Tertullian Says Marcion Had Access to All Four Gospels But 'Beat Up' Only Luke

[Secret Alias]

Thanks for this discussion. But the question raised in the OP is:

1. how does Tertullian (or his source) know that Marcion knew all four gospels?
2. what does it mean that Marcion 'beat up' (or acted like the Jews when they assaulted Jesus before crucifying him) Luke in the context of his knowing the complete gospel-in-four (which is One)?

I still say the 'gospel in four' is related to the Marcosian Tetrad. The idea of four being one is one harder than the trinity and twice as hard as pulling the two powers = one god (i.e. Yahweh and Elohim) understanding of the Jewish heretics. These things now come to us as second nature. No one even flinches when they read Exodus and 'the Lord' does one thing and 'God' another. 'That's one god,' we know owing to our systematic abuse as children. Christians can reconcile the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as One. And four gospels, well ... no one ever saw the gospels until Luther's age so ...

There had to be a mystical predecessor to hard wire Christian minds to the obvious difficulty of four = one.

[MrMacSon]

Thanks for this discussion. But the question raised in the OP is:

1. how does Tertullian (or his source) know that Marcion knew all four gospels?
2. what does it mean that Marcion 'beat up' (or acted like the Jews when they assaulted Jesus before crucifying him) Luke in the context of his knowing the complete gospel-in-four (which is One)?

Where does Tertullian (or his source) say Marcion knew all four gospels? You quote a passage that refers to an unspecified number of "authors whom 'we' possess" -

If we look carefully Tertullian does not exactly say that Marcion made a false copy of Luke. He says instead (and curiously) that Marcion knew and had access to all the

Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet.

For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate [Evans]

Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process [Holmes]

You refer to Roth's abstract:

the best explanation for his (Tertullian's) accusations is that he viewed the four gospels as comprising 'the Gospel', and therefore that his (Tertullian's) accusations in Adversus Marcionem were motivated by Marcion having rejected the Gospel of Matthew.

Then say "I don't think that quite gets it right (as Lieu also notes)". I presume you're not referring to Roth referring to four gospels?

[MrMacSon]

I still say the 'gospel in four' is related to the Marcosian Tetrad. The idea of four being one is one harder than the trinity and twice as hard as pulling the two powers = one god (i.e. Yahweh and Elohim) understanding of the Jewish heretics. These things now come to us as second nature. No one even flinches when they read Exodus and 'the Lord' does one thing and 'God' another. 'That's one god,' we know owing to our systematic abuse as children. Christians can reconcile the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as One. And four gospels, well ... no one ever saw the gospels until Luther's age so ...

There had to be a mystical predecessor to hard wire Christian minds to the obvious difficulty of four = one.

It's interesting that the Marcosians are placed in what is now 'Lyon, France' as that is where Irenaeus has been placed.

ie. there is a proximity that might influence common theology, such as around the number four ... (no doubt you've thought of this, but maybe it's worth laying it out here)

[MrMacSon]

One thing I have been thinking is that all 'gospel-texts' in the second century might have been proto- or ur- gospel texts ...

[Secret Alias]

Well the 'Marcosians' (whatever the called themselves is unknown to us) identified themselves as maskalim like the Jewish kabbalists in the later period. They are clearly Jewish or at least in the continuum of Jewish thought. They practiced numerology and kabbalah. But numerology in a manner that seems very compatible with Philo. As such - and with little else in the way of 'knowledge' of Jewish practices in the period - I have to assume that they were Alexandrian Jews or from a tradition of Judaism that was compatible with Philo's Judaism. The connection between the Christian use of the Tetrad and Philo has already been noted in the Nag Hammadi scholarship https://books.google.com/books?id=qibko ... ad&f=false Philo asserts the " Tetrad to be the starting-point and spring of all the Decad." This might be a useful bit of information when examining the Marcionite 'antitheses' between the Law and the gospel. If the gospel was related to the Tetrad and the tetrad is the origin of the decad (the ten utterances) ... well, I think you get my point. If the Tetrad (= gospel) stood behind the Decad (= ten utterances) then it isn't that far to see how a Christian like Irenaeus could have argued that his 'gospel in four' stood behind all the previous 'super gospels' (= harmonies) associated with Justin, Marcion etc. He arranged the four with that in mind.

[MrMacSon]

If the Tetrad (= gospel) stood behind the Decad (= ten utterances) then it isn't that far to see how a Christian like Irenaeus could have argued that his 'gospel in four' stood behind all the previous 'super gospels' (= harmonies) associated with Justin, Marcion etc. He arranged the four with that in mind.

Ireneaus seems to be a key gateway or to have been perceive and/or portrayed as one. And a filter through which history was rewritten.

I dunno about the concept of harmonies or 'super-gospels. I think the concept is a smoke-screen to hide the fact that the texts as we know them today were not then in the form we know them ie. the ante-Nicene Fathers were more likely to have been dealing with proto- or ur- texts (which would be why the passages in Justin's writings that have been identified as aligning with passages in 'our' extant NT books do not fully align, and are hardly named by Justin as being from specific texts, - if named at all).

Well the 'Marcosians' (whatever the called themselves is unknown to us) identified themselves as maskalim like the Jewish kabbalists in the later period. They are clearly Jewish or at least in the continuum of Jewish thought. They practiced numerology and kabbalah. But numerology in a manner that seems very compatible with Philo. As such - and with little else in the way of 'knowledge' of Jewish practices in the period - I have to assume that they were Alexandrian Jews or from a tradition of Judaism that was compatible with Philo's Judaism. The connection between the Christian use of the Tetrad and Philo has already been noted in the Nag Hammadi scholarship https://books.google.com/books?id=qibko ... ad&f=false Philo asserts the " Tetrad to be the starting-point and spring of all the Decad." This might be a useful bit of information when examining the Marcionite 'antitheses' between the Law and the gospel. If the gospel was related to the Tetrad and the tetrad is the origin of the decad (the ten utterances) ... well, I think you get my point.

Cheers, that's interesting.

[Secret Alias]

Another interesting (hopefully) thing I was thinking about when I hypothetically imagined myself to be a 'Pythagorean Jew' (= heretical Christian). What is the fourth commandment (I had been watching Bill Maher insult the first four commandments so maybe that's what triggered this)? 'Remember the Sabbath.' What is the tenth commandment? 'Do not lust?' We know from Clement of Alexandria that the Alexandrian gospel (from Philo) simply took the tenth commandment in this short form which opened the door to monasticism and asceticism. Can we 'leapfrog' from 'remember the Sabbath' to 'do not lust'? I don't know. But it is interesting (to me at least) that given the tensions between those (Jewish sectarians/heretics) who said only the ten commandments came from God and that the Pentateuch (necessarily) came from men (notice the Pauline tension here) the fourth commandment if taken as something separate from the Pentateuch or pre-existent to Ezra's writing of the Pentateuch in Moses's name doesn't exactly square with the Sabbath commandment in the rest of the Pentateuch. What exactly does 'remember the Sabbath' mean? It could be anything. Even 'remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.' Is that why the followers of John were fasting on the Sabbath? Was there another 'Judaism' which had different rules regarding the Sabbath. Also note the Marcionites are always reported to have had tensions with the orthodox over the meaning of Jesus's healing on the Sabbath.

The Marcionites seemed to have argued that there was no divine ordinance against 'working' or certain kinds of work on the Sabbath. So Against Marcion 2:

Similarly on other points also, you reproach Him with fickleness and instability for contradictions in His commandments, such as that He forbade work to be done on Sabbath-days, and yet at the siege of Jericho ordered the ark to be carried round the walls during eight days; in other words, of course, actually on a Sabbath. You do not, however, consider the law of the Sabbath: they are human works, not divine, which it prohibits.268 For it says, "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." What work? Of course your own. The conclusion is, that from the Sabbath-day He removes those works which He had before enjoined for the six days, that is, your own works; in other words, human works of daily life. [2] Now, the carrying around of the ark is evidently not an ordinary daily duty, nor yet a human one; but a rare and a sacred work, and, as being then ordered by the direct precept of God, a divine one. And I might fully explain what this signified, were it not a tedious process to open out the forms269 of all the Creator's proofs, which you would, moreover, probably refuse to allow. It is more to the point, if you be confuted on plain matters270 by the simplicity of truth rather than curious reasoning. Thus, in the present instance, there is a clear distinction respecting the Sabbath's prohibition of human labours, not divine ones. Accordingly, the man who went and gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was punished with death. For it was his own work which he did; and this271 the law forbade. They, however, who on the Sabbath carried the ark round Jericho, did it with impunity. For it was not their own work, but God's, which they executed, and that too, from His express commandment.

Notice the subtlety of the Marcionite argument 'His (i.e. God's) express commandment' does not forbid 'holy work' (i.e. God's work) on the Sabbath. Tertullian or his source (Theophilos?) gives an explanation of the seeming contradiction between the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua. But we still don't know what the Marcionite view was other than they saw an 'antitheses.' But clearly an antitheses or at least a different exists between the fourth commandment and what is proscribed by Moses on his own authority in the Law.

[Secret Alias]

I should also note that the mystical expansion of the fourth into 'ten' (which is Pythagorean insofar as 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10) is implicit in Philo's consistent treatment of the fourth commandment which he notes

“The fourth [commandment], however, the one concerning the Sabbath, is nothing but the paradigm of the festivals and of the appointed sin-offerings for each and the proper lustrations and obedient prayers and flawless sacrifices, with which the worship used to be done."

As Leonhardt notes:

The ten universal festivals At the beginning of Philo's interpretation of the laws on the Jewish festivals Philo repeats that all the Jewish festivals can be summed up under the fourth commandment to observe the Sabbath (39 f). Then he states that there are ten important Jewish festivals (Spec. Leg. II 41). He then goes into detail by describing the “ten festivals” (Séxo éoptai) of (his) Judaism; together they form the perfect number of festivals

https://books.google.com/books?id=8PlVi ... lo&f=false

[Secret Alias]

I wonder therefore again whether Marcion's 'hatred' of the Jews, Judaism and the Sabbath has been greatly exaggerated. The difficulty is that people haven't thought through the possibilities. Ever since Segal it has been noted that an uncanny similarity exists between the 'rabbinic tradition' and its use of scriptures against the 'two powers' heresy and Against Tertullian against Marcion. The same sorts of arguments, the same sorts of scripture are cited by the 'good guys' (= the orthodox) against 'the bad guys' (= the dualist heretics). Ok that's one thing. The Christians and the 'two powers' heretics used Daniel chapter 7 and its vision of the Son of Man to argue for two powers. Another commonality. But on top of this 'one dimension' of intersection between 'orthodoxy' and 'heresy' there is another axis - that of the heretics that say that only the ten commandments came from heaven (= God). As Heschel notes Jesus's arguments about divorce have a commonality with the 'ten utterances only' heretics. As such I assume that the earliest Christians held that there were two powers (thus contradicting true 'monarchia') but also argued that Moses encountered one of those gods at the burning bush and at Sinai. Already Justin makes an argument like this. But surely under this scenario (i.e. where the earliest Christians are both being described by the 'two powers' and the 'ten commandment only' heresies at once we can begin to recontextualize how Marcion might have interpreted the various 'Sabbath-breaking' in the gospel. If one accepted only the authority of the ten commandments (or had a mystical reinterpretation of their meaning) Marcion might simply have argued that one needed to celebrate the Sabbath in a 'holy' or divine manner.

[Secret Alias]

And yes I think I found something which might come from a Marcionite source explaining what the original position on the Sabbath was. As Evans notes Against Marcion 4.12 recycles arguments from Against the Jews 2 - 5 and Against Marcion 2.21. But I'd like to focus on what remains of the original (Marcionite?) argument in Against the Jews (remember a large section of the underlying arguments of Against the Jews were repurposed and redirected from 'Against the Jews' to 'Against Marcion Book 3). Note that the lost original author makes the case that the Jewish observance of the Sabbath from material in the Pentateuch comes 'according to Moses' but that the Sabbath of God is something else. I'd contend that this is the fourth commandment:

For why should God, the founder of the universe, the Governor of the whole world,14 the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower15 of universal nations be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? [2] For unless He had given it to all by no means would He have habitually permitted even proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But--as is congruous with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the Fashioner of mankind--He gave to all nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed. For in the beginning of the world He gave to Adam himself and Eve a law, that they were not to eat of the fruit of the tree planted in the midst of paradise; but that, if they did contrariwise, by death they were to die.16 Which law had continued enough for them, had it been kept. [3] For in this law given to Adam we recognise in embryo17 all the precepts which afterwards sprouted forth when given through Moses; that is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God from thy whole heart and out of thy whole soul; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;18 Thou shalt not kill; Thou shall not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; False witness thou shall not utter; Honour thy father and mother; and, That which is another's, shall thou not covet. [4] For the primordial law was given to Adam and Eve in paradise, as the womb of all the precepts of God. In short, if they had loved the Lord their God, they would not have contravened His precept; if they had habitually loved their neighbour--that is, themselves19 --they would not have believed the persuasion of the serpent, and thus would not have committed murder upon themselves,20 by falling21 from immortality, by contravening God's precept; [5] from theft also they would have abstained, if they had not stealthily tasted of the fruit of the tree, nor had been anxious to skulk beneath a tree to escape the view of the Lord their God; nor would they have been made partners with the falsehood-asseverating devil, by believing him that they would be "like God; "and thus they would not have offended God either, as their Father, who had fashioned them from clay of the earth, as out of the womb of a mother; if they had not coveted another's, they would not have tasted of the unlawful fruit. [6] Therefore, in this general and primordial law of God, the observance of which, in the case of the tree's fruit, He had sanctioned, we recognise enclosed all the precepts specially of the posterior Law, which germinated when disclosed at their proper times. For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures. [7] For what wonder if He extends a discipline who institutes it? if He advances who begins? In short, before the Law of Moses,22 written in stone-tables, I contend that there was a law unwritten, which was habitually understood naturally, and by the fathers was habitually kept. For whence was Noah "found righteous,"23 if in his case the righteousness of a natural law had not preceded? Whence was Abraham accounted "a friend of God,"24 if not on the ground of equity and righteousness, (in the observance) of a natural law? Whence was Melchizedek named "priest of the most high God,"25 if, before the priesthood of the Levitical law, there were not levites who were wont to offer sacrifices to God? [8] For thus, after the above-mentioned patriarchs, was the Law given to Moses, at that (well-known) time after their exode from Egypt, after the interval and spaces of four hundred years. In fact, it was after Abraham's "four hundred and thirty years"26 that the Law was given. [9] Whence we understand that God's law was anterior even to Moses, and was not first (given) in Horeb, nor in Sinai and in the desert, but was more ancient; (existing) first in paradise, subsequently reformed for the patriarchs, and so again for the Jews, at definite periods: so that we are not to give heed to Moses' Law as to the primitive law, but as to a subsequent, which at a definite period God has set forth to the Gentiles too and, after repeatedly promising so to do through the prophets, has reformed for the better; and has premonished that it should come to pass that, just as "the law was given through Moses"27 at a definite time, so it should be believed to have been temporarily observed and kept.

[10] And let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law's precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man's salvation. In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practised circumcision, and were thus rendered "friends of God." [11] For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. [12] Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted28 what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering.29 [13] Noah also, uncircumcised--yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath--God freed from the deluge.30 For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world;31 who did not first taste32 death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life,33 he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God. [14] Melchizedek also, "the priest of the most high God," uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God.34 Lot, withal, the brother35 of Abraham, proves that it was for the merits of righteousness, without observance of the law, that he was freed from the conflagration of the Sodomites.36

Chapter III.--Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law.

[1] But Abraham, (you say, ) was circumcised. Yes, but he pleased God before his circumcision;37 nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had "accepted"38 circumcision; but such as was to be for "a sign" of that time, not for a prerogative title to salvation. In fact, subsequent patriarchs were uncircumcised, like Melchizedek, who, uncircumcised, offered to Abraham himself, already circumcised, on his return from battle, bread and wine.39 "But again," (you say) "the son of Moses would upon one occasion have been choked by an angel, if Zipporah,40 had not circumcised the foreskin of the infant with a pebble; whence, "there is the greatest peril if any fail to circumcise the foreskin of his flesh." [2] Nay, but if circumcision altogether brought salvation, even Moses himself, in the case of his own son, would not have omitted to circumcise him on the eighth day; whereas it is agreed that Zipporah did it on the journey, at the compulsion of the angel. Consider we, accordingly, that one single infant's compulsory circumcision cannot have prescribed to every people, and rounded, as it were, a law for keeping this precept. [3] For God, foreseeing that He was about to give this circumcision to the people of Israel for "a sign," not for salvation, urges the circumcision of the son of Moses, their future leader, for this reason; that, since He had begun, through him, to give the People the precept of circumcision, the people should not despise it, from seeing this example (of neglect) already exhibited conspicuously in their leader's son. [4] For circumcision had to be given; but as "a sign," whence Israel in the last time would have to be distinguished, when, in accordance with their deserts, they should be prohibited from entering the holy city, as we see through the words of the prophets, saying, "Your land is desert; your cities utterly burnt with fire; your country, in your sight, strangers shall eat up; and, deserted and subverted by strange peoples, the daughter of Zion shall be derelict, like a shed in a vineyard, and like a watchhouse in a cucumber-field, and as it were a city which is being stormed."41 [5] Why so? Because the subsequent discourse of the prophet reproaches them, saying, "Sons have I begotten and upraised, but they have reprobated me; "42 and again, "And if ye shall have outstretched hands, I will avert my face from you; and if ye shall have multiplied prayers, I will not hear you: for your hands are full of blood; "43 and again, "Woe! sinful nation; a people full of sins; wicked sons; ye have quite forsaken God, and have provoked unto indignation the Holy One of Israel."44

[6] This, therefore, was God's foresight,--that of giving circumcision to Israel, for a sign whence they might be distinguished when the time should arrive wherein their above-mentioned deserts should prohibit their admission into Jerusalem: which circumstance, because it was to be, used to be announced; and, because we see it accomplished, is recognised by us. [7] For, as the carnal circumcision, which was temporary, was in wrought for "a sign" in a contumacious people, so the spiritual has been given for salvation to an obedient people; while the prophet Jeremiah says, "Make a renewal for you, and sow not in thorns; be circumcised to God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart: "45 and in another place he says, "Behold, days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will draw up, for the house of Judah and for the house of Jacob,46 a new testament; not such as I once gave their fathers in the day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt."47 [8] Whence we understand that the coming cessation of the former circumcision l then given, and the coming procession of a new law (not such as He had already given to the fathers), are announced: just as Isaiah foretold, saying that in the last days the mount of the Lord and the house of God were to be manifest above the tops of the mounts: "And it shall be exalted," he says, "above the hills; and there shall come over it all nations; and many shall walk, and say, Come, ascend we unto the mount of the Lord, and unto the house of the God of Jacob,"48 --not of Esau, the former son, but of Jacob, the second; that is, of our "people," whose "mount" is Christ, "praecised without concisors' hands,49 filling every land," shown in the book of Daniel.50 [9] In short, the coming procession of a new law out of this "house of the God of Jacob" Isaiah in the ensuing words announces, saying, "For from Zion shall go out a law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and shall judge among the nations,"--that is, among us, who have been called out of the nations,--"and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight."51 [10] Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,--the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself52 demonstrates? For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury.53 But the new law's wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land.54 [11] Therefore as we have shown above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone out into the voluntary obediences55 of peace. For "a people," he says, "whom I knew not hath served me; in obedience of the ear it hath obeyed me."56 Prophets made the announcement. [12] But what is the "people" which was ignorant of God, but ours, who in days bygone knew not God? and who, in the hearing of the ear, gave heed to Him, but we, who, forsaking idols, have been converted to God? [13] For Israel--who had been known to God, and who had by Him been "upraised"57 in Egypt, and was transported through the Red Sea, and who in the desert, fed forty years with manna, was wrought to the semblance of eternity, and not contaminated with human passions,58 or fed on this world's59 meats, but fed on "angel's loaves"60 --the manna--and sufficiently bound to God by His benefits--forgot his Lord and God, saying to Aaron: "Make us gods, to go before us: for that Moses, who ejected us from the land of Egypt, hath quite forsaken us; and what hath befallen him we know not." And accordingly we, who "were not the people of God" in days bygone, have been made His people,61 by accepting the new law above mentioned, and the new circumcision before foretold.

Chapter IV.--Of the Observance of the Sabbath.

[1] It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary.

For the Jews say, that from the beginning God sanctified the seventh day, by resting on it from all His works which He made; and that thence it was, likewise, that Moses said to the People: "Remember the day of the sabbaths, to sanctify it: every servile work ye shall not do therein, except what pertaineth unto life."62 [2] Whence we (Christians) understand that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all "servile work"63 always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a sabbath eternal and a sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, "Your sabbaths my soul hateth; "64 and in another place he says, "My sabbaths ye have profaned."65 [3] Whence we discern that the temporal sabbath is human, and the eternal sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: "And there shall be," He says, "month after month, and day after day, and sabbath after sabbath; and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord; "66 [4] which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when "all flesh"--that is, every nation--"came to adore in Jerusalem" God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet: "Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee."67 [5] Thus, therefore, before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown. [6] In short, let them teach us, as we have already premised, that Adam observed the sabbath; or that Abel, when offering to God a holy victim, pleased Him by a religious reverence for the sabbath; or that Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the sabbath; or that Noah the ark-builder observed, on account of the deluge, an immense sabbath; or that Abraham, in observance of the sabbath, offered Isaac his son; or that Melchizedek in his priesthood received the law of the sabbath.

[7] But the Jews are sure to say, that ever since this precept was given through Moses, the observance has been binding. Manifest accordingly it is, that the precept was not eternal nor spiritual, but temporary,68 which would one day cease. [8] In short, so true is it that it is not in the exemption from work of the sabbath--that is, of the seventh day--that the celebration of this solemnity is to consist, that Joshua the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing the city Jericho by war. stated that he had received from God a precept to order the People that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day's circuit had been performed, the walls of the city would spontaneously fall.69 [9] Which was so done; and when the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence it is manifestly shown, that in the number of the seven days there intervened a sabbath-day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarily include within them a sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. [10] Nor is it doubtful that they "wrought servile work," when, in obedience to God's precept, they drave the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravely in fighting on the sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the primitive style of life by fighting on the sabbaths.70 [11] Nor should I think it was any other law which they thus vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the prescript touching "the day of the sabbaths."71

Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law.

Chapter V.--Of Sacrifices.

[1] So, again, we show that sacrifices of earthly oblations and of spiritual sacrifices72 were predicted; and, moreover, that from the beginning the earthly were foreshown, in the person of Cain, to be those of the "elder son," that is, of Israel; and the opposite sacrifices demonstrated to be those of the "younger son," Abel, that is, of our people. [2] For the elder, Cain, offered gifts to God from the fruit of the earth; but the younger son, Abel, from the fruit of his ewes. "God had respect unto Abel, and unto his gifts; but unto Cain and unto his gifts He had not respect. And God said unto Cain, Why is thy countenance fallen? hast thou not--if thou offerest indeed aright, but dost not divide aright--sinned? Hold thy peace. For unto thee shall thy conversion be and he shall lord it over thee. And then Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go into the field: and he went away with him thither, and he slew him. And then God said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? To whom God said, The voice of the blood of thy brother crieth forth unto me from the earth. Wherefore cursed is the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive the blood of thy brother. Groaning and trembling shalt thou be upon the earth, and every one who shall have found thee shall slay thee."73 [3] From this proceeding we gather that the twofold sacrifices of "the peoples" were even from the very beginning foreshown. In short, when the sacerdotal law was being drawn up, through Moses, in Leviticus, we find it prescribed to the people of Israel that sacrifices should in no other place be offered to God than in the land of promise; which the Lord God was about to give to "the people" Israel and to their brethren, in order that, on Israel's introduction thither, there should there be celebrated sacrifices and holocausts, as well for sins as for souls; and nowhere else but in the holy land.74 [4] Why, accordingly, does the Spirit afterwards predict, through the prophets, that it should come to pass that in every place and in every land there should be offered sacrifices to God? as He says through the angel Malachi, one of the twelve prophets: "I will not receive sacrifice from your hands; for from the rising sun unto the setting my Name hath been made famous among all the nations, saith the Lord Almighty: and in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my Name."75 Again, in the Psalms, David says: "Bring to God, ye countries of the nations"--undoubtedly because "unto every land" the preaching of the apostles had to "go out"76 --"bring to God fame and honour; bring to God the sacrifices of His name: take up77 victims and enter into His courts."78 [5] For that it is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God, we thus read, as it is written, An heart contribulate and humbled is a victim for God; "79 and elsewhere, "Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest thy vows."80 Thus, accordingly, the spiritual "sacrifices of praise" are pointed to, and "an heart contribulate" is demonstrated an acceptable sacrifice to God. [6] And thus, as carnal sacrifices are understood to be reprobated--of which Isaiah withal speaks, saying, "To what end is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? saith the Lord"81 --so spiritual sacrifices are predicted82 as accepted, as the prophets announce. [7] For, "even if ye shall have brought me," He says, "the finest wheat flour, it is a vain supplicatory gift: a thing execrable to me; "and again He says, "Your holocausts and sacrifices, and the fat of goats, and blood of bulls, I will not, not even if ye come to be seen by me: for who hath required these things from your hands? "83 for "from the rising sun unto the setting, my Name hath been made famous among all the nations, saith the Lord."84 But of the spiritual sacrifices He adds, saying, "And in every place they offer dean sacrifices to my Name, saith the Lord."85

Chapter VI.--Of the Abolition and the Abolisher of the Old Law.

[1] Therefore, since it is manifest that a sabbath temporal was shown, and a sabbath eternal foretold; a circumcision carnal foretold, and a circumcision spiritual pre-indicated; a law temporal and a law eternal formally declared; sacrifices carnal and sacrifices spiritual foreshown; it follows that, after all these precepts had been given carnally, in time preceding, to the people Israel, there was to supervene a time whereat the precepts of the ancient Law and of the old ceremonies would cease, and the promise86 of the new law, and the recognition of spiritual sacrifices, and the promise of the New Testament, supervene;87 while the light from on high would beam upon us who were sitting in darkness, and were being detained in the shadow of death.88 [2] And so there is incumbent on us a necessity89 binding us, since we have premised that a new law was predicted by the prophets, and that not such as had been already given to their fathers at the time when He led them forth from the land of Egypt,90 to show and prove, on the one hand, that that old Law has ceased, and on the other, that the promised new law is now in operation.

[3] And, indeed, first we must inquire whether there be expected a giver of the new law, and an heir of the new testament, and a priest of the new sacrifices, and a purger of the new circumcision, and an observer of the eternal sabbath, to suppress the old law, and institute the new testament, and offer the new sacrifices, and repress the ancient ceremonies, and suppress91 the old circumcision together with its own sabbath,92 and announce the new kingdom which is not corruptible. Inquire, I say, we must, whether this giver of the new law, observer of the spiritual sabbath, priest of the eternal sacrifices, eternal ruler of the eternal kingdom, be come or no: that, if he is already come, service may have to be rendered him; if he is not yet come, he may have to be awaited, until by his advent it be manifest that the old Law's precepts are suppressed, and that the beginnings of the new law ought to arise. [4] And, primarily, we must lay it down that the ancient Law and the prophets could not have ceased, unless He were come who was constantly announced, through the same Law and through the same prophets, as to come.