This page copyright © 2002 Blackmask Online.
http://www.blackmask.com
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. PETER HOLMES, D.D., F.R.A.S., ETC., ETC.]
THE character of the times in which we live is such as to call
forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished
at the heresies (which abound)(2) neither ought their existence to
surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass;(3) nor
the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is,
by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being
"approved."(4) Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offence
of the many(5) who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies
prevail to such a degree. How great (might their offence have been) if
they had not existed.(6) When it has been determined that a thing must
by all means be, it receives the (final) cause for which it has its
being. This secures the power through which it exists, in such a way
that it is impossible for it not to have existence.
CHAP, II.—ANALOGY BETWEEN FEVERS AND HERESIES. HERESIES NOT TO BE WONDERED AT: THEIR STRENGTH DERIVED FROM WEAKNESS OF MEN'S FAITH. THEY HAVE NOT THE TRUTH. SIMILE OF PUGILISTS AND GLADIATORS IN ILLUSTRATION.
Taking the similar case(7) of fever, which is appointed a place
amongst all other deadly and excruciating issues (of life) for
destroying man: we are not surprised either that it exists, for there
it is, or that it consumes man, for that is the purpose of its
existence. In like manner, with respect to heresies, which are produced
for the weakening and the extinction of faith, since we feel a dread
because they have this power, we should first dread the fact of their
existence; for as long as they exist, they have they have their power;
and as long as they have their power, they, have their existence. But
still fever, as being an evil both in its cause(8) and in its power, as
all know, we rather loathe than wonder at, and to the best of our power
guard against, not having its extirpation in our power. Some men prefer
wondering at heresies, however, which bring with them eternal death and
the heat of a stronger fire, for possessing this power, instead of
avoiding their power when they have the means of escape: but heresies
would have no power, if (men) would cease to wonder that they have such
power. For it either happens that, while men wonder, they fall into a
snare, or, because they are ensnared, they cherish their surprise, as
if heresies were so powerful because of some truth which belonged to
them. It would no doubt be a wonderful thing that evil should have any
force of its own, were it not that heresies are strong in those persons
who are not strong in faith. In a combat of boxers and gladiators,
generally speaking, it is not because a man is strong that he gains the
victory, or loses it because he is not strong, but because he who is
vanquished was a man of no strength; and indeed this very conqueror,
when afterwards matched against a really powerful man, actually retires
crest-fallen from the contest. In precisely the same way, heresies
derive such strength as they have from the infirmities of
individuals—having no strength whenever they encounter a really
powerful faith.
It is usual, indeed, with persons of a weaker character, to be so
built up (in confidence) by certain individuals who are caught by
heresy, as to topple over into ruin themselves. How comes it to pass,
(they ask), that this woman or that man, who were the most faithful,
the most prudent, and the most approved(1) in the church, have gone
over to the other side? Who that asks such a question does not in fact
reply to it himself, to the effect that men whom heresies have been
able to pervert(2) ought never to have been esteemed prudent, or
faithful, or approved? This again is, I suppose, an extraordinary
thing, that one who has been approved should afterwards fall back?
Saul, who was good beyond all others, is afterwards subverted by
envy.(3) David, a good man "after the Lord's own heart,"(4) is guilty
afterwards of murder and adultery.(5) Solomon, endowed by the Lord with
all grace and wisdom, is led into idolatry, by women.(6) For to the Son
of God alone was it reserved to persevere to the last without sin.(7)
But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a
doctor, if even a martyr,(8) have fallen from the rule (of faith), will
heresies on that account appear to possess(9) the truth? Do we prove
the faith(10) by the persons, or the persons by the faith? No one is
wise, no one is faithful, no one excels in dignity,(11) but the
Christian; and no one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the
end.(12) You, as a man, know any other man from the outside appearance.
You think as you see. And you see as far only as you have eyes. But
says (the Scripture), "the eyes of the Lord are lofty."(13) "Man
looketh at the outward appearance, but God looketh at the heart."(14)
"The Lord (beholdeth and) knoweth them that are His;"(15) and "the
plant which (my heavenly Father) hath not planted, He rooteth up;"(16)
and "the first shall," as He shows, "be last;"(17) and He carries "His
fan in His hand to purge His threshing-floor."(18) Let the chaff of a
fickle faith fly off as much as it will at every blast of temptation,
all the purer will be that heap of corn which shall be laid up in the
garner of the Lord. Did not certain of the disciples turn back from the
Lord Himself,(19) When they were offended? Yet the rest did not
therefore think that they must turn away from following Him,(20) but
because they knew that He was the Word of Life, and was come from
God,(21) they continued in His company to the very last, after He had
gently inquired of them whether they also would go away.(22) It is a
comparatively small thing,(23) that certain men, like Phygellus, and
Hermogenes, and Philetus, and Hymenaeus, deserted His apostle:(24) the
betrayer of Christ was himself one of the apostles. We are surprised at
seeing His churches forsaken by some men, although the things which we
suffer after the example of Christ Himself, show us to be Christians.
"They went out from us," says (St. John,) "but they were not of us. If
they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us."(25)
But let us rather be mindful of the sayings of the Lord, and of
the letters of the apostles; for they have both told us beforehand that
there shall be heresies, and have given us, in anticipation, warnings
to avoid them; and inasmuch as we are not alarmed because they exist,
so we ought not to wonder that they are capable of doing that, on
account of which they must be shunned. The Lord teaches us that many
"ravening wolves shall come in sheep's clothing."(1) Now, what are
these sheep's clothing's, but the external surface of the Christian
profession? Who are the ravening wolves but those deceitful senses and
spirits which are lurking within to waste the flock of Christ? Who are
the false prophets but deceptive predictors of the future? Who are the
false apostles but the preachers of a spurious gospel?(2) Who also are
the Antichrists, both now and evermore, but the men who rebel against
Christ?(3) Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church
by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at
that day by the cruelty of his attacks,(4) except that persecution
makes even martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates. And therefore
"heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be
made manifest,(5) both those who remained stedfast under persecution,
and those who did not wander out of their way(6) into heresy. For the
apostle does not mean(7) that those persons should be deemed approved
who exchange their creed for heresy; although they contrariously
interpret his words to their own side, when he says in another passage,
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good;"(8) as if, after
proving all things amiss, one might not through error make a determined
choice of some evil thing.
Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which
undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that
which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself
an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his
belief of their schisms and dissensions was
grounded on his knowledge that "there must be heresies also."(9) For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended "to make manifest all such as were approved;"(10) in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert.(11) In short, since the whole passage(12) points to the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes those to be "not approved," who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with reproofs he exhorts(13) men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should "all speak and think the selfsame thing,"(14) the very object which heresies do not permit.
On this point, however, we dwell no longer, since it is the same
Paul who, in his Epistle to the Galatians, counts "heresies" among "the
sins of the flesh,"(15) who also intimates to Titus, that "a man who is
a heretic" must be "rejected after the first admonition," on the ground
that "he that is such is perverted, and committeth sin, as a
self-condemned man."(16) Indeed, in almost every epistle, when
enjoining on us (the duty) of avoiding false doctrines, he sharply
condemns(17) heresies. Of these the practical effects(18) are false
doctrines, called in Greek heresies,(19) a word used in the sense of
that choice which a man makes when he either teaches them(to
others)(20) or takes up with them (for himself).(21) For this reason it
is that he calls the heretic condemned,(22) because he has himself
chosen that for which he is condemned. We, however, are not permitted
to cherish any object(1) after our own will, nor yet to make choice of
that which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord's
apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves
choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations
(of mankind) the doctrine(2) which they had received from Christ. If,
therefore, even "an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel"
(than theirs), he would be called accursed(3) by us. The Holy Ghost had
even then foreseen that there would be in a certain virgin (called)
Philumene(4) an angel of deceit, "transformed into an angel of
light,"(5) by whose miracles and illusions(6) Apelles was led (when) he
introduced his new heresy.
These are "the doctrines" of men and "of demons"(7) produced for
itching ears of the spirit of this world's wisdom: this the Lord called
"foolishness,"(8) and "chose the foolish things of the world" to
confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the
material of the world's wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and
the dispensation of God. Indeed(9) heresies are themselves
instigated(10) by philosophy. From this source came the AEons, and I
known not what infinite forms,(11) and the trinity of man(12) in the
system of Valentinus, who was of Plato's school. From the same source
came Marcion's better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the
Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the
Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken
from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is
made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any
doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in.
The same subject-matter is discussed over and over
again(13) by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments(14) are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed—Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma.(15) Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions,(16) so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing(17) even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of(18) nothing! Whence spring those "fables and endless genealogies,"(19) and "unprofitable questions,"(20) and "words which spread like a cancer?"(21) From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost."(22) He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon,"(23) who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart."(24) Away with(25) all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.
I come now to the point which (is urged both by our own brethren
and by the heretics). Our brethren adduce it as a pretext for entering
on curious inquiries,(1) and the heretics insist on it for importing
the scrupulosity (of their unbelief).(2) It is written, they say,
"Seek, and ye shall find."(3) Let us remember at what time the Lord
said this. I think it was at the very outset of His teaching, when
there was still a doubt felt by all whether He were the Christ, and
when even Peter had not yet declared Him to be the Son of God, and John
(Baptist) had actually ceased to feel assurance about Him.(4) With good
reason, therefore, was it then said, "Seek, and ye shall find," when
inquiry was still be to made of Him who was not yet become known.
Besides, this was said in respect of the Jews. For it is to them that
the whole matter(5) of this reproof(6) pertains, seeing that they had
(a revelation) where they might seek Christ.
"They have," says He, "Moses and Elias,"(7)—in other words, the
law and the prophets, which preach Christ; as also in another place He
says plainly, "Search the Scriptures, in which ye expect (to find)
salvation; for they testify of me;"(8) which will be the meaning of
"Seek, and ye shall find." For it is clear that the next words also
apply to the Jews: "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."(9) The
Jews had formerly been in covenant with(10) God; but being afterwards
cast off on account of their sins, they began to be(11) without God.
The Gentiles, on the contrary, had never been in covenant with God;
they were only as "a drop from a bucket," and "as dust from the
threshing floor,(12) and were ever outside the door. Now, how shall he
who was always outside knock at the place where he never was? What door
does he know of, when he has passed through none, either by entrance or
ejection? Is it not rather he who is aware that he once lived within
and was thrust out, that (probably) found the door and knocked thereat?
In like manner, "Ask, and ye shall
receive,"(13) is suitably said(14) to one who was aware from whom he ought to ask,—by whom also some promise had been given; that is to say, "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob." Now, the Gentiles knew nothing either of Him, or of any of His promises. Therefore it was to Israel that he spake when He said, "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."(15) Not yet had He "cast to the dogs the children's bread;"(16) not yet did He charge them to "go into the way of the Gentiles."(17) It is only at the last that He instructs them to "go and teach all nations, and baptize them,"(18) when they were so soon to receive "the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who should guide them into all the truth."(19) And this, too, makes towards the the same conclusion. If the apostles, who were ordained(20) to be teachers to the Gentiles, were themselves to have the Comforter for their teacher, far more needless(21) was it to say to us, "Seek, and ye shall find," to whom was to come, without research,(22) our instruction(23) by the apostles, and to the apostles themselves by the Holy Ghost. All the Lord's sayings, indeed, are set forth for all men; through the ears of the Jews have they passed on to us. Still most of them were addressed to Jewish persons;(24) they therefore did not constitute instruction properly designed(25) for ourselves, but rather an example.(26)
I now purposely(27) relinquish this ground of argument. Let it be
granted, that the words, "Seek, and ye shall find," were addressed to
all men (equally). Yet even here one's aim is(28) carefully to
determine(29) the sense of the words(30) consistently with(31) (that
reason),(32) which is the guiding principle(33) in all interpretation.
(Now) no divine saying is so unconnected(34) and diffuse, that its
words only are to be insisted on, and their connection left
undetermined. But at the outset I lay down (this position) that there
is some one, and therefore definite, thing taught by Christ, which the
Gentiles are by all means bound to believe, and for that purpose to
"seek," in order that they may be able, when they have "found" it, to
believe. However,(1) there can be no indefinite seeking for that which
has been taught as one only definite thing. You must "seek" until you
"find," and believe when you have found; nor have you anything further
to do but to keep what you have believed provided you believe this
besides, that nothing else is to be believed, and therefore nothing
else is to be sought, after you have found and believed what has been
taught by Him who charges you to seek no other thing than that which He
has taught.(2) When, indeed, any man doubts about this, proof will be
forthcoming,(3) that we have in our possession(4) that which was taught
by Christ. Meanwhile, such is my confidence in our proof, that I
anticipate it, in the shape of an admonition to certain persons, not
"to seek" anything beyond what they have believed—that this is what
they ought to have sought, how to avoid(5) interpreting, "Seek, and ye
shall find," without regard to the rule of reason.
Now the reason of this saying is comprised in three points: in
the matter, in the time, in the limit.(6) In the matter, so that you
must consider what it is you have to seek; in the time, when you have
to seek; in the limit, how long. What you have "to seek," then, is that
which Christ has taught,(7) (and you must go on seeking) of course for
such time as you fail to find,(8)—until indeed you find(9) it. But you
have succeeded in finding (10) when you have believed. For you would
not have believed if you had not found; as neither would you have
sought except with a view to find. Your object, therefore, in seeking
was to find; and
your object in finding was to believe, All further delay for seeking and finding you have prevented(11) by believing. The very fruit of your seeking has determined for you this limit. This boundary(12) has He set for you Himself, who is unwilling that you should believe anything else than what He has taught, or, therefore, even seek for it. If, however, because so many other things have been taught by one and another, we are on that account bound to go on seeking, so long as we are able to find anything, we must (at that rate) be ever seeking, and never believe anything at all. For where shall be the end of seeking? where the stop's in believing? where the completion in finding? (Shall it be) with Marcion? But even Valentinus proposes (to us the) maxim, "Seek, and ye shall find." Then shall it be) with Valentinus? Well, but Apelles, too, will assail me with the same quotation; Hebion also, and Simon, and all in turn, have no other argument wherewithal to entice me, and draw me over to their side. Thus I shall be nowhere, and still be encountering(14) (that challenge), "Seek, and ye shall find," precisely as if I had no resting-place;(15) as if (indeed) I had never found that which Christ has taught—that which ought(16) to be sought, that which must needs(17) be believed.
There is impunity in erring, if there is no delinquency; although
indeed to err it is itself an act of delinquency.(18) With impunity, I
repeat, does a man ramble,(19) when he (purposely) deserts nothing. But
yet, if I have believed what I was bound to believe, and then
afterwards think that there is something new to be sought after, I of
course expect that there is something else to be found, although I
should by no means entertain such expectation, unless it were because I
either had not believed, although I apparently had become a believer,
or else have ceased to believe. If I thus desert my faith, I am found
to be a denier thereof. Once for all I would say, No man seeks, except
him who either never possessed, or else has lost (what he sought). The
old woman (in the Gospel)(1) had lost one of her ten pieces of silver,
and therefore she sought it;(2) when, however, she found it, she ceased
to look for it. The neighbour was without bread, and therefore he
knocked; but as soon as the door was opened to him, and he received the
bread, he discontinued knocking.(3) The widow kept asking to be heard
by the judge, because she was not admitted; but when her suit was
heard, thenceforth she was silent.(4) So that there is a limit both to
seeking, and to knocking, and to asking. "For to every one that
asketh," says He, "it shall be given, and to him that knocketh it shall
be opened, and by him that seeketh it shall be found."(5) Away with the
man(6) who is ever seeking because he never finds; for he seeks there
where nothing can be found. Away with him who is always knocking
because it will never be opened to him; for he knocks where there is
none (to open). Away with him who is always asking because he will
never be heard; for he asks of one who does not hear.
As for us, although we must still seek, and that always, yet
where ought our search to be made? Amongst the heretics, where all
things are foreign(7) and opposed to our own verity, and to whom we are
forbidden to draw near? What slave looks for food from a stranger, not
to say an enemy of his master? What soldier expects to get bounty and
pay from kings who are unallied, I might almost say hostile—unless
forsooth he be a deserter, and a runaway, and a rebel? Even that old
woman(8) searched for the piece of silver within her own house. It was
also at his neighbour's door that the persevering assailant kept
knocking. Nor was it to a hostile judge, although a severe one, that
the widow made her appeal. No man gets instruction(9) from that which
tends to destruction.(10) No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our "seeking," therefore be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own,—that, and only that,(12) which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.
Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this
point(12) acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know,
that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that
He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things
out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth;(13) that
this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen "in
diverse manners" by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets,
at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the
Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went
forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new
promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been
crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended(14) into
the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of
Himself(15) the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will
come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life
and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting
fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened,
together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be
proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other
questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men
heretics.(16)
So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may
seek and discuss as much as you please, and give full rein to(1) your
curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang in doubt, or to be shrouded
in obscurity. You have at hand, no doubt, some learned(2) brother
gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class,
some one of your close acquaintance who is curious like yourself;
although with yourself, a seeker he will, after all,(3) be quite
aware(4) that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you
should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the
knowledge of what you ought to know.(5) "Thy faith," He says, "hath
saved thee"(6) not observe your skill(7) in the Scriptures. Now, faith
has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance
thereof) salvation. Skill,(7) however, consists in curious art, having
for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack.(8) Let such
curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At
any rate, let them either relinquish their noisiness.(9) or else be
quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know
all things. (Suppose) that heretics were not enemies to the truth, so
that we were not forewarned to avoid them, what sort of conduct would
it be to agree with men who do themselves confess that they are still
seeking? For if they are still seeking, they have not as yet found
anything amounting to certainty; and therefore, whatever they seem for
a while(10) to hold, they betray their own scepticism,(11) whilst they
continue seeking. You therefore, who seek after their fashion, looking
to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a
waverer to waverers, must needs be "led, blindly by the blind, down
into the ditch."(12) But when, for the sake of deceiving us, they
pretend that they are still seeking, in order that they may palm(13)
their essays(14) upon us by the suggestion of an anxious
sympathy,(15)—when, in short (after gaining an access to us), they
proceed at once to insist on the necessity of our inquiring into such
points as they were in the habit of advancing, then it is high time for
us in moral obligation(16) to repel(17) them, so that they may know
that it is not Christ, but themselves, whom we disavow. For since they
are still seekers, they have no fixed tenets yet;(18) and being not
fixed in tenet, they have not yet believed; and being not yet
believers, they are not Christians. But even though they have their
tenets and their belief, they still say that inquiry is necessary in
order to discussion.(19) Previous, however, to the discussion, they
deny what they confess not yet to have believed, so long as they keep
it an object of inquiry. When men, therefore, are not Christians even
on their own admission,(20) how much more (do they fail to appear such)
to us! What sort of truth is that which they patronize,(21) when they
commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually(22) treat of the
Scriptures and recommend(their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be
sure they do.(23) From what other source could they derive arguments
concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the
faith?
We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this
point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of
our address (which we have just completed),—so that we may now join
issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put
forward(25) the Scriptures, and by this insolence(26) of theirs they at
once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the
strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt.
Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above ,all others, of not
admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures.(27)
If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it
ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the
Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no
title at all to the privilege.
I might be thought to have laid down this position to remedy
distrust in my case,(1) or from a desire of entering on the contest(2)
in some other way, were there not reasons on my side, especially this,
that our faith owes deference(3) to the apostle, who forbids us to
enter on "questions," or to lend our ears to new-fangled statements,(4)
or to consort with a heretic "after the first and second
admonition,"(5) not, (be it observed,) after discussion. Discussion he
has inhibited in this way, by designating admonition as the purpose of
dealing with a heretic, and the first one too, because he is not a
Christian; in order that he might not, after the manner of a Christian,
seem to require correction again and again, and "before two or three
witnesses,"(6) seeing that he ought to be corrected, for the very
reason that he is not to be disputed with; and in the next place,
because a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly,(7) produce no
other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain.
Now this heresy of yours(3) does not receive certain Scriptures;
and whichever of them it does receive, it perverts by means of
additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of it own purpose;
and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but
even when it does receive any up to a certain point(9) as entire, it
nevertheless perverts even these by the contrivance of diverse
interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an adulteration of
its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text.(10) Their vain
presumptions must needs refuse to acknowledge the (writings) whereby
they are refuted. They rely on those which they have falsely put
together, and which they have selected, because their ambiguity. Though
most skilled(12) in the Scriptures, you will make no progress,(13) when
everything which you maintain is denied
on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy.
But with respect to the man for whose sake you enter on the
discussion of the Scriptures,(14) with the view of strengthening him
when afflicted with doubts, (let me ask) will it be to the truth, or
rather to heretical opinions that he will lean? Influenced by the very
fact that he sees you have made no progress, whilst the other side is
on an equal footing(15) (with yourself) in denying and in defence, or
at any rate on a like standing(16) he will go away confirmed in his
uncertainty(17) by the discussion, not knowing which side to adjudge
heretical. For, no doubt, they too are able(18) to retort these things
on us. It is indeed a necessary consequence that they should go so far
as to say that adulterations of the Scriptures, and false expositions
thereof, are rather introduced by ourselves, inasmuch as they, no less
than we(19) maintain that truth is on their side.
Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor
must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be
impossible,(20) or uncertain, or not certain enough.(21) But even if a
discussion from the Scriptures(22) should not turn out in such a way as
to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would
require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the
only one which we must discuss: "With whom lies that very faith to
which the Scriptures belong.(23) From what and through whom, and when,
and to whom, has been handed down that rule,(24) by which men become
Christians?" For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian
rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and
expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions.
Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus
expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son,
of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is
the, teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He
lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the
Father's will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was
which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly
to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the
twelve chief ones to be at His side,(1) and whom He destined to be the
teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been
struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the
Father, to "go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the
Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost."(2) Immediately,
therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as "the
sent." Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm
of David,(3) chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of
Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift
of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the
faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and rounding churches (there),
they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of
the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded
churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after
another, derived the tradition of the faith,(4) and the seeds of
doctrine, and are every day deriving them,(5) that they may become
churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to
deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic
churches. Every sort of thing(6) must necessarily revert to its
original for its classification.(7) Therefore the churches, although
they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church,
(rounded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way
all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to
be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion,(8) and title
of brotherhood, and bond(9) of hospitality,—privileges(10) which no
other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.(11)
From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord
Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others
ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for
"no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son
will reveal Him."(12) Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any
other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course,
which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in
other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must
here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by
those very churches which the apostles rounded in person, by declaring
the gospel to them directly themselves, both rivet race, as the phrase
is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so,
it is in the same degree(13) manifest that all doctrine which agrees
with the apostolic churches—those moulds(14) and original sources of
the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that
which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from
Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged(15) as
false(16) which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and
apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate
whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has
its origin(17) in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other
doctrines do not ipso facto(18) proceed from falsehood. We hold
communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no
respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.
But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand,(1) that if it were
at once produced there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us
give way for a while to the opposite side, if they think that they can
find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof were
forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not
know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness,
whereby they turn round to the very opposite point,(2) and declare that
the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things
to all persons,—in either case exposing Christ to blame for having
sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little
simplicity. What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that
they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters
(or teachers),(3) keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself)
in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom,
"when they were alone, He used to expound" all things(4) which were
obscure, telling them that "to them it was given to know those
mysteries,"(5) which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was
anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock
on which the church should be built,"(6) who also obtained "the keys of
the kingdom of heaven,"(7) with the power of "loosing and binding in
heaven and on earth?"(8) Was anything, again, concealed from John, the
Lord's most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast(9) to whom
alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor,(10) whom He commended
to Mary as a son in His own stead?(11) Of what could He have meant
those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with
Moses and Elias, and the Father's voice moreover, from heaven?(12) Not
as if He thus disapproved(13) of all the rest, but because "by three
witnesses must every word be established."(14) After the same
fashion,(15) too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His
resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, "to
expound all the Scriptures."(16) No doubt(17) He had once said, "I have
yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;" but even
then He added, "When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead
you into all truth."(18) He (thus) shows that there was nothing of
which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment
of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He fulfilled
His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the
Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture(19) can
neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge
that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they
presume to claim to be a church themselves(20) who positively have no
means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes(21) this body
was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any
proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there
be introduced damaging exposures(22) of those things which they
mendaciously devise.
Now, with the view of branding(23) the apostles with some mark of
ignorance, they put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him
having been rebuked by Paul. "Something therefore," they say, "was
wanting in them." (This they allege,) in order that they may from this
construct that other position of theirs, that a fuller knowledge may
possibly have afterwards come over(the apostles,) such as fell to the
share of Paul when he rebuked those who preceded him. I may here say to
those who reject The Acts of the Apostles: "It is first necessary that
you shows us who this Paul was,—both what he was before he was an
apostle, and how he became an apostle,"—so very great is the use which
they make of him in respect of other questions also. It is true that he
tells us himself that he was a persecutor before he became an
apostle,(1) still this is not enough for any man who examines before he
believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of
Himself.(2) But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their
object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures.(3) Still they should
show, from the circumstance which they allege of Peter's being rebuked
by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel besides that
which Peter and the rest had previously set forth. But the fact is,(4)
having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced
as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren—to them, indeed, by
men who had put on faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he
himself narrates, he "went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing
Peter,"(5) because of his office, no doubt,(6) and by right of a common
belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised
at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his
preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have
"glorified the Lord,"(7) because Paul had presented himself as an
adversary to Him They accordingly even gave him "the right hand of
fellowship,"(3) as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged
amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel,
so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the
same), to different persons,(9) Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the
Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had
lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their
company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of
conversation, not of preaching.(10) For it does not appear from this,
that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son)
of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him)
announced.
I have not the good fortune,(11) or, as I must
rather say,(12) I have not the unenviable task,(13) of setting apostles by the ears.(14) But, inasmuch as our very perverse cavillers obtrude the rebuke in question for the set purpose of bringing the earlier(15) doctrine into suspicion, I will put in a defence, as it were, for Peter, to the effect that even Paul said that he was "made all things to all men—to the Jews a Jew," to those who were not Jews as one who was not a Jew—"that he might gain all."(16) Therefore it was according to times and persons and causes that they used to censure certain practices, which they would not hesitate themselves to pursue, in like conformity to times and persons and causes. Just (e.g.) as if Peter too had censured Paul, because, whilst for-bidding circumcision, he actually circumcised Timothy himself. Never mind(17) those who pass sentence on apostles! It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory(18) of martyrdom. Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise,(19) and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for(teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no human being.(20) If, however, that unspeakable mystery(21) did leak out,(22) and become known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same, (then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some other man must actually(23) be shown to have been afterwards "caught up into paradise," who had permission to speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed (even) to mutter.
But here is, as we have said,(24) the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: "O Timothy, guard that which is entrusted to thee;"(1) and again: "That good thing which was committed unto thee keep."(2) What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize(3) a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, "This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?"(4) and also of that precept of which he says, "I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?"(5) Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious(6) hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched(7) doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: "Before many witnesess" is his phrase. (8) Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these "many witnesses," it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced "before many witnesses." Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to "commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,"(9) be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says "these things," he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.(10)
Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom
he committed the ministration of the gospel, he would add the
injunction that it be not ministered in all places,(11) and without
respect to persons,(12) in accordance with the Lord's saying, "Not to
cast one's pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto dogs."(13)
Openly did the Lord speak,(14) without any intimation of a hidden
mystery. He had Himself commanded that, "whatsoever they had heard in
darkness" and in secret, they should "declare in the light and on the
house-tops."(15) He had Himself fore-shown, by means of a parable, that
they should not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest,(16) a
single pound, that is, one word of His. He used Himself to tell them
that a candle was not usually "pushed away under a bushel, but placed
on a candlestick," in order to "give light to all who are in the
house."(17) These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to
understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of
the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ. Of no
man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,—neither of Jews nor of
Gentiles in their violence;(18) with all the greater freedom, then,
would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in
synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it
impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they
"set forth in order"(19) that which they would have them believe. Much
less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have
withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it
separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among
intimate friends,(20) so to speak, they did hold certain discussions,
yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in
some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which
they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches,(21)—as if they
spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described
one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and
announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another
before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought
men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there
should be no divisions and dissensions in the church,(22) seeing that
they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they
remembered the words): "Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay;
for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil;"(1) so that they were
not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.
Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either
ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to
declare,(2) or failed to make known to all men the entire rule of
faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps,
simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth
otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of
distrust(3) you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind
how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: "O foolish Galatians, who
hath bewitched you?"(4) and, "Ye did run so well; who hath hindered
you?"(5) and how the epistle actually begins: "I marvel that ye are so
soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to
another gospel."(6) That they likewise (remember), what was written to
the Corinthians, that they "were yet carnal," who "required to be fed
with milk," being as yet "unable to bear strong meat;"(7) who also
"thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything,
as they ought to know."(8) When they raise the objection that the
churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected;
let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and
knowledge and conversation the apostle "rejoices and gives thanks to
God," which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were
rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.
Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken
in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to
any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ,(9) and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth;(10) grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,(11) neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless(12) enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?
In whatever manner error came,it reigned of course(13) only as
long as there was an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain
Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the
gospel was wrongly(14) preached; men wrongly believed; so many
thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly
wrought; so many miraculous gifts,(15) so many spiritual
endowments,(16) were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly
functions, so many ministries,(17) were wrongly executed; and, to sum
up the whole, so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if
not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how comes it to pass that the
things of God were on their course before it was known to what God they
belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that
there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases
truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd
enough, however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded
its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is that
(doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against
which men would have to guard! To a church which possessed this
doctrine, it was written—yea, the doctrine itself writes to its own
church—"Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that
which we have preached, let him be accursed."(1)
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous
student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of
Platonism? For it is evident that those menlived not so long ago,—in
the reign of Antoninus for the most part,(2)—and that they at first
were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of
Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus,(3) until on
account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected
the brethren, they were more than once expelled. Marcion, indeed,
[went] with the two hundred sesterces which which he had brought into
the church, and,(4) when banished at last to a permanent
excommunication, they scattered abroad the poisons of their doctrines.
Afterwards, it is true, Mar-cion professed repentance, and agreed to
the conditions granted to him—that he should receive reconciliation if
he restored to the church all the others whom he had been training for
perdition: he was prevented, however, by death. It was indeed(5)
necessary that there should be heresies;(6) and yet it does not follow
from that necessity, that heresies are a good thing. As if it has not
been necessary also that there should be evil! It was even necessary
that the Lord should be betrayed; but woe to the traitor!(7) So that no
man may from this defend heresies. If we must likewise touch the
descent(8) of Apelles, he is far from being" one of the old school,"(9)
like his instructor and moulder, Marcion; he rather forsook the
continence of Marcion, by resorting to the company of a woman, and
withdrew to Alexandria, out of sight of his most abstemious(10) master.
Returning therefrom, after some years, unimproved, except that he was no
longer a Marcionite, he clave(11) to another woman, the maiden Philumene (whom we have already(12) mentioned), who herself afterwards became an enormous prostitute. Having been imposed on by her vigorous spirit,(13) he committed to writing the revelations which he had learned of her. Persons are still living who remember them,—their own actual disciples and successors,—who cannot therefore deny the lateness of their date. But, in fact, by their own works they are convicted, even as the Lord said.(14) For since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is (necessarily) subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was (previously) united. Having then been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation. In like manner Valentinus, by his different expositions and acknowledged(15) emendations, makes these changes on the express ground of previous faultiness, and therefore demonstrates the difference(16) of the documents. These corrupters of the truth we mention as being more notorious and more public(17) than others. There is, however, a certain man(18) named Nigidius, and Hermogenes, and several others, who still pursue the course(19) of perverting the ways of the Lord. Let them show me by what authority they come! If it be some other God they preach, how comes it that they employ the things and he writings and the names of that God against whom they preach? If it be the same God, why treat Him in some other way? Let them prove themselves to be new apostles!(20) Let them maintain that Christ has come down a second time, taught in person a second time, has been twice crucified, twice dead, twice raised! For thus has the apostle described (the order of events in the life of Christ); for thus, too, is He(21) accustomed to make His apostles—to give them, (that is), power besides of working the same miracles which He worked Himself.(22) I would therefore have their mighty deeds also brought forward; except that I allow their mightiest deed to be that by which they perversely vie with the apostles. For whilst they used to raise men to life from the dead, these consign men to death from their living state.
Let me return, however, from this digression(1) to discuss(2) the
priority of truth, and the comparative lateness(3) of falsehood,
deriving support for my argument even from that parable which puts in
the first place the sowing by the Lord of the good seed of the wheat,
but introduces at a later stage the adulteration of the crop by its
enemy the devil with the useless weed of the wild oats. For herein is
figuratively described the difference of doctrines, since in other
passages also the word of God is likened unto seed. From the actual
order, therefore, it becomes clear, that that which was first delivered
is of the Lord and is true, whilst that is strange and false which was
afterwards introduced. This sentence will keep its ground in
opposition to all later heresies, which have no consistent quality of
kindred knowledge(4) inherent in them—to claim the truth as on their
side.
But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant
themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby
seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in
the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original
records(5) of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their
bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a
manner that [that first bishop of theirs(6)] bishop shall be able to
show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of
apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the
apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches
transmit(7) their registers:(8) as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.(9) In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive(10) something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof(11) by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.(12) Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two(13) tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.(14)
Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves,
which, existing as they did in the days of the apostles, were both
exposed and denounced by the said apostles. For by this method they
will be more easily reprobated,(1) when they are detected to have been
even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings(2) of the
(tares) which then were. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians,
sets his mark on certain who denied and doubted the resurrection.(3)
This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.(4) A part of
it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and
all other impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the Galatians,
he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and
the (Mosaic) law.(5) Thus runs Hebion's heresy. Such also as "forbid to
marry" he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy.(6) Now, this is
the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs
a similar blow(7) against those who said that "the resurrection was
past already."(8) Such an opinion did the Valentinians assert of
themselves. When again he mentions "endless genealogies,"(9) one also
recognises Valentinus, in whose system a certain AEon, whosoever he
be,(10) of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own
grace(11) Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of
themselves Word(12) and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man
and the Church. From these primary eight(13) ten other AEons after them
spring, and then the twelve others arise with their wonderful names, to
complete the mere story of the thirty AEons. The same apostle, when
disapproving of those who are "in bondage to elements,"(14) points us
to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no
beginning,(15) and then compares it with God, who has no beginning.(16)
By thus making the mother of the elements a goddess, he has it in his
power "to be in bondage" to a being which he puts on a par with(17)
God. John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those "who
eat things sacrificed to idols," and "who commit fornication."(18)
There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans.
Theirs is called the Gaian(19) heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates those as "Antichrists" who "denied that Christ was come in the flesh,"(20) and who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion.(21) The doctrine, however, of Simon's sorcery, which inculcated the worship of angels,(22) was itself actually reckoned amongst idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon's own person.
These are, as I suppose, the different kinds of spurious
doctrines, which (as we are informed by the apostles themselves)
existed in their own day. And yet we find amongst so many various
perversions of truth, not one school(23) which raised any controversy
concerning God as the Creator of all things. No man was bold enough to
surmise a second god. More readily was doubt felt about the Son than
about the Father, until Marcion introduced, in addition to the Creator,
another god of goodness only. Apelles made the Creator of some
nondescript(24) glorious angel, who belonged to the superior God, the
god (according to him,) of the law and of Israel, affirming that he was
fire.(25) Valentinus disseminated his AEons, and traced the sin of one
AEon(26) to the production of God the Creator. To none, forsooth,
except these, nor prior to these, was revealed the truth of the Divine
Nature; and they obtained this especial honour and fuller favour from
the devil, we cannot doubt,(27) because he wished even in this respect
to rival God, that he might succeed, by the poison of his doctrines, in
doing himself what the Lord said could not be done—making "the
disciples above their Master."(28) Let the entire mass(29) of heresies
choose, therefore, for themselves the times when they should appear,
provided that the when be an unimportant point; allowing, too, that
they be not of the truth, and (as a matter of course(30)) that such as
had no exist- ence in the time of the apostles could not possibly have
had any connection with the apostles. If indeed they had then existed,
their names would be extant,(1) with a view to their own repression
likewise. Those (heresies) indeed which did exist in the days of the
apostles, are condemned in their very mention.(2) If it be true, then,
that those heresies, which in the apostolic times were in a rude form,
are now found to be the same, only in a much more polished shape, they
derive their condemnation from this very circumstance Or if they were
not the same, but arose afterwards in a different form, and merely
assumed from them certain tenets, then, by sharing with them an
agreement in their teaching,(3) they must needs partake in their
condemnation, by reason of the above-mentioned definition,(4) of
lateness of date, which meets us on the very threshold.(5) Even if they
were free from any participation in condemned doctrine, they would
stand already judged(6) on the mere ground of time, being all the more
spurious because they were not even named by the apostles. Whence we
have the firmer assurance, that these were (the heresies) which even
then,(7) were announced as about to arise.
Challenged and refuted by us, according to these definitions, let
all the heresies boldly on their part also advance similar rules to
these against our doctrine, whether they be later than the apostles or
contemporary with the apostles, provided they be different from them;
provided also they were, by either a general or a specific censure,
precondemned by them. For since they deny the truth of (our doctrine),
they ought to prove that it also is heresy, refutable by the same rule
as that by which they are themselves refuted; and at the same time to
show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident
has no existence amongst them. Our system(8) is not behind any in date;
on the contrary, it is earlier than all; and this fact will be the
evidence of that truth which everywhere occupies the first place. The
apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend it,—a fact
which will show that it comes from themselves.(9) For that doctrine
which they refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every
strange opinion, they show to be their own, and on that ground too they
defend it.
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would
apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic
churches, in which the very thrones (10) of the apostles are still
pre-eminent in their places,(11) in which their own authentic
writings(12) are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of
each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find
Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and
there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to
Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy,(13)
you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very
authority (of apostles themselves).(14) How happy is its church, on
which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood!
where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his
crown in a death like John's(15) where the Apostle John was first
plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his
island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship
has had with even (our) churches in Africa!(16) One Lord God does she
acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of
the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of
the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites(17) in one volume with
the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her
faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy
Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom,(1) and against
such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is
the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should
come, but from(2) which they proceeded. However, they were not of her,
because they were opposed to her.(3) Even the rough wild-olive arises
from the germ(4) of the fruitful, rich, and genuine(5) olive; also from
the seed(6) of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty
and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our
plant,(7) although not of our kind; (they come) from the grain of
truth,(8) but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to
show.(9)
Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged
to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the
church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and
Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it
determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal
to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they
have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they
cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get
that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit
incur and admit the name of heretics.(10) Thus, not being Christians,
they have acquired(11) no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may
be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you
come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is
mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose
permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain?
By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my
property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own
pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I
possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original
owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the
apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and
committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to
their charge),(12) even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is
certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as
strangers—as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and
enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their
teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either
advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?"
Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the
corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be
regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it was to teach
differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments
of doctrine.(13) They could not possibly have effected their diversity
of teaching in any other way than by having a difference in the means
whereby they taught. As in their case, corruption in doctrine could not
possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its instruments,
so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued,
without integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now,
what is there in our Scriptures which is contrary to us?(14) What of
our own have we introduced, that we should have to take it away again,
or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its natural
soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the
Scriptures?(15) What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are
(and have been) from the beginning.(16) Of them we have our being,
before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you.
Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later
process, for the express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is
never in any case previous to nor home-born(1) with that which it
emulates, it is as incredible to every man of sense that we should seem
to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as
we have been, from the very first, and being the first, as it is that
they have not in fact introduced it who are both later in date and
opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts the Scriptures with his
hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus
seems to use the entire volume,(2) he has none the less laid violent
hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill(3) than
Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen,
since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own
subject-matter.(4) Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision,
because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own
subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he
took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every
particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have
no real existence.(5)
These were the ingenious arts of "spiritual wickednesses,"(6)
wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have "to
wrestle," as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made
manifest,(and) that the reprobate may be discovered. And therefore they
possess influence, and a facility in thinking out and fabricating(7)
errors, which ought not to be wondered at as if it were a difficult and
inexplicable process, seeing that in profane writings also an example
comes ready to hand of a similar facility. You see in our own day,
composed out of Virgil,(8) a story of a wholly different character, the
subject-matter being arranged according to the verse, and the verse
according to the subject-matter. In short,(9) Hosidius Geta has most
completely pilfered his tragedy of Medea from Virgil. A near relative
of my own, among some leisure productions(10) of his pen, has composed
out of the same poet The Table of Cebes. On the same principle, those
poetasters are commonly called Homerocentones, "collectors of Homeric
odds and ends," who stitch into one piece, patchwork fashion, works of
their own from the lines of Homer, out of many scraps put together from
this passage and from that (in miscellaneous confusion). Now,
unquestionably, the Divine Scriptures are more fruitful in resources of
all kinds for this sort of facility. Nor do I risk contradiction in
saying(11) that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of
God in such a manner as to furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as
I read that "there must be heresies,(12) which there cannot be without
the Scriptures.
The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted(13) the
sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course,
to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the
mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions(14) of
the sacraments of God.(15) He, too, baptizes some—that is, his own
believers and faithful followers;(17) he promises the putting away(17)
of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me,
Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan,) sets his marks on the
foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and
introduces an image of a resurrec- tion, and before a sword wreathes a
crown.(1) What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief
priest(2) to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has
his proficients in continence.(3) Suppose now we revolve in our minds
the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices
and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the
instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious
rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil
imitated the well-known(4) moroseness of the Jewish law? Since,
therefore he has Shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing,
in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists
the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that
the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart
upon,(5) and succeeded in, adapting(6) to his profane and rival creed
the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints(7)—his
interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words,
his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought
to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also
heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any
real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they
appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does.
They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the
Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only
God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth.
The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a
certain sense a sort of idolatry
I must not omit an account of the conduct(8) also of the
heretics—how frivolous it is, how worldly, how merely human, without
seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as suits their
creed. To begin with, it is doubtful who is a catechumen, and who a
believer; they have all access alike, they hear alike, they pray
alike—even heathens, if any such happen to come among them. "That
which is holy they will cast to the dogs, and their pearls," although
(to be sure) they are not real ones, "they will fling to the swine."
(9) Simplicity they will have to consist in the overthrow of
discipline, attention to which on our part they call brothelry.(10)
Peace also they huddle up(11) anyhow with all comers; for it matters
not to them, however different be their treatment of subjects, provided
only they can conspire together to storm the citadel of the one only
Truth. All are puffed up, all offer you knowledge. Their catechumens
are perfect before they are full-taught.(12) The very women of these
heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to
dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake(13) cures—it may be even to
baptize.(14) Their ordinations, are carelessly. administered,(15)
capricious, changeable.(16) At one time they put novices in office; at
another time, men who are bound to some secular employment;(17) at
another, persons who have apostatized from us, to bind them by
vainglory, since they cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier
than in the camp of rebels, where the mere fact of being there is a
foremost service.(18) And so it comes to pass that to-day one man is
their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a deacon who to-morrow is
a reader; to-day he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a layman. For even
on laymen do they impose the functions of priesthood.
But what shall I say concerning the ministry of the word, since
they make it their business not to convert the heathen, but to subvert
our people? This is rather the glory which they catch at, to compass
the fall of those who stand, not the raising of those who are down.
Accordingly, since the very work which they purpose to themselves comes
not from the building up of their own society, but from the demolition
of the truth, they undermine our edifices, that they may erect their
own. Only deprive them of the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the
divinity of the Creator, and they have not another objection to talk
about. The consequence is, that they more easily accomplish the ruin of
standing houses than the erection of fallen ruins. It is only when they
have such objects in view that they show themselves humble and bland
and respectful. Otherwise they know no respect even for their own
leaders. Hence it is [supposed] that schisms seldom happen among
heretics, because, even when they exist, they are not obvious.(1) Their
very unity, however,(2) is schism. I am greatly in error if they do not
amongst themselves swerve even from their own regulations, forasmuch as
every man, just as it suits his own temper, modifies the traditions he
has received after the same fashion as the man who handed them down
did, when he moulded them according to his own will. The progress of
the matter is an acknowledgment at once of its character and of the
manner of its birth. That was allowable to the Valentinians which had
been allowed to Valentinus; that was also fair for the Marcionites
which had been done by Marcion—even to innovate on the faith, as was
agreeable to their own pleasure. In short, all heresies, when throughly
looked into, are detected harbouring dissent in many particulars even
from their own founders. The majority of them have not even
churches.(3) Motherless, houseless, creedless, outcasts, they wander
about in their own essential worthlessness.(4)
It has also been a subject of remark, how extremely frequent is
the intercourse which heretics hold with magicians, with mountebanks,
with astrologers, with philosophers; and the reason is,(5) that they
are men who devote themselves to curious questions. "Seek, and ye shall
find," is everywhere in their minds. Thus, from the very nature of
their conduct, may be estimated the quality of their faith. In their
discipline we have an index of their doctrine. They say that God is not
to be feared; therefore all things are in their view free and
unchecked. Where, however is God not feared, except where He is not?
Where God is not, there truth also is not. Where there is no truth,
then, naturally enough, there is also such a discipline as theirs. But
where God is, there exists "the fear of God, which is the beginning of
wisdom."(6) Where the fear of God is, there is seriousness, an
honourable and yet thoughtful(7) diligence, as well as an anxious
carefulness and a well-considered admission (to the sacred ministry)(8)
and a safely-guarded(9) communion, and promotion after good service,
and a scrupulous submission (to authority), and a devout
attendance,(10) and a modest gait, and a united church, and God in all
things.
These evidences, then, of a stricter discipline existing among
us, are an additional proof of truth, from which no man can safely turn
aside, who bears in mind that future judgment, when "we must all stand
before the judgment-seat of Christ,(11) to render an account of our
faith itself before all things. What, then, will they say who shall
have defiled it, even the virgin which Christ committed to them with
the adultery of heretics? I suppose they will allege that no injunction
was ever addressed to them by Him or by His apostles concerning
depraved(12) and perverse doctrines assailing them,(13) or about their
avoiding and abhorring the same. (He and His apostles, perhaps,) will
acknowledge(14) that the blame rather lies with themselves and their
disciples, in not having given us previous warning and instruction!
They(15) will, besides, add a good deal respecting the high authority
of each doctor of heresy,—how that these mightily strengthened belief
in their own doctrine; how that they raised the dead, restored the
sick, foretold the future, that so they might deservedly be regarded as
apostles. As if this caution were not also in the written record: that
many should come who were to work even the greatest miracles, in
defence of the deceit of their corrupt preaching. So, forsooth, they
will deserve to be forgiven! If, however, any, being mindful of the
writings and the denunciations of the Lord and the apostles, shall have
stood firm in the integrity of the faith, I suppose they will run great
risk of missing pardon, when the Lord answers: I plainly forewarned you
that there should be teachers of false doctrine in my name, as well as
that of the prophets and apostles also; and to my own disciples did I
give a charge, that they should preach the same things to you. But as
for you, it was not, of course, to be supposed(1) that you would
believe me! I once gave the gospel and the doctrine of the said rule
(of life and faith) to my apostles; but afterwards it was my pleasure
to make considerable changes in it! I had promised a resurrection, even
of the flesh; but, on second thoughts, it struck me(2) that I might not
be able to keep my promise! I had shown myself to have been born of a
virgin; but this seemed to me afterwards to be a discreditable
thing.(3) I had said that He was my Father, who is the Maker of the sun
and the showers; but another and better father has adopted me! I had
forbidden you to lend an ear to heretics; but in this I erred! Such
(blasphemies), it is possible,(4) do enter the minds of those who go
out of the right path,(5) and who do not defend(6) the true faith from
the danger which besets it. On the present occasion, indeed, our
treatise has rather taken up a general position against heresies,
(showing that they must) all be refuted on definite, equitable, and
necessary rules, without(7) any comparison with the Scriptures. For the
rest, if God in His grace permit, we shall prepare answers to certain
of these heresies in separate treatises.(8) To those who may devote
their leisure in reading through these (pages), in the belief of the
truth, be peace, and the grace of our God Jesus Christ for ever.(9)
(Prescription, Chap. I., p. 243, Supra.)
In adopting this expression from the Roman Law, Tertullian has
simply puzzled beginners to get at his idea. Nor do they learn much
when it is called a demurrer, which, if I comprehend the word as used
in law-cases, is a rejoinder to the testimony of the other party,
amounting to—"Well, what of it? It does not prove your case."
Something like this is indeed in Tertullian's use of the term
proescription; but Dr. Holmes furnishes what seems to me the best
explanation,(though he only half renders it,) "the Prescriptive Rule
against Heresies." In a word, it means, "the Rule of Faith asserted
against Heresies." And his practical point is, it is useless to discuss
Scripture with convicted(Titus iii. 10, 11.) heretics; every one of
them is ready with "his psalm, his doctrine, his interpretation," and
you may argue fruitlessly till Doomsday. But bring them to the test of
(Quod Semper, etc.), the apostolic proescription (I. Cor. xi. 16).—We
have no such custom neither the Churches of God. State this Rule of
Faith, viz. Holy Scripture, as interpreted from the apostolic day: if
it proves the doctrine or custom a novelty, then it has no foundation,
and even if it be harmless, it cannot be innocently professed against
the order and peace of the churches. II.
(Semler, cap. x., note 15, p. 248.)
The extent to which Bp. Kaye has stretched his notice of this
critic is to be accounted for by the fact that, for a time, the German
School of the last century exerted a sad influence in England. In early
life Dr. Pusey came near to being led away by it, and Hugh James Rose
was raised up to resist it. Semler lived (at Halle and elsewhere) from
A.D. 1725 to 1791. Kahnis in his invaluable manual, named below, thus
speaks of his Patristic theories: "The history of the Kingdom of God
became, under his hands, a world of atoms, which crossed each other as
chaotically as the masses of notes which lay heaped up in the memory of
Semler. . . . Under his pragmatical touches the halo of the martyrs
faded, etc." Internal Hist. of German Protestantism (since circa 1750,)
by Ch. Fred. Aug. Kahnis, D.D. (Lutheran) Professor at Leipzig.
Translated. T. and F. Clark, Edinburgh, 1856.
III.
(Peter, cap. xxii. note 6, p. 253.)
In the treatise of Cyprian, De Unitate, we shall have occasion to
speak fully on this interesting point. The reference to Kaye may
suffice, here. But, since the inveterate confusion of all that is said
of Peter with all that is claimed by a modern bishop for himself
promotes a false view of this passage, it may be well to note (1) that
St. Peter's name is expounded by himself (I. Peter, ii. 4, 5,) so as to
make Christ the Rock and all believers "lively stones"—or Peters—by
faith in Him. St. Peter is often called the rock, most justly, in this
sense, by a rhetorical play on his name: Christ the Rock and all
believers "lively stones," being cemented with Him by the Spirit. But,
(2.) this specialty of St. Peter, as such, belongs to him (Cephas)
only. (3.) So far as transmitted it belongs to no particular See. (4.)
The claim of Rome is disproved by Proescription. (5.) Were it
otherwise, it would not justify that See in making new articles of
Faith. (6.) Nor in its Schism with the East. (7.) When it restores St.
Peter's Doctrine and Holiness, to the Latin Churches, there will be no
quarrel about pre-eminence.Meantime, Rome's fallibility is expressly
taught in Romans xi. 18-21.
IV.
(The Apostles, cap. xxv. p. 254.)
Nothing less than a new incarnation of Christ and a new
commission to new apostles can give us anything new in religion. This
proescription is our Catholic answer to the Vatican oracles of our own
time. These give us a new revelation, prefacing the Gospels (1) by
defining the immaculate conception of Mary in the womb of her mother;
and (2) adding a new chapter to the Acts of the Apostles, in defining
the infallibility of a single bishop.
Clearly, had Tertullian known anything of this last dogma of
Latin Novelty, he would not have taken the trouble to write this
treatise. He would have said to heretics, We can neither discuss
Scripture nor Antiquity with you. Rome is the touchstone of dogma, and
to its bishop we refer you.
V.
(Truth and Peace, cap. xliv. p. 265.)
The famous appeal of Bishop Jewel, known as "the Challenge at
Paul's Cross," which he made in a sermon preached there on Passion
Sunday, A.D. 1560, is an instance of "Proescription against heresies,"
well worthy of being recalled, in a day which has seen Truth and Peace
newly sacrificed to the ceaseless innovations of Rome. It is as
follows:—"If any learned man of all our adversaries, or, if all the
learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence
out of any old Catholic doctor or father; or out of any old general
Council; or out of the Holy Scriptures of God;(1) or, any one example
of the primitive Church, whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved,
that—1. There was any private mass in the whole world at that time,
for the space of six hundred years after Christ; or that—2. There was
then any communion ministered unto the people under one kind; or
that—3. The people had their common prayers, then, in a strange tongue
that they understood not; or that—4. The bishop of Rome was then
called an universal bishop, or the head of the universal Church; or
that—5. The people was then taught to believe that Christ's body is
really, substantially, corporally, carnally or naturally in the
Sacrament; or that—6. His body is, or may be, in a thousand places or
more, at one time; or that—7. The priest did then hold up the
Sacrament over his head; or that—8. The people did then fall down and
worship it with godly honour; or that—9. The Sacrament was then, or
now ought to be, hanged up under a canopy; or that—10. In the
Sacrament after the words of consecration there remaineth only the
accidents and shews, without the substance of bread and wine; or
that—11. The priest then divided the Sacrament in three parts and
afterwards received himself, alone; or that—12. Whosoever had said the
Sacrament is a pledge, a token, or a remembrance of Christ's body, had
therefore been judged a heretic; or that—13. It was lawful, then, to
have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or five masses said in one Church,
in one day; or that—14. Images were then set up in churches to the
intent the people might worship them; or that—15. The lay people was
then forbidden to read the word of God, in their own tongue:
"If any man alive be able to prove any of these articles, by any
one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of the Scriptures, or of
the old doctors, or of any old General Council, or by any Example of
the Primitive Church; I promise, then, that I will give over and
subscribe unto him."
All this went far beyond the concession of proescription which
makes little of any one saying of any one Father, and demands the
general consent of Antiquity; but, it is needless to say that Jewel's
challenge has remained unanswered for more than three hundred years,
and so it will be to all Eternity
With great erudition Jewel enlarged his propositions and
maintained all his points. See his works, vol. I., p. 20 et seqq.
Cambridge University Press, 1845.
II.
TO THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER.
My Dear Lord,
I am gratified to have your permission to dedicate this volume to
your Lordship. It is the fruit of some two years' leisure labour. Every
man's occupation spares to him some leiyana kronon ; and thirty years
ago you taught me, at Oxford, how to husband these opportunities in the
pleasant studies of Biblical and Theological Science. For that and many
other kindnesses I cannot cease to be thankful to you.
But, besides this private motive, I have in your Lordship's own
past course an additional incentive for resorting to you on this
occasion. You, until lately, presided over the theological studies of
our great University; and you have given great encouragement to
patristic literature by your excellent edition of the Apostolic
Fathers.' To whom could I more becomingly present this humble effort to
make more generally known the great merits of perhaps the greatest work
of the first of the Latin Fathers than to yourself? I remain, with
much respect, My dear Lord,
Very faithfully yours,
PETER HOLMES. MANNAMEAD, PLYMOUTH,(2)
March, 1868.
THE reader has, in this volume a translation (attempted for the
first time in English) of the largest of the extant works of the
earliest Latin Fathers. The most important of Tertullian's writings
have always been highly valued in the church, although, as was natural
from their varied character, for different reasons. Thus his two
best-known treatises, The Apology and The Prescription against
Heretics, have divided between them for more than sixteen centuries
the admiration of all intelligent readers,—the one for its masterly
defence of the Christian religion against its heathen persecutors, and
the other for its lucid vindication of the church's rule of faith
against its heretical assailants. The present work has equal claims on
the reader's appreciation, in respect of those qualities of vigorous
thought, close reasoning, terse expression, and earnest purpose,
enlivened by sparkling wit and impassioned eloquence, which have always
secured for Tertullian, in spite of many drawbacks, the esteem which is
given to a great and favourite author. If these books against Marcion
have received, as indeed it must be allowed they have, less attention
from the general reader than their intrinsic merit deserves, the
neglect is mainly due to the fact that the interesting character of
their contents is concealed by the usual title-page, which points only
to a heresy supposed to be extinct and inapplicable, whether in the
materials of its defence or confutation, to any modern circumstances.
But many treatises of great authors, which have outlived their literal
occasion, retain a value from their collateral arguments, which is not
inferior to that effected by their primary subject, Such is the case
with the work before us. If Marcionism is in the letter obsolete, there
is its spirit still left in the church, which in more ways than one
develops its ancient characteristics. What these were, the reader will
soon discover in this volume; but reference may be made even here, in
passing, to that prominent aim of the heresy which gave Tertullian his
opportunity of proving the essential coherence of the Old and the New
Testaments, and of exhibiting both his great knowledge of the details
of Holy Scripture, and his fine intelligence of the progressive nature
of God's revelation as a whole. This constitutes the charm of the
present volume, which might almost be designated a Treatise on the
Connection between the Jewish and the Christian Scriptures. How
interesting this subject is to earnest men of the present age, is
proved by the frequent treatment of it in our religious literature.(1)
In order to assist the reader to a more efficient use of this volume,
in reference to its copiousness of Scripture illustration, a full Index
of Scriptural Passages has been drawn up. Another satisfactory result
will, it is believed, accompany the reading of this volume, in the
evidence which it affords of the venerable catholicity of that system
of biblical and dogmatic truth which constitutes the belief of what is
called the "orthodox" Christian of the present day. Orthodoxy has been
impugned of late, as if it had suffered much deterioration in its
transmission to us; and an advanced school of thinkers has demanded its
reform by a manipulation which they have called "free handling." To
such readers, then, as prize the deposit of the Christian creed which
they have received, in the light of St. Jude's description, as "the
faith once for all delivered to the saints," it cannot but prove
satisfactory to be able to trace in Tertullian, writing more than
sixteen centuries ago, the outlines of their own cherished
convictions—held by one who cannot be charged with too great an
obsequiousness to traditional authority, and who at the same time
possessed honesty, earnestness, and intelligence enough to make him an
unexceptionable witness to facts of such a kind. The translator would
only add, that he has, in compliance with the wise canon laid down by
the editors of this series, endeavoured always to present to the reader
the meaning of the
author in readable English, keeping as near as idiomatic rules allowed to the sense and even style of the original. Amidst the many well-known difficulties of Tertullian's writings (and his Anti-Marcion is not exempt from any of these difficulties,(2)) the translator cannot hope that he has accomplished his labour without mistakes, for which he would beg the reader's indulgence. He has, however, endeavoured to obviate the inconvenience of faulty translation by quoting in foot-notes all words, phrases, and passages which appeared to him difficult.(3) He has also added such notes as seemed necessary to illustrate the author's argument, or to explain any obscure allusions. The translation has been made always from Oehler's edition, with the aid of his scholary Index Verborum. Use has also been made of Semler's edition, and the variorum reprint of the Abbe Migne, the chief result of which recension has been to convince the translator of the great superiority and general excellence of Oehler's edition. When he had completed two-thirds of his work, he happened to meet with the French translation of Tertullian by Mon(1). Denain, in Genoude's series, Les Peres de l'Eglise, published some twenty-five years ago. This version, which runs in fluent language always, is very unequal in its relation to the original: sometimes it has the brevity of an abridgment, sometimes the fulness of a paraphrase. Often does it miss the author's point, and never does it keep his style. The Abbe Migne correctly describes it: "Elegans potius quam fidissimus interpres, qui Africanae loquelae asperitatem splendenti ornavit sermone, egregiaque interdum et ad vivum expressa interpretatione recreavit."