Tertullian — Against Marcion 4.32
Who seeks the lost sheep and drachma? Is it not he who lost them? But who lost them? Is it not he who had them? And who had them? Is it not he whose they were? If therefore a human is no other’s property than the Creator’s, he had him whose he was; he lost who had; he sought who lost; he found who sought; he exulted who found. So the argument of both parables is empty around him whose the sheep and drachma are not—that is, the human. For he did not lose, because he did not have; nor seek, because he did not lose; nor find, because he did not even seek; nor exult, because he did not find. And indeed it belongs to him to exult over a sinner’s repentance—that is, over recovery of the lost—who long ago professed that he prefers a sinner’s repentance rather than death.
Latin
Ouem et drachmam perditam quis requirit? nonne qui perdidit? quis autem perdidit? nonne qui habuit? quis uero habuit? nonne cuius fuit? si igitur homo non alterius est res quam creatoris, is eum habuit, cuius fuit, is perdidit, qui habuit, is requisiuit, qui perdidit, is inuenit, qui quaesiuit, is exultauit, qui inuenit. ita utriusque parabolae argumentum uacat circa eum, cuius non est ouis neque drachma, id est homo. non enim perdidit, quia non habuit, nec requisiuit, quia non perdidit, nec inuenit, quia nec requisiuit, nec exultauit, quia non inuenit. atque adeo exultare illius est de paenitentia peccatoris, id est de perditi recuperatione, qui se professus est olim malle peccatoris paenitentiam quam mortem.