617 Jer. iv. 4.
618 Deut. x. 16 (Sept.).
620 Rom. ii. 28.
623 Tertullian, by the word "enjoins" (monet), seems to have read the passage in Rom. v. 1 in the hortatory sense with e!xwmen, "let us have peace with God." If so, his authority must be added to that exceedingly strong ms. authority which Dean Alford (Greek Test. in loc.) regrets to find overpowering the received reading of e!xomen, "we have," etc. We subjoin Alford's critical note in support of the e!xwmen, which (with Lachmann) he yet admits into his more recent text: "AB (originally) CDKLfh (originally) m 17 latt (cincluding F-lat); of the versions the older Syriac (Peschito)( and Copy; of the fathers, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Damascene, Thephylact, Oecumenius, Rufinus, Pelagius, Orotullian, and the Codex Sinaiticus, in its original state; although, like its great rival in authority, the Codex Vaticanus, it afterwards received the reading e!xomen. These second readings of these mss., and the later Syriac (Philoxenian), with Epiphanius, Didymus, and Sedulius, are the almos only authorities quoted for the received text. [Dr. H. over-estimates the "rival" Codices.]
626 Rom. v. 20.
627 Rom. v. 20.
628 Nisi si: an ironical particle.
631 Rom. v. 21.
632 Gal. iii. 22.
633 Rom. iii. 19.
634 Rom. vii. 4, also Gal. ii. 19. This (although a quotation) is here a Marcionite argument; but there is no need to suppose, with Pamelius, that Marcion tampers with Rom. vi. 2. Oehler also supposes that this is the passage quoted. But no doubt it is a correct quotation from the seventh chapter, as we have indicated.
635 Statim (or, perhaps, in respect of the derivation), "firmly" or "stedfastly."
637 Rom. vii. 4.
638 In this argument Tertullian applies with good effect the terms "flesh" and "body," making the first [which he elsewhere calls the "terrena materia" of our nature (Ad Uxor. i. 4)] the proof of the reality of the second, in opposition to Marcion's Docetic error. "Sa\rc is not = sw=ma, but as in John i. 14, the material of which man is in the body compounded" (Alford).
639 Compare the first part of ver. 4 with vers. 5 and 6 and viii. 2, 3.
640 Rom. vii. 7.
641 This, which is really the second clause of Rom. vii. 7, seems to be here put as a Marcionite argument of disparagement to the law.
642 Per quam liquuit delictum latere: a playful paradox, in the manner of our author, between liquere and latere.
643 Rom. vii. 8.
644 Rom. vii. 13.
645 Rom. vii. 14.
646 Rom. viii. 3.
647 Sensus noo/j in Rom. vii. 23.
652 This vindiction of these terms of the apostle from Docetism is important. The word which our A.V. has translated sinful is a stronger term in the original. It is not the adjective a9martwlou=, but the substantive a9marti/aj, amounting to "flesh of sin," i.e. (as Dean Alford interprets it) "the flesh whose attribute and character is sin." "The words e0n o9moiw/mati sarko\j a9marti/aj, De Wette observes, appear almost to border on Docetism, but in reality contain a perfectly true and consistent sentiment; sa\rc a9marti/aj; is flesh, or human nature, possessed with sin....The likeness, predicated in Rom. viii. 3, must be referred not only to sa/rc, but also to the epithet th=j a9marti/aj" (Greek Testament, in loc.).
656 Censu: perhaps "birth." This word, which originally means the censor's registration, is by our author often used for origo and natura, because in the registers were inserted the birthdays and the parent's names (Oehler).
657 It is better that we should give the original of this sentence. Its structure is characteristcally difficult, although the general sense, as Oehler suggests, is clear enough: "Quia vera quidem, sed non ex semine de statu simili (similis, Latinius and Junius and Semler), sed vera de censu non vero dissimili (dissimilis, the older reading and Semler's)." We add the note of Fr. Junius: "The meaning is, the Christ's flesh is true indeed, in what they call the identity of its substance, although not of its origin (ortus) and qualities-not of its original, because not of a (father's) seed, as in the case of ourselves; not of qualities, because these have not in Him the like condition which they have in us."
660 See Rom. viii. 5-13.
661 1 Cor. xv. 50.
662 Non ad reatum substantiae sed ad conversationis pertinebunt.
663 Rom. viii. 10.
664 Understand "corpus" (Oehler).
665 Rom. viii. 11.
666 Dici capit: capit, like the Greek e0nde/xetai, means, "is capable or susceptible; " often so in Tertullian.
667 We do not know from either Tertullian or Epiphanius what mutilations Marcion made in this epistle. This particular gap did not extend further than from Rom. viii. 11 to x. 2. "However, we are informed by Origen (or rather Rufinus in his edition of Origen's commentary on this epistle, on xiv. 23) that Marcion omitted the last two chapters as spurious, ending this epistle of his Apostolicon with the 23d verse of chap. xiv. It is also observable that Tertullian quotes no passage from chaps. xv., xvi. in his confutation of Marcion from this espistle" (Lardner).
668 Rom. x. 2-4.
669 The god of the New Testament, according to Marcion.
670 Isa. i. 3.
671 Isa. xxix. 13 (Sept.)
672 Ps. ii. 2.
673 Rom. xi. 33.
674 In fidem Christi ex lege venientem. By "the law" he means the Old Testament in general, and probably refers to Rom. x. 17.
675 Rigaltius (after Fulvius Ursinus) read "non erasit," but with insufficient authority; besides, the context shows that he was referring to the large erasure which he had already mentioned, so that the non is inadmissible. Marcion must, of course, be understood to have retained Rom. xi. 33; hence the argument in this sentence.
676 Isa. xlv. 3.
677 Isa. xl. 13, quoted (According to the Sept.) by the apostle in Rom. xi. 34, 35.
679 Rom. xii. 9.
680 Ps. xxxiv. 14</P>
681 Rom. xii. 10.
682 Lev. xix. 18.
683 Rom. xii. 12.
684 Ps. cxviii. 9.
685 Rom. xii. 12.
686 Ps. xx. 1.
687 Rom. xii. 12.
688 Rom. xii. 16.
689 Isa. v. 21.
690 Rom. xii. 17.
692 Rom. xii. 19.
693 Rom. xii. 19, quoted from Deut. xxxii. 25.
694 Rom. xii. 18.
695 Rom. xiii. 9.
696 Ironically said. He has been quoting all along from Marcion's text of St. Paul, turning its testimony against Marcion.
697 Matt. v. 17.
698 For although he rejected St. Matthew's Gospel, which contains the statement, he retained St. Paul's epistle, from which the statement is clearly proved.
701 Sapor. We have here a characteristic touch of his diligent and also intrepid spirit. Epiphanius says this shotr epistle "was so entirely correupted by Marcion, that he had himself selected nothing from it whereon to found any refutations of him or of his doctine." Tertullian, however, was of a different mind; for he has made it evident, that though there were alterations made by Marcion, yet sufficient was left untouched by him to show the absurdity of his opinions. Epiphanius and Tertullian entertained, respectively, similar opinions of Marcion's treatment of the second epistle, which the latter discusses in the next chapter (Larder).
702 1 Thess. ii. 15.
703 All the best mss., including the Codices Alex., Vat., and Sinait., omit the i0di/ouj, as do Tertullian and Origen. Marcion has Chrysostom and the recevied text, followed by our A.V., with him.
706 Ergo exaggerari non potuit nisi.
709 1 Thess. iv. 5.