Anf-02 vi.iii.i.viii Pg 28.1
Anf-01 vi.ii.xvi Pg 7
Comp. Isa. v., Jer. xxv.; but the words do not occur in Scripture.
And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.”1678 1678
Anf-03 iv.ix.xiii Pg 59
Comp. Isa. v. 6, 7, with Matt. xxvii. 20–25, Mark xv. 8–15, Luke xxiii. 13–25, John xix. 12–16.
And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, “the law and the prophets were until John,”1436 1436
Anf-03 v.iv.iv.xxiii Pg 5
Isa. v. 6, 7.
And so in this manner the law and the prophets were until John, but the dews of divine grace were withdrawn from the nation. After his time their madness still continued, and the name of the Lord was blasphemed by them, as saith the Scripture: “Because of you my name is continually blasphemed amongst the nations”3419 3419
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxix Pg 55
Tertullian calls by a proper name the vineyard which Isaiah (in his chap. v.) designates “the vineyard of the Lord of hosts,” and interprets to be “the house of Israel” (ver. 7). The designation comes from ver. 2, where the original clause ירשֹ והע[טָיִּוַ is translated in the Septuagint, Καὶ ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον Σωρήκ. Tertullian is most frequently in close agreement with the LXX.
that when “He looked for righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry”4704 4704
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxix Pg 56
Isa. v. 7.
(of oppression). The same God who had taught them to act as He commanded them,4705 4705 Ex præcepto.
was now requiring that they should act of their own accord.4706 4706 Ex arbitrio.
He who had sown the precept, was now pressing to an abundant harvest from it. But how absurd, that he should now be commanding them to judge righteously, who was destroying God the righteous Judge! For the Judge, who commits to prison, and allows no release out of it without the payment of “the very last mite,”4707 4707
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxix Pg 55
Tertullian calls by a proper name the vineyard which Isaiah (in his chap. v.) designates “the vineyard of the Lord of hosts,” and interprets to be “the house of Israel” (ver. 7). The designation comes from ver. 2, where the original clause ירשֹ והע[טָיִּוַ is translated in the Septuagint, Καὶ ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον Σωρήκ. Tertullian is most frequently in close agreement with the LXX.
that when “He looked for righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry”4704 4704
Anf-01 vi.ii.xvi Pg 7
Comp. Isa. v., Jer. xxv.; but the words do not occur in Scripture.
And it so happened as the Lord had spoken. Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God. There is—where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, “And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, the temple of God shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord.”1678 1678
Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxix Pg 55
Tertullian calls by a proper name the vineyard which Isaiah (in his chap. v.) designates “the vineyard of the Lord of hosts,” and interprets to be “the house of Israel” (ver. 7). The designation comes from ver. 2, where the original clause ירשֹ והע[טָיִּוַ is translated in the Septuagint, Καὶ ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον Σωρήκ. Tertullian is most frequently in close agreement with the LXX.
that when “He looked for righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry”4704 4704
Anf-02 vi.iii.ii.vi Pg 14.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.ii.xiv Pg 5.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.iii Pg 13.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.iii Pg 144.1
Anf-02 vi.iv.v.v Pg 8.1
Anf-03 iv.ix.ii Pg 8
Deut. vi. 4, 5; Lev. xix. 18; comp. Matt. xxii. 34–40; Mark xii. 28–34; Luke x. 25–28; and for the rest, Ex. xx. 12–17; Deut. v. 16–21; Rom. xiii. 9.
Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; False witness thou shalt not utter; Honour thy father and mother; and, That which is another’s, shalt thou not covet. For the primordial law was given to Adam and Eve in paradise, as the womb of all the precepts of God. In short, if they had loved the Lord their God, they would not have contravened His precept; if they had habitually loved their neighbour—that is, themselves1144 1144 Semetipsos. ? Each other.
—they would not have believed the persuasion of the serpent, and thus would not have committed murder upon themselves,1145 1145 Semetipsos. ? Each other.
by falling1146 1146 Excidendo; or, perhaps, “by self-excision,” or “mutual excision.”
from immortality, by contravening God’s precept; from theft also they would have abstained, if they had not stealthily tasted of the fruit of the tree, nor had been anxious to skulk beneath a tree to escape the view of the Lord their God; nor would they have been made partners with the falsehood-asseverating devil, by believing him that they would be “like God;” and thus they would not have offended God either, as their Father, who had fashioned them from clay of the earth, as out of the womb of a mother; if they had not coveted another’s, they would not have tasted of the unlawful fruit.
