beginning what He was destined to become in the end. This is the procedure suggested by Kroymann. In the manuscript: “But with us Christ is received in the person of Christ.” Kroymann suggests a gap here and suggests inserting a word with the meaning of “justice”: “the severity of the Judge, in accordance with the merits of the deeds, corresponding to justice, scold as ferocity.” Kroymann's correction. In the manuscript: “which”. See: Heraclitus.Fragmenta.No.33, ed. Marcovich = No. 60, edd. Diels-Kranz. Cp.: Gen. 6:6 and in other places. Wed: Ref. 3:22; 11:2; 12:35 . Kroymann excludes this word here. According to Kroymann, there is a gap here; the missing word could mean “will seem.” Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “the essence of the deities.” Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: "and". Kroymann's conjecture. In the manuscript: “that she wanted to show her goodness.” You might be interested in: