This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
WHEREIN TERTULLIAN PROVES, WITH RESPECT TO ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES,
WHAT HE HAD PROVED IN THE PRECEDING BOOK WITH RESPECT TO ST.
LUKE'S GOSPEL. FAR FROM BEING AT VARIANCE, THEY WERE IN PERFECT UNISON
WITH THE WRITINGS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND THEREFORE TESTIFIED THAT
THE CREATOR WAS THE ONLY GOD, AND THAT THE LORD JESUS WAS HIS CHRIST.
AS IN THE PRECEDING BOOKS, TERTULLIAN SUPPORTS HIS ARGUMENT WITH
PROFOUND REASONING, AND MANY HAPPY ILLUSTRATIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
There is nothing without a beginning but God alone. Now, inasmuch
as the beginning: occupies the first place in the condition of all
things, so it must necessarily take precedence in the treatment of
them, if a clear knowledge is to be arrived at concerning their
condition; for you could not find the means of examining even the
quality of anything, unless you were certain of its existence, and that
after discovering its origin.(1) Since therefore I am brought, in the
course of my little work, to this point,(2) I require to know of
Marcion the origin of his apostles even—I, who am to some degree a new
disciple? the follower of no other master; who at the same time(5) can
believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be believed hastily(6)
(and that I may further say is hastily believed, which is believed
without any examination(7) of its beginning); in short, I who have the
best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful
solution,(8) since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do
not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue, of the apostles.
Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had
attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is
imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary
to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic
body in the way of a fortuitous encounter(10) rather than a deliberate
selection; by necessity (so to speak), and not voluntary choice,
although the members of the apostolate had been duly ordained, and were
now dismissed to their several missions. Where- fore, O shipmaster of
Pontus,(1) if you have never taken on board your small craft(2) any
contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you have never thrown
overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and
conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad
if you would inform us under what bill of lading(3) you admitted the
Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him,(4) what owner forwarded
him,(5) who handed him to you,(6) that so you may land him without any
misgiving,(7) lest he should turn out to belong to him,(8) who can
substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic
writings.(9) He professes himself to be "an apostle"—to use his own,
words—"not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ."(10) Of course,
any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is
only rendered valid by the authority of a second person. One man signs,
another countersigns;(11) one man appends his seal, another registers
in the public records.(12) No one is at once a proposer and a seconder
to himself. Besides, you have read, no doubt, that "many shall come,
saying, I am Christ."(13) Now if any one can pretend that he is Christ,
how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ ! But
still, for my own part, I appear(14) in the character of a disciple and
an inquirer; that so I may even thus(15) both refute your belief, who
have nothing to support it, and confound your shamelessness, who make
claims without possessing the means of establishing them. Let there be
a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god; but what
matter? since they are only to draw their proofs out of the Testament
of the Creator. Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised
me the Apostle Paul. For among the types and prophetic blessings which
he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his attention to
Benjamin, exclaimed, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning He
shall devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment."(16)
He foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a
voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order words, in
the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord's sheep, as a
persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them
nourishment, which means that in his declining years he would educate
the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the Gentiles. Then, again, in
Saul's conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of
him, and then in remorse and reparation,(17) on his receiving from him
good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation(18) of Paul in
Saul—belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe—and of Jesus in
David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin's genealogy.(19)
Should you, however, disapprove of these types,(20) the Acts of the
Apostles," at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul,
which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a
persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man;"(22)
thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason
for rejecting your defence of him,(23) and for bearing fearlessly your
taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not calumniate him whom I
defend.(24) I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny him,
to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our belief you
should admit the particulars which comprise it. If you challenge us to
your belief, (pray) tell us what things constitute its basis.(25)
Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in your proof,
(tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours,(26) believing in
opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you
believe? Take now from my point of view(27) the apostle, in the same
manner as you have received the Christ—the apostle shown to be as much
mine as the Christ is. And here, too, we will fight within the same
lines, and challenge our adversary on the mere ground of a simple
rule,(1) that even an apostle who is said not to belong to the
Creator-nay, is displayed as in actual hostility to the Creator—can be
fairly regarded as teaching(2) nothing, knowing nothing, wishing
nothing in favour of the Creator whilst it would be a first principle
with him to set forth(3) another god with as much eagerness as he would
use in withdrawing us from the law of the Creator. It is not at all
likely that he would call men away from Judaism without showing them at
the same time what was the god in whom he invited them to believe;
because nobody could possibly pass from allegiance to the Creator
without knowing to whom he had to cross over. For either Christ had
already revealed another god—in which case the apostle's testimony
would also follow to the same effect, for fear of his not being else
regarded(4) as an apostle of the god whom Christ had revealed, and
because of the impropriety of his being concealed by the apostle who
had been already revealed by Christ—or Christ had made no such
revelation concerning God; then there was all the greater need why the
apostle should reveal a God who could now be made known by no one else,
and who would undoubtedly be left without any belief at all, if he were
revealed not even by an apostle. We have laid down this as our first
principle, because we wish at once to profess that we shall pursue the
same method here in the apostle's case as we adopted before in Christ's
case, to prove that he proclaimed no new god;(5) that is, we shall draw
our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul himself. Now, the garbled
form in which we have found the heretic's Gospel will have already
prepared us to expect to find(6) the epistles also mutilated by him
with like perverseness—and that even as respects their number.(7)
THE ABOLITION OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE MOSAIC LAW NO PROOF OF
ANOTHER GOD. THE DIVINE LAWGIVER, THE CREATOR HIMSELF, WAS THE
ABROGATOR. THE APOSTLE'S DOCTRINE IN THE FIRST CHAPTER SHOWN TO ACCORD
WITH THE TEACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES SHOWN
TO BE GENUINE AGAINST MARCION. THIS BOOK AGREES WITH THE PAULINE
EPISTLES.
The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive(8)
against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians.
For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it
actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator,—a point which
we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we
showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God.(9)
Now, if the Creator indeed promised that "the ancient things should
pass any,"(10) to be superseded by a new course of things which should
arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation when He says,
"The law and the prophets were until John"(11)—thus making the Baptist
the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then
terminating—and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of
course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed
after John, than invalidate "the old things" and confirm "the new," and
yet promote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at
whose instance(12) it was foretold that the ancient things should pass
away. Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the establishment of
the gospel help my argument even in this epistle, wherein they both
have reference to the fond assumption of the Galatians, which led them
to suppose that faith in Christ (the Creator's Christ, of course) was
obligatory, but without annulling the law, because it still appeared to
them a thing incredible that the law should be set aside by its own
author. Again,(13) if they had at all heard of any other god from the
apostle, would they not have concluded at once, of themselves, that
they must give up the law of that God whom they had left, in order to
follow another? For what man would be long in learning, that he ought
to pursue a new discipline, after he had taken up with a new god?
Since, however,(14) the same God was declared in the gospel which had
always been so well known in the law, the only change being in the
dispensation,(15) the sole point of the question to be discussed was,
whether the law of the Creator ought by the gospel to be excluded in
the Christ of the Creator? Take away this point, and the controversy
falls to the ground. Now, since they would all know of themselves,(16)
on the withdrawal of this point, that they must of course renounce all
submission to the Creator by reason of their faith in another god,
there could have been no call for the apostle to teach them so
earnestly that which their own belief must have spontaneously suggested
to them. Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show
us that the supersession(1) of the law comes from the appointment of
the Creator—a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind.(2)
Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no
other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was
to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law—especially as the
prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and
most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I
marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His
grace to another gospel"(3)—He means) "another" as to the conduct it
prescribes, not in respect of its worship; "another" as to the
discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is
the office of(4) Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not
from the Creator to another god. For nobody had induced them to
apostatize from(5) the Creator, that they should seem to "be removed to
another gospel," simply when they return again to the Creator. When he
adds, too, the words, "which is not another,"(6) he confirms the fact
that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's. For the Creator
Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: "Get thee up into
the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion good tidings; lift up thy
voice with strength, thou that bringest the gospel to Jerusalem."(7)
Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, "How
beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that
bring good tidings of good"(8)—even proclaiming the gospel to the
Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the Gentiles
trust;"(9) that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I have
given thee as a light of the Gentiles."(10) However, you will have it
that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the
apostle. So that there are two gospels for(11) two gods; and the
apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another"
gospel," since there is (on the hypothesis)(13) another; and so he
might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating
this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid
this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards,
"Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be
accursed,"(14) because he was aware that the Creator was going to
introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself still more. For this
is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two
gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is
another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself
first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach
any other gospel."(15) It is by way of an example that he has expressed
himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then
neither might an angel. He said "angel"' in this way, that he might
show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel
nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply(16) an angel to
the gospel of the Creator. He then cursorily touches on his own
conversion from a persecutor to an apostle—confirming thereby the Acts
of the Apostles,(17) in which book may be found the very subject(18) of
this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men
ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed;
and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of
the Holy Ghost, that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which
their fathers even had not been able to bear."(19) Now, since the Acts
of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you
reject them. It is because they declare no other God than the Creator,
and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator; whilst the
promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other
document than the Acts of the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that
these(20) should be found in agreement with the apostle, on the one
hand, when they described his career in accordance with his own
statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him when
they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator's Christ—as
if Paul did not follow(1) the preaching of the apostles when he
received from them the prescription(2) of not teaching the Law.(3)
But with regard to the countenance(4) of Peter and the rest of
the apostles, he tells us s that "fourteen years after he went up to
Jerusalem," in order to confer with them(6) about the rule which he
followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have
been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,)
of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their
method.(7) So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by
those whom you wish on all occasions(8) to be understood as in alliance
with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus
circumcised,"(9) he for the first time shows us that circumcision was
the only question connected with the maintenance(10) of the law, which
had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false
brethren unawares brought in."(11) These persons went no further than
to insist on a continuance of the law, retaining unquestionably a
sincere belief in the Creator. They perverted the gospel in their
teaching, not indeed by such a tampering with the Scripture(12) as
should enable them to expunge(13) the Creator's Christ, but by so
retaining the ancient regime as not to exclude the Creator's law.
Therefore he says: "Because of false brethren unawares brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that
they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave place by subjection
not even for an hour."(14) Let us only attend to the clear(15) sense
and to the reason of the thing, and the perversion of the Scripture
will be apparent. When he first says, "Neither Titus, who was with me,
being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised," and then adds, "And
that because of false brethren unawares brought in,"(16) etc., he gives
us an insight into his reason(17) for acting in a clean contrary
way,(18) showing us wherefore he did that which he would neither have
done nor shown to us, if that had not happened which induced him to act
as he did. But then(19) I want you to tell us whether they would have
yielded to the subjection that was demanded,(20) if these false
brethren had not crept in to spy out their liberty? I apprehend not.
They therefore gave way (in a partial concession), because there were
persons whose weak faith required consideration.(21) For their
rudimentary belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of
the law, deserved this concessive treatment,(22) when even the apostle
himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still
running, in vain.(23) Accordingly, the false brethren who were the
spies of their Christian liberty must be thwarted in their efforts to
bring it under the yoke of their own Judaism before that Paul
discovered whether his labour had been in vain, before that those who
preceded him in the apostolate gave him their right hands of
fellowship, before that he entered on the office of preaching to the
Gentiles, according to their arrangement with him.(24) He therefore
made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the
reason why he had Timothy circumcised,(25) and the Nazarites introduced
into the temple,(26) which incidents are described in the Acts. Their
truth may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle's own
profession, how "to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the
Jews, and to them that were under the law, as under the law,"—and so
here with respect to those who come in secretly,—"and lastly, how he
became all things to all men, that he might gain all."(1) Now, inasmuch
as the circumstances require such an interpretation as this, no one
will refuse to admit that Paul preached that God and that Christ whose
law he was excluding all the while, however much he allowed it, owing
to the times, but which he would have had summarily to abolish if he
had published a new god. Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John
give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a
division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and
themselves to the circumcision.(2) Their agreement, also, "to remember
the poor"(3) was in complete conformity with the law of the Creator,
which cherished the poor and needy, as has been shown in our
observations on your Gospel.(4) It is thus certain that the question
was one which simply regarded the law, while at the same time it is
apparent what portion of the law it was convenient to have observed.
Paul, however, censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly
according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt he blames him; but it
was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of "eating,"(5)
which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated
with) "fearing them which were of the circumcision,"(6) but not on
account of any perverse opinion touching another god. For if such a
question had arisen, others also would have been "resisted face to
face" by the man who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively
small matter of his doubtful conversation. But what do the Marcionites
wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle must
(be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that "a
man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith:"(7) faith,
however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also. For of course he
would have bestowed no labour on severing faith from the law, when the
difference of the god would, if there had only been any, have of itself
produced such a severance. Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build
up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown."(8) The
law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in
the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys(9) and
hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and
the rough ways be made straight and smooth(10)—in other words, that
the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the
gospel. For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm
spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from
us;"(11) since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the
people imagined vain counsels;" when "the kings of the earth stood up,
and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His
Christ,"(12) in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the
liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law,(13) "because the just
shall live by his faith."(14) Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first
said this, yet you have the apostle here confirming the prophets, even
as Christ did. The object, therefore, of the faith whereby the just man
shall live, will be that same God to whom likewise belongs the law, by
doing which no man is justified. Since, then, there equally are found
the curse in the law and the blessing in faith, you have both
conditions set forth by(15) the Creator: "Behold," says He, "I have set
before you a blessing and a curse."(16) You cannot establish a
diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the
diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why, however,
"Christ was made a curse for us,"(17) is declared by the apostle
himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the
Creator's appointment. But yet it by no means follows, because the
Creator said of old, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,"(18)
that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed
even then in the law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by
anticipation one whom He knew not of? Why, however, may it not be more
suitable for the Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own
curse, than to have submitted Him to the malediction of that god of
yours,—in behalf, too, of man, who is an alien to him? Now, if this
appointment of the Creator respecting His Son appears to you to be a
cruel one, it is equally so in the case of your own god; if, on the
contrary, it be in accordance with reason in your god, it is equally
so—nay, much more so—in mine. For it would be more credible that that
God had provided blessing for man, through the curse of Christ, who
formerly set both a blessing and a curse before man, than that he had
done so, who, according to you,(1) never at any time pronounced either.
"We have received therefore, the promise of the Spirit," as the apostle
says, "through faith," even that faith by which the just man lives, in
accordance with the Creator's purpose.(2) What I say, then, is this,
that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith.
But when he also adds, ".For ye are all the children of faith,"(3) it
becomes dear that what the heretic's industry erased was the mention of
Abraham's name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be "children of
Abraham,"(4) and after mentioning him he expressly called us "children
of faith" also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith,
if not Abraham's? For since "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted
to him for righteousness;"(5) since, also, he deserved for that reason
to be called "the father of many nations," whilst we, who are even more
like him(6) in believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was,
and thereby also obtain life—since the just lives by his faith,—it
therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us "sons
of Abraham," since he is in faith our (common) father,(7) so here also
he named us "children of faith," for it was owing to his faith that it
was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many) nations. As to
the fact itself of his calling off faith from circumcision, did he not
seek thereby to constitute us the children of Abraham, who had believed
previous to his circumcision in the flesh?(8) In short,(9) faith in one
of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation(10) of the
other,(11) so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe
in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to
be his children through faith. Such a dispensation as this belongs
wholly to Him through whose appointment it was already made known by
the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown(12)' by
the natural meaning.(13)
"But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were
children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the
world."(14) This, however, was not said "after the manner of men." For
there is no figure(15) here, but literal truth. For (with respect to
the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is,
in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements
of the world, which he looks up to(16) in the light of a god? With
regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the
apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner
of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man
disannulleth, or addeth thereto."(17) For by the figure of the
permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament.
"To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not 'to
seeds,' as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed,' which is Christ."(18)
Fie on(19) Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on
what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that
which he has retained.(20) "But when the fulness of time was come, God
sent forth His Son"(21)—the God, of course, who is the Lord of that
very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained,
as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who
furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His
Son should be postponed to the end of the times.(1) "It shall come to
pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord
shall be manifested";(2) "and in the last days I will. pour out of my
Spirit upon all flesh"(3) as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him
(only)(4) to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged
the end of time no less than the beginning. But as for that idle god,
who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time,
to show for himself what has he ever done to bring about the fulness
of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an
impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to
the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that
were under the law,"(5) in other words, to "make the crooked ways
straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says(6)—in order
that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new
law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,"(7) and "that
we might receive the adoption of sons,"(8) that is, the Gentiles, who
once were not sons. For He is to be "the light of the Gentiles," and
"in His name shall the Gentiles trust."(9) That we may have, therefore
the assurance that we are the children of God, "He hath sent forth His
Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."(10) For "in the last
days," saith He," I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."(11)
Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the
promise thereof? Who is (our) Father, but He who is also our Maker?
Therefore, after such affluence (of grace), they should not have
returned "to weak and beggarly elements."(12) By the Romans, however,
the rudiments of learning are wont to be called elements. He did not
therefore seek, by any depreciation of the mundane elements, to turn
them away from their god, although, when he said just before, "Howbeit,
then, ye serve them which by nature are no gods,"(13) he censured the
error of that physical or natural superstition which holds the elements
to be god; but at the God of those elements he aimed not in this
censure.(14) He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by
"elements," even the rudiments of the law: "Ye observe days, and
months, and times, and years"(15)—the sabbaths, I suppose, and "the
preparations,"(16) and the fasts, and the "high days."(17) For the
cessation of even these, no less than of cicumcision, was appointed by
the Creator's decrees, who had said by Isaiah, "Your new moons, and
your sabbaths, and your high days I cannot bear; your fasting, and
feasts, and ceremonies my soul hateth;"(18) also by Amos, "I hate, I
despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn
assemblies;"(19) and again by Hosea, "I will cause to cease all her
mirth, and her feast-days, and her sabbaths, and her new moons, and all
her solemn assemblies."(20) The institutions which He set up Himself,
you ask, did He then destroy? Yes, rather than any other. Or if another
destroyed them, he only helped on the purpose of the Creator, by
removing what even He had condemned. But this is not the place to
discuss the question why the Creator abolished His own laws. It is
enough for us to have proved that He intended such an abolition, that
so it may be affirmed that the apostle determined nothing to the
prejudice of the Creator, since the abolition itself proceeds from the
Creator. But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods
is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it
seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's
name he has left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage
required his erasure more than this, even his partial alteration of
the text.(21) "For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one
by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bond
maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise:
which things are allegorized"(22) (that is to say, they presaged
something besides the literal history); "for these are the two
covenants," or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans),(1) as we have
found the word interpreted," the one from the Mount Sinai," in relation
to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, "which gendereth to
bondage"—"the other gendereth" (to liberty, being raised) above all
principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is l named,
not only in this world, but in that which is to come, "which is the
mother of us all," in which we have the promise of (Christ's) holy
church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren,
we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."(2) In this
passage he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a noble birth,
being sprung, as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son
of Abraham who was born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the
bond maid came the legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations,
therefore, emanate from that same God by whom,(3) as we have found,
they were both sketched out beforehand. When he speaks of "the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free,"(4) does not the very phrase
indicate that He is the Liberator who was once the Master? For Galba
himself never liberated slaves which were not his own, even when about
to restore free men to their liberty.(5) By Him, therefore, will
liberty be bestowed, at whose command lay the enslaving power of the
law. And very properly. It was not meet that those who had received
liberty should be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage"(6)—that
is, of the law; now that the Psalm had its prophecy accomplished: "Let
us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, since
the rulers have gathered themselves together against the Lord and
against His Christ.''(7) All those, therefore, who had been delivered
from the yoke of slavery he would earnestly have to obliterate the very
mark of slavery—even circumcision, on the authority of the prophet's
prediction. He remembered how that Jeremiah had said, "Circumcise the
foreskins of your heart;"(8) as Moses likewise had enjoined,
"Circumcise your hard hearts"(9)—not the literal flesh. If, now, he
were for excluding circumcision, as the messenger of a new god, why
does he say that "in Christ neither circumcisoin availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision?(10) For it was his duty to prefer the rival principle
of that which he was abolishing, if he had a mission from the god who
was the enemy of circumcision. Furthermore, since both circumcision and
uncircumcision were attributed to the same Deity, both lost their
power(11) in Christ, by reason of the excellency of faith—of that
faith concerning which it had been written, "And in His name shall the
Gentiles trust?"(12)—of that faith "which," he says "worketh by
love."(13) By this saying he also shows that the Creator is the source
of that grace. For whether he speaks of the love which is due to God,
or that which is due to one's neighbor—in either case, the Creator's
grace is meant: for it is He who enjoins the first in these words,
"Thou shalt love God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy strength;" (14) and also the second in another passage:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."(15) "But he that troubleth
you shall have to bear judgment."(16) From what God? From (Marcion's)
most excellent god? But he does not execute judgment. From the Creator?
But neither will He condemn the maintainer of circumcision. Now, if
none other but the Creator shall be found to execute judgment, it
follows that only He, who has determined on the cessation of the law,
shall be able to condemn the defenders of the law; and what, if he
also affirms the law in that portion of it where it ought (to be
permanent)? "For," says he, "all the law is fulfilled in you by this:
'Thou shalt love thy neighhour as thyself.' "(17) If, indeed, he will
have it that by the words "it is fulfilled" it is implied that the law
no longer has to be fulfilled, then of course he does not mean that I
should any more love my neighbour as myself, since this precept must
have ceased together with the law. But no! we must evermore continue to
observe this commandment. The Creator's law, therefore, has received
the approval of the rival god, who has, in fact, bestowed upon it not
the sentence of a summary dismissal,(18) but the favour of a
compendious acceptance;(19) the gist of it all being concentrated in
this one precept! But this condensation of the law is, in fact, only
possible to Him who is the Author of it. When, therefore, he says,
"Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,"(1)
since this cannot be accomplished except a man love his neighhour as
himself, it is evident that the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself" (which, in fact, underlies the injunction, 'Bear ye one
another's burdens"), is really "the law of Christ," though literally
the law of the Creator. Christ, therefore, is the Creator's Christ, as
Christ's law is the Creator's law. "Be not deceived,(2) God is not
mocked."(3) But Marcion's god can be mocked; for he knows not how to be
angry, or how to take vengeance. "For whatsoever a man soweth, that
shall he also reap."(4) It is then the God of recompense and judgment
who threatens(5) this. "Let us not be weary in well-doing;"(6) and "as
we have opportunity, let us do good."(7) Deny now that the Creator has
given a commandment to do good, and then a diversity of precept may
argue a difference of gods. If, however, He also announces recompense,
then from the same God must come the harvest both of death(8) and of
life. But "in due time we shall reap;"(9) because in Ecclesiastes it is
said, "For everything there will be a time."(10) Moreover, "the world
is crucified unto me," who am a servant of the Creator—"the world," (I
say,) but not the God who made the world—"and I unto the world,"(11)
not unto the God who made the world. The world, in the apostle's sense,
here means life and conversation according to worldly principles; it is
in renouncing these that we and they are mutually crucified and
mutually slain. He calls them "persecutors of Christ."(12) But when he
adds, that "he bare in his body the scars(13) of Christ"— since scars,
of course, are accidents of body(14)—he therefore expressed the truth,
that the flesh of Christ is not putative, but real and substantial,(15)
the scars of which he represents as borne upon his body.
My preliminary remarks(16) on the preceding epistle called me
away from treating of its superscription,(17) for I was sure that
another opportunity would occur for considering the matter, it being of
constant recurrence, and in the same form too, in every epistle. The
point, then, is, that it is not (the usual) health which the apostle
prescribes for those to whom he writes, but "grace and peace."(18) I do
not ask, indeed, what a destroyer of Judaism has to do with a formula
which the Jews still use. For to this day they salute each other(19)
with the greeting of "peace," and formerly in their Scriptures they did
the same. But I understand him by his practice(20) plainly enough to
have corroborated the declaration of the Creator: "How beautiful are
the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good, who preach the gospel
of peace!"(21) For the herald of good, that is, of God's "grace" was
well aware that along with it "peace" also was to be proclaimed.(22)
Now, when he announces these blessings as "from God the Father and the
Lord Jesus,"(23) he uses titles that are common to both, and which are
also adapted to the mystery of our faith; and I suppose it to be
impossible accurately to determine what God is declared to be the
Father and the Lord Jesus, unless (we consider) which of their accruing
attributes are more suited to them severally.(25) First, then, I assert
that none other than the Creator and Sustainer of both man and the
universe can be acknowledged as Father and Lord; next, that to the
Father also the title of Lord accrues by reason of His power, and that
the Son too receives the same through the Father; then that "grace and
peace" are not only His who had them published, but His likewise to
whom offence had been given. For neither does grace exist, except after
offence; nor peace, except after war. Now, both the people (of Israel)
by their transgression of His laws,(1) and the whole race of mankind by
their neglect of natural duty,(2) had both sinned and rebelled against
the Creator. Marcion's god, however, could not have been offended, both
because he was unknown to everybody, and because he is incapable of
being irritated. What grace, therefore, can be had of a god who has not
been offended? What peace from one who has never experienced rebellion?
"The cross of Christ," he says, "is to them that perish foolishness;
but unto such as shall obtain salvation, it is the power of God and the
wisdom of God."(3) And then, that we may known from whence this comes,
he adds: "For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.'"(4) Now,
since these are the Creator's words, and since what pertains to the
doctrine s of the cross he accounts as foolishness, therefore both the
cross, and also Christ by reason of the cross, will appertain to the
Creator, by whom were predicted the incidents of the cross. But if(6)
the Creator, as an enemy, took away their wisdom in order that the
cross of Christ, considered as his adversary, should be accounted
foolishness, how by any possibility can the Creator have foretold
anything about the cross of a Christ who is not His own, and of whom He
knew nothing, when He published the prediction? But, again, how happens
it, that in the system of a Lord(7) who is so very good, and so profuse
in mercy, some carry off salvation, when they believe the cross to be
the wisdom and power of God, whilst others incur perdition, to whom the
cross of Christ is accounted folly;—(how happens it, I repeat,) unless
it is in the Creator's dispensation to have punished both the people of
Israel and the human race, for some great offence committed against
Him, with the loss of wisdom and prudence? What follows will confirm
this suggestion, when he asks, "Hath not God infatuated the wisdom of
this world?"(8) and when he adds the reason why: "For after that, in
the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God(9)
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."(10) But
first a word about the expression "the world;" because in this passage
particularly,(11) the heretics expend a great deal of their subtlety in
showing that by world is meant the lord of the world. We, however,
understand the term to apply to any person that is in the world, by a
simple idiom of human language, which often substitutes that which
contains for that which is contained. "The circus shouted," "The forum
spoke," and "The basilica murmured," are well-known expressions,
meaning that the people in these places did so. Since then the man, not
the god, of the world(12) in his wisdom knew not God, whom indeed he
ought to have known (both the Jew by his knowledge of the Scriptures,
and all the human race by their knowledge of God's works), therefore
that God, who was not acknowledged in His wisdom, resolved to smite
men's knowledge with His foolishness, by saving all those who believe
in the folly of the preached cross. "Because the Jews require signs,"
who ought to have already made up their minds about God, "and the
Greeks seek after wisdom,''(13) who rely upon their own wisdom, and not
upon God's. If, however, it was a new god that was being preached, what
sin had the Jews committed, in seeking after signs to believe; or the
Greeks, when they hunted after a wisdom which they would prefer to
accept? Thus the very retribution which overtook both Jews and Greeks
proves that God is both a jealous God and a Judge, inasmuch as He
infatuated the world's wisdom by an angry(14) and a judicial
retribution. Since, then, the causes(15) are in the hands of Him who
gave us the Scriptures which we use, it follows that the apostle, when
treating of the Creator, (as Him whom both Jew and Gentile as yet have)
not known, means undoubtedly to teach us, that the God who is to become
known (in Christ) is the Creator. The very "stumbling-block" which he
declares Christ to be "to the Jews,"(16) points unmistakeably(17) to
the Creator's prophecy respecting Him, when by Isaiah He says: "Behold
I lay in Siona stone of stumbling and a rock of offence."(18) This rock
or stone is Christ.(19) This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still.(20)
Now, what is that "foolishness of God which is wiser than men," but the
cross and death of Christ? What is that "weakness of God which is
stronger than men,"(1) but the nativity and incarnation(2) of God? If,
however, Christ was not born of the Virgin, was not constituted of
human flesh, and thereby really suffered neither death nor the cross
there was nothing in Him either of foolishness or weakness; nor is it
any longer true, that "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world
to confound the wise;" nor, again, hath "God chosen the weak things of
the world to confound the mighty;" nor "the base things" and the least
things "in the world, and things which are despised, which are even as
nothing" (that is, things which really(3) are not), "to bring to
nothing things which are" (that is, which really are).(4) For nothing
in the dispensation of God is found to be mean, and ignoble, and
contemptible. Such only occurs in man's arrangement. The very Old
Testament of the Creators itself, it is possible, no doubt, to charge
with foolishness, and weakness, and dishonour and meanness, and
contempt. What is more foolish and more weak than God's requirement of
bloody sacrifices and of savoury holocausts? What is weaker than the
cleansing of vessels and of beds?(6) What more dishonourable than the
discoloration of the reddening skin?(7) What so mean as the statute of
retaliation? What so contemptible as the exception in meats and drinks?
The whole of the Old Testament, the heretic, to the best of my belief,
holds in derision. For God has chosen the foolish things of the world
to confound its wisdom. Marcion's god has no such discipline, because
he does not take after(8) (the Creator) in the process of confusing
opposites by their opposites, so that "no flesh shall glory; but, as it
is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."(9) In what
Lord? Surely in Him who gave this precept.(10) Unless, forsooth, the
Creator en-joined us to glory in the god of Marcion
By all these statements, therefore, does he show us what God he
means, when he says, "We speak the wisdom of God among them that are
perfect."(11) It is that God who has confounded the wisdom of the wise,
who has brought to nought the understanding of the prudent, who has
reduced to folly(12) the world's wisdom, by choosing its foolish
things, and disposing them to the attainment of salvation. This wisdom,
he says, once lay hidden in things that were foolish, weak, and lacking
in honour; once also was latent under figures, allegories, and
enigmatical types; but it was afterwards to be revealed in Christ, who
was set "as a light to the Gentiles,"(13) by the Creator who promised
through the mouth of Isaiah that He would discover "the hidden
treasures, which eye had not seen."(14) Now, that that god should have
ever hidden anything who had never made a cover wherein to practise
concealment, is in itself a wholly incredible idea. If he existed,
concealment of himself was out of the question—to say nothing(15) of
any of his religious ordinances.(16) The Creator, on the contrary, was
as well known in Himself as His ordinances were. These, we know, were
publicly instituted(17) in Israel; but they lay overshadowed with
latent meanings, in which the wisdom of God was concealed(18) to be
brought to light by and by amongst "the perfect," when the time should
come, but "pre-ordained in the counsels of God before the ages."(19)
But whose ages, if not the Creator's? For because ages consist of
times, and times are made up of days, and months, and years; since also
days, and months, and years are measured by suns, and moons, and stars,
which He ordained for this purpose (for "they shall be," says He, "for
signs of the months and the years"), (20) it clearly follows that the
ages belong to the Creator, and that nothing of what was fore-ordained
before the ages can be said to be the property of any other being than
Him who claims the ages also as His own. Else let Marcion show that the
ages belong to his god. He must then also claim the world itself for
him; for it is in it that the ages are reckoned, the vessel as it
were(1) of the times, as well as the signs thereof, or their order. But
he has no such demonstration to show us. I go back therefore to the
point, and ask him this question: Why did (his god) fore-ordain our
glory before the ages of the Creator? I could understand his having
predetermined it before the ages, if he had revealed it at the
commencement of time.(2) But when he does this almost at the very
expiration of all the ages(3) of the Creator, his predestination before
the ages, and not rather within the ages, was in vain, because he did
not mean to make any revelation of his purpose until the ages had
almost run out their course. For it is wholly inconsistent in him to be
so forward in planning purposes, who is so backward in revealing them.
In the Creator, however, the two courses were perfectly
compatible—both the predestination before the ages and the revelation
at the end thereof, because that which He both fore-ordained and
revealed He also in the intermediate space of time announced by the
pre-ministration of figures, and symbols, and allegories. But because
(the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the
princes of this world knew it for had they known it they would not have
crucified the Lord of glory,"(4) the heretic argues that the princes of
this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in
order that this blow might even recoil(5) on the Creator Himself. Any
one, however, who has seen from what we have already said how our glory
must be regarded as issuing from the Creator, will already have come to
the conclusion that, inasmuch as the Creator settled it in His own
secret purpose, it properly enough was unknown to all the princes(6)
and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not
permitted to know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and
the leader of transgression himself, the devil; for I should contend
that these, on account of their fall, were greater strangers still to
any knowledge of the Creator's dispensations. But it is no longer open
to me(7) even to interpret the princes and powers of this world as the
Creator's, since the apostle imputes ignorance to them, whereas even
the devil according to our Gospel recognised Jesus in the
temptation,(8) and, according to the record which is common to both
(Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew that Jesus was the
Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that He was come to
destroy them.(9) The parable also of the strong man armed, whom a
stronger than he overcame and seized his goods, is admitted by Marcion
to have reference to the Creator:(10) therefore the Creator could not
have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome
by him;(11) nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope
with. The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that
we must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did
knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation
and excessive malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even
hesitate to slay their masters. For it is written in my Gospel(12) that
"Satan entered into Judas."(13) According to Marcion, however, the
apostle in the passage under consideration(14) does not allow the
imputation of ignorance, with respect to the Lord of glory, to the
powers of the Creator; because, indeed, he will have it that these are
not meant by "the princes of this world." But (the apostle)
evidently(15) did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant
secular ones, those of the princely people, (chief in the divine
dispensation, although) not, of course, amongst the nations of the
world, and their rulers, and king Herod, and even Pilate, and, as
represented by him,(16) that power of Rome which was the greatest in
the world, and then presided over by him. Thus the arguments of the
other side are pulled down, and our own proofs are thereby built up.
But you still maintain that our glory comes from your god, with whom it
also lay in secret. Then why does your god employ the self-same
Scripture(17) which the apostle also relies on? What has your god to do
at all with the sayings of the prophets? "Who hath discovered the mind
of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?"(18) So says Isaiah. What
has he also to do with illustrations from our God? For when (the
apostle) calls himself "a wise master-builder,"(19) we find that the
Creator by Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches(20) out the
divine discipline by the same title, "I will take away from Judah the
cunning artifi- cer,"(1) etc. And was it not Paul himself who was there
foretold, destined "to be taken away from Judah"—that is, from
Judaism—for the erection of Christianity, in order "to lay that only
foundation, which is Christ?"(2) Of this work the Creator also by the
same prophet says, "Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious
stone and honourable; and he that resteth thereon shall not be
confounded."(3) Unless it be, that God professed Himself to be the
builder up of an earthly work, that so He might not give any sign of
His Christ, as destined to be the foundation of such as believe in Him,
upon which every man should build at will the superstructure of either
sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch as it is the Creator's function,
when a man's work shall be tried by fire,(or) when a reward shall be
recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire that the test is
applied to the building which you erect upon the foundation which is
laid by Him, that is, the foundation of His Christ.(4) "Know ye not
that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you?"(5) Now, since man is the property, and the work, and the image
and likeness of the Creator, having his flesh, formed by Him of the
ground, and his soul of His afflatus, it follows that Marcion's god
wholly dwells in a temple which belongs to another, if so be we are not
the Creator's temple. But "if any man defile the temple of God, he
shall be himself destroyed"(6)—of course, by the God of the temple.(7)
If you threaten an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. "Ye must
become fools, that ye may be wise." (8) Wherefore? "Because the wisdom
of this world is foolishness with God."(9) With what God? Even if the
ancient Scriptures have contributed nothing in support of our view thus
far,(10) an excellent testimony turns up in what (the apostle) here
adjoins: "For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own
craftiness; and again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that
they are vain."(11) For in general we may conclude for certain that he
could not possibly have cited the authority of that God whom he was
bound to destroy, since he would not teach for Him.(12) "Therefore,"
says he, "let no man glory in man;"(13) an injunction which is in
accordance with the teaching of the Creator, "wretched is the man that
trusteth in man;"(14) again, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to
confide in man;"(15) and the same thing is said about glorying (in
princes).(16)
"And the hidden things of darkness He will Himself bring to
light,"(17) even by Christ; for He has promised Christ to be a
Light,(18) and Himself He has declared to be a lamp, "searching the
hearts and reins."(19) From Him also shall "praise be had by every
man,"(20) from whom proceeds, as from a judge, the opposite also of
praise. But here, at least, you say he interprets the world to be the
God thereof, when he says: "We are made a spectacle unto the world, and
to angels, and to men."(21) For if by world he had meant the people
thereof, he would not have afterwards specially mentioned "men." To
prevent, however, your using such an argument as this, the Holy Ghost
has providentially explained the meaning of the passage thus: "We are
made a spectacle to the world," i.e. "both to angels," who minister
therein, "and to men," who are the objects of their ministration.(22)
Of course,(23) a man of the noble courage of our apostle (to say
nothing of the Holy Ghost) was afraid, when writing to the children
whom he had begotten in the gospel, to speak freely of the God of the
world; for against Him he could not possibly seem to have a word to
say, except only in a straightforward manner!(1) I quite admit, that,
according to the Creator's law,(2) the man was an offender" who had his
father's wife."(3) He followed, no doubt,(4) the principles of natural
and public law. When, however, he condemns the man "to be delivered
unto Satan,"(5) he becomes the herald of an avenging God. It does not
matter(6) that he also said, "For the destruction of the flesh, that
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord,"(7) since both in the
destruction of the flesh and in the saving of the spirit there is, on
His part, judicial process; and when he bade "the wicked person be put
away from the midst of them,"(8) he only mentioned what is a very
frequently recurring sentence of the Creator. "Purge out the old
leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened."(9) The
unleavened bread was therefore, in the Creator's ordinance, a figure of
us (Christians). "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for
us."(10) But why is Christ our passover, if the passover be not a type
of Christ, in the similitude of the blood which saves, and of the Lamb,
which is Christ?(11) Why does (the apostle) clothe us and Christ with
symbols of the Creator's solemn rites, unless they had relation to
ourselves? When, again, he warns us against fornication, he reveals the
resurrection of the flesh. "The body," says he, "is not for
fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body,"(12) just as
the temple is for God, and God for the temple. A temple will therefore
pass away(15) with its god, and its god with the temple. You see, then,
how that "He who raised up the Lord will also raise us up."(14) In the
body will He raise us, because the body is for the Lord, and the Lord
for the body. And suitably does he add the question: "Know ye not that
your bodies are the members of Christ?''(15) What has the heretic to
say? That these members of Christ will not rise again, for they are no
longer our own? "For," he says, "ye are bought with a price."(16) A
price! surely none at all was paid, since Christ was a phantom, nor had
He any corporeal substance which He could pay for our bodies! But, in
truth, Christ had wherewithal to redeem us; and since He has redeemed,
at a great price, these bodies of ours, against which fornication must
not be committed (because they are now members of Christ, and not our
own), surely He will secure, on His own account, the safety of those
whom He made His own at so much cost! Now, how shall we glorify, how
shall we exalt, God in our body,(27) which is doomed to perish? We must
now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more
continent(18) than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although
preferring the grace of continence,(19) yet permits the contraction of
marriage and the enjoyment of it,(20) and advises the continuance
therein rather than the dissolution thoreof.(21) Christ plainly forbids
divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it.(22) Now, when Marcion wholly
prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will say
nothing(23) about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation
of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that
of Moses or of Christ? Even Christ,(24) however, when He here commands
"the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain
unmarried or be reconciled to her husband,"(25) both permitted divorce,
which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the
sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if
separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed
by reconciliation. But what reasons does (the apostle) allege for
continence? Because "the time is short."(26) I had almost thought it
was because in Christ there was another god! And yet He from whom
emanates this shortness of the time, will also send what suits the said
brevity. No one makes provision for the time which is another's. You
degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by
the Creator's time. Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that
marriage should be "only in the Lord,"(27) that no Christian should
intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who
everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers. But when he says,
"although there be that are called gods, whether in l heaven or in
earth,"(1) the meaning of his words is clear—not as if there were gods
in reality, but as if there were some who are called gods, without
being truly so. He introduces his discussion about meats offered to
idols with a statement concerning idols (themselves): "We know that an
idol is nothing in the world."(2) Marcion, however, does not say that
the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to
have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without
being so; since, even if they had been gods, "to us there is but one
God, the Father."(3) Now, from whom do all things come to us, but from
Him to whom all things belong? And pray, what things are these? You
have them in a preceding part of the epistle: "All things are yours;
whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death,
or things present, or things to come."(4) He makes the Creator, then
the God of all things, from whom proceed both the world and life and
death, which. cannot possibly belong to the other god. From Him,
therefore, amongst the "all things" comes also Christ.(5) When he
teaches that every man ought to live of his own industry,(6) he begins
with a copious induction of examples—of soldiers, and shepherds, and
husbandmen.(7) But he(8) wanted divine authority. What was the use,
however, of adducing the Creator's, which he was destroying? It was
vain to do so; for his god had no such authority! (The apostle) says:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn,"(9) and adds:
"Doth God take care of oxen?" Yes, of oxen, for the sake of men! For,
says he, "it is written for our sakes."(10) Thus he showed that the law
had a symbolic reference to ourselves, and that it gives its sanction
in favour of those who live of the gospel. (He showed) also, that those
who preach the gospel are on this account sent by no other god but Him
to whom belongs the law, which made provision for them, when he says:
"For our sakes was this writ. ten."(11) Still he declined to use this
power which the law gave him, because he preferred working without any
restraint.(12) Of this he boasted, and suffered no man to rob him of
such glory(13)—certainly with no view of destroying the law, which he
proved that another man might use. For behold Marcion, in his
blindness, stumbled at the rock whereof our fathers drank in the
wilderness. For since "that rock was Christ,"(14) it was, of course,
the Creator's, to whom also belonged the people. But why resort to the
figure of a sacred sign given by an extraneous god?(15) Was it to teach
the very truth, that ancient things prefigured the Christ who was to be
educed(16) out of them? For, being about to take a cursory view of what
befell the people (of Israel) he begins with saying: "Now these things
happened as examples for us."(17) Now, tell me, were these examples
given by the Creator to men belonging to a rival god? Or did one god
borrow examples from another, and a hostile one too? He withdraws me to
himself in alarm(28) from Him from whom he transfers my allegiance.
Will his antagonist make me better disposed to him? Should I now commit
the same sins as the people, shall I have to suffer the same penalties,
or not?(19) But if not the same, how vainly does he propose to me
terrors which I shall not have to endure! From whom, again, shall I
have to endure them? If from the Creator, What evils does it appertain
to Him to inflict? And how will it happen that, jealous God as He is,
He shall punish the man who offends His rival, instead of rather
encouraging(20) him. If, however, from the other god—but he knows not
how to punish. So that the whole declaration of the apostle lacks a
reasonable basis, if it is not meant to relate to the Creator's
discipline. But the fact is, the apostle's conclusion corresponds to
the beginning: "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples;
and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the
world are come."(21) What a Creator! how prescient already, and
considerate in warning Christians who belong to another god! Whenever
cavils occur the like to those which have been already dealt with, I
pass them by; certain others I despatch briefly. A great argument for
another god is the permission to eat of all kinds of meats, contrary to
the law.(22) Just as if we did not ourselves allow that the burdensome
ordinances of the law were abrogated—but by Him who imposed them, who
also promised the new condition of things.(1) The same, therefore, who
prohibited meats, also restored the use of them, just as He had indeed
allowed them from the beginning. If, however, some strange god had
come to destroy our God, his foremost prohibition would certainly have
been, that his own votaries should abstain from supporting their lives
on the resources of his adversary.
"The head of every man is Christ."(2) What Christ, if He is not
the author of man? The head he has here put for authority; now
"authority" will accrue to none else than the "author." Of what man
indeed is He the head? Surely of him concerning whom he adds soon
afterwards: "The man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is
the image of God."(3) Since then he is the image of the Creator (for
He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let
us make man in our own image, after our likeness"(4)), how can I
possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the
image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head But
wherefore "ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the
angels?"(5) If it is because "she was created for the man,''(6) and
taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose, then in this
way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from
whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. He adds:
"Because of the angels."(7) What angels? In other words, whose angels?
If he means the fallen angels of the Creator,(8) there is great
propriety in his meaning. It is right that that face which was a snare
to them should wear some mark of a humble guise and obscured beauty.
If, however, the angels of the rival god are referred to, what fear is
there for them? for not even Marcion's disciples, (to say nothing of
his angels,) have any desire for women. We have often shown before now,
that the apostle classes heresies as evil(9) among "works of the
flesh," and that he would have those persons accounted estimable(10)
who shun heresies as an evil thing. In like manner, when treating of
the gospel,(11) we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the
cup(12) the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to
Marcion's phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has
been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points
conclusively to the Creator as to a God who judges. Now, on the subject
of "spiritual gifts,"(13) I have to remark that these also were
promised by the Creator through Christ; and I think that we may derive
from this a very just conclusion that the bestowal of a gift is not the
work of a god other than Him who is proved to have given the promise.
Here is a prophecy of Isaiah "There shall come forth a rod out of the
stem of Jesse, and a flower(14) shall spring up from his root; and upon
Him shall rest the Spirit of the Lord." After which he enumerates the
special gifts of the same "The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the
spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of
religion.(15) And with the fear of the Lord(16) shall the Spirit fill
Him."(17) In this figure of a flower he shows that Christ was to arise
out of the rod which sprang from the stem of Jesse; in other words,
from the virgin of the race of David, the son of Jesse. In this Christ
the whole substantia of the Spirit would have to rest, not meaning that
it would be as it were some subsequent acquisition accruing to Him who
was always, even before His incarnation, the Spirit of God;(18) so that
you cannot argue from this that the prophecy has reference to that
Christ who (as mere man of the race only of David) was to obtain the
Spirit of his God. (The prophet says,) on the contrary, that from the
time when (the true Christ) should appear in the flesh as the flower
predicted,(19) rising from the root of Jesse, there would have to rest
upon Him the entire operation of the Spirit of grace, which, so far as
the Jews were concerned, would cease and come to an end. This result
the case itself shows; for after this time the Spirit of the Creator
never breathed amongst them. From Judah were taken away "the wise man,
and the cunning artificer, and the counsellor, and the prophet;"(1)
that so it might prove true that "the law and the prophets were until
John.''(2) Now hear how he declared that by Christ Himself, when
returned to heaven, these spiritual gifts were to be sent: "He ascended
up. on high," that is, into heaven; "He led captivity captive," meaning
death or slavery of man; "He gave gifts to the sons of men,"(3) that
is, the gratuities, which we call charismata. He says specifically
"sons of men,"(4) and not men promiscuously; thus exhibiting to us
those who were the children of men truly so called, choice men,
apostles. "For," says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel;"(5)
and "Ye are my children, of whom I travail again in birth."(6) Now was
absolutely fulfilled that promise of the Spirit which was given by the
word of Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy; and upon my
servants and upon my handmaids will I pour out of my Spirit."(7) Since,
then, the Creator promised the gift of His Spirit in the latter days;
and since Christ has in these last days appeared as the dispenser of
spiritual gifts (as the apostle says, "When the fulness of the time was
come, God sent forth His Son;"(8) and again, "This I say, brethren,
that the time is short"(9)), it evidently follows in connection with
this prediction of the last days, that this gift of the Spirit belongs
to Him who is the Christ of the predicters. Now compare the Spirit's
specific graces, as they are described by the apostle, and promised by
the prophet Isaiah. "To one is given," says he, "by the Spirit the word
of wisdom;" this we see at once is what Isaiah declared to be "the
spirit of wisdom." "To another, the word of knowledge;" this will be
"the (prophet's) spirit of understanding and counsel." "To another,
faith by the same Spirit;" this will be "the spirit of religion and the
fear of the Lord." "To another, the gifts of healing, and to another
the working of miracles;" this will be "the spirit of might." "To
another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers
kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues;" this will
be "the spirit of knowledge."(10) See how the apostle agrees with the
prophet both in making the distribution of the one Spirit, and in
interpreting His special graces. This, too, I may confidently say: he
who has likened the unity of our body throughout its manifold and
divers members to the compacting together of the various gifts of the
Spirit,(11) shows also that there is but one Lord of the human body and
of the Holy Spirit. This Spirit, (according to the apostle's
showing,)(12) meant not(13) that the service(14) of these gifts should
be in the body,(15) nor did He place them in the human body); and on
the subject of the superiority of love(16) above all these gifts, He
even taught the apostle that it was the chief commandment,(17) just as
Christ has shown it to be: "Thou shalt love the Lord with all thine
heart and soul,(18) with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and
thy neighbour as thine own self."(19) When he mentions the fact that
"it is written in the law,"(20) how that the Creator would speak with
other tongues and other lips, whilst confirming indeed the gift of
tongues by such a mention, he yet cannot be thought to have affirmed
that the gift was that of another god by his reference to the Creator's
prediction.(21) In precisely the same manner,(22) when enjoining on
women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake(23)
of learning(24) (although that even they have the right of prophesying,
he has already shown(25) when he covers the woman that prophesies with
a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under
obedience.(26) Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have
made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it. But that we may
now leave the subject of spiritual gifts, facts themselves will be
enough to prove which of us acts rashly in claiming them for his God,
and whether it is possible that they are opposed to our side, even
if(27) the Creator promised them for His Christ who is not yet
revealed, as being destined only for the Jews, to have their operations
in His time, in His Christ, and among His people. Let Marcion then
exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by
human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted
things to come, and have made manifest(1) the secrets of the heart;(2)
let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer(3)—only let it be by the
Spirit,(4) in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture,(5) whenever an
interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also,
that any woman of boastful tongue(6) in his community has ever
prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his. Now all
these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without
any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the
dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator; therefore without
doubt the Christ, and the Spirit, and the apostle, belong severally(7)
to my God. Here, then, is my frank avowal for any one who cares to
require it.
Meanwhile the Marcionite will exhibit nothing of this kind; he is
by this time afraid to say which side has the better right to a Christ
who is not yet revealed. Just as my Christ is to be expected,(8) who
was predicted from the beginning, so his Christ therefore has no
existence, as not having been announced from the beginning. Ours is a
better faith, which believes in a future Christ, than the heretic's,
which has none at all to believe in. Touching the resurrection of the
dead,(9) let us first inquire how some persons then denied it. No doubt
in the same way in which it is even now denied, since the resurrection
of the flesh has at all times men to deny it. But many wise men claim
for the soul a divine nature, and are confident of its undying destiny,
and even the multitude worship the dead(10) in the presumption which
they boldly entertain that their souls survive. As for our bodies,
however, it is manifest that they perish either at once by fire or the
wild beasts,(11) or even when most carefully kept by length of time.
When, therefore, the apostle refutes those who deny the resurrection of
the flesh, he indeed defends, in opposition to them, the precise matter
of their denial, that is, the resurrection of the body. You have the
whole answer wrapped up in this.(12) All the rest is superfluous. Now
in this very point, which is called the resurrection of the dead, it is
requisite that the proper force of the words should be accurately
maintained.(13) The word dead expresses simply what has lost the vital
principle,(14) by means of which it used to live. Now the body is that
which loses life, and as the result of losing it becomes dead. To the
body, therefore, the term dead is only suitable. Moreover, as
resurrection accrues to what is dead, and dead is a term applicable
only to a body, therefore the body alone has a resurrection incidental
to it. So again the word Resurrection, or (rising affairs), embraces
only that which has fallen down. "To rise," indeed, can be predicated
of that which has never fallen down, but had already been always lying
down. But "to rise again" is predicable only of that which has fallen
down; because it is by rising again, in consequence of its having
fallen down, that it is said to have re-risen.(15) For the syllable RE
always implies iteration (or happening again). We say, therefore, that
the body falls to the ground by death, as indeed facts themselves show,
in accordance with the law of God. For to the body it was said, ("Till
thou return to the ground, for out of it wast thou taken; for) dust
thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."(16) That, therefore, which
came from the ground shall return to the ground. Now that falls down
which returns to the ground; and that rises again which falls down.
"Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection."(17) Here
in the word man, who consists of bodily sub stance, as we have often
shown already, is presented to me the body of Christ. But if we are all
so made alive in Christ, as we die in Adam, it follows of necessity
that we are made alive in Christ as a bodily substance, since we died
in Adam as a bodily substance. The similarity, indeed, is not complete,
unless our revival(18) in Christ concur in identity of substance with
our mortality(1) in Adam. But at this point(2) (the apostle) has made a
parenthetical statement(3) concerning Christ, which, bearing as it does
on our present discussion, must not pass unnoticed. For the
resurrection of the body will receive all the better proof, in
proportion as I shall succeed in showing that Christ belongs to that
God who is believed to have provided this resurrection of the flesh in
His dispensation. When he says, "For He must reign, till He hath put
all enemies under His feet,"(4) we can see at once(5) from this
statement that he speaks of a God of vengeance, and therefore of Him
who made the following promise to Christ: "Sit Thou at my right hand,
until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The rod of Thy strength shall
the Lord send forth from Sion, and He shall rule along with Thee in the
midst of Thine enemies."(6) It is necessary for me to lay claim to
those Scriptures which the Jews endeavour to deprive us of, and to show
that they sustain my view. Now they say that this Psalm(7) was a chant
in honour of Hezekiah,(8) because "he went up to the house of the
Lord,"(9) and God turned back and removed his enemies. Therefore, (as
they further hold,) those other words, "Before the morning star did I
beget thee from the womb,"(10) are applicable to Hezekiah, and to the
birth of Hezekiah. We on our side(11) have published Gospels (to the
credibility of which we have to thank(12) them(13) for having given
some confirmation, indeed, already in so great a subject(14)); and
these declare that the Lord was born at night, that so it might be
"before the morning star," as is evident both from the star especially,
and from the testimony of the angel, who at night announced to the
shepherds that Christ had at that moment been born,(15) and again from
the place of the birth, for it is towards night that persons arrive at
the (eastern)" inn." Perhaps, too, there was a mystic purpose in
Christ's being born at night, destined, as He was, to be the light of
the truth amidst the dark shadows of ignorance. Nor, again, would God
have said, "I have begotten Thee," except to His true Son. For
although He says of all the people (Israel), "I have begotten(16)
children,"(17) yet He added not "from the womb." Now, why should He
have added so superfluously this phrase "from the womb" (as if there
could be any doubt about any one's having been born from the womb),
unless the Holy Ghost had wished the words to be with especial care(18)
understood of Christ? "I have begotten Thee from the womb," that is to
say, from a womb only, without a man's seed, making it a condition of a
fleshly body(19) that it should come out of a womb. What is here added
(in the Psalm), "Thou art a priest for ever,"(20) relates to (Christ)
Himself. Hezekiah was no priest; and even if he had been one, he would
not have been a priest for ever. "After the order," says He, "of
Melchizedek." Now what had Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, the priest
of the most high God, and him uncircumcised too, who blessed the
circumcised Abraham, after receiving from him the offering of tithes?
To Christ, however, "the order of Melchizedek" will be very suitable;
for Christ is the proper and legitimate High Priest of God. He is the
Pontiff of the priesthood of the uncircumcision, constituted such, even
then, for the Gentiles, by whom He was to be more fully received,
although at His last coming He will favour with His acceptance and
blessing the circumcision also, even the race of Abraham, which by and
by is to acknowledge Him. Well, then, there is also another Psalm,
which begins with these words: "Give Thy judgments, O God, to the
King," that is, to Christ who was to come as King, "and Thy
righteousness unto the King's son,"(21) that is, to Christ's people;
for His sons are they who are born again in Him. But it will here be
said that this Psalm has reference to Solomon. However, will not those
portions of the Psalm which apply to Christ alone, be enough to teach
us that all the rest, too, relates to Christ, and not to Solomon? "He
shall come down," says He, "like rain upon a fleece,(1) and like
dropping showers upon the earth,"(2) describing His descent from heaven
to the flesh as gentle and unobserved.(3) Solomon, however, if he had
indeed any descent at all, came not down like a shower, because he
descended not from heaven. But I will set before you more literal
points.(4) "He shall have dominion," says the Psalmist, "from sea to
sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."(5) To Christ alone
was this given; whilst Solomon reigned over only the moderately-sized
kingdom of Judah. "Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him." Whom,
indeed, shall they all thus worship, except Christ? "All nations shall
serve Him."(6) To whom shall all thus do homage, but Christ? "His name
shall endure for ever." Whose name has this eternity of fame, but
Christ's? "Longer than the sun shall His name remain," for longer than
the sun shall be the Word of God, even Christ. "And in Him shall all
nations be blessed."(7) In Solomon was no nation blessed; in Christ
every nation. And what if the Psalm proves Him to be even God? "They
shall call Him blessed."(8) (On what ground?) Because blessed Is the
Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wonderful things."(9) "Blessed also
is His glorious name, and with His glory shall all the earth be
filled."(10) On the contrary, Solomon (as I make bold to affirm) lost
even the glory which he had from God, seduced by his love of women even
into idolatry. And thus, the statement which occurs in about the middle
of this Psalm, "His enemies shall lick the dust"(11) (of course, as
having been, (to use the apostle's phrase,) "put under His feet"(12)),
will bear upon the very object which I had in view, when I both
introduced the Psalm, and insisted on my opinion of its sense,—namely,
that I might demonstrate both the glory of His kingdom and the
subjection of His enemies in pursuance of the Creator's own plans, with
the view of laying down(13) this conclusion, that none but He can be
believed to be the Christ of the Creator.
Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which
against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention
in another work of ours.(14) But we will not be wanting (in some
defence of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as
are ignorant of that little treatise. "What," asks he, "shall they do
who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?"(15) Now, never
mind(16) that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian
lustrations(17) will perhaps(18) answer him (quite as well), by praying
for the dead.(19) Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates
some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead.
His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly
insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who
were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their
belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage
defining "but one baptism."(20) To be "baptized for the dead" therefore
means, in fact, to be baptized for the body;(21) for, as we have shown,
it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are
baptized for the body,(1) if the body(2) rises not again? We stand,
then, on firm ground (when we say) that(3) the next question which the
apostle has discussed equally relates to the body. But "some man will
say, 'How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?'"(4)
Having established the doctrine of the resurrection which was denied,
it was natural(5) to discuss what would be the sort of body (in the
resurrection), of which no one had an idea. On this point we have other
opponents with whom to engage, For Marcion does not in any wise admit
the resurrection of the flesh, and it is only the salvation of the soul
which he promises; consequently the question which he raises is not
concerning the sort of body, but the very substance thereof.
Notwithstanding,(6) he is most plainly refuted even from what the
apostle advances respecting the quality of the body, in answer to those
who ask, "How are the dead raised up? with what body do they come?" For
as he treated of the sort of body, he of course ipso facto proclaimed
in the argument that it was a body which would rise again. Indeed,
since he proposes as his examples "wheat grain, or some other grain, to
which God giveth a body, such as it hath pleased Him;"(7) since also he
says, that "to every seed is its own body;"(8) that, consequently,(9)
"there is one kind of flesh of men, whilst there is another of beasts,
and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial bodies and bodies
terrestrial; and that there is one glory of the sun, and another glory
of the moon, and another glory of the stars"(10)—does he not therefore
intimate that there is to be(11) a resurrection of the flesh or body,
which he illustrates by fleshly and corporeal samples? Does he not also
guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from
whom proceed all the (creatures which have served him for) examples?
"So also," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead."(12) How? Just as
the grain, which is sown a body, springs up a body. This sowing of the
body he called the dissolving thereof in the ground, "because it is
sown in corruption," (but "is raised) to honour and power."(13) Now,
just as in the case of the grain, so here: to Him will belong the work
in the revival of the body, who ordered the process in the dissolution
thereof. If, however, you remove the body from the resurrection which
you submitted to the dissolution, what becomes of the diversity in the
issue? Likewise, "although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a
spiritual body."(14) Now, although the natural principle of life(15)
and the spirit have each a body proper to itself, so that the "natural
body" may fairly be taken(16) to signify the soul,(17) and "the
spiritual body" the spirit, yet that is no reason for supposing(18) the
apostle to say that the soul is to become spirit in the resurrection,
but that body (which, as being born along with the soul, and as
retaining its life by means of the soul,(19) admits of being called
animal (or natural(20)) will became spiritual, since it rises through
the Spirit to an eternal life. In short, since it is not the soul, but
the flesh which is "sown in corruption," when it turns to decay in the
ground, it follows that (after such dissolution) the soul is no longer
the natural body, but the flesh, which was the natural body, (is the
subject of the future change), forasmuch as of a natural body it is
made a spiritual body, as he says further down, "That was not first
which is spiritual."(21) For to this effect he just before remarked of
Christ Himself: "The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last
Adam was made a quickening spirit."(22) Our heretic, however, in the
excess of his folly, being unwilling that the statement should remain
in this shape, altered "last Adam" into "last Lord;"(23) because he
feared, of course, that if he allowed the Lord to be the last (or
second) Adam, we should contend that Christ, being the second Adam,
must needs belong to that God who owned also the first Adam. But the
falsification is transparent. For why is there a first Adam, unless it
be that there is also a second Adam? For things are not classed
together unless they be severally alike, and have an identity of either
name, or substance, or origin.(24) Now, although among things which are
even individually diverse, one must be first and another last, yet they
must have one author. If, however, the author be a different one, he
himself indeed may be called the last. But the thing which he
introduces is the first, and that only can be the last, which is like
this first in nature.(1) It is, however, not like the first in nature,
when it is not the work of the same author. In like manner (the
heretic) will be refuted also with the word "man:" "The first man is of
the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven."(2) Now,
since the first was a how can there be a second, unless he is a man
also? Or, else, if the second is" Lord," was the first "Lord" also?(3)
It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his Gospel he admits the
Son of man to be both Christ and Man; so that he will not be able to
deny Him (in this passage), in the "Adam" and the "man" (of the
apostle). What follows will also be too much for him. For when the
apostle says, "As is the earthy," that is, man, "such also are they
that are earthy"-men again, of course; "therefore as is the heavenly,"
meaning the Man, from heaven, "such are the men also that are
heavenly." For he could not possibly have opposed to earthly men any
heavenly beings that were not men also; his object being the more
accurately to distinguish their state and expectation by using this
name in common for them both. For in respect of their present state and
their future expectation he calls men earthly and heavenly, still
reserving their parity of name, according as they are reckoned (as to
their ultimate conditions) in Adam or in Christ. Therefore, when
exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: "As we have
borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the
heavenly,"(6)—language which relates not to any condition of
resurrection life, but to the rule of the present time. He says, Let us
bear, as a precept; not We shall bear, in the sense of a
promise—wishing us to walk even as he himself was walking, and to put
off the likeness of the earthly, that is, of the old man, in the works
of the flesh. For what are this next words? "Now this I say, brethren,
that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."(7) He means
the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the
Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God.(8) In other passages also
he is accustomed to put the natural condition instead of the works that
are done therein, as when he says, that "they who are in the flesh
cannot please God."(9) Now, when shall we be able to please God except
whilst we are in this flesh? There is, I imagine, no other time wherein
a man can work. If, however, whilst we are even naturally living in the
flesh, we yet eschew the deeds of the flesh, then we shall not be in
the flesh; since, although we are not absent from the substance of the
flesh, we are notwithstanding strangers to the sin thereof. Now, since
in the word flesh we are enjoined to put off, not the substance, but
the works of the flesh, therefore in the use of the same word the
kingdom of God is denied to the works of the flesh, not to the
substance thereof. For not that is condemned in which evil is done, but
only the evil which is done in it. To administer poison is a crime, but
the cup in which it is given is not guilty. So the body is the vessel
of the works of the flesh, whilst the soul which is within it mixes the
poison of a wicked act. How then is it, that the soul, which is the
real author of the works of the flesh, shall attain to(10) the kingdom
of God, after the deeds done in the body have been stoned for, whilst
the body, which was nothing but (the soul's) ministering agent, must
remain in condemnation? Is the cup to be punished, but the poisoner to
escape? Not that we indeed claim the kingdom of God for the flesh: all
we do is, to assert a resurrection for the substance thereof, as the
gate of the kingdom through which it is entered. But the resurrection
is one thing, and the kingdom is another. The resurrection is first,
and afterwards the kingdom. We say, therefore, that the flesh rises
again, but that when changed it obtains the kingdom. "For the dead
shall be raised incorruptible," even those who had been corruptible
when their bodies fell into decay; "and we shall be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye.(11) For this corruptible"—and as
he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh—" must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."(12) in order,
indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God.
"For we shall be like the angels."(13) This will be the perfect change
of our flesh—only after its resurrection.(1) Now if, on the
contrary,(2) there is to be no flesh, how then shall it put on
incorruption and immortality? Having then become something else by its
change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer the (old) flesh
and blood, but the body which God shall have given it. Rightly then
does the apostle declare, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God;"(3) for this (honour) does he ascribe to the changed
condition(4) which ensues on the resurrection. Since, therefore, shall
then be accomplished the word which was written by the Creator, "O
death, where is thy victory"—or thy struggle?(5) "O death, where is
thy sting?"(6) —written, I say, by the Creator, for He wrote them by
His prophet(7)—to Him will belong the gift, that is, the kingdom, who
proclaimed the word which is to be accomplished in the kingdom. And to
none other God does he tell us that "thanks" are due, for having
enabled us to achieve "the victory" even over death, than to Him from
whom he received the very expression(8) of the exulting and triumphant
challenge to the mortal foe.
If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a
common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be "gods
many"(9)), yet "the blessed God," (who is "the Father) of our Lord
Jesus Christ,(10) will be understood to be no other God than the
Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had made), as you find in
Genesis,(11) and is Himself "blessed by all things," as Daniel tells
us.(12) Now, if the title of Father may be claimed for (Marcion's)
sterile god, how much more for the Creator? To none other than Him is
it suitable, who is also "the Father of mercies,"(13) and (in the
prophets) has been described as "full of compassion, and gracious, and
plenteous in mercy."(14) In Jonah you find the signal act of His mercy,
which He showed to the praying Ninevites.(15) How inflexible was He at
the tears of Hezekiah!(16) How ready to forgive Ahab, the husband of
Jezebel, the blood of Naborb, when he deprecated His anger.(17) How
prompt in pardoning David on his confession of his sin(18)—preferring,
indeed, the sinner's repentance to his death, of course because of His
gracious attribute of mercy.(19) Now, if Marcion's god has exhibited or
proclaimed any such thing as this, I will allow him to be "the Father
of mercies." Since, however, he ascribes to him this title only from
the time he has been revealed, as if he were the father of mercies from
the time only when he began to liberate the human race, then we on our
side, too,(20) adopt the same precise date of his alleged revelation;
but it is that we may deny him! It is then not competent to him to
ascribe any quality to his god, whom indeed he only promulged by the
fact of such an ascription; for only if it were previously evident that
his god had an existence, could he be permitted to ascribe an attribute
to him. The ascribed attribute is only an accident; but accidents(21)
are preceded by the statement of the thing itself of which they are
predicated, especially when another claims the attribute which is
ascribed to him who has not been previously shown to exist. Our denial
of his existence will be all the more peremptory, because of the fact
that the attribute which is alleged in proof of it belongs to that God
who has been already revealed. Therefore "the New Testament" will
appertain to none other than Him who promised it—if not "its letter,
yet its spirit;"(22) and herein will lie its newness. Indeed, He who
had engraved its letter in stones is the same as He who had said of its
spirit, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."(23) Even if "the
letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth life;"(24) and both belong to Him
who says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal."(1) We have
already made good the Creator's claim to this twofold character of
judgment and goodness(2)—"killing in the letter" through the law, and
"quickening in the Spirit" through the Gospel. Now these attributes,
however different they be, cannot possibly make two gods; for they have
already (in the prevenient dispensation of the Old Testament) been
found to meet in One.(3) He alludes to Moses' veil, covered with which
"his face could not be stedfastly seen by the children of Israel."(4)
Since he did this to maintain the superiority of the glory of the New
Testament, which is permanent in its glory, over that of the Old,
"which was to be done away,"(5) this fact gives support to my belief
which exalts the Gospel above the law and you must look well to it that
it does not even more than this. For only there is superiority possible
where was previously the thing over which superiority can be affirmed.
But then he says, "But their minds were blinded"(6)—of the world;
certainly not the Creator's mind, but the minds of the people which are
in the world.(7) Of Israel he says, Even unto this day the same veil is
upon their heart;"(8) showing that the veil which was on the face of
Moses was a figure of the veil which is on the heart of the nation
still; because even now Moses is not seen by them in heart, just as he
was not then seen by them in eye. But what concern has Paul with the
veil which still obscures Moses from their view, if the Christ of the
Creator, whom Moses predicted, is not yet come? How are the hearts of
the Jews represented as still covered and veiled, if the predictions of
Moses relating to Christ, in whom it was their duty to believe through
him, are as yet unfulfilled? What had the apostle of a strange Christ
to complain of, if the Jews failed in understanding the mysterious
announcements of their own God, unless the veil which was upon their
hearts had reference to that blindness which concealed from their eyes
the Christ of Moses? Then, again, the words which follow, But when it
shall turn to the Lord, the evil shall be taken away,"(9) properly
refer to the Jew, over whose gaze Moses' veil is spread, to the effect
that, when he is turned to the faith of Christ, he will understand how
Moses spoke of Christ. But how shall the veil of the Creator be taken
away by the Christ of another god, whose mysteries the Creator could
not possibly have veiled—unknown mysteries, as they were of an unknown
god? So he says that "we now with open face" (meaning the candour of
the heart, which in the Jews had been covered with a veil), "beholding
Christ, are changed into the same image, from that glory" (wherewith
Moses was transfigured as by the glory of the Lord) "to another
glory."(10) By thus setting forth the glory which illumined the person
of Moses from his interview with God, and the veil which concealed the
same from the infirmity of the people, and by superinducing thereupon
the revelation and the glory of the Spirit in the person of
Christ—"even as," to use his words, "by the Spirit. of the
Lord"(11)—he testifies that the whole MOsaic system(12) was a figure
of Christ, of whom the Jews indeed were ignorant, but who is known to
us Christians. We are quite aware that some passages are open to
ambiguity, from the way in which they are read, or else from their
punctuation, when there is room for these two causes of ambiguity. The
latter method has been adopted by Marcion, by reading the passage which
follows, "in whom the God of this world,"(13) as if it described the
Creator as the God of this world, in order that he may, by these words,
imply that there is another God for the other world. We, however, say
that the passage ought to be punctuated with a comma after God, to this
effect: "In whom God hath blinded the eyes of the unbelievers of this
world."(14) "In whom" means the Jewish unbelievers, from some of whom
the gospel is still hidden under Moses' veil. Now it is these whom God
had threatened for "loving Him indeed with the lip, whilst their heart
was far from Him,"(15) in these angry words: "Ye shall hear with your
ears, and not understand; and see with your eyes, but not
perceive;"(16) and, "If ye will not believe, ye shall not
understand;"(17) and again, "I will take away the wisdom of their wise
men, and bring to nought(1) the understanding of their prudent ones."
But these words, of course, He did not pronounce against them for
concealing the gospel of the unknown God. At any rate, if there is a
God of this world,(2) He blinds the heart of the unbelievers of this
world, because they have not of their own accord recognised His Christ,
who ought to be understood from His Scriptures.(3) Content with my
advantage, I can willingly refrain from noticing to any greater
length(4) this point of ambiguous punctuation, so as not to give my
adversary any advantage,(5) indeed, I might have wholly omitted the
discussion. A simpler answer I shall find ready to hand in interpreting
"the god of this world" of the devil, who once said, as the prophet
describes him: "I will be like the Most High; I will exalt my throne in
the clouds."(6) The whole superstition, indeed, of this world has got
into his hands,(7) so that he blinds effectually the hearts of
unbelievers, and of none more than the apostate Marcion's. Now he did
not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: "For
God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in
our hearts, to (give) the light of the knowledge (of His glory) in the
face of (Jesus) Christ."(8) Now who was it that said; "Let there be
light?"(9) And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light
to the world: "I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles"(10)—to
them, that is, "who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death?"(11)
(None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm answers,
in His foresight of the future, saying, "The light of Thy countenance,
O Lord, hath been displayed upon us."(12) Now the countenance (or
person(13)) of the Lord here is Christ. Wherefore the apostle said
above: Christ, who is the image of God."(14) Since Christ, then, is the
person of the Creator, who said, "Let there be light," it follows that
Christ and the apostles, and the gospel, and the veil, and Moses—nay,
the whole of the dispensations—belong to the God who is the Creator of
this world, according to the testimony of the clause (above adverted
to), and certainly not to him who never said, "Let there be light." I
here pass over discussion about another epistle, which we hold to have
been written to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans. In
it he tells(15) them to remember, that at the time when they were
Gentiles they were without Christ, aliens from (the commonwealth of)
Israel, without intercourse, without the covenants and any hope of
promise, nay, without God, even in his own world,(16) as the Creator
thereof. Since therefore he said, that the Gentiles were without God,
whilst their god was the devil, not the Creator, it is clear that he
must be understood to be the lord of this world, whom the Gentiles
received as their god—not the Creator, of whom they were in ignorance.
But how does it happen, that "the treasure which we have in these
earthen vessels of ours"(17) should not be regarded as belonging to
the God who owns the vessels? Now since God's glory is, that so great a
treasure is contained in earthen vessels, and since these earthen
vessels are of the Creator's make, it follows that the glory is the
Creator's; nay, since these vessels of His smack so much of the
excellency of the power of God, that power itself must be His also!
Indeed, all these things have been consigned to the said "earthen
vessels" for the very purpose that His excellence might be manifested
forth. Henceforth, then, the rival god will have no claim to the glory,
and consequently none to the power. Rather, dishonour and weakness will
acrue to him, because the earthen vessels with which he had nothing to
do have received all the excellency! Well, then, if it be in these very
earthen vessels that he tells us we have to endure so great
sufferings,(18) in which we bear about with us the very dying of
God,(19) (Marcion's) god is really ungrateful and unjust, if he does
not mean to restore this same I substance of ours at the resurrection,
wherein so much has been endured in loyalty to him, in which Christ's
very death is borne about, wherein too the excellency of his power is
treasured.(20) For he gives prominence to the statement, "That the life
also of Christ may be manifested in our body,"(21) as a contrast to the
preceding, that His death is borne about in our body. Now of what life
of Christ does he here speak? Of that which we are now living? Then how
is it, that in the words which follow he exhorts us not to the things
which are seen and are temporal, but to those which are not seen
and are eternal(1)—in other words, not to the present, but to the
future? But if it be of the future life of Christ that he speaks,
intimating that it is to be made manifest in our body,(2) then he has
clearly predicted the resurrection of the flesh.(3) He says, too, that
"our outward man perishes,"(4) not meaning by an eternal perdition
after death, but by labours and sufferings, in reference to which he
previously said, "For which cause we will not faint."(5) Now, when he
adds of "the inward man" also, that it "is renewed day by day," he
demonstrates both issues here—the wasting away of the body by the wear
and tear(6) of its trials, and the renewal of the soul(7) by its
contemplation of the promises.
As to the house of this our earthly dwelling-place, when he says
that "we have an eternal home in heaven, not made with hands,"(8) he by
no means would imply that, because it was built by the Creator's hand,
it must perish in a perpetual dissolution after death.(9) He treats of
this subject in order to offer consolation against the fear of death
and the dread of this very dissolution, as is even more manifest from
what follows, when he adds, that "in this tabernacle of our earthly
body we do groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with the
vesture which is from heaven,(10) if so be, that having been
unclothed,(11) we shall not be found naked;" in other words, shall
regain that of which we have been divested, even our body. And again he
says: "We that are in this tabernacle do groan, not as if we were
oppressed(12) with an unwillingness to be unclothed, but (we wish)to be
clothed upon."(13) He here says expressly, what he touched but
lightly(14) in his first epistle, where he wrote:) "The dead shall be
raised Incorruptible (meaning those who had undergone mortality), "and
we shall be changed"(whom God shall find to be yet in the flesh).(15)
Both those shall be raised incorruptible, because they shall regain
their body—and that a renewed one, from which shall come their
incorruptibility; and these also shall, in the crisis of the last
moment, and from their instantaneous death, whilst encountering the
oppressions of anti-christ, undergo a change, obtaining therein not so
much a divestiture of body as "a clothing upon" with the vesture which
is from heaven.(16) So that whilst these shall put on over their
(changed) body this, heavenly raiment, the dead also shall for their
part(17) recover their body, over which they too have a supervesture to
put on, even the incorruption of heaven;(18) because of these it was
that he said: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality."(19) The one put on this (heavenly)
apparel,(20) when they recover their bodies; the others put it on as a
supervesture,(21) when they indeed hardly lose them (in the suddenness
of their change). It was accordingly not without good reason that he
described them as "not wishing indeed to be unclothed," but (rather as
wanting) "to be clothed upon;"(22) in other words, as wishing not to
undergo death, but to be surprised into life,(23) "that this moral
(body) might be swallowed up of life,"(24) by being rescued from death
in the supervesture of its changed state. This is why he shows us how
much better it is for us not to be sorry, if we should be surprised by
death, and tells us that we even hold of God "the earnest of His
Spirit"(25) (pledged as it were thereby to have "the clothing upon,"
which is the object of our hope), and that "so long as we are in the
flesh, we are absent from the Lord;"(26) moreover, that we ought on
this account to prefer(27) "rather to be absent from the body and to be
present with the Lord,"(28) and so to be ready to meet even death with
joy. In this view it is that he informs us how "we must all appear
before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the
things done in his body, according as he hath done either good or
bad."(1) Since, however, there is then to be a retribution according to
men's merits, how will any be able to reckon with(2) God? But by
mentioning both the judgment-seat and the distinction between works
good and bad, he sets before us a Judge who is to award both
sentences,(3) and has thereby affirmed that all will have to be present
at the tribunal in their bodies. For it will be impossible to pass
sentence except on the body, for what has been done in the body. God
would be unjust, if any one were not punished or else rewarded in that
very condition,(4) wherein the merit was itself achieved. "If therefore
any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old; things are passed
away; behold, all things are become new;"(5) and so is accomplished the
prophecy of Isaiah.(6) When also he (in a later passage) enjoins us "to
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and blood"(7) (since
this substance enters not the kingdom of Gods(8)); when, again, he
"espouses the church as a chaste virgin to Christ,"(9) a spouse to a
spouse in very deed,(10) an image cannot be combined and compared with
what is opposed to the real nature the thing (with which it is
compared). when he designates "false apostles, deceitful workers
transforming themselves" into likenesses of himself,(11) of course by
their hypocrisy, he charges them with the guilt of disorderly
conversation, rather than of false doctrine.(12) The contrariety,
therefore, was one of conduct, not of gods.(13) If "Satan himself, too,
is transformed into an angel of light,"(14) such an assertion must not
be used to the prejudice of the Creator. The Creator is not an angel,
but God. Into a god of light, and not an angel of light, must Satan
then have been said to be transformed, if he did not mean to call him
"the angel," which both we and Marcion know him to be. Paradise is the
title of a treatise of ours, in which is discussed all that the subject
admits of.(15) I shall here simply wonder, in connection with this
matter, whether a god who has no dispensation of any kind on earth
could possibly have a paradise to call his own—without perchance
availing himself of the paradise of the Creator, to use it as he does
His world—much in the character of a mendicant.(16) And yet of the
removal of a man from earth to heaven we have an instance afforded us
by the Creator in Elijah.(17) But what will excite my surprise still
more is the case (next supposed by Marcion), that a God so good and
gracious, and so averse to blows and cruelty, should have suborned the
angel Satan—not his own either, but the Creator's—"to buffet" the
apostle,(18) and then to have refused his request, when thrice
entreated to liberate him! It would seem, therefore, that Marcion's god
imitates the Creator's conduct, who is an enemy to the proud, even
"putting down the mighty from their seats." Is he then the same God as
He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his "strength might
be made perfect in weakness?"(20) How is it that the censurer of the
Galatians(21) still retains the very formula of the law: "In the mouth
of two or three witnesses shall every word be established?" How again
is it that he threatens sinners "that he will not spare" them(23)—he,
the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that "the Lord
hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!''(24)
Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost,) that your god is an object to be
feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!
If the Father "sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,"(5)
it must not therefore be said that the flesh which He seemed to have
was but a phantom. For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the
flesh, and made it out to be "the law of sin dwelling in his members,"
and "warring against the law of the mind."(6) On this account,
therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness
of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like
substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful
flesh, although it was itself free from sin. Now this will be the very
perfection of divine power to effect the salvation (of man) in a nature
like his own,(7) For it would be no great matter if the Spirit of God
remedied the flesh; but when a flesh, which is the very copy(8) of the
sinning substance itself flesh also-only without sin, (effects the
remedy, then doubtless it is a great thing). The likeness, therefore,
will have reference to the quality(9) of the sinfulness, and not to any
falsity(10) of the substance. Because he would not have added the
attribute "sinful,"(11) if he meant the "likeness" to be so predicated
of the substance as to deny the verity thereof; in that case he would
only have used the word "flesh," and omitted the "sinful." But inasmuch
as he has put the two together, and said "sinful flesh," (or "flesh of
sin,")(12) he has both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh and
referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to its
sin. But even suppose(13) that the likeness was predicated of the
substance, the truth of the said substance will not be thereby denied.
Why then call the true substance like? Because it is indeed true, only
not of a seed of like condition(14) with our own; but true still, as
being of a nature 15 not really unlike ours.(16) And again, in contrary
things there is no likeness. Thus the likeness of flesh would not be
called spirit, because flesh is not susceptible of any likeness to
spirit; but it would be called phantom, if it seemed to be that which
it really was not. It is, however, called likeness, since it is what it
seems to be. Now it is (what it seems to be), because it is on a par
with the other thing (with which it is compared).(17) But a phantom,
which is merely such and nothing else,(18) is not a likeness. The
apostle, however, himself here comes to our aid; for, while explaining
in what sense he would not have us "live in the flesh," although in the
flesh—even by not living in the works of the flesh(1)—he shows that
when he wrote the words, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God,"(2) it was not with the view of condemning the substance (of the
flesh), but the works thereof; and because it is possible for these not
to be committed by us whilst we are still in the flesh, they will
therefore be properly chargeable,(3) not on the substance of the flesh,
but on its conduct. Likewise, if "the body indeed is dead because of
sin" (from which statement we see that not the death of the soul is
meant, but that of the body), "but the spirit is life because of
righteousness,"(4) it follows that this life accrues to that which
incurred death because of sin, that is, as we have just seen, the body.
Now the body(5) is only restored to him who had lost it; so that the
resurrection of the dead implies the resurrection of their bodies. He
accordingly subjoins: "He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall
also quicken your mortal bodies."(6) In these words he both affirmed
the resurrection of the flesh (without which nothing can rightly be
called(7) body, nor can anything be properly regarded as mortal), and
proved the bodily substance of Christ; inasmuch as our own mortal
bodies will be quickened in precisely the same way as He was raised;
and that was in no other way than in the body. I have here a very wide
gulf of expunged Scripture tO leap across;(8) however, I alight on the
place where the apostle bears record of Israel "that they have a zeal
of God"-their own God, of course—"but not according to knowledge.
For," says he, "being ignorant of (the righteousness of) God, and going
about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted
themselves unto the righteousness of God; for Christ is the end of the
law for righteousness to every one that believeth."(9) Hereupon we
shall be confronted with an argument of the heretic, that the Jews were
ignorant of the superior God,(10) since, in opposition to him, they set
up their own righteousness—that is, the righteousness of their
law—not receiving Christ, the end (or finisher) of the law. But how
then is it that he bears testimony to their zeal for their own God, if
it is not in respect of the same God that he upbraids them for their
ignorance? They were affected indeed with zeal for God, but it was not
an intelligent zeal: they were, in fact, ignorant of Him, because they
were ignorant of His dispensations by Christ, who was to bring about
the consummation of the law; and in this way did they maintain their
own righteousness in opposition to Him. But so does the Creator Himself
testify to their ignorance concerning Him: "Israel hath not known me;
my people have not understood me;"(11) and as to their preferring the
establishment of their own righteousness, (the Creator again describes
them as) "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;"(12)
moreover, as "having gathered themselves together against the Lord and
against His Christ"(13)—from ignorance of Him, of course. Now nothing
can be expounded of another god which is applicable to the Creator;
otherwise the apostle would not have been just in reproaching the Jews
with ignorance in respect of a god of whom they knew nothing. For where
had been their sin, if they only maintained the righteousness of their
own God against one of whom they were ignorant? But he exclaims: "O the
depth of the riches and the wisdom of God; how unsearchable also are
His ways!"(14) Whence this outburst of feeling? Surely from the
recollection of the Scriptures, which he had been previously turning
over, as well as from his contemplation of the mysteries which he had
been setting forth above, in relation to the faith of Christ coming
from the law.(15) If Marcion had an object in his erasures,(16) why
does his apostle utter such an exclamation, because his god has no
riches for him to contemplate? So poor and indigent was he, that he
created nothing, predicted nothing—in short, possessed nothing; for it
was into the world of another God that he descended. The truth is, the
Creator's resources and riches, which once had been hidden, were now
disclosed. For so had He promised: "I will give to them treasures
which have been hidden, and which men have not seen will I open to
them."(17) Hence, then, came the exclama-
tion, "O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God!" For His
treasures were now opening out. This is the purport of what Isaiah
said, and of (the apostle's own) subsequent quotation of the self-same
passage, of the prophet: "Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who
hath been His counsellor? Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be
recompensed to him again?"(1) Now, (Marcion,) since you have expunged
so much from the Scriptures, why did you retain these words, as if they
too were not the Creator's words? But come now, let us see without
mistake(2) the precepts of your new god: "Abhor that which is evil, and
cleave to that which is good."(3) Well, is the precept different in the
Creator's teaching? "Take away the evil from you, depart from it, and
be doing good."(4) Then again: "Be kindly affectioned one to another
with brotherly love."(5) Now is not this of the same import as: "Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thy self?"(6) (Again, your apostle says:)
"Rejoicing in hope;"(7) that is, of God. So says the Creator's
Psalmist: "It is better to hope in the Lord, than to hope even in
princes."(8) "Patient in tribulation."(9) You have (this in) the Psalm:
"The Lord hear thee in the day of tribulation."(10) "Bless, and curse
not,"(11)(says your apostle.) But what better teacher of this will you
find than Him who created all things, and blessed them? "Mind not high
things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own
conceits."(12) For against such a disposition Isaiah pronounces a
woe.(13) "Recompense to no man evil for evil."(14) (Like unto which is
the Creator's precept:) "Thou shalt not remember thy brother's evil
against thee."(15) (Again:) "Avenge not yourselves; "(16) for it is
written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."(17) "Live
peaceably with all men."(18) The retaliation of the law, therefore,
permitted not retribution for an injury; it rather repressed any
attempt thereat by the fear of a recompense. Very properly, then, did
he sum up the entire teaching of the Creator in this precept of His:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."(19) Now, if this is the
recapitulation of the law from the very law itself, I am at a loss to
know who is the God of the law. I fear He must be Marcion's god (after
all).(20) If also the gospel of Christ is fulfilled in this same
precept, but not the Creator's Christ, what is the use of our
contending any longer whether Christ did or did not say, "I am not come
to destroy the law, but to fulfil it? "(21) In vain has (our man of)
Pontus laboured to deny this statement.(22) If the gospel has not
fulfilled the law, then all I can say is,(23) the law has fulfilled the
gospel. But it is well that in a later verse he threatens us with "the
judgment-seat of Christ,"—the Judge, of course, and the Avenger, and
therefore the Creator's (Christ). This Creator, too, however much he
may preach up another god, he certainly sets forth for us as a Being to
be served,(24) if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared.
I shall not be sorry to bestow attention on the shorter epistles
also. Even in brief works there is much pungency?(25) The Jews had
slain their prophets.(26) I may ask, What has this to do with the
apostle of the rival god, one so amiable withal, who could hardly be
said to condemn even the failings of his own people; and who, moreover,
has himself some hand in making away with the same prophets whom he is
destroying? What injury did Israel commit against him in slaying those
whom he too has reprobated, since he was the first to pass a hostile
sentence on them? But Israel sinned against their own God. He upbraided
their iniquity to whom the injured God pertains; and certainly he is
anything but the adversary of the injured Deity. Else he would not have
burdened them with the charge of killing even the Lord, in the words,
"Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets," although (the
pronoun) their own be an addition of the heretics.(1) Now, what was
there so very acrimonious(2) in their killing Christ the proclaimer of
the new god, after they had put to death also the prophets of their own
god? The fact, however, of their having slain the Lord and His
servants, is put as a case of climax.(3) Now, if it were the Christ of
one god and the prophets of another god whom they slew, he would
certainly have placed the impious crimes on the same level, instead of
mentioning them in the way of a climax; but they did not admit of being
put on the same level: the climax, therefore, was only possible(4) by
the sin having been in fact committed against one and the same Lord in
the two respective circumstances.(5) To one and the same Lord, then,
belonged Christ and the prophets. What that "sanctification of ours"
is, which he declares to be "the will of God," you may discover from
the opposite conduct which he forbids. That we should "abstain from
fornication," not from marriage; that every one "should know how to
possess his vessel in honour."(6) In what way? "Not in the lust of
concupiscence, even as the Gentiles."(7) Concupiscence, however, is not
ascribed to marriage even among the Gentiles, but to extravagant,
unnatural, and enormous sins.(8) The law of nature(9) is opposed to
luxury as well as to grossness and uncleanness;(10) it does not forbid
connubial intercourse, but concupiscence; and it takes care of(11) our
vessel by the honourable estate of matrimony. This passage (of the
apostle) I would treat in such a way as to maintain the superiority of
the other and higher sanctity, preferring continence and virginity to
marriage, but by no means prohibiting the latter. For my hostility is
directed against" those who are for destroying the God of marriage, not
those who follow after chastity. He says that those who "remain unto
the coming of Christ," along with "the dead in Christ, shall rise
first," being "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air."(13) I find it was in their foresight of all this, that the
heavenly intelligences gazed with admiration on "the Jerusalem which is
above,"(14) and by the mouth of Isaiah said long ago: "Who are these
that fly as clouds, and as doves with their young ones, unto me?"(15)
Now, as Christ has prepared for us this ascension into heaven, He must
be the Christ of whom Amos(16) spoke: "It is He who builds His ascent
up to the heavens,"(17) even for Himself and His people. Now, from whom
shall I expect (the fulfil-merit of) all this, except from Him whom I
have heard give the promise thereof? What "spirit" does he forbid us to
"quench," and what "prophesyings" to "despise?"(18) Not the Creator's
spirit, nor the Creator's prophesyings, Marcion of course replies. For
he has already quenched and despised the thing which he destroys, and
is unable to forbid what he has despised.(19) It is then incumbent on
Marcion now to display in his church that spirit of his god which must
not be quenched, and the prophesyings which must not be despised. And
since he has made such a display as he thinks fit, let him know that we
shall challenge it whatever it may be to the rule(20) of the grace and
power of the Spirit and the prophets—namely, to foretell the future,
to reveal the secrets of the heart, and to explain mysteries. And when
he shall have failed to produce and give proof of any such criterion,
we will then on our side bring out both the Spirit and the prophecies
of the Creator, which utter predictions according to His will. Thus it
will be clearly seen of what the apostle spoke, even of those things
which were to happen in the church of his God; and as long as He
endures, so long also does His Spirit work, and so long are His
promises repeated.(21) Come now, you who deny the salvation of the
flesh, and who, whenever there occurs the specific mention of body in a
case of this sort,(22) interpret it as meaning anything rather than the
substance of the flesh, (tell me) how is it that the apostle has given
certain distinct names to all (our faculties), and has comprised them
all in one prayer for their safety, desiring that our "spirit and soul
and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord and
Saviour (Jesus) Christ?"(1) Now he has here pro-pounded the soul and
the body as two several and distinct things.(2) For although the soul
has a kind of body of a quality of its own,(3) just as the spirit has,
yet as the soul and the body are distinctly named, the soul has its own
peculiar appellation, not requiring the common designation of body.
This is left for "the flesh," which having no proper name (in this
passage), necessarily makes use of the common designation. Indeed, I
see no other substance in man, after spirit and soul, to which the term
body can be applied except "the flesh." This, therefore, I understand
to be meant by the word "body "—as often as the latter is not
specifically named. Much more do I so understand it in the present
passage, where the flesh(4) is expressly called by the name "body."
We are obliged from time to time to recur to certain topics in order to affirm truths which are connected with them We repeat then here, that as the Lord is by the apostle proclaimed s as the awarder of both weal and woe,(6) He must be either the Creator, or (as Marcion would be loth to admit) One like the Creator—"with whom it is a righteous thing to recompense tribulation to them who afflict us, and to ourselves, who are afflicted, rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed as coming from heaven with the angels of His might and in flaming fire."(7) The heretic, however, has erased the flaming fire, no doubt that he might extinguish all traces herein of our own God. But the folly of the obliteration is clearly seen. For as the apostle declares that the Lord will come "to take vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel, who," he says, "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power"(8) —it follows that, as He comes to inflict punishment, He must require "the flaming fire." Thus on this consideration too we must, notwithstanding Marcion's opposition, conclude that Christ belongs to a God who kindles the flames(9) (of vengeance), and therefore to the Creator, inasmuch as He takes vengeance on such as know not the Lord, that is, on the heathen. For he has mentioned separately "those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,"(10) whether they be sinners among Christians or among Jews. Now, to inflict punishment on the heathen, who very likely have never heard of the Gospel, is not the function of that God who is naturally unknown, and who is revealed nowhere else than in the Gospel, and therefore cannot be known by all men.(11) The Creator, however, ought to be known even by (the light of) nature, for He may be understood from His works, and may thereby become the object of a more widely spread knowledge. To Him, therefore, does it appertain to punish such as know not God, for none ought to be ignorant of Him. In the (apostle's) phrase, "From the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power,"(12)he uses the words of Isaiah who for the express reason makes the self-same Lord "arise to shake terribly the earth."(13) Well, but who is the man of sin, the son of perdition," who must first be revealed before the Lord comes; "who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; who is to sit in the temple of God, and boast himself as being God?"(1) According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies,(2) and especially by the Apostle John, who says that "already many false prophets are gone out into the world," the fore-runners of Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh,(3) and do not acknowledge(4) Jesus (to be the Christ), meaning in God the Creator. According, however, to Marcion's view, it is really hard to know whether He might not be (after all) the Creator's Christ; because according to him He is not yet come. But whichsoever of the two it is, I want to know why he comes "in all power, and with lying signs and wonders?"(5) "Because," he says, "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; for which cause God shall send them an instinct of delusion(6) (to believe a lie), that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."(7) If therefore he be Antichrist, (as we hold), and comes according to the Creator's purpose, it must be God the Creator who sends him to fasten in their error those who did not believe the truth, that they might be saved; His likewise must be the truth and the salvation, who avenges (the contempt of) them by sending error as their substitute(8)—that is, the Creator, to whom that very wrath is a fitting attribute, which deceives with a lie those who are not captivated with truth. If, however, he is not Antichrist, as we suppose (him to be) then He is the Christ of the Creator, as Marcion will have it. In this case how happens it that he(9) can suborn the Creator's Christ to avenge his truth? But should he after all agree with us, that Antichrist is here meant, I must then likewise ask how it is that he finds Satan, an angel of the Creator, necessary to his purpose? Why, too, should Antichrist be slain by Him, whilst commissioned by the Creator to execute the function(10) of inspiring men with their love of untruth? In short, it is incontestable that the emissary,(11) and the truth, and the salvation belong to Him to whom also appertain the wrath, and the jealousy,(12) and "the sending of the strong delusion,"(13) on those who despise and mock, as well as upon those who are ignorant of Him; and therefore even Marcion will now have to come down a step, and concede to us that his god is "a jealous god." (This being then an unquestionable position, I ask) which God has the greater fight to be angry? He, as I suppose, who from the beginning of all things has given to man, as primary witnesses for the knowledge of Himself, nature in her (manifold) works, kindly providences, plagues,(14) and indications (of His divinity),(15) but who in spite of all this evidence has not been acknowledged; or he who has been brought out to view(16) once for all in one only copy of the gospel—and even that without any sure authority—which actually makes no secret of proclaiming another god? Now He who has the right of inflicting the vengeance, has also sole claim to that which occasions(17) the vengeance, I mean the Gospel; (in other words,) both the truth and (its accompanying) salvation. The charge, that "if any would not work, neither should he eat,"(18) is in strict accordance with the precept of Him who ordered that "the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn should not be muzzled."(19)
We have it on the true tradition(20) of the Church, that this
epistle was sent to the Ephe- sians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion,
however, was very desirous of giving it the new rifle (of
Laodicean),(1) as if he were extremely accurate in investigating such a
point. But of what consequence are the titles, since in writing to a
certain church the apostle did in fact write to all? It is certain
that, whoever they were to whom he wrote,(2) he declared Him to be God
in Christ with whom all things agree which are predicted.(3) Now, to
what god will most suitably belong all those things which relate to
"that good pleasure, which God hath purposed in the mystery of His
will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might
recapitulate" (if I may so say, according to the exact meaning of the
Greek word(4)) "all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and
which are on earth,"(5) but to Him whose are all things from their
beginning, yea the beginning itself too; from whom issue the times and
the dispensation of the fulness of times, according to which all things
up to the very first are gathered up in Christ? What beginning,
however, has the other god; that is to say, how can anything proceed
from him, who has no work to show? And if there be no beginning, how
can there be times? If no times, what fulness of times can there be?
And if no fulness, what dispensation? Indeed, what has he ever done on
earth, that any long dispensation of times to be fulfilled can be put
to his account, for the accomplishment of all things in Christ, even of
things in heaven? Nor can we possibly suppose that any things whatever
have been at any time done in heaven by any other God than Him by whom,
as all men allow, all things have been done on earth. Now, if it is
impossible for all these things from the beginning to be reckoned to
any other God than the Creator, who will believe that an alien god has
recapitulated them in an alien Christ, instead of their own proper
Author in His own Christ? If, again, they belong to the Creator, they
must needs be separate from the other god; and if separate, then
opposed to him. But then how can opposites be gathered together into
him by whom they are in short destroyed? Again, what Christ do the
following words announce, when the apostle says: "That we should be to
the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ?"(6) Now who could
have first trusted—i.e. previously trusted(7) —in God, before His
advent, except the Jews to whom Christ was previously announced, from
the beginning? He who was thus foretold, was also foretrusted. Hence
the apostle refers the statement to himself, that is, to the Jews, in
order that he may draw a distinction with respect to the Gentiles,
(when he goes on to say:) "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard
the word of truth, the gospel (of your salvation); in whom ye believed,
and were sealed with His Holy Spirit of promise."(8) Of what promise?
That which was made through Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of
my Spirit upon all flesh,"(9) that is, on all nations. Therefore the
Spirit and the Gospel will be found in the Christ, who was foretrusted,
because foretold. Again, "the Father of glory"(10) is He whose Christ,
when ascending to heaven, is celebrated as "the King of Glory" in the
Psalm: "Who is this King of Glory? the Lord of Hosts, He is the King of
Glory."(11) From Him also is besought "the spirit of wisdom,"" at whose
disposal is enumerated that sevenfold distribution of the spirit of
grace by Isaiah.(13) He likewise will grant "the enlightenment of the
eyes of the understanding,"(14) who has also enriched our natural eyes
with light; to whom, moreover, the blindness of the people is
offensive: "And who is blind, but my servants?... yea, the servants of
God have become blind."(15) In His gift, too, are "the riches (of the
glory) of His inheritance in the saints,"(16) who promised such an
inheritance in the call of the Gentiles: "Ask of me, and I will give
Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance."(17) It was He who "wrought in
Christ His mighty power, by raising Him from the dead, and setting Him
at His own right hand, and putting all things under His feet"(18)—even
the same who said: "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine
enemies Thy footstool."(19) For in another passage the Spirit says to
the Father concerning the Son: "Thou hast put all things under His
feet."(20) Now, if from all these facts which are found in the Creator
there is yet to be deduced(21) another god and another Christ, let us
go in quest of the Creator. I suppose, forsooth,(22) we find Him, when
he speaks of such as "were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein they
had walked according to the course of this world, according to the
prince of the power of the air, who worketh in the children of
disobedience."(1) But Marcion must not here interpret the world as
meaning the God of the world? For a creature bears no resemblance to
the Creator; the thing made, none to its Maker; the world, none to God.
He, moreover, who is the Prince of the power of the ages must not be
thought to be called the prince of the power of the air; for He who is
chief over the higher powers derives no title from the lower powers,
although these, too, may be ascribed to Him. Nor, again, can He
possibly seem to be the instigator(3) of that unbelief which He Himself
had rather to endure at the hand of the Jews and the Gentiles alike. We
may therefore simply conclude that(4) these designations are unsuited
to the Creator. There is another being to whom they are more applicable
—and the apostle knew very well who that was. Who then is he?
Undoubtedly he who has raised up "children of disobedience" against the
Creator Himself ever since he took possession of that "air" of His;
even as the prophet makes him say: "I will set my throne above the
stars; ... will go up above the clouds; I will be like the Most
High."(5) This must mean the devil, whom in another passage (since such
will they there have the apostle's meaning to be)we shall recognize in
the appellation the god of this world.(6) For he has filled the whole
world with the lying pretence of his own divinity. To be sure,(7) if he
had not existed, we might then possibly have applied these descriptions
to the Creator. But the apostle, too, had lived in Judaism; and when he
parenthetically observed of the sins (of that period of his life), "in
which also we all had our conversation in times past,"(8) he must not
be understood to indicate that the Creator was the lord of sinful men,
and the prince of this air; but as meaning that in his Judaism he had
been one of the children of disobedience, having the devil as his
instigator—when he persecuted the church and the Christ of the
Creator. Therefore he says: "We also were the children of wrath," but
"by nature."(9) Let the heretic, however, not contend that, because the
Creator called the Jews children, therefore the Creator is the lord of
wrath.(10) For when (the apostle) says," We were by nature the children
of wrath," inasmuch as the Jews were not the Creator's children by
nature, but by the election of their fathers, he (must have) referred
their being children of wrath to nature, and not to the Creator, adding
this at lasts" even as others,"(11) who, of course, were not children
of God. It is manifest that sins, and lusts of the flesh, and unbelief,
and anger, are ascribed to the common nature of all mankind, the devil
[however leading that nature astray,(12) which he has already infected
with the implanted germ of sin. "We," says he, "are His workmanship,
created in Christ."(13) It is one thing to make (as a workman), another
thing to create. But he assigns both to One. Man is the workmanship of
the Creator. He therefore who made man (at first), created him also in
Christ. As touching the substance of nature, He "made" him; as touching
the work of grace, He "created" him. Look also at what follows in
connection with these words: "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time
past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which
has the name of circumcision in the flesh made by the hand—that at
that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,(14) having no
hope, and without God in the world."(15) Now, without what God and
without what Christ were these Gentiles? Surely, without Him to whom
the commonwealth(16) of Israel belonged, and the covenants and the
promise. "But now in Christ," says he, "ye who were sometimes far off
are made nigh by His blood."(17) From whom were they far off before?
From the privileges) whereof he speaks above, even tom the Christ of
the Creator, from the commonwealth of Israel, from the covenants, from
the hope of the promise, from God Himself. Since this is the case, the
Gentiles are consequently now in Christ made nigh to these (blessings),
from which they were once far off. But if we are in Christ brought so
very nigh to the commonwealth of Israel, which comprises the religion
of the divine Creator, and to the covenants and to the promise, yea to
their very God Himself, it is quite ridiculous (to suppose that) the
Christ of the other god has brought us to this proximity to the Creator
from afar. The apostle had in mind that it had been predicted
concerning the call of
the Gentiles from their distant alienation in words like these:
"They who were far off from me have come to my righteousness."(1) For
the Creator's righteousness no less than His peace was announced in
Christ, as we have often shown already. Therefore he says: "He is our
peace, who hath made both one"(2)—that is, the Jewish nation and the
Gentile world. What is near, and what was far off now that "the middle
wall has been broken down" of their "enmity," (are made one) "in His
flesh."(3) But Marcion erased the pronoun His, that he might make the
enmity refer to flesh, as if (the apostle spoke) of a carnal enmity,
instead of the enmity which was a rival to Christ.(4) And thus you have
(as I have said elsewhere) exhibited the stupidity of Pontus, rather
than the adroitness of a Marrucinian,(5) for you here deny him flesh to
whom in the verse above you allowed blood! Since, however, He has made
the law obsolete(6) by His own precepts, even by Himself fulfilling the
law (for superfluous is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," when He
says, "Thou shalt not look on a woman to lust after her;" superfluous
also is, "Thou shalt do no murder," when He says, "Thou shalt not speak
evil of thy neighbour,") it is impossible to make an adversary of the
law out of one who so completely promotes it.(7) "For to create(8) in
Himself of twain," for He who had made is also the same who creates
(just as we have found it stated above: "For we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus"),(9) "one new man, making peace" (really new,
and really man—no phantom—but new, and newly born of a virgin by the
Spirit of God), "that He might reconcile both unto God"(10) (even the
God whom both races had offended—both Jew and Gentile), "in one body,"
says he, "having in it slain the enmity by the cross."(11) Thus we find
from this passage also, that there was in Christ a fleshly body, such
as was able to endure the cross. "When, therefore, He came and preached
peace to them that were near and to them which were afar off," we both
obtained "access to the Father," being "now no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household
of God" (even of Him from whom, as we have shown above, we were aliens,
and placed far off), "built upon the foundation of the
apostles"(12)—(the apostle added), "and the prophets;" these words,
however, the heretic erased, forgetting that the Lord had set in His
Church not only apostles, but prophets also. He feared, no doubt, that
our building was to stand in Christ upon the foundation of the ancient
prophets,(13) since the apostle himself never fails to build us up
everywhere with (the words of) the prophets. For whence did he learn to
call Christ "the chief corner-stone,"(14) but from the figure given him
in the Psalm: "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head
(stone) of the corner?"(15)
As our heretic is so fond of his pruning-knife, I do not wonder
when syllables are expunged by his hand, seeing that entire pages are
usually the matter on which he practises his effacing process. The
apostle declares that to himself, "less than the least of all saints,
was the grace given" of enlightening all men as to "what was the
fellowship of the mystery, which during the ages had been hid in God,
who created all things."(16) The heretic erased the preposition in, and
made the clause run thus: ("what is the fellowship of the mystery)
which hath for ages been hidden from the God who created all
things."(17) The falsification, however, is flagrantly(18) absurd. For
the apostle goes on to infer (from his own statement): "in order that
unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might become
known through the church the manifold wisdom of God."(19) Whose
principalities and powers does he mean? If the Creator's, how does it
come to pass that such a God as He could have meant His wisdom to be
displayed to the principalities and powers, but not to Himself? For
surely no principalities could possibly have understood anything
without their sovereign Lord. Or if (the apostle) did not mention God
in this passage, on the ground that He (as their chief) is Himself
reckoned among these (principalities), then he would have plainly said
that the mystery had been hidden from the principalities and powers of
Him who had created all things, including Him amongst them. But if he
states that it was hidden from them, he must needs be understood(1) as
having meant that it was manifest to Him. From God, therefore, the
mystery was not hidden; but it was hidden in God, the Creator of all
things, from His principalities and powers. For "who hath known the
mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?"(2) Caught in this
trap, the heretic probably changed the passage, with the view of saying
that his god wished to make known to his principalities and powers the
fellowship of his own mystery, of which God, who created all things,
had been ignorant. But what was the use of his obtruding this ignorance
of the Creator, who was a stranger to the superior god,(4) and far
enough removed from him, when even his own servants had known nothing
about him? To the Creator, however, the future was well known. Then why
was not that also known to Him, which had to be revealed beneath His
heaven, and on His earth? From this, therefore, there arises a
confirmation of what we have already laid down. For since the Creator
was sure to know, some time or other, that hidden mystery of the
superior god, even on the supposition that the true reading was (as
Marcion has it)—"hidden from the God who created all things"—he ought
then to have expressed the conclusion thus: "in order that the manifold
wisdom of God might be made known to Him, and then to the
principalities and powers of God, whosoever He might be, with whom the
Creator was destined to share their knowledge." So palpable is the
erasure in this passage, when thus read, consistently with its own true
bearing. I, on my part, now wish to engage with you in a discussion on
the allegorical expressions of the apostle. What figures of speech
could the novel god have found in the prophets (fit for himself)? "He
led captivity captive," says the apostle.(4) With what arms? In what
conflicts? From the devastation of what Country? From the overthrow of
what city? What women, what children, what princes did the Conqueror
throw into chains? For when by David Christ is sung as "girded with His
sword upon His thigh,"(5) or by Isaiah as "taking away the spoils of
Samaria and the power of Damascus,"(6) you make Him out to be(7) really
and truly a warrior confest to the eye.(8) Learn then now, that His is
a spiritual armour and warfare, since you have already discovered that
the captivity is spiritual, in order that you may further learn that
this also belongs to Him, even because the apostle derived the mention
of the captivity from the same prophets as suggested to him his
precepts likewise: "Putting away lying," (says he,) "speak every man
truth with his neighbour;"(9) and again, using the very words in which
the Psalm(10) expresses his meaning, (he says,) "Be ye angry, and sin
not;"(11) "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath."(12) "Have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness;"(13) for (in the
Psalm it is written,) "With the holy man thou shalt be holy, and with
the perverse thou shalt be perverse;"(14) and, "Thou shalt put away
evil from among you."(15) Again, "Go ye out from the midst of them;
touch not the unclean thing; separate yourselves, ye that bear the
vessels of the Lord."(16) (The apostle says further:) "Be not drunk
with wine, wherein is excess,"(17)—a precept which is suggested by the
passage (of the prophet), where the seducers of the consecrated
(Nazarites) to drunkenness are rebuked: "Ye gave wine to my holy ones
to drink."(18) This prohibition from drink was given also to the high
priest Aaron and his sons, "when they went into the holy place."(19)
The command, to "sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns,"(20) comes
suitably from him who knew that those who "drank wine with drums and
psalteries" were blamed by God.(21) Now, when I find to what God belong
these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no
difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares
that "wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:"(1) what
reason does he give for this? "Because," says he, "the husband is the
head of the wife."(2) Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the
authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a
comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the
condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: "even as Christ is
the head of the Church;"(3) and again, in like manner: "He who loveth
his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church."(4)
You see how your Christ and your Church are put in comparison with the
work of the Creator. How much honour is given to the flesh in the name
of the church! "No man," says the apostle, "ever yet hated his own
flesh" (except, of course, Marcion alone), "but nourisheth and
cherisheth it, even as the Lord doth the Church."(5) But you are the
only man that hates his flesh, for you rob it of its resurrection. It
will be only right that you should hate the Church also, because it is
loved by Christ on the same principle.(6) Yea, Christ loved the flesh
even as the Church. For no man will love the picture of his wife
without taking care of it, and honouring it and crowning it. The
likeness partakes with the reality in the privileged honour. I shall
now endeavour, from my point of view,(7) to prove that the same God is
(the God) of the man(8) and of Christ, of the woman and of the Church,
of the flesh and the spirit, by the apostle's help who applies the
Creator's injunction, and adds even a comment on it: "For this cause
shall a man leave his father and his mother, (and shall be joined unto
his wife), and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great
mystery."(9) In passing,(10) (I would say that) it is enough for me
that the works of the Creator are great mysteries(11) in the estimation
of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the heretics.
"But I am speaking," says he, "of Christ and the Church."(12) This he
says in explanation of the mystery, not for its disruption. He shows us
that the mystery was prefigured by Him who is also the author of the
mystery. Now what is Marcion's opinion? The Creator could not possibly
have furnished figures to an unknown god, or, if a known one, an
adversary to Himself. The superior god, in fact, ought to have borrowed
nothing from the inferior; he was bound rather to annihilate Him.
"Children should obey their parents."(13) Now, although Marcion has
erased (the next clause), "which is the first commandment with
promise,"(14) still the law says plainly, "Honour thy father and thy
mother."(15) Again, (the apostle writes:) "Parents, bring up your
children in the fear and admonition of the Lord."(16) For you have
heard how it was said to them of old time: "Ye shall relate these
things to your children; and your children in like manner to their
children."(17) Of what use are two gods to me, when the discipline is
but one? If there must be two, I mean to follow Him who was the first
to teach the lesson. But as our struggle lies against "the rulers of
this world,"(18) what a host of Creator Gods there must be!(19) For why
should I not insist upon this point here, that he ought to have
mentioned but one "ruler of this world," if he meant only the Creator
to be the being to whom belonged all the powers which he previously
mentioned? Again, when in the preceding verse he bids us "put on the
whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of
the devil,"(20) does he not show that all the things which he mentions
after the devil's name really belong to the devil—"the principalities
and the powers, and the tillers of the darkness of this world,"(21)
which we also ascribe to the devil's authority? Else, if "the devil"
means the Creator, who will be the devil in the Creator's
dispensation?(22) As there are two gods, must there also be two devils,
and a plurality of powers and rulers of this world? But how is the
Creator both a devil and a god at the same time, when the devil is not
at once both god and devil? For either they are both of them gods, if
both of them are devils; or else He who is God is not also devil, as
neither is he god who is the devil. I want to know indeed by what
perversion(23) the word devil is at all applicable to the Creator.
Perhaps he perverted some purpose of the superior god—conduct such as
He experienced Himself from the archangel, who lied indeed for the
purpose. For He did not forbid (our first parents) a taste of the
miserable tree,(24) from any apprehension that they would become gods;
His prohibition was meant to prevent their dying after the
transgression. But "the spiritual wickedness"(1) did not signify the
Creator, because of the apostle's additional description, "in heavenly
places;"(2) for the apostle was quite aware that "spiritual wickedness"
had been at work in heavenly places, when angels were entrapped into
sin by the daughters of men.(3) But how happened it that (the apostle)
resorted to ambiguous descriptions, and I know not what obscure
enigmas, for the purpose of disparaging(4) the Creator, when he
displayed to the Church such constancy and plainness of speech in
"making known the mystery of the gospel for which he was an ambassador
in bonds," owing to his liberty in preaching—and actually requested
(the Ephesians) to pray to God that this "open-mouthed utterance" might
be continued to him?(5)
I am accustomed in my prescription against all heresies, to fix
my compendious criterion(6) (of truth) in the testimony of time;
claiming priority therein as our rule, and alleging lateness to be the
characteristic of every heresy. This shall now be proved even by the
apostle, when he says: "For the hope which is laid up for you in
heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
which is come unto you, as it is unto all the world."(7) For if, even
at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how
much more now! Now, if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere,
rather than any heretical gospel, much less Marcion's, which only dates
from the reign of Antoninus,(8) then ours will be the gospel of the
apostles. But should Marcion's gospel succeed in filling the whole
world, it would not even in that case be entitled to the character of
apostolic. For this quality, it will be evident, can only belong to
that gospel which was the first to fill the world; in other words, to
the gospel of that God who of old declared this of its promulgation:
"Their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the
end of the world."(9) He calls Christ "the image of the invisible
God."(10) We in like manner say that the Father of Christ is invisible,
for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times (whenever
any appearance was vouchsafed to men in the name of God) as the image
of (the Father) Himself. He must not be regarded, however, as making
any difference between a visible and an invisible God; because long
before he wrote this we find a description of our God to this effect:
"No man can see the Lord, and live."(11) If Christ is not "the
first-begotten before every creature,"(12)as that "Word of God by whom
all things were made, and without whom nothing was made;"(13) if "all
things were" not "in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or
principalities, or powers;" if "all things were" not "created by Him
and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning
Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, that
"He is before all."(14) For how is He before all, if He is not before
all things?(15) How, again, is He before all things, if He is not "the
first-born of every creature"—if He is not the Word of the
Creator?(16) Now how will he be proved to have been before all things,
who appeared after all things? Who can tell whether he had a prior
existence, when he has found no proof that he had any existence at all?
In what way also could it have "pleased (the Father) that in Him should
all fulness dwell?"(17) For, to begin with, what fulness is that which
is not comprised of the constituents which Marcion has removed from
it,—even those that were "created in Christ, whether in heaven or on
earth," whether angels or men? which is not made of the things that are
visible and invisible? which consists not of thrones and dominions and
principalities and powers? If, on the other hand,(18) our false
apostles and Judaizing gospellers(19) have in- traduced all these
things out of their own stores, and Martian has applied them to
constitute the fulness of his own god, (this hypothesis, absurd though
it be, alone would justify him;) for how, on any other supposition,(1)
could the rival and the destroyer of the Creator have been willing that
His fulness should dwell in his Christ? To whom, again, does He
"reconcile all things by Himself, making peace by the blood of His
cross,"(2) but to Him whom those very things had altogether(3)
offended, against whom they had rebelled by transgression, (but) to
whom they had at last returned?(4) Conciliated they might have been to
a strange god; but reconciled they could not possibly have been to any
other than their own God. Accordingly, ourselves "who were sometime
alienated and enemies in our mind by wicked works"(5) does He reconcile
to the Creator, against whom we had committed offence—worshipping the
creature to the prejudice of the Creator. As, however, he says
elsewhere,(6) that the Church is the body of Christ, so here also (the
apostle) declares that he "fills up that which is behind of the
afflictions of Christ in his flesh for His body's sake, which is the
Church."(7) But you must not on this account suppose that on every
mention of His body the term is only a metaphor, instead of meaning
real flesh. For he says above that we are "reconciled in His body
through death;"(8) meaning, of course, that He died in that body
wherein death was possible through the flesh: (therefore he adds,) not
through the Church(9) (per ecclesiam), but expressly far the sake of
the Church (proper ecclesiam), exchanging body for body—one of flesh
for a spiritual one. When, again, he warns them to "beware of subtle
words and philosophy," as being "a vain deceit," such as is "after the
rudiments of the world" (not understanding thereby the mundane fabric
of sky and earth, but worldly learning, and "the tradition of men,"
subtle in their speech and their philosophy),(10) it would be tedious,
and the proper subject of a separate work, to show how in this sentence
(of the apostle's) all heresies are condemned, on the ground of their
consisting of the resources of subtle speech and the rules of
philosophy. But (once for all) let Marcion know that the principle term
of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, implying that the Lord
is stupid and indifferent;(11) wherefore he refuses to say that He is
an object to be feared. Moreover, from the porch of the Stoics he
brings out matter, and places it on a par with the Divine Creator.(12)
He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,—a truth which none of
the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold.(13) But how remote
is our (Catholic) verity from the artifices of this heretic, when it
dreads to arouse the anger of God, and firmly believes that He produced
all things out of nothing, and promises to us a restoration from the
grave of the same flesh (that died) and holds without a blush that
Christ was born of the virgin's womb! At this, philosophers, and
heretics, and the very heathen, laugh and jeer. For "God hath chosen
the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"(14)—that God, no
doubt, who in reference to this very dispensation of His threatened
long before that He would "destroy the wisdom of the wise."(15) Thanks
to this simplicity of truth, so opposed to the subtlety and vain deceit
of philosophy, we cannot possibly have any relish for such perverse
opinions. Then, if God "quickens us together with Christ, forgiving us
our trespasses,"(16) we cannot suppose that sins are forgiven by Him
against whom, as having been all along unknown, they could not have
been committed. Now tell me, Marcion, what is your opinion of the
apostle's language, when he says, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the
sabbath, which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of
Christ?"(17) We do not now treat of the law, further than (to remark)
that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even
by passing from shadow to substance—that is, from figurative types to
the reality, which is Christ. The shadow, therefore, is His to whom
belongs the body also; in other words, the law is His, and so is
Christ. If you separate the law and Christ, assigning one to one god
and the other to another, it is the same as if you were to at- tempt to
separate the shadow from the body of which it is the shadow. Manifestly
Christ has relation to the law, if the body has to its shadow. But when
he blames those who alleged visions of angels as their authority for
saying that men must abstain from meats—"you must not touch, you must
not taste"-in a voluntary humility, (at the same time) "vainly puffed
up in the fleshly mind, and not holding the Head,"(1) (the apostle)
does not in these terms attack the law or Moses, as if it was at the
suggestion of superstitious angels that he had enacted his prohibition
of sundry aliments. For Moses had evidently received the law from God.
When, therefore, he speaks of their "following the commandments and
doctrines of men,"(2) he refers to the conduct of those persons who
"held not the Head," even Him in whom all things are gathered
together;(3) for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in
Him as their initiating principle(4)—even the meats and drinks which
were indifferent in their nature. All the rest of his precepts,(5) as
we have shown sufficiently, when treating of them as they occurred in
another epistle,(6) emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting
that "old things were to pass away," and that He would "make all things
new,"(7) commanded men "to break up fresh ground for themselves,"(8)
and thereby taught them even then to put off the old man and put on the
new.
When (the apostle) mentions the several motives of those who were
preaching the gospel, how that some, "waxing confident by his bonds,
were more fearless in speaking the word," while others "preached Christ
even out of envy and strife, and again others out of good-will" many
also "out of love," and certain "out of contention," and some "in
rivalry to himself,"(9) he had a favourable opportunity, no doubt,(10)
of taxing what they preached with a diversity of doctrine, as if it
were no less than this which caused so great a variance in their
tempers. But while he exposes these tempers as the sole cause of the
diversity, he avoids inculpating the regular mysteries of the
faith,(11) and affirms that there is, notwithstanding, but one Christ
and His one God, whatever motives men had in preaching Him. Therefore,
says he, it matters not to me "whether it be in pretence or in truth
that Christ is preached,"(12)because one Christ alone was announced,
whether in their "pretentious" or their "truthful" faith. For it was to
the faithfulness of their preaching that he applied the word truth, not
to the rightness of the rule itself, because there was indeed but one
rule; whereas the conduct of the preachers varied: in some of them it
was true, i. e. single-minded, while in others it was sophisticated
with over-much learning. This being the case, it is manifest that that
Christ was the subject of their preaching who was always the theme of
the prophets. Now, if it were a completely different Christ that was
being introduced by the apostle, the novelty of the thing would have
produced a diversity (in belief.). For there would not have been
wanting, in spite of the novel teaching,(13) men to interpret the
preached gospel of the Creator's Christ, since the majority of persons
everywhere now-a-days are of our way of thinking, rather than on the
heretical side. So that the apostle would not in such a passage as the
present one have refrained from remarking and censuring the diversity.
Since, however, there is no blame of a diversity, there is no proof of
a novelty. Of course(14) the Marcionites suppose that they have the
apostle on their side in the following passage in the matter of
Christ's substance—that in Him there was nothing but a phantom of
flesh. For he says of Christ, that, "being in the form of God, He
thought it not robbery to be equal with God;(15) but emptied(16)
Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant," not the reality,
"and was made in the likeness of man," not a man, "and was found in
fashion as a man,"(17) not in his substance, that is to say, his flesh;
just as if to a sub-
stance there did not accrue both form and likeness and fashion.
It is well for us that in another passage (the apostle) calls Christ
"the image of the invisible God."(1) For will it not follow with equal
force from that passage, that Christ is not truly God, because the
apostle places Him in the image of God, if, (as Marcion contends,) He
is not truly man because of His having taken on Him the form or image
of a man? For in both cases the true substance will have to be
excluded, if image (or "fashion") and likeness and form shall be
claimed for a phantom. But since he is truly God, as the Son of the
Father, in His fashion and image, He has been already by the force of
this conclusion determined to be truly man, as the Son of man, "found
in the fashion "and image" of a man." For when he propounded(2) Him as
thus "found" in the manners of a man, he in fact affirmed Him to be
most certainly human. For what is found, manifestly possesses
existence. Therefore, as He was found to be God by His mighty power, so
was He found to be man by reason of His flesh, because the apostle
could not have pronounced Him to have "become obedient unto death,"(4)
if He had not been constituted of a mortal substance. Still more
plainly does this appear from the apostle's additional words, "even the
death of the cross."(5) For he could hardly mean this to be a climax(6)
to the human suffering, to extol the virtue(7) of His obedience, if he
had known it all to be the imaginary process of a phantom, which rather
eluded the cross than experienced it, and which displayed no virtue(8)
in the suffering, but only illusion. But "those things which he had
once accounted gain," and which he enumerates in the preceding
verse—"trust in the flesh," the sign of "circumcision," his origin as
"an Hebrew of the Hebrews," his descent from "the tribe of Benjamin,"
his dignity in the honours of the Pharisee(9)—he now reckons to be
only "loss" to himself;(10) (in other words,) it was not the God of the
Jews, but their stupid obduracy, which he repudiates. These are also
the things "which he counts but dung for the excellency of the
knowledge of Christ"(11) (but by no means for the rejection of God the
Creator); "whilst he has not his own righteousness, which is of the
law, but that which is through Him," i.e. Christ, "the righteousness
which is of God."(12) Then, say you, according to this distinction the
law did not proceed from the God of Christ. Subtle enough! But here is
something still more subtle for you. For when (the apostle) says, "Not
(the righteousness) which is of the law, but that which is through
Him," he would not have used the phrase through Him of any other than
Him to whom the law belonged. "Our conversation," says he, "is in
heaven."(13) I here recognise the Creator's ancient promise to Abraham:
"I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven."(14) Therefore "one
star differeth from another star in glory."(15) If, again, Christ in
His advent from heaven "shall change the body of our humiliation, that
it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body,"(16) it follows that
this body of ours shall rise again, which is now in a state of
humiliation in its sufferings and according to the law of mortality
drops into the ground. But how shall it be changed, if it shall have no
real existence? If, however, this is only said of those who shall be
found in the flesh(17) at the advent of God, and who shall have to be
changed,"(18) what shall they do who will rise first? They will have no
substance from which to undergo a change. But he says (elsewhere), "We
shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord
(in the air)."(19) Then, if we are to be caught up alone with them,
surely we shall likewise be changed together with them.
To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against
the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, when he received
(into his Apostolicon) this letter which was written but to one man,
that he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus,
which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline. His aim, was, I suppose,
to carry out his interpolating process even to the number of (St.
Paul's) epistles. And now, reader,(1) I beg you to remember that we
have here adduced proofs out of the apostle, in support of the subjects
which we previously(2) had to handle, and that we have now brought to
a close(3) the topics which we deferred to this (portion of our) work.
(This favour I request of you,) that you may not think that any
repetition here has been superfluous, for we have only fulfilled our
former engagement to you; nor look with suspicion on any postponement
there, where we merely set forth the essential points (of the
argument).(4) If you carefully examine the entire work, you will acquit
us of either having been redundant here, or diffident there, in your
own honest judgment.(5)
Dr. Holmes, in the learned note which follows, affords me a
valuable addition to my scanty remarks on this subject in former
volumes. See (Vol. I. pp. 387,532,) references to the great work of
Professor Delitzsch, in notes on Irenaeus. In Vol. II. p. 102, I have
also mentioned M. Heard's work, on the Tripartite Nature of Man. With
reference to the disagreement of the learned on this great matter, let
me ask is it not less real than apparent? The dichotomy to which
Tertullian objected, and the trichotomy which Dr. Holmes makes a name
of "the triple nature," are terms which rather suggest a process of
"dividing asunder of soul and spirit," and which involve an ambiguity
that confuses the inquiry. Now, while the gravest objections may be
imagined, or even demonstrated, against a process which seems to
destroy the unity and individuality of a Man, does not every theologian
accept the analytical formula of the apostle and recognize the bodily,
the animal and the spiritual in the life of man? If so is there not
fundamental agreement as to I. Thess. v. 53, and difference only,
relatively, as to functions and processes, or as to the way in which
truth on these three points ought to be stated? On this subject there
are good remarks in the Speaker's Commentary on the text aforesaid, but
the exhaustive work of Delitzsch deserves study.
Man's whole nature in Christ, seems to be sanctified by the Holy
Spirit's suffusion of man's spirit this rules and governs the psychic
nature and through it the body.
II. (The entire work, cap. xxi. p. 474.)
He who has followed Tertullian through the mazes in which
Marcion, in spite of shifts and turnings innumerable, has been hunted
down, and defeated, must recognize the great work performed by this
author in behalf of Christian Orthodoxy. It seems to have been the plan
of Christ's watchful care over His Church, that, in the earliest stages
of its existence the enemy should be allowed to display his utmost
malice and to bring out all his forces against Truth. Thus, before the
meeting of Church-councils the language of faith had grown up, and dear
views and precise statements of doctrine had been committed to the
idioms of human thought. But, the labours of Tertullian are not
confined to these diverse purposes. With all the faults of his acute
and forensic mind, how powerfully he illuminates the Scriptures and
glorifies them as containing the whole system of the Faith. How rich
are his quotations, and how penetrating his conceptions of their uses.
Besides all this, what an introduction he gives us to the modes of
thought which were becoming familiar in the West, and which were
convening the Latin tongue to new uses, and making it capable of
expressing Augustine's mind and so of creating new domains of Learning
among the nations of Europe.
If I have treated tenderly the reputation of this great Master,
in my notes upon his Marcion, it is with a twofold purpose.(1.) It
seems to me due to truth that his name should be less associated with
his deplorable lapse than with his long and faithful services to the
Church, and(2.) that the student should thus follow his career with a
pleasure and with a confidence the lack of which perpetually annoys us
when we give the first place to the Montanist and not to the Catholic.
Let this be our spirit in accompanying him into his fresh campaigns
against "the grievous wolves" foreseen by St. Paul with tears. Acts xx.
29, 30.
But as our Author invokes a careful examination of his "entire
work," let the student recur to Irenaeus (Vol. I. p. 352, etc.) and
observe how formidable, from the beginning, was the irreligion of
Marcion. His doctrines did truly "eat like a canker," assailing the
Scriptures by mutilations and corruptions of the text itself. No marvel
that Tertullian shows him no quarter, though we must often regret the
forensic violence of his retort. As to the Dualism which, through
Marcion, thus threatened the first article of the Creed, consult the
valuable remarks of the Enqc. Britannica, ("Mithras"). Mithras became
known to the Romans circa B.C. 70, and his worship flourished under
Trajan and his successors. An able writer remarks that it was natural
"Dualism should develop itself out of primitive Zoroastrianism. The
human mind has ever been struck with a certain antagonism of which it
has sought to discover the cause. Evil seems most easily accounted for
by the supposition of an evil Person; and the continuance of an equal
struggle, without advantage to either side, seems to imply the equality
of that evil Person with the author of all good. Thus Dualism had its
birth. Many came to believe in the existence of two co-eternal and
co-equal Persons, one good and the other evil, between whom there has
been from all eternity a perpetual conflict, and between whom the same
conflict must continue to rage through all coming time."