Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:57 am

On the idea that Tertullian's theology might have been designed to walk in lockstep with the Imperial cult:

Might it be the case that Tertullian was fighting for the power inscribed by origins rather than merely for the power of the Christian God? It seems that he was willing to use anything against his opponents to prove the correctness of his own views and the heretical nature of others. This is suggested by several passages in which he simply insulted his opponents rather than argued against them rationally: “Only it is a pity that Hermogenes alone has come by this knowledge along with the patriarchs ofthe heretics, the philosophers.94 It seems that Tertullian's power-God mirrors his own desire for power in rhetorical battles. In other words, Tertullian's theology is based as much upon his own will to power as anything else. His theology reflects and provides a foundational support system for his psychology/ anthropology. The all-powerful God becomes the transcendent, universal, acontextual source for his authority in any battle for orthodoxy https://books.google.com/books?id=0waRA ... MQ6AEIKjAA

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:46 pm

In chapter 13 "great work" appears again but this time in the mouth of Marcionites:

the Marcionites shamelessly turn up their nose and set about the demolition of the Creator's works. 'A great work, indeed,' they say, 'and worthy of a god, is this world' (Nimirum, inquiunt, grande opus et dignum deo mundus).

Also one wonders if this section of text was reworked or originally written in Latin:

So let me make some observations even on the alleged unworthiness of this world, the name of which among the Greeks also means adornment and culture, not uncleanness (sordium).

The theme is repeated at the close of the same chapter:

Shall I be at a loss with lowly things? Can one little flower of the hedgerow—I say not the meadows—, one little shell from any sea you like—I say not the Red Sea—, one little moorcock's feather—I say nothing of the peacock—, permit you to judge the Creator a low-grade artificer (sordidum artificem)?

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:00 am

And there are clear signs of this author and Celsus 'ganging up' on a lost original text or arguments made by Marcion or one of the Marcionites. First the argument from Book 5 of Against Celsus:

He (Celsus) next, in many words, blames us for asserting that God made all things for the sake of man.

All things came into existence not more for the sake of man than of the irrational animals.

So in a far greater degree are Celsus and they who think with him guilty of impiety towards the God who makes provision for rational beings, in asserting that His arrangements are made in no greater degree for the sustenance of human beings than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns.

75. Thunders, and lightnings, and rains are not the works of God.

Even if one were to grant that these were the works of God, they are brought into existence not more for the support of us who are human beings, than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns.

Although you may say that these things, viz., plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns, grow for the use of men, why will you maintain that they grow for the use of men rather than for that of the most savage of irrational animals?

76. We indeed by labour and suffering earn a scanty and toilsome subsistence, while all things are produced for them without their sowing and ploughing.

77. But if you will quote the saying of Euripides, that 'The Sun and Night are to mortals slaves,' why should they be so in a greater degree to us than to ants and flies? For the night is created for them in order that they may rest, and the day that they may see and resume their work.

78. If one were to call us the lords of the animal creation because we hunt the other animals and live upon their flesh, we would say, Why were not we rather created on their account, since they hunt and devour us? Nay, we require nets and weapons, and the assistance of many persons, along with dogs, when engaged in the chase; while they are immediately and spontaneously provided by nature with weapons which easily bring us under their power.

79. With respect to your assertion, that God gave you the power to capture wild beasts, and to make your own use of them, we would say that, in all probability, before cities were built, and arts invented, and societies such as now exist were formed, and weapons and nets employed, men were generally caught and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were very seldom captured by men.

The world was uncreated and incorruptible, and that it was only the things on earth which underwent deluges and conflagrations, and that all these things did not happen at the same time."

80. In this way God rather subjected men to wild beasts.

81. If men appear to be superior to irrational animals on this account, that they have built cities, and make use of a political constitution, and forms of government, and sovereignties, this is to say nothing to the purpose, for ants and bees do the same. Bees, indeed, have a sovereign, who has followers and attendants; and there occur among them wars and victories, and slaughterings of the vanquished, and cities and suburbs, and a succession of labours, and judgments passed upon the idle and the wicked; for the drones are driven away and punished.

83. The ants set apart in a place by themselves those grains which sprout forth, that they may not swell into bud, but may continue throughout the year as their food,

84. When ants die, the survivors set apart a special place (for their interment), and that their ancestral sepulchres such a place is.

And when they [the ants] meet one another they enter into conversation, for which reason they never mistake their way; consequently they possess a full endowment of reason, and some common ideas on certain general subjects, and a voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental things.

85. Come now, if one were to look down from heaven upon earth, in what respect would our actions appear to differ from those of ants and bees?

86. In certain individuals among the irrational creation there exists the power of sorcery.

If, however, men entertain lofty notions because of their possessing the power of sorcery, yet even in that respect are serpents and eagles their superiors in wisdom; for they are acquainted with many prophylactics against persons and diseases, and also with the virtues of certain stones which help to preserve their young. If men, however, fall in with these, they think that they have gained a wonderful possession.

88. If, because man has been able to grasp the idea of God, he is deemed superior to the other animals, let those who hold this opinion know that this capacity will be claimed by many of the other animals; and with good reason: for what would any one maintain to be more divine than the power of foreknowing and predicting future events? Men accordingly acquire the art from the other animals, and especially from birds. And those who listen to the indications furnished by them, become possessed of the gift of prophecy. If, then, birds, and the other prophetic animals, which are enabled by the gift of God to foreknow events, instruct us by means of signs, so much the nearer do they seem to be to the society of God, and to be endowed with greater wisdom, and to be more beloved by Him. The more intelligent of men, moreover, say that the animals hold meetings which are more sacred than our assemblies, and that they know what is said at these meetings, and show that in reality they possess this knowledge, when, having previously stated that the birds have declared their intention of departing to some particular place, and of doing this thing or the other, the truth of their assertions is established by the departure of the birds to the place in question, and by their doing what was foretold. And no race of animals appears to be more observant of oaths than the elephants are, or to show greater devotion to divine things; and this, I presume, solely because they have some knowledge of God.

97. How impious, indeed, is the assertion of this man, who charges us with impiety, that not only are the irrational animals wiser than the human race, but that they are more beloved by God (than they)!

The assemblies of the irrational animals are more sacred than ours.

Intelligent men say that these animals hold assemblies which are more sacred than ours, and that they know what is spoken at them, and actually prove that they are not without such knowledge, when they mention beforehand that the birds have announced their intention of departing to a particular place, or of doing this thing or that, and then show that they have departed to the place in question, and have done the particular thing which was foretold.

99. All things, accordingly, were not made for man, any more than they were made for lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but that this world, as being God's work, might be perfect and entire in all respects. For this reason all things have been adjusted, not with reference to each other, but with regard to their bearing upon the whole. And God takes care of the whole, and (His) providence will never forsake it; and it does not become worse; nor does God after a time bring it back to himself; nor is He angry on account of men any more than on account of apes or flies; nor does He threaten these beings, each one of which has received its appointed lot in its proper place.

Then Tertullian Against Marcion Book One Chapter 14 - 17:

Since you put to scorn those tiny animals which the great Artificer has designedly made great in competence and ability, so teaching us that greatness approves itself in littleness, even as, the apostle says, strength does in weakness:a imitate, if you can, the bee's house-building, the ant's stablings, the spider's net- work, the silkworm's spinning: tolerate, if you can, even those creatures in your bed and on your bed-cover, the poison of the cantharis, the midge's sting, the mosquito's trumpet and spear.

After this, or even before this, since you have said that your god no less has his own creation, his own world and his own heaven, I shall consider that third heaven when, or if, I come to discuss the apostle you claim as your own.

But this is clearly the voice of the editor who knows that there are five books (the third book is clearly a later edition of the final editor). And similarly in the next chapter:

Since there is no visible evidence of another world, as there is none of any god of it, their next procedure is to share out two species of objects, things visible and things invisible, between two gods as authors, and then claim the invisible things for their god. But can anyone, unless it be a spirit of heresy, persuade himself that the invisible things belong to one who has made no provision of anything visible, rather than to him who by fabricating visible things has given evidence of invisible things besides? For it is much more reasonable to assent to evidences of some sort than to none at all. I shall find out also to which author the apostle ascribes the invisible things,a when I come to investigate him.

To that end I strongly suspect that chapters 15 and 16 are filled with later developments of the original article. The original text going directly to chapter 17:

Hemmed in by these arguments, they break out and say, 'Sufficient to our god is this one single work, that he has by his great and particular kindness set man free, a kindness of more value than any number of destructive insects.' Note the superior greatness of this god, whose great work could only come into evidence in that man who belonged to a lesser God. However, it is your previous duty to prove that he exists, and to do so by the proofs requisite to prove a god's existence, by works first, and afterwards by benefits conferred.

Indeed I strongly suspect that only the 'heads' of each chapter are original. In each the Marcionites 'speak' only to be followed by an appeal to order of books which follow - explicitly demonstrating that the one speaking is the Latin 'final editor':

'Yes, but our god,' the Marcionites rejoin, 'though not revealed from the beginning, or by virtue of any creation, yet has by his own self been revealed in Christ Jesus.' One of my books (i.e. Book 3) will have reference to Christ and all that he stands for: for the divisions of our subject have to be kept distinct, so as to receive more complete and orderly treatment.

As such when you really look at this Book One of Against Marcion it starts taking on the appearance of an early Dialogue between a Marcionite and Orthodox where a later editor has taken over the argumentation.

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:02 pm

The original argument in Celsus seems to be that 'Christians' wrongly believed that God made the world for 'mankind.' The animals weren't in any way inferior to humanity, Celsus argues. Insects are not wretched. Bees and ants organize themselves into societies which are in no way inferior to those of human beings.

The original argument in Tertullian Book One seems to be that 'Marcionites wrongly believed that insects were an inferior creation. But was that the original Marcionite argument? At the very least there is one clear parallel between the two sections. Celsus again:

If men appear to be superior to irrational animals on this account, that they have built cities, and make use of a political constitution, and forms of government, and sovereignties, this is to say nothing to the purpose, for ants and bees do the same. Bees, indeed, have a sovereign, who has followers and attendants; and there occur among them wars and victories, and slaughterings of the vanquished, and cities and suburbs, and a succession of labours, and judgments passed upon the idle and the wicked; for the drones are driven away and punished ... The ants set apart in a place by themselves those grains which sprout forth, that they may not swell into bud, but may continue throughout the year as their food.(Εἰ δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀποτιθεμένων καρπῶν τὰς ἐκφύσεις ἀπεκτι θέασιν οἱ μύρμηκες, ἵνα μὴ σπαργῷεν, μένοιεν δὲ δι' ἔτους αὐτοῖς εἰς τροφήν).

Tertullian:

imitate, if you can (Marcion) the bee's building, the ant's stablings (apis aedificia, formicae stabula), the spider's network, the silkworm's spinning ...

Celsus is clearly writing against Christians but Marcionites in particular. Tertullian has taken over the argument (as we see elsewhere in Against Marcion) and then twisted them into something almost unrecognizable. Celsus isn't saying that Christians hated the creation but simply that they have a special relationship with either god or a second god.

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:09 pm

I think the important thing to stress also - if my parallel between Celsus and Tertullian and their mutual attack against 'Marcion' - is that the work we call Against Marcion was not stable. Over time the work changed and so the original connection with Celsus was buried under at least two rewrites. Look at what Tertullian writes at the beginning of Book Two:

The fortunes of this work have been described in the preface to Book I. The opportunity of revision gives me this further advantage, that in the discussion of two gods, in opposition to Marcion, I am now able to assign to each of them a separate book with its distinctive heading: for so does the subject-matter naturally divide (retractandis suum cuique titulum et volumen distingueremus pro materiae divisione).

Now I've already mention the three rewrites. But look at what Tertullian says here - viz. the division of the original manuscript into five books or perhaps 'individual books' was his handiwork. In other words, the original work was not a 'five volume' work. All of which makes me wonder whether we have large amounts of new material which is no piled on top of the original work against Marcion.

What this tells us that Book Two - i.e. this point in the original continuous narrative represents the first 'break.' When Tertullian talks about 'book divisions equaling natural divisions' this is what he is talking about. But once again, we have to see Tertullian taking an original work written against Marcion and then writing on top of his Latin translation of that original Greek work in Latin. With all his division he takes the original work in new directions most notably the division into five books. The same editors hand appears at the beginning of Book Three (i.e. he confesses that he is back at work again).

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:36 am

What I find interesting of course - in light of the admission that the later writer/editor rearranged the 'second editor' (i.e. the previous edition) into five books - is the fact that (a) Irenaeus is undoubtedly the 'second edition' author and (b) Irenaeus's other major work Adversus Haereses is also divided into five books. Could that be coincidence? Could Irenaeus have actually initiated the division of one of his works into five books and then Tertullian divided Against Marcion into five or - as I suspect - could the same author/editor who confesses to dividing Against Marcion into five at a later date also divided Against Heresies into five? The reason I find this interesting is that it might suggest some common patterns.

1. Justin Martyr was the original author of both treatises. It is almost universally acknowledged that Justin's Syntagma was at the core of Against Heresies. In this case we tend to think of this as a simple (1) (2) viz. (1) Justin's Syntagma and then (2) Irenaeus's Against Heresies. In the case of Against Heresies we know that it was a threefold process. The Latin 'final editor' Tertullian tells us this at the beginning of the book i.e. (1) an original ur-text (2) one that widely circulated in the name of an 'apostate' and (3) the version we have now where the author confesses that he was responsible for dividing the previous work (retractandis suum cuique titulum et volumen distingueremus pro materiae divisione). Andrew Criddle and I have come to the same conclusion - namely that Against Heresies Book Four clearly attests to an original author who worked from a gospel harmony not the gospel of Luke. In other words, Justin was likely (1) here and then Irenaeus becomes (2) and Tertullian (3). Irenaeus actually makes reference to Justin's edition of Against Marcion so it wasn't a case of Irenaeus being ignorant of the previous incarnation.

2. the patchwork nature of both 'final' (i.e. five volume) texts. There are two things that we know for certain. On the one hand, the final author of Against Marcion absolutely explicitly states that he created Book Three and that he created Book Three from a previous 'stand alone' text written Against the Jews. While some have argued that Against the Jews was developed from Book Three this is not possible. At the same time there are clear signs that Against Heresies Book One was developed not only from Justin's Syntagma but a few other 'stand alone' texts. The first is Against the Valentinians which Tertullian himself preserves in the stand alone form. We could also mention (a) Hegesippus's report on the Carpocratians and (b) the report on the Marcosians which seems to draw upon a knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. But the point is that outside of the (3) author dividing an original text of Justin into five he also has a pattern of drawing in and incorporating other texts into the newly created five books.

3. intro and extros at the beginning and end of each book. AGAINST HERESIES

Book 2 intro the first book, which immediately precedes this, exposing "knowledge falsely so called,"(1) I showed thee, my very dear friend, that the whole system devised, in many and opposite ways, by those who are of the school of Valentinus, was false and baseless. I also set forth the tenets of their predecessors, proving that they not only differed among themselves, but had long previously swerved from the truth itself. I further explained, with all diligence, the doctrine as well as practice of Marcus the magician, since he, too, belongs to these persons; and I carefully noticed(2) the passages which they garble from the Scriptures, with the view of adapting them to their own fictions. Moreover, I minutely narrated the manner in which, by means of numbers, and by the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly endeavour to establish [what they regard as] truth. I have also related how they think and teach that creation at large was formed after the image of their invisible Pleroma, and what they hold respecting the Demiurge, declaring at the same time the doctrine of Simon Magus of Samaria, their progenitor, and of all those who succeeded him. I mentioned, too, the multitude of those Gnostics who are sprung from him, and noticed(2) the points of difference between them, their several doctrines, and the order of their succession, while I set forth all those heresies which have been originated by them. I showed, moreover, that all these heretics, taking their rise from Simon, have introduced impious and irreligious doctrines into this life; and I explained the nature of their "redemption," and their method of initiating those who are rendered "perfect," along with their invocations and their mysteries. I proved also that there is one God, the Creator, and that He is not the fruit of any defect, nor is there anything either above Him, or after Him.

In the present book, I shall establish those points which fit in with my design, so far as time permits, and overthrow, by means of lengthened treatment under distinct heads, their whole system; for which reason, since it is an exposure and subversion of their opinions, I have so entitled the composition of this work. For it is fitting, by a plain revelation and overthrow of their conjunctions, to put an end to these hidden alliances,(3) and to Bythus himself, and thus to obtain a demonstration that he never existed at any previous time, nor now has any existence.

It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

Apart from this, however, how can those things which belong to creation, various, manifold, and innumerable as they are, be the images of those thirty AEons which are within the Pleroma, whose names, as these men fix them, I have set forth in the book which precedes this? [2.7.3]

That God is the Creator of the world is accepted even by those very persons who in many ways speak against Him, and yet acknowledge Him, styling Him the Creator, and an angel, not to mention that all the Scriptures call out [to the same effect], and the Lord teaches us of this Father(4) who is in heaven, and no other, as I shall show in the sequel of this work. For the present, however, that proof which is derived from those who allege doctrines opposite to ours, is of itself sufficient,--all men, in fact, consenting to this truth [2.9.1]

This God, then, being acknowledged, as I have said, and receiving testimony from all to the fact of His existence, that Father whom they conjure into existence is beyond doubt untenable, and has no witnesses [to his existence]. Simon Magus was the first who said that he himself was God over all, and that the world was formed by his angels. Then those who succeeded him, as I have shown in the first book, by their several opinions, still further depraved [his teaching] through their impious and irreligious doctrines against the Creator. [2.9.2]

For I have shown in the book which immediately precedes this, that, beginning with Bythus, they reckon up the Tricontad to Sophia, whom they describe as the erring AEon; and I have also there set forth the names of their [AEons]; but if He be not reckoned, there are no longer, on their own showing, thirty productions of AEons, but these then become only twenty- nine. [2.12.1]

But again, their Triacontad is overthrown as to excess by the following considerations. They represent Horos (whom they call by a variety of names which I have mentioned in the preceding book) as having been produced by Monogenes just like the other AEons. Some of them maintain that this Horos was produced by Monogenes, while others affirm that he was sent forth by the Propator himself in His own image [2.12.7]

Now, these remarks which have been made concerning the emission of intelligence are in like manner applicable in opposition to those who belong to the school of Basilides, as well as in opposition to the rest of the Gnostics, from whom these also (the Valentinians) have adopted the ideas about emissions, and were refuted in the first book. But I have now plainly shown that the first production of Nous, that is, of the intelligence they speak of, is an untenable and impossible opinion. And let us see how the matter stands with respect to the rest [of the AEons]. [2.13.8]

The passions and error of this Sophia, and how she ran the risk of perishing through her investigation [of the nature] of the Father, as they relate, and what took place outside of the Pleroma, and from what sort of a defect they teach that the Maker of the world was produced, I have set forth in the preceding book, describing in it, with all diligence, the opinions of these heretics respecting Christ, whom they describe as having been produced subsequently to all these, and also regarding Soter, who, [according to them,] derived his being from those AEons who were formed within the Pleroma.(7) But I have of necessity mentioned their names at present, that from these the absurdity of their falsehood may be made manifest, and also the confused nature of the nomenclature they have devised. For they themselves detract from [the dignity of] their AEons by a multitude of names of this sort. [2.14.9]

And all that has been said respecting the Creator (Demiurge) to show that he alone is God and Father of all, and whatever remarks may yet be made in the following books, I apply against the heretics at large. The more moderate and reasonable among them thou wilt convert and convince, so as to lead them no longer to blaspheme their Creator, and Maker, and Sustainer, and Lord, nor to ascribe His origin to defect and ignorance; but the fierce, and terrible, and irrational [among them] thou wilt drive far from thee, that you may no longer have to endure their idle loquaciousness. [2.31.1]

The remainder of those who are falsely termed Gnostics, and who maintain that the prophets uttered their prophecies under the inspiration of different gods, will be easily overthrown by this fact, that all the prophets proclaimed one God and Lord, and that the very Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things which are therein; while they moreover announced the advent of His Son, as I shall demonstrate from the Scriptures themselves, in the books which follow. [2.35.2]

Now, that the preaching of the apostles, the authoritative teaching of the Lord, the announcements of the prophets, the dictated utterances of the apostles,(3) and the ministration of the law--all of which praise one and the same Being, the God and Father of all, and not many diverse beings, nor one deriving his substance from different gods or powers, but [declare] that all things [were formed] by one and the same Father (who nevertheless adapts this works] to the natures and tendencies of the materials dealt with), things visible and invisible, and, in short, all things that have been made [were created] neither by angels, nor by any other power, but by God alone, the Father--are all in harmony with our statements, has, I think, been sufficiently proved, while by these weighty arguments it has been shown that there is but one God, the Maker of all things. But that I may not be thought to avoid that series of proofs which may be derived from the Scriptures of the Lord (since, indeed, these Scriptures do much more evidently and clearly proclaim this very point), I shall, for the benefit of those at least who do not bring a depraved mind to bear upon them, devote a special book to the Scriptures referred to, which shall fairly follow them out [and explain them], and I shall plainly set forth from these divine Scriptures proofs to [satisfy] all the lovers of truth. [2.35.4]

THOU hast indeed enjoined upon me, my very dear friend, that I should bring to light the Valentinian doctrines, concealed, as their votaries imagine; that I should exhibit their diversity, and compose a treatise in refutation of them. therefore have undertaken--showing that they spring from Simon, the father of all heretics--to exhibit both their doctrines and successions, and to set forth arguments against them all. Wherefore, since the conviction of these men and their exposure is in many points but one work, I have sent unto thee [certain] books, of which the first comprises the opinions of all these men, and exhibits their customs, and the character of their behaviour. In the second, again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and, such as they really are, laid bare and open to view. But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood. For the love of God, being rich and ungrudging, confers upon the suppliant more than he can ask from it. Call to mind then, the things which I have stated in the two preceding books, and, taking these in connection with them, thou shalt have from me a very copious refutation of all the heretics; and faithfully and strenuously shalt thou resist them in defence of the only true and life-giving faith, which the Church has received from the apostles and imparted to her sons. [3.Preface]

For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding(2) this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work. [3.10.5]

For if their Pleroma do indeed contain these, this creation, as being such, is not outside, as I have demonstrated in the preceding book;(7) but if they are outside the Pleroma, which indeed appeared impossible, it follows, in that case, that their Pleroma cannot be "all things:" therefore this vast creation is not outside [the Pleroma]. [3.11.1]

Those, moreover, who follow Valentinus, making copious use of that according to John, to illustrate their conjunctions, shall be proved to be totally in error by means of this very Gospel, as I have shown in the first book. [3.11.7]

Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these are alone authentic, which they have themselves thus shortened. In another work,(1) however, I shall, God granting [me strength], refute them out of these which they still retain. But all the rest, inflated with the false name of "knowledge," do certainly recognise the Scriptures; but they pervert the interpretations, as I have shown in the first book. And, indeed, the followers of Marcion do directly blaspheme the Creator, alleging him to be the creator of evils, [but] holding a more tolerable(2) theory as to his origin, [and] maintaining that there are two beings, gods by nature, differing from each other,--the one being good, but the other evil. [3.12.12]

For if it has not been found, the whole human race is still held in a state of perdition. False, therefore, is that, man who first started this idea, or rather, this ignorance and blindness--Tatian.(11) As I have already indicated, this man entangled himself with all the heretics. [3.23.8]

Wherefore it shall not weary us, to endeavour with all our might to stretch out the hand unto them. Over and above what has been already stated, I have deferred to the following book, to adduce the words of the Lord; if, by convincing some among them, through means of the very instruction of Christ, I may succeed in persuading them to abandon such error, and to cease from blaspheming their Creator, who is both God alone, and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. [3.25.7]

By transmitting to thee, my very dear friend, this fourth book of the work which is [entitled] The Detection and Refuation of False Knowledge, I shall, as I have promised, add weight, by means of the words of the Lord, to what I have already advanced; so that thou also, as thou hast requested, mayest obtain from me the means of confuting all the heretics everywhere, and not permit them, beaten back at all points, to launch out further into the deep of error, nor to be drowned in the sea of ignorance; but that thou, turning them into the haven of the truth, mayest cause them to attain their salvation.

2. The man, however, who would undertake their conversion, must possess an accurate knowledge of their systems or schemes of doctrine. For it is impossible for any one to heal the sick, if he has no knowledge of the disease of the patients. This was the reason that my predecessors-- much superior men to myself, too--were unable, notwithstanding, to refute the Valentinians satisfactorily, because they were ignorant of these men's system;(1) which I have with all care delivered to thee in the first book in which I have also shown that their doctrine is a recapitulation of all the heretics. For which reason also, in the second, we have had, as in a mirror, a sight of their entire discomfiture. For they who oppose these men (the Valentinians) by the right method, do [thereby] oppose all who are of an evil mind; and they who overthrow them, do in fact overthrow every kind of heresy.

3. For their system is blasphemous above all [others], since they represent that the Maker and Framer, who is one God, as I have shown, was produced from a defect or apostasy. They utter blasphemy, also, against our Lord, by cutting off and dividing Jesus from Christ, and Christ from the Saviour, and again the Saviour from the Word, and the Word from the Only-begotten. And since they allege that the Creator originated from a defect or apostasy, so have they also taught that Christ and the Holy Spirit were emitted on account of this defect, and that the Saviour was a product of those Aeons who were produced from a defect; so that there is nothing but blasphemy to be found among them. In the preceding book, then, the ideas of the apostles as to all these points have been set forth, [to the effect] that not only did they, "who from the beginning were eye- witnesses and ministers of the word"(2) of truth, hold no such opinions, but that they did also preach to us to shun these doctrines,(3) foreseeing by the Spirit those weak-minded persons who should be led astray. [4.Preface]

For whatsoever all the heretics may have advanced with the utmost solemnity, they come to this at last, that they blaspheme the Creator, and disallow the salvation of God's workmanship, which the flesh truly is; on behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation [of mercy], and have shown that there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. [ibid]

The apostles, too, according to these men's showing, are proved to be transgressors of the commandment, since they confess the Creator as God, and Lord, and Father, as I have shown--if He is not alone God and Father. Jesus, therefore, will be to them the author and teacher of such transgression, inasmuch as He commanded that one Being should be called Father,(4) thus imposing upon them the necessity of confessing the Creator as their Father, as has been pointed out. [4.1.2]

As I have pointed out in the preceding book, the apostle did, in the first place, instruct the Gentiles to depart from the superstition of idols, and to worship one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and the Framer of the whole creation; and that His Son was His Word, by whom He founded all things; and that He, in the last times, was made a man among men; that He reformed the human race, but destroyed and conquered the enemy of man, and gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary. [4.24.1]

Thus, then, I have shown it to be,(3) if any one read the Scriptures. For thus it was that the Lord discoursed with, the disciples after His resurrection from the dead, proving to them from the Scriptures themselves "that Christ must suffer, and enter into His glory, and that remission of sins should be preached in His name throughout all the world."(4) And the disciple will be perfected, and [rendered] like the householder, "who bringeth forth from his treasure things new and old."(5) Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,--those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismaries puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. And the heretics, indeed, who bring strange fire to the altar of God--namely, strange doctrines--shall be burned up by the fire from heaven, as were Nadab and Abiud.(6) But such as rise up in opposition to the truth, and exhort others against the Church of God, [shall] remain among those in hell (apud inferos), being swallowed up by an earthquake, even as those who were with Chore, Dathan, and Abiron.(7) But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did. [4.26.2]

And then shall every word also seem consistent to him,(6) if he for his part diligently read the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostolic doctrine, as I have pointed out. For all the apostles taught that there were indeed two testaments among the two peoples; but that it was one and the same God who appointed both for the advantage of those men (for whose(7) sakes the testaments were given) who were to believe in God, I have proved in the third book from the very teaching of the apostles; and that the first testament was not given without reason, or to no purpose, or in an accidental sort of manner; but that it subdued(8) those to whom it was given to the service of God, for their benefit (for God needs no service from men), and exhibited a type of heavenly things, inasmuch as man was not yet able to see the things of God through means of immediate vision;(9) and foreshadowed the images of those things which [now actually] exist in the Church, in order that our faith might be firmly established;(10) and contained a prophecy of things to come, in order that man might learn that God has foreknowledge of all things. [4.32.1,2]

But who else is superior to, and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? And for this reason He did in these last days(12) exhibit the similitude; [for] the Son of God was made man, assuming the ancient production [of His hands] into His own nature,(13) as I have shown in the immediately preceding book. [4.33.4]

Those, again, who declare that "God comes from the south, and from a mountain thick with foliage,"(18) announced His advent at Bethlehem, as I have pointed out in the preceding book.(19) From that place, also, He who rules, and who feeds the people of His Father, has come. [4.33.11]

As also the Scripture tells us that God said to the serpent, "And I will place enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He(8) shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel."(9) And the Lord summed up in Himself this enmity, when He was made man from a woman, and trod upon his [the serpent's] head, as I have pointed out in the preceding book. [4.40.3]

Inasmuch as the words of the Lord are numerous, while they all proclaim one and the same Father, the Creator of this world, it was incumbent also upon me, for their own sake, to refute by many [arguments] those who are involved in many errors, if by any means, when they are confuted by many [proofs], they may be converted to the truth and saved. But it is necessary to subjoin to this composition, in what follows, also the doctrine of Paul after the words of the Lord, to examine the opinion of this man, and expound the apostle, and to explain whatsoever [passages] have received other interpretations from the heretics, who have altogether misunderstood what Paul has spoken, and to point out the folly of their mad opinions; and to demonstrate from that same Paul, from whose [writings] they press questions upon us, that they are indeed utterers of falsehood, but that the apostle was a preacher of the truth, and that he taught all things agreeable to the preaching of the truth; [to the effect that] it was one God the Father who spake with Abraham, who gave the law, who sent the prophets beforehand, who in the last times sent His Son, and conferred salvation upon His own handiwork--that is, the substance of flesh. Arranging, then, in another book, the rest of the words of the Lord, which He taught concerning the Father not by parables, but by expressions taken in their obvious meaning (sed simpliciter ipsis dictionibus), and the exposition of the Epistles of the blessed apostle, I shall, with God's aid, furnish thee with the complete work of the exposure and refutation of knowledge, falsely so called; thus practising myself and thee in [these] five books for presenting opposition to all heretics. [4.41.4]

IN the four preceding books, my very dear friend, which I put forth to thee, all the heretics have been exposed, and their doctrines brought to light, and these men refuted who have devised irreligious opinions something from the doctrine peculiar to each of these men, which they have left in their writings, as well as by using arguments of a more general nature, and applicable to them all.(1) Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down, from whom the Church, receiving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity (bene), has transmitted them to her sons. Then also--having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables--I shall endeavour, in this the fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord's doctrine and the apostolical epistles: [thus] complying with thy demand, as thou didst request of me (since indeed I have been assigned a place in the ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means in my power to furnish thee with large assistance against the contradictions of the heretics, as also to reclaim the wanderers and convert them to the Church of God, to confirm at the same time the minds of the neophytes, that they may preserve stedfast the faith which they have received, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way perverted by those who endeavour to teach them false doctrines, and lead them away from the truth. It will be incumbent upon thee, however, and all who may happen to read this writing, to peruse with great attention what I have already said, that thou mayest obtain a knowledge of the subjects against which I am contending. For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. [5.Preface]

Vain indeed are those who allege that He appeared in mere seeming. For these things were not done in appearance only, but in actual reality. But if He did appear as a man, when He was not a man, neither could the Holy Spirit have rested upon Him,--an occurrence which did actually take place--as the Spirit is invisible; nor, [in that case], was there any degree of truth in Him, for He was not that which He seemed to be. But I have already remarked that Abraham and the other prophets beheld Him after a prophetical manner, foretelling in vision what should come to pass. If, then, such a being has now appeared in outward semblance different from what he was in reality, there has been a certain prophetical vision made to men; and another advent of His must be looked forward to, in which He shall be such as He has now been seen in a prophetic manner. And I have proved already, that it is the same thing to say that He appeared merely to outward seeming, and [to affirm] that He received nothing from Mary. For He would not have been one truly possessing flesh and blood, by which He redeemed us, unless He had summed up in Himself the ancient formation of Adam. Vain therefore are the disciples of Valentinus who put forth this opinion, in order that they my exclude the flesh from salvation, and cast aside what God has fashioned. [5.1.2]

And that he, the apostle, was the very same person who had been born from the womb, that is, of the ancient substance of flesh, he does himself declare in the Epistle to the Galatians: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles," (10) it was not, as I have already observed, one person who had been born from the womb, and another who preached the Gospel of the Son of God; but that same individual who formerly was ignorant, and used to persecute the Church, when the revelation was made to him from heaven, and the Lord conferred with him, as I have pointed out in the third book,(1) preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, his former ignorance being driven out by his subsequent knowledge: just as the blind men whom the Lord healed did certainly lose their blindness, but received the substance of their eyes perfect, and obtained the power of vision in the very same eyes with which they formerly did not see; the darkness being merely driven away by the power of vision, while the substance of the eyes was retained, in order that, by means of those eyes through which they had not seen, exercising again the visual power, they might give thanks to Him who had restored them again to sight. And thus, also, he whose withered hand was healed, and all who were healed generally, did not change those parts of their bodies which had at their birth come forth from the womb, but simply obtained these anew in a healthy condition. [5.12.5]

The heretics being all unlearned and ignorant of God's arrangements, and not acquainted with that dispensation by which He took upon Him human nature (inscii ejus quoe est secundum hominem dispensationis), inasmuch as they blind themselves with regard to the truth, do in fact speak against their own salvation. Some of them introduce another Father besides the Creator; some, again, say that the world and its substance was made by certain angels; certain others [maintain] that it was widely separated by Horos(7) from him whom they represent as being the Father--that it sprang forth (floruisse) of itself, and from itself was born. Then, again, others [of them assert] that it obtained substance in those things which are contained by the Father, from defect and ignorance; others still, despise the advent of the Lord manifest [to the senses], for they do not admit His incarnation; while others, ignoring the arrangement [that He should be born] of a virgin, main-rain that He was begotten by Joseph. And still further, some affirm that neither their soul nor their body can receive eternal life, but merely the inner man. Moreover, they will have it that this [inner man] is that which is the understanding (sensum) in them, and which they decree as being the only thing to ascend to "the perfect." Others [maintain], as I have said in the first book, that while the soul is saved, their body does not participate in the salvation which comes from God; in which [book] I have also set forward the hypotheses of all these men, and in the second have pointed out their weakness and inconsistency.

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these heretics aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth, and deviate from the right way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same, since all receive one and the same God the Father, and believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and are cognizant of the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution,(1) and expect the same advent of the Lord, and await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and body. And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and stedfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. For to her is entrusted the light of God; and therefore the "wisdom" of God, by means of which she saves all men, "is declared in [its] going forth; it uttereth [its voice] faithfully in the streets, is preached on the tops of the walls, and speaks continually in the gates of the city."(3) For the Church preaches the truth everywhere, and she is the seven-branched candlestick which bears the light of Christ.

2. Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist.(4) Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth.(5) It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, "Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden,"(6) that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord. For these men do profess that they have themselves the knowledge of good and evil; and they set their own impious minds above the God who made them. They therefore form opinions on what is beyond the limits of the understanding. For this cause also the apostle says, "Be not wise beyond what it is fitting to be wise, but be wise prudently,"(7) that we be not east forth by eating of the "knowledge" of these men (that knowledge which knows more than it should do) from the paradise of life. Into this paradise the Lord has introduced those who obey His call, "summing up in Himself all things which are in heaven, and which are on earth;"(8) but the things in heaven are spiritual, while those on earth constitute the dispensation in human nature (secundum hominem est dispositio). These things, therefore, He recapitulated in Himself: by uniting man to the Spirit, and causing the Spirit to dwell in man, He is Himself made the head of the Spirit, and gives the Spirit to be the head of man: for through Him (the Spirit) we see, and hear, and speak.[5.19.2 - 20.2]

Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be."(3) [5.25.2]

In the previous books I have set forth the causes for which God permitted these things to be made, and have pointed out that all such have been created for the benefit of that human nature which is saved, ripening for immortality that which is [possessed] of its own free will and its own power, and preparing and rendering it more adapted for eternal subjection to God. And therefore the creation is suited to [the wants of] man; for man was not made for its sake, but creation for the sake of man. Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons "as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance--in fact, as nothing;"(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be."(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption. [5.29.2]

Now, in the preceding book(11) I have shown that all the disciples of the Lord are Levites and priests, they who used in the temple to profane the Sabbath, but are blameless.(12) Promises of such a nature, therefore, do indicate in the clearest manner the feasting of that creation in the kingdom of the righteous, which God promises that He will Himself serve. [5.34.3]

or since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment (plantationem), that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but "the fashion of the world passeth away;"(14) that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; as I have pointed out in the preceding book,(15) and have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause of the creation of this world of temporal things. [5.36.1]

AGAINST MARCION

Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My first edition, too hurriedly produced, I afterwards withdrew, substituting a fuller treatment. This also, before enough copies had been made, was stolen from me by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly, and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need for correction. The opportunity provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or another he comes across varying forms of it. [1 Preface]

After this, or even before this, since you have said that your god no less has his own creation, his own world and his own heaven, I shall consider that third heaven when, or if, I come to discuss the apostle you claim as your own. [1.15]

One of my books will have reference to Christ and all that he stands for: for the divisions of our subject have to be kept distinct, so as to receive
more complete and orderly treatment. For the time it must suffice to follow up bur present argument so far as to prove, and that in few words, that Christ Jesus is the representative of no other god than the Creator. [1.19]

If all these are in attendance upon hostility, and hostility is making it its care to deliver man, and man's deliverance is an effective working of goodness, such a goodness cannot accomplish this apart from its own endowments, those feelings, I mean, and affections by which it is made to function against the Creator: otherwise it must be ruled out as irrational on this ground too, that it is lacking in those feelings and affections which it ought to possess. I shall discuss these matters more fully in my case for the Creator: for they are counts in their indictment against him. 26. At present it is enough to have shown their god to be thoroughly inconsistent, even in their laudation of goodness as his one and only attribute: for because of this they refuse to impute to him those emotions of mind which they object to in the Creator. [1.25, 26]

So much concerning Marcion's god. Our postulate that deity necessarily implies unity, as well as the limitations of Marcion's god's character, prove him entirely non-existent. The continuation of my treatise as a whole follows closely upon this fact. So then if anyone thinks I have accomplished too little, let him wait for what is kept in reserve until its proper time, as well as for my discussion of those scriptures which Marcion makes uses.[1.29]

The fortunes of this work have been described in the preface to Book I. The opportunity of revision gives me this further advantage, that in the discussion of two gods, in opposition to Marcion, I am now able to assign to each of them a separate book with its distinctive heading: for so does the subject-matter naturally divide. That man from Pontus has seen fit to invent a second god, while denying the first: I however totally deny the
existence of the second, while maintaining that the first is God in fall right. Marcion could only build up his falsehood by first breaking down the truth. He had to pull the other thing down before he could build up as he desired. In such a way do people build who have no tackle of their own. It ought to have been possible to confine my argument to this single theme, that the god brought in to supersede the Creator is no god at all. [2.Preface]

He meets with your approval neither as great nor as small, neither as judge nor as friend. But what if these same characteristics are found to be in your god too? I have already, in the book assigned to him, proved that he is a judge, and as a judge necessarily stern, and as stern also cruel— if cruelty is the proper word. [2.27 i.e. 1.25]

To sum up: I shall by means of these antitheses recognize in Christ my own jealous God. He did in the beginning by his own right, by a hostility which was rational and therefore good, provide beforehand for the maturity and fuller ripeness of the things which were his. His antitheses are in conformity with his own world: for it is composed and regulated by elements contrary to each other, yet in perfect proportion. Therefore, most thoughtless Marcion, you ought rather to have shown that there is one god of light and another of darkness: after that you would have found it easier to persuade us that there is one god of kindness and another of severity. In any case, the antithesis, or opposition, will belong to that God in whose world it is to be found. [2.29]

Continuing with my reconstruction of the work which was lost, and following its original lines, I have now to treat of the Christ, even though, by having completed my proof that divinity necessarily implies unity, I have rendered this superfluous. That the Christ cannot be thought of as belonging to any god except the Creator is involved in the decision already arrived at, that there cannot be any god besides the Creator. This is the Creator whom Christ preached: and the apostles after him proclaimed Christ as belonging to no other god than that God, the Creator, whom Christ had preached: so much so, that no mention was ever made of a second god or a second Christ until Marcion's offence came in. This is quite easily proved by a review of the apostolic churches and those of the heretics—namely, that where we find late appearance, there we must decide that the rule of the faith has been overturned. I have touched upon this already in my first book. But now again this discussion, like bees swarming, breaks off to treat of the Christ separately, and will have the result that in proving that Christ is the Creator's we shut out Marcion's god from this side as well. It is seemly that the truth should make use of all its resources: not that it is in danger of being overwhelmed—in fact it wins its case by the short-cut of prescriptions—but because it is eager to meet at every point an adversary so beside himself that he would rather assume the arrival of a Christ of whom there had been no previous announcement, than of one who has been foretold of all down the ages. [3.Preface]

A certain woman cried out, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked:a and how comes it that his mother and his brethren are reported standing without?b But we shall consider these texts in their proper place.2 Certainly when he himself described himself as the Son of man, this was a claim to have been born. For the moment—so that I may defer all these matters until I come to assess the evidence of the gospel—yet <this must stand> which I have already established, that if he who was seen to be a man had without question to be accepted as having been born, to no purpose has <Marcion> conjectured that belief in nativity can be ruled out by the supposition of imaginary flesh [3.11]

His activity needs to be reviewed by the canon of the scriptures, where, if I mistake not, it is distinguished as a twofold series of acts, of preaching and of power. But I shall arrange my treatment of both topics as follows. Since I have thought it well that Marcion's own gospel should be brought under discussion, I shall defer until then my treatment of various aspects of his teaching and miracles, as for the matter then in hand. Here however in general terms I shall complete the course I have entered upon, explaining meanwhile that Christ is announced by Isaiah as one who preaches: for he says, Who is there among you who feareth God, and will hear the voice of his Son? and as a healer, for he says, He himself hath taken away our weaknesses and borne <our> wearinesses. [3.17]

At least in the manner of his death, I suppose, you try to suggest a difference, alleging that the passion of the cross was never prophesied of the Creator's Christ, with a further argument that it is quite incredible that the Creator should have exposed his Son to that form of death on which he himself had laid a curse. Cursed, it says, is every one that hath hung on a tree.a Now the meaning of this curse I leave for later consideration— though it is in full keeping solely with that preaching of the cross which is our present subject of inquiry—because on other occasions also the proof of facts has preceded the explanation of them. [3.18]

Of Abraham's bosom I shall speak at the proper time. As for the restoration of Judaea, which the Jews, misguided by the names of towns and territories, hope for exactly as described, it would be tedious to explain how the allegorical interpretation of it is spiritually applicable to Christ and the Church and to the possession and enjoyment of it. I have discussed this in another work, which I entitle Of the Hope of the Faithful [3.24]

Every sentence, indeed the whole structure, arising from Marcion's impiety and profanity, I now challenge in terms of that gospel which he has by manipulation made his own. Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. [4.Preface]

Here I shall not discuss whether even this appellation was at all appropriate to one who had no right even to the name of Christ unless he belonged to the Creator. I have fully discussed his titles in another place.5 At present I require to know how the demon knew that he had this name [4.7 i.e. The names, or titles: Emmanuel, III. 12; Christ, III. 15; Jesus, III. 16.]

I have, I think, fulfilled my promise. I have set before you Jesus as the Christ of the prophets in his doctrines, his judgements, his affections, his feelings, his miracles, his sufferings, as also in his resurrection, none other than the Christ of the Creator. And so again, when sending forth his apostles to preach to all the nations,d he fulfilled the psalm by his instruction that their sound must go out into all the world and their words unto the ends of the earth.e I am sorry for you, Marcion: your labour has been in vain. Even in your gospel Christ Jesus is mine. [4.43]

Well it is therefore that Peter and James and John gave Paul their right hands, and made a compact about distribution of office, that Paul should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision: only that they should remember the poor—this too according to the law of that Creator who cherishes the poor and needy, as I have proved in my discussion of your gospel. [5.3 i.e. 4.14]

If however he means the angels of your other god—what has he to fear, when even Marcionites have no hankering after women? I have already several times observed that by the apostle heresies are set down as an evil thing among things evil, and that those persons are to be understood as meeting with approval who flee from heresies as an evil thing. And further, I have already,1 in discussing the gospel, by the sacrament of the Bread and the Cup, given proof of the verity of our Lord's Body and Blood, as opposed to Marcion's phantasm. [5.8 i.e. at 4.40]

Here I find that Christ's body is indicated by the designation 'man', for man consists of body, as I have already several times shown. [5.9]

I have long ago established my contention that the Creator's power is twofold, that he is both judge and kind, that by the letter he kills through the law, and by the Spirit he makes alive through the gospel. Two gods cannot be made out of facts which, though diverse, have already been recited in the evidence supplied by the one God. [5.11]

Take note, examiner, that the matters discussed in the previous part of this treatise I have now proved from the apostle's writings, and have completed such parts as were reserved for the present work. So then you are not to think superfluous the repetition by which I have confirmed my original intention, nor are you to doubt the legitimacy of the delay from which I have at length rescued these subjects. If your examination covers the whole work, you will censure neither superfluity in the present nor lack of conviction in the past. [5.21]

4. both texts existed in Greek and Latin at a very early period. https://books.google.com/books?id=DipLA ... od&f=false

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Sat Apr 27, 2019 5:28 pm

My questions now would be:

1. is there enough detail to say the 'five-foldness' of Against Marcion is related to the 'five-foldness' of Against Heresies.
2. was Tertullian pretending he was Justin or Irenaeus when he made Against Marcion five-fold?
3. if we assume it was Irenaeus that Tertullian was pretending to be in the preface of Book One who was the apostate mentioned in the preface?
4. if it was Justin was Irenaeus the apostate? The answer is probably no because Irenaeus is mentioned as one of Tertullian's favorites in one of the books.

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:28 am

What I notice when looking at Against Marcion Book One in particular is the fact all the references to Marcion coming to Rome under Anicetus coincide with the third revision of the text. Note:

First Reference to Coming under Antoninus:

19. 'Yes, but our god,' the Marcionites rejoin, 'though not revealed from the beginning, or by virtue of any creation, yet has
by his own self been revealed in Christ Jesus.'

One of my books (i.e. Book 3 written by the Latin final editor who made Against Marcion conform to the shape of 'five books') will have reference to Christ and all that he stands for: for the divisions of our subject have to be kept distinct, so as to receive more complete and orderly treatment. For the time it must suffice to follow up bur present argument so far as to prove, and that in few words, that Christ Jesus is the representative of no other god than the Creator. 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ Jesus vouchsafed to glide down from heaven, a salutary spirit.' In what year of the elder Antoninus the pestilential breeze (Aura canicularis, of the pest-laden weather at the rising of the Dog-star,
but with reference also to Sinope, and to Diogenes the Cynic) of Marcion's salvation, whose opinion this was, breathed out from his own Pontus, I have forborne to inquire. But of this I am sure, that he is an Antoninian heretic, impious under Pius. Now from Tiberius to Antoninus there are a matter of a hundred and fifteen and a half years and half a month. This length of time do they posit between Christ and Marcion. Since therefore it was under Antoninus that, as I have proved, Marcion first brought this god on the scene, at once, if you are in your senses, the fact is clear. The dates themselves put it beyond argument that that which first came to light under Antoninus did not come to light under Tiberius: that is, that the god of Antoninus' reign was not the God of the reign of Tiberius, and therefore he who it is admitted was first reported to exist by Marcion, had not been revealed by Christ. To prove next that this is a fact, I shall take up the rest <of my argument> from my opponents themselves.

The separation of Law and Gospel is the primary and principal exploit of Marcion. His disciples cannot deny this, which stands at the head of their document, that document by which they are inducted, into and confirmed in this heresy. For such are Marcion's Antitheses, or Contrary Oppositions, which are designed to show the conflict and disagreement of the Gospel and the Law, so that from the diversity of principles between those two documents they may argue further for a diversity of gods. Therefore, as it is precisely this separation of Law and Gospel which has suggested a god of the Gospel, other than and in opposition to the God of the Law, it is evident that before that separation was made, <that> god was still unknown who has just come into notice in consequence of the argument for separation

: and so he was not revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but was invented by Marcion, who set up the separation in opposition to that peace between Gospel and Law which previously, from the appearance of Christ until the impudence of Marcion, had been kept unimpaired and unshaken by virtue of that <sound> reasoning which refused to contemplate any other god of the Law and the Gospel than that Creator against whom after so long a time, by a man of Pontus, separation has been let loose (adversus quem tanto post tempore separatio a Pontico immissa est).

20. This short and sharp argument calls for justification on our part against the clatter and clamour of the opposite party.

They allege that in separating the Law and the Gospel Marcion did not so much invent a new rule <of faith> as refurbish a rule previously debased. So then Christ, our most patient Lord, has through all these years borne with a perversion of the preaching about himself, until, if you please, Marcion should come to his rescue.

They object that Peter and those others, pillars of the apostleship, were reproved by Paul for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospela—by that Paul, you understand, who, yet inexperienced in grace, and anxious lest he had run or was running in vain, was then for the first time conferring with those who were apostles before him. So then if, as still a neophyte, in his zeal against Judaism he thought something in their conduct called for reproof, their indiscriminate associations in fact, (There is an oversight here. The apostle's complaint against his Galatian
opponents was that they discountenanced indiscriminate associations) though he himself was afterwards to become in practice all things to all men—to the Jews as a Jew, to those under the law as himself under the law—do you allege that that reproof, concerning conduct and nothing more, conduct which its critic was afterwards to approve of, must be supposed to refer to some deviation in their preaching concerning God? On the contrary, in respect of the unity of their preaching, as we have read earlier in this epistle, they had joined their right hands,c and by the very act of having divided their spheres of work had signified their agreement in the fellowship of the gospel: as he says in another place, Whether it were I or they, so we preach. (an argument also made by Irenaeus cf. A.H. III. xiii. i, affirms the agreement of all those who saw the Lord after his resurrection) Also, although he writes of how certain false brethren had crept in unawares, desiring to remove the Galatians to another gospel,e he himself shows clearly that that adulteration of the gospel was not concerned with diversion of the faith towards another god and another Christ, but with adherence to the regulations of the law.

In fact he found them insisting on circumcision, and observing the seasons and days and months and years of those Jewish solemnities which they ought to have known were now revoked in accordance with the reforming ordinance of that Creator who had of old taught of this very thing by his prophets: as for example by Isaiah, The old things are passed away, and behold they are new things which I now make:f and in another place, And I will ordain a covenant, not such as I ordained for your fathers when I had brought them out from the land of Egypt:g so also by Jeremiah, Renew for yourselves a new fallow, and be circumcised for your God, and be circumcised in the foreskins of your heart.h So then, in commending this sort of circumcision and this sort of fallow, the apostle was expressing disapproval of those antiquated solemnities: for that these would sometime cease, God himself who had established them was on record as declaring, through Hosea, And I will turn aside all her mirth, her feast days, and her new moons and sabbaths, and all her solemnities.i So also by Isaiah, Tour new moons and sabbaths, and the great day, I cannot abide: your appointed days and your fasting, and your feast days, my soul hateth.j

Now if even their Creator had long ago rejected all these, and the apostle's pronouncement was that they must now be rejected, evidently the fact that the apostle's judgement is in agreement with the Creator's decrees, proves that no other god was the subject of the apostle's preaching, but only he whose decrees the apostle was anxious should now be acknowledged, while in this behalf he stigmatized as false apostles and false brethren such as should divert the Gospel of the Creator's Christ from the newness which the Creator had foretold, to the oldness which the Creator had rejected.

21. Now if it was as the preacher of a new god that he desired to revoke the law of the old God, why does he give no instructions regarding that new god, but only about the old law? It must have been that while faith in the Creator stood firm, his law, and that alone, had to give way. To this effect that psalm also had already spoken: Let us break their bonds asunder from us, and cast away from us their yoke, ever since, in fact, The heathen raged and the peoples imagined vain things, the kings of the earth stood by and the rulers came together into one, against the Lord and against his Christ.a And indeed if it had been another god that Paul was preaching, there could have been no controversy about keeping the law or not keeping it, for the law would have been of no concern to a new lord, one hostile to the law: the god's very newness and diversity would have excluded not merely the discussion of that old law, which was not his but another's, but even the slightest reference to it. Rather the whole essence of the discussion was that while the same God, the God of the law, was being preached in Christ, his law was under criticism: and consequently, while faith in the Creator and his Christ stood for ever firm, conduct and discipline were in doubt. For there were some who disputed about eating things offered to idols, others about the veiling of women, others about marriage and divorce, and a few even about the hope of the resurrection: about God, not a one.

For if that question also had been in dispute, it too would be in evidence in the apostle's writings, the more so as that on which the other
things depend. But if it was after the apostolic age that the truth suffered adulteration as regards the rule of <faith in> God,1 it follows that in its own time the apostolic tradition suffered no adulteration as regards God's rule of faith, and we shall be called upon to recognize as apostolic no other tradition than that which is today set forth in the apostolic churches. But you will find no church of apostolic origin whose Christianity repudiates the Creator. Or else, if these churches are taken to have been corrupt from the beginning, can any churches be sound? Shall they be those hostile to the Creator? Put in evidence a single one of your churches which is of apostolic origin, and you will have me convinced. Since then it is on all accounts certain that from Christ right down to Marcion no other god than the Creator was included in the statement of this mystery, this gives all necessary protection to my statement of case, by which I prove that the very idea of that heretical god originated with this separation between the gospel and the law; while there is support for my previous postulate that we may not accept as a god one whom a man has constructed out of his own mind—unless of course he is a prophet,2 and then it would not be of his own mind. Whether Marcion can be so called—well, proof of this will be required. There was no call for discussion: the truth, like a wedge, thrusts out every heresy, while Christ is set forth as the representative of no other god than the Creator.

22. But antichrist cannot be utterly overthrown unless we make room for the refutation of the rest of his submissions, by relaxing our argument from prescription.1 Let us then at this point consider, in terms of his Christ, the actual person, or rather the shadow and phantom, of that god,2 and let us make an evaluation of him in terms of that for which he is thought an improvement on the Creator. Now there have to be definite rules for evaluating the goodness of a god: though I shall first need to find and lay hold upon that goodness, for then only can I adjust it to the rules. Now when I take a historical view, ever since the beginning of material existences, ever since the first emergence of those causes along with which it ought to have been in evidence, <this goodness> nowhere appears in continuous action from thence forward, as there was need for it to function. For there was already death, and sin which is the sting of death, and that malice of the Creator against which the goodness of that other god had the duty of coming to the rescue, so as to conform to this primary rule of divine goodness—if it was to prove itself a natural goodness— by at once hastening to help as soon as need arose. For in a god all attributes are of necessity natural and ingenerate,3 or else they will not be eternal as his own estate requires: or they will have to be accounted adventitious and external, and therefore temporal and alien to eternity. So then in a god we shall expect goodness to be perennial and ever-flowing, such as, being stored up in readiness within the treasuries of his natural attributes, should anticipate the causes and circumstances of its own action, and, because of that anticipation, should neither overlook nor neglect them, but take each one in hand as it arose.

In fact my question here again will be, why his goodness has not been in operation from the beginning, just as my question concerning himself was, why from the beginning he has not been revealed. For evidently, if such a one had existed, he could not have escaped being revealed by his goodness. It is not permissible for a god to be incompetent of anything—especially of putting his natural attributes into operation: for if these are under restraint, so as to have no free course, they cannot be natural. Nature can take no vacation from itself. Its existence is contemporaneous with its activity: and so he cannot be supposed, with nature for his excuse, to have been unwilling for a time to exercise his goodness. Nature cannot repudiate itself: its conduct of itself is such that if it refrains from action it ceases to be. Now in Marcion's god goodness did at one time refrain from working. Consequently that was no natural goodness, which was able for a time to be under restraint: for with natural attributes this is impossible. And if it cannot be natural, it cannot of course be supposed eternal, nor coeval with the god, because not eternal: and it is not natural, since in fact it gives no indication of any perpetuity of itself in the past, or promise of it in the future. It has not existed from the beginning, and certainly will not exist until the end: for as at one time it was not, so it can at some time cease to be. As then it is admitted that at the beginning the goodness of that god was under restraint— for not at the beginning did he set man free—and that the restraint was due to his will and not to his incapacity, well then, this determination to place goodness under restraint must be found to be the extremity of malice.

For is there anything so malicious as to refuse to do good when you have the power, to put usefulness on the rack, to allow wrong to continue? Thus the whole indictment they bring against the Creator4 has to be transferred to the account of that one who, by this check on his own goodness, has become a party to the other's savageries. One in whose power it is to prevent a thing happening is held to blame for it when it does happen. Man is condemned to death for picking from one paltry tree, and out of that proceed sins with their penalties, and now people who have not known so much as one single sod of Paradise are all of them perishing: and a better god, if you please, is either unaware of this or puts up with it. If his intention was that out of this he himself might obtain a better repute the worse the Creator was supposed to be, even in this device he has displayed no little malice, in having tolerated the Creator's activities and kept the world in distress because he desired the Creator to be held to blame. What would your opinion be of a physician who by delaying treatment should strengthen the disease, and by deferring remedy should prolong the danger, so that his services might command a larger fee and enhance his own repute ? The same judgement will have to be pronounced upon Marcion's god, for permitting evil, favouring wrong, currying favour, offending against that kindness which he did not immediately exercise when cause arose. Evidently he would have exercised it if kind by nature and not by afterthought, if good by character and not by rule and regulation, if god since eternity and not since Tiberius, or rather—to speak more truly—since Cerdo and Marcion. As things are, your god will have given Tiberius this to his credit, that in his reign divine goodness was first established upon earth.

23. Another rule I bring into action against him, that in a god all <attributes and activities> ought to be no less rational than natural. I demand reason in his goodness, because nothing ought to be accounted good which is not rationally good: far less should goodness itself be found irrational. It will be easier for evil, vouched for by some manner of reason, to be mistaken for good, than for good abandoned by reason to escape condemnation as evil. I submit that the goodness of Marcion's god is not rational, on this account first, that it has brought itself into action for the salvation of man, who belonged to someone else.1 I know they will object that primary and perfect goodness is precisely this, when without any obligation of kinship it is willingly and liberally expended upon strangers;1 just as we are ordered to love even our enemies, in which reckoning strangers are included. When then he did not from the beginning have regard for man, who from the beginning was a stranger, by this delay he established the principle that with the stranger he has no concern. Now the rule about loving the stranger or the enemy comes after that command to love your neighbour as yourself, which, though taken from the Creator's law, you also will have to adopt, since by Christ it has not been overthrown but more firmly established.a To cause you to love your neighbour the more, you are told to love the enemy and the stranger. The exaction of a kindness not due, is an emphasizing of that which is due. Now the kindness which is due comes before that which is not due, as primary, as of more dignity, as prior to its attendant and companion, that which is not due.

Therefore, since the primary rationality of goodness is for it to be put in evidence in respect of its own possessions, as a matter of justice, while its secondary <rationality> is in respect of the possessions of others, as of the overflowing of such a righteousness as exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, how can that secondary rationality be credited to a goodness which lacks the primary, having no man of its own, and on this account again is even defective? And being defective through having no man of its own, how can it have overflowed into a man not its own? Put in evidence that primary rationality, and then you may lay claim to the secondary. No object, outside its due order, can be claimed as rational: far less can rationality itself in any person be deprived of its due order. Even suppose there could be a rationality of goodness, which began at the second degree, that in respect of the stranger, not even this second degree could be firmly based upon rationality: there is another means of casting it down. Not even secondary goodness, towards the stranger, can be considered rational unless it functions without injustice to him to whom the property belongs. Any goodness whatsoever is in first instance made rational by its justice. Even as in the primary degree the goodness, if it is just, will be rational when it is exercised in respect of its own belongings, so also towards the stranger it will be seen to be rational if it is not unjust. Otherwise, what sort of goodness is this, which comes to exist by means of an injustice, and even that on behalf of a stranger?

Perhaps on behalf of one of the household an unjust goodness may be conceived of as to some extent rational: but on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even honest goodness was lawfully due, by what reasoning can goodness so unjust be defended as rational? For what is more unjust, more iniquitous, more dishonest, than to confer such benefits on another man's slave that he is stolen from his master, is claimed as belonging to another, is bribed to act against his master's life and honour, and, to make matters worse, all this while still under his master's roof, still living on his provisions, still in fear of his chastisement? Even in the secular sphere there would be dis- approval of that sort of pretendant, of a kidnapper still more. No better is Marcion's god, breaking his way into a world not his own, stealing man from God, son from father, foster-son from nursing-father, servant from master, so as to make him undutiful to God, disrespectful to his Father, ungrateful to his foster- Father, worthless to his Master. I ask you: if rational goodness has this effect on him, what effect would irrational goodness have? I should reckon no man more presumptuous than the one who in one God's water is baptized for another god, who towards one God's sky spreads out his hands to a different god, bows down upon one God's soil to a god whose soil it is not, over one God's bread celebrates thanksgivings to another, of one God's possessions does for another god's credit works which claim the name of almsgiving and charily. Who is this god, so good that by him a man is made bad, so kindly disposed to that man that he causes another God, the man's own Master, to be incensed against him?

24. As a god is both eternal and rational, no less, I suppose, is he perfect in all things: for, Ye shall be perfect, as is your Father who is in heaven.a Produce the evidence of <your god's> goodness being perfect. Although it is surely enough imperfect, as it is seen to be neither natural nor rational, I shall next expose it by a different approach. It is now not even imperfect, but altogether less than that, defective and impoverished, less than the total of the calls upon it, seeing it is not in evidence among all. For not all men are being saved, fewer indeed than all the Creator's Jews and Christians. So that as the majority are perishing, how can you maintain the perfection of a goodness which is for the greater part inactive, to a few men some small thing, to the majority nothing at all, surrendering to perdition, part cause of destruction? (Irenaeus, A.H. iv. li. I, asks Marcion why the goodness of his good god falls short of saving all men.) But if the majority are not to be saved, malice and not goodness will be the more perfect: for as it is the effectual working of goodness which brings about salvation, so it is the working of malice which omits to save. As then for the most part it omits to save, since it saves only a few, it will be more perfect in neglecting to help than in helping. You cannot retort to the Creator's discredit any deficiency in goodness towards all: for since you hold him to be a judge, you prove, if anything, that he must be understood as a dispenser of goodness, not a lavish expender of it. The latter you claim for your god. By such goodness alone you make him superior to the Creator: and as he claims this as his only attribute, and claims it in its totality, it was his duty not to be in default in respect of any man. But I have no further mind to argue that Marcion's god is imperfect in goodness on the ground that the greater number are perishing.

It is enough that those whom he does save are seen to have their salvation incomplete, and that this proves his goodness is incomplete: for they are saved as far as the soul, <and no more,> having perished in the flesh, since according to him the flesh does not rise again.2 Whence this halving of salvation, if not from defect of goodness? What could have been the function of perfect goodness, if not to bring back to salvation the whole man, wholly condemned by the Creator, wholly elected for himself by the god supremely good? As far as I know, among his adherents the flesh is baptized, the flesh is debarred from matrimony, the flesh suffers torture at the confession of the Name.3 Also even if the flesh has sins accounted to it, the soul's guilt precedes, and the initiative in blame ought for preference to be imputed to the soul to which the flesh ministers in the capacity of a servant.4 In fact, when flesh is deprived of soul it ceases to sin. So that even in this is goodness unjust, in this also imperfect, that it surrenders to destruction the more innocent constituent, that which does wrong from obedience and not from choice. Now although, in the view of your heresy, Christ did not clothe himself with the verity of flesh, yet he did vouchsafe to take upon him the appearance of it. The very fact that he made a false pretence of it has given it some claim upon him. Yet what else is man if not flesh? It was corporeal matter, not animate matter, which first obtained from its Author the name of 'man'. And God made into a man, it says, mud from the earth not 'soul', for soul came by breathing. And the man was made into a living soul. Which man? Evidently he who was <made out of> mud. And God placed the man in paradise—that which he had formed, not that which he had breathed—one who at this point is flesh, not one who is soul. And as that is so, with what effrontery shall you assert <for your god> the perfect claim to goodness, when this is defective as excluding from deliverance not merely a great part of mankind, but also an element in the constitution of every individual?

If that is plenary grace and fullness of mercy which is salutary to the soul alone, this present life has more to give us, for we enjoy it in our wholeness and completeness: whereas to rise again only in part will be to be penalized, not set free. Also it was to be expected of perfect goodness that the man, when set at liberty into the faith of the god supremely good, should at once be removed from the household and domination of the God who is cruel. Yet the Marcionite still gets malaria, and the aches and pains of his flesh still bring forth for him those other thorns and briers: he is exposed not only to the Creator's lightnings, with his wars and pestilences and other chastisements, but even to his scorpions. In what respect do you suppose yourself set free from his kingdom, when his flies still tread upon you? If your release was for the future, why not also for the present, so that it might be perfect? Quite different is our relationship with our Author, our Judge, the offended Ruler of our race. You make profession of a god who is good and nothing more: yet you cannot prove the perfect goodness of one who does not perfectly set you free.

25. As concerns this question of his goodness, on this front we have reached the conclusion that goodness <of this kind> is by no means adequate for a god, as it is neither ingenerate nor rational nor perfect, but is even dishonest and unjust, and unworthy even of the name of goodness: because, in fact, in so far as <goodness> is an attribute of deity it is not seemly that one should be a god, whose claims rest on that sort of goodness, and not merely that sort, but no other besides. So our next subject of discussion rightly is whether a god is to be accounted such by virtue of goodness alone, to the exclusion of those other adjuncts, those feelings and affections, which the Marcionites deny to their god and attach to the Creator, but which we recognize in the Creator as no dishonour to God. For this reason again we shall deny the godhead of one in whom are not found all those <attributes and functions> which are worthy of a god. Since he has presumed to dignify by the name of Christ some god out of the school of Epicurus, (1 The Marcionite god, of an Epicurean type, if consistent with himself does not and cannot care. Irenaeus, A.H. III. xxxviii.) to the end that 'that which is blessed and incorruptible should give no trouble either to itself or to anything else'—for by brooding over this sentence Marcion has abstracted from him all functions involving severity or criticism—he ought either to have conceived of a god totally immobile and insensitive—and what could that one have had in common with Christ, who was a trouble to the Jews by his doctrine, and to himself by his passion?—or else he ought to have admitted his possession of the other emotions— and what could such a one have in common with Epicurus, with whom neither he nor Christians have any affinity?

For here is one who has in the past been at rest, and has not in the meantime given notice of himself by any work he has done. And does not the fact that he has after so long a time felt <affection> with a view to man's salvation—evidently by an act of will—prove that he became at that point subject to the impulse of a new act of will, and is thus shown to be exposed to the other passions and affections besides? For every act of will is at the instigation of desire: no man can wish for something without desiring it. Also the will is accompanied by interestedness: for no man can will and desire anything without being interested in it. Consequently, when he began to will and to desire with a view to man's salvation, he
at once caused concern to himself and to others, though Epicurus disapproves, while Marcion recommends. For he brought into opposition to himself that, whatever it was, either sin or death, against which his will, his desire, his interest, came into action—- and in particular their Judge and Lord, the Creator of man. But no activity which is not unopposed can avoid meeting with hostility. In fact by his will and desire and interest in delivering man he at once sets himself in hostility both to him from whom he obtains deliverance—for in opposition to hurt he is going to deliver the man to himself—and to those <conditions> from which he delivers him—for he is going to deliver him over to others. And further, in its opposition to things to which it is hostile, hostility cannot help being accompanied by its subordinates, which are anger, discord, hatred, contempt, indignation, dis- pleasure, disapproval, offence. If all these are in attendance upon hostility, and hostility is making it its care to deliver man, and man's deliverance is an effective working of goodness, such a goodness cannot accomplish this apart from its own endowments, those feelings, I mean, and affections by which it is made to function against the Creator: otherwise it must be ruled out as irrational on this ground too, that it is lacking in those feelings and affections which it ought to possess. I shall discuss these matters more fully in my case for the Creator: for they are counts in their indictment against him.

26. At present it is enough to have shown their god to be thoroughly inconsistent, even in their laudation of goodness as his one and only attribute: for because of this they refuse to impute to him those emotions of mind which they object to in the Creator. For if he displays neither hostility nor wrath, if he neither condemns nor distrains, if, that is, he never makes himself a judge, I cannot see how his moral law, that more extensive moral law, can have stability. To what purpose does he lay down commands if he will not require performance, or prohibit transgressions if he is not to exact penalties, if he is incapable of judgement, a stranger to all emotions of severity and reproof? Why does he forbid the commission of an act he does not penalize when committed? It would have been much more honest of him not to forbid an act he was not going to penalize, than to refrain from penalizing what he had forbidden. In fact he ought openly to have allowed it: for if he was not going to penalize it he had no reason to forbid it. In real life an act forbidden without sanctions is tacitly permitted: and in any case one only forbids the commission of acts one dislikes to see being done. So this <god> is exceptionally dull-witted if he is not offended by the doing of that which he dislikes to see being done: for offence is attendant upon wishes set at naught. Or else, if he does take offence, he ought to be displeased, and if displeased he ought to punish. For punishment is the outcome of displeasure, as displeasure is the due reward of offence, and offence, as I have said, is attendant upon wishes set at naught. But as he does not punish, it is plain that he is not offended: and as he is not offended it is plain that his wishes suffer no hurt when that is done which he has desired should not be done: and in that case the wrongdoing takes place in accordance with his will, seeing that anything which does no injury to his will is in no opposition to his will.

Or if you say it is characteristic of divine virtue, or goodness if you like, to wish a thing not to be done and forbid it to be done, and yet not be concerned when it is done, I answer that the one who wished it not to be was already in a state of concern, and that there is no sense in his not being concerned at a thing done, when by wishing it not to be done he has already been concerned that it should not be done. For by not wishing it he forbade it. And has he not also become a judge, by wishing it not to be, and therefore forbidding it? For that it must not be done was a judgement, and that it must be forbidden was a sentence. So then he too is now a judge. If it is unseemly for a god to judge, or if it is seemly for a god to judge to the extent that he is merely unwilling, merely forbids, yet does not penalize the act when done— and yet there is nothing so unseemly for a god as to abstain from prosecuting an act he has disapproved of, an act he has forbidden: first, because to every one of his decisions and laws he owes a sanction, to establish its authority and the necessity of obedience: and secondly, because that must needs be offensive to him which he has wished should not be done, and by so wishing has forbidden: while for a god to be merciful to evil is more unseemly than for him to punish it, especially if he is a god supremely good: for he can only be completely good if he is the enemy of the bad, so as to put his love of the good into action by hatred of the bad, and discharge his wardship of the good by the overthrowing of the bad.

27. But evidently he does judge evil by refusing consent, and condemns it by forbidding it: yet he forgives it by not avenging, and excuses it by not punishing. There you have as a god a defaulter against the truth, one who annuls his own decision. He is afraid to condemn what he does condemn, afraid to hate what he does not love, allows when done that which he does not allow to be done, and would rather point out what he disapproves of
than give proof of it. Here you will find the ghost of goodness, discipline itself a phantasm, casual precepts, offences free from fear. Listen, you sinners, and any of you not yet so, that you may be able to become so: a better god has been discovered, one who is neither offended nor angry nor inflicts punishment, who has no fire warming up in hell, and no outer darkness wherein there is shuddering and gnashing of teeth: he is merely kind. Of course he forbids you to sin—but only in writing. It lies with you whether you consent to accord him obedience, so as to appear to have given honour to your god: for he will not accept your fear. And in fact the Marcionites make it their boast that they do not at all fear their god: for, they say, a bad god needs to be feared, but a good one loved. Fool: you call him lord, but deny he is to be feared, though this is a term suggesting authority, and with it fear. Yet how shall you love, unless you fear not to love? Evidently he is not even your father, to whom would be due
both love for affection's sake, and fear for the sake of authority: nor is he your lawful lord, for you to love for human kindness' sake and fear for the sake of discipline. This is the way kidnappers are loved without being feared. The only domination which can be an object of fear is the lawful and regular one: though even an illicit one can be an object of affection, since it rests not upon respect but upon affectation, on seduction and not on force: and what greater seduction is there than to abstain from punishing wrongdoing?

So then, you who decline to fear your god because he is good, what keeps you from bubbling over into all manner of vice—the superlative enjoyment of life, I suppose, for all who do not fear God? Why absent yourself from those popular pleasures, the excitement of the race-course, the savagery of the wild beast show, the lechery of the stage? Why also during persecution do you not at once offer your incense, and so gain your life by
denial? Oh no, you answer, far from it. In that case you are already in fear—of doing wrong: and by your fear you have admitted your fear of him who forbids the wrong. It is another matter if, in imitation of your god's perversity, you pay respect to him whom you do not fear, as he in turn forbids what he does not punish. With much greater inconsequence, to the question, What will happen on that day to every sinner? they answer that he will be cast away, as it were out of sight. Is not this an act of judgement? He is judged worthy to be cast away—evidently by a judgement of condemnation: unless perhaps the sinner is cast away into salvation, so that this too may stand to the credit of a god supremely good. And yet what can being cast away amount to, if not the loss of that which he was on the way to obtain if he were not cast away—salvation, no less? So then he will be cast away to the damage of his salvation: and a sentence like this can only be passed by one offended and indignant, a punisher of wrongdoing—in short, a judge.

28. And what will be the end of him when cast out? He will be overtaken, they answer, by the Creator's fire. Has then your god no element in readiness even for this purpose, to which without cruelty he may consign sinners against himself, and so avoid handing them over to the Creator? What is the Creator to do next? He will, I suppose, make ready for them, as blasphemers against himself, a hell more fully stocked with brimstone—unless perhaps, being a jealous God, he shows favour to deserters from his opponent. Look at this god in every sense perverse, in every direction irrational, in all respects ineffective—and so non-existent. Neither his character nor his condition nor his nature nor any activity of his do I find consistent—not even the sacrament of his faith.1 For to what purpose, in his sight, is even baptism required? If there is remission of sins, how shall one be supposed to remit sins who is supposed not to retain them? He could only retain them by judging them. If there is loosing of the bonds of death, how could one let them loose from death who had never kept them in bondage to death? He could only have had them in bondage by having condemned them from the beginning. If there is man's second birth, how can one give a second birth who has never given a first birth? The repetition of an act is outside the competence of one who has done no act to begin with. If there is receiving of the Holy Ghost, how can one grant the Spirit who has not first supplied a soul? For soul is in some sort that on which Spirit constructs its abode.

Thus he sets his seal upon a man who has never to his mind been unsealed: he washes a man never to his mind defiled: and into this whole sacrament of salvation he plunges flesh which has no part or lot in salvation. Not even a rustic will go and water land which is to return no fruit—unless he is as stupid as Marcion's god. And again, why does he impose upon the flesh, so utterly weak and unworthy, the great burden, or if you like the glory, of chastity? Or what shall I say of the folly of a moral requirement by which he sanctifies an object already holy - If it is weak, why lay a burden on it? or if unworthy, why embellish it? Whether he burdens it or embellishes it, why not grant it the recompense of salvation? Why does he defraud the flesh of payment for its services by withholding the wages of salvation? And why does he permit the glory of chastity to die in and with the flesh? [29.] - among that god's adherents no flesh is baptized except it be virgin or widowed or unmarried, or has purchased baptism by divorce: as though even eunuch's flesh was born of anything but marital intercourse.1

Of course this regulation can justify itself if matrimony stands condemned. We have to inquire whether it is justly condemned: not that we intend to demolish the blessedness of chastity, as do certain Nicolaitans,2 advocates of vice and wantonness; but as those who, without condemning marital intercourse, recognize and seek after chastity, giving it preference, not as a good thing over a bad one, but as a better thing over a good one. For we do not repudiate marital intercourse, but give it lower rank: nor do we demand chastity, but advise it, retaining both the good thing and the better, to be followed according to each man's powers. But we vigorously defend matrimony when, under the charge of indecency, it suffers hostile attack to the discredit of the Creator: for he, in consideration of the honour of that estate, blessed matrimony for the increase of mankind, even as he blessed the whole of creation for wholesome and advantageous uses. So then food need not be condemned because when too curiously sought after it conduces to gluttony: neither is clothing to be called to account simply because, when bought at too high a price, it becomes proud and pretentious. So neither need marriage and its obligations be held in contempt just because, when unrestrained and uninhibited, it blazes out into wantonness.

There is a wide difference between purpose and misuse, between moderation and excess. And so here, it is not God's ordinance which calls for disapproval, but man's deviation from it. For so the rule was laid down by him who established the ordinance, who said not only, Increase and multiply,a but also, Thou shall not commit adultery, and, Thou shah not desire thy neighbour's wife,b while he punishes with death both sacrilegious incest and the portentous madness of lust against male persons and cattle.c And if now there is a limitation imposed upon intercourse—a limitation which, on the authority of the Paraclete, is justified among us by that spiritual reckoning which permits only one marriage while in the faith3—the setting of a limit will be within the competence of the same God who had of old time dispensed with limits. The same will gather who has scattered abroad, the same will cut down the undergrowth who has planted it, the same will reap the harvest who has sown it: the same can say, It remaineth that those also who have wives should be as though they had not,d who formerly said, Increase and multiply:a his the end, whose also was the beginning. Yet the undergrowth is not cleared because of any complaint against it, nor is the harvest reaped for condemnation, but because it serves its time.

So also the obligations of matrimony submit to the axe and sickle of chastity, not because they are evil but because they are ripe for fulfilment: they had been kept in reserve expressly for chastity, so as to provide it with a harvest by being cut down. Consequently I shall now affirm that when Marcion's god expresses disapproval of marriage, as an evil thing and as a traffic in unchastity, he acts against that very chastity which he thinks he favours. He obliterates the material it works on, because if there is to be no marital inter- course there is no chastity. Commendation given to abstinence is of no account when prohibition is imposed, since there are some things which obtain approval by contrast. Just as strength is made perfect in weakness, so does abstinence from intercourse become remarkable while intercourse is allowed. Can anyone indeed be called abstinent when deprived of that which he is to abstain from? Is there any temperance in eating and drinking during famine? Or any putting away of ambition in poverty? Or any bridling of passion in castration? Moreover, I wonder if this suppression of the whole increase of the human race is in keeping with the character of a god supremely good. How can he desire the salvation of the man whom he forbids to be born, as he does by abolishing the act from which birth arises? How can he have one on whom to set the seal of his goodness, when he does not suffer such to exist? How can he show affection to one of whose origin he does not approve? Possibly he is afraid of excess of population, afraid of the labour of liberating too many, afraid of making large numbers of heretics, of having too prolific Marcionites begotten of Marcionites.

Less barbarous than this was Pharaoh's hardness, which slew them as they were born. Pharaoh takes away their souls, but this one does not give them souls: Pharaoh removes them out of life, but this one does not admit them into life. In the matter of homicide there is no difference between the two: under both of them a man is slain, under the one after he is born, under the other when he ought to be born. You would have pleased us better, heretical god,4 if you really had acted counter to that Creator's ordinance by which he joined together male and female: for in fact even your Marcion was born of marital intercourse. So much concerning Marcion's god. Our postulate that deity necessarily implies unity, as well as the limitations of Marcion' god's character, prove him entirely non-existent. The continuation of my treatise as a whole follows closely upon this fact. So then if anyone thinks I have accomplished too little, let him wait for what is kept in reserve until its proper time, as well as for my discussion of those scriptures which Marcion makes uses.

Book 2 - The fortunes of this work have been described in the preface to Book I. The opportunity of revision gives me this further advantage, that in the discussion of two gods, in opposition to Marcion, I am now able to assign to each of them a separate book with its distinctive heading: for so does the subject-matter naturally divide. That man from Pontus has seen fit to invent a second god, while denying the first: I however totally deny the existence of the second, while maintaining that the first is God in fall right. Marcion could only build up his falsehood by first breaking down the truth. He had to pull the other thing down before he could build up as he desired. In such a way do people build who have no tackle of their own. It ought to have been possible to confine my argument to this single theme, that the god brought in to supersede the Creator is no god at all. In that case, when the false god had been overthrown by those clear definitions which require deity to be both singular and complete, no further discussion of the true God would have been called for. As his existence would have been proved by the disproval of the other, so it would have been right that, whatever sort of God he was, he should be accepted without argument, to be worshipped and not judged, to be obeyed rather than discussed, and even feared for his severity. For what could be more to a man's interest than regard for the true God, under whose control he had come, so to speak, because no other god was there?

2. But now God the Almighty, the Lord and Maker of all things, is made subject to criticism, chiefly, I think, because he has been known of since the beginning, has never kept himself hidden, has always been a shining light, even before Romulus, and long before Tiberius: except that only to those heretics who subject him to criticism he has not been known, for these think they must assume the existence of a second god because the God whose existence is unquestioned they find it easier to reprove than to deny—for they form their estimate of God according to the choice of their own mind—as if a blind man, or one whose eyes are dim, should decide to assume the existence of a second sun, of a milder or more health-giving sort, because he fails to see the one he does see. There is but one sun, my friend, the one which warms this world. Even when you think otherwise, it is supremely good and useful: and when you find it too fierce or injurious, or even too squalid or unhealthy, it still serves the law of its being. If you are not competent to perceive that law, neither could you tolerate the beams of a second sun if there were a second, especially if it were larger. As you are purblind towards the God (you suppose) inferior, how do you stand towards the god more sublime? Why not rather have consideration for your own weakness, why not spare yourself dangerous exertion, when you have a God well attested and undeniable, and by that very fact as visible as he has need to be? For your first view of the matter must have been this, that he is one whom you do not know except to the extent to which he has himself consented to be known. And yet, as though you knew God, you admit his existence: as though you did not know him, you make him a subject of discussion: and what is more, you lay complaint against him as though you did know him, though if you really knew him you would neither complain nor even discuss. You grant him the name, while denying the reality behind the name, the reality of that greatness which is described as 'God': and you fail to appreciate that this greatness is such that if a man had been able to know it in all its fullness it would not have been greatness.

Anticipating the apostle, and having foresight of heretical hearts, Isaiah asks, Who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his counsellor? Or of whom did he take counsel, or who hath shewn him the way of understanding and knowledge?a And the apostle was to agree with him: O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God, how unsearchable his judgements— evidently God is a judge—and unsearchable his waysb—evidently those ways of understanding and knowledge which no one has shown to him, except perhaps these critics of divinity, who say, 'God ought not to have done that', or 'He ought to have done this instead'—as though anyone knew what things there are in God except the Spirit of God.c But these, because they have the spirit of the world, and by the wisdom of God through wisdom know not God,d think themselves better advised than God: because just as the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, so also the wisdom of God is foolishness with the world. We however know that the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God stronger than men." Consequently God is then most supremely great when man thinks him small, is then most supremely good when man thinks him not good, is then most especially one when man thinks there are two gods or more.

But if since the beginning the natural man,1 not receiving the things of the Spirit, has accounted the law of God foolishness f—and this because he has neglected to keep it—, and therefore, because he had not faith, even that which he seemed to have has been taken from him5—I mean the grace of paradise, and that familiar converse with God by which if he had obeyed he would have known all the things of God—what wonder is it that, turned again into that which he was made of, and sent down to slave-labour in tilling of the ground, he should by this work, bent downwards and turned towards the ground, have taken up from the ground the spirit of the world, and passed it on to all his offspring, who likewise became natural and heretical, because they received not the things that are God's? For can anyone hesitate to describe as heresy, or choosing, that transgression of Adam which he committed by choosing his own judgement in preference to God's? Even so, Adam never said to his Maker, 'Thou hast not moulded
me skilfully.' He admitted the beguilement, and did not conceal her who had done the beguiling. A very inexperienced heretic was he. He was disobedient: yet he did not blaspheme his Creator, nor accuse his Maker: for since his own first beginning he had found him kind, and supremely good; and if he was a judge, it was Adam who had made him so.

3. As then we take in hand to weigh the evidence respecting the God we know, since the question arises under what circumstances he has become known, we shall need to begin with those works of his which were there before man was. In this way his goodness will be discovered immediately, as he himself is, and being from thenceforth established as a leading principle, will convey to us some sense by which to understand how well the subsequent ordering of events has been carried out. Marcion's disciples can now take cognizance of our God's goodness, while acknowledging also that it is such a goodness as is worthy of God, under those same headings by which we have proved goodness to be unworthy in the case of their god. And this now in particular, which is the raw material of man's knowledge of him, he did not discover in another's possession, but made it for himself, of his own. So then, the Creator's primary goodness is that by which it was God's will not to be eternally in hiding, that is, that there had to be something to which as God he might become known. For what good is so great as the knowledge and enjoyment of God? For although it was not yet apparent that this is good—because there did not yet exist that to which it could be apparent—yet God had foreknowledge of the good that was to become apparent, and therefore put it in trust with that supreme goodness of his, that administrator of the good that was to appear: so that this is of no sudden growth, of no adventitious goodness or requisitioned activation, as though it originated at the point at which it began to function.

For if it set up its own beginning only as it began to function, itself had no beginning when it made the beginning. But when the beginning had been made, from that goodness also the reckoning of times was born:

for it was for the distinguishing and recording of times that the constellations and celestial luminaries were ordained: They shall be, God said, for times and months and years.a Therefore until time began, that goodness which created time existed without time, even as before the beginning the goodness which established the beginning existed without beginning. Exempt then both from order of beginning and from measure of time, (God's goodness) must be accounted of age unmeasurable and without end. Nor can it be reckoned makeshift or adventitious or occasional, since it has no point from which it can be reckoned, no time of any sort: but it must be taken to be eternal, ingenerate in God, and everlasting, and on that account worthy of God. From the first then it puts to shame the goodness of Marcion's god, which is subsequent not only to the Creator's beginnings and times, but even to his malice—if indeed it is possible that malice has ever been a function of goodness.

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:54 am

What I am attempting to show is that Against Marcion was not originally in 5 books. There was a continuous discussion originally dealing with the question of whether the gospel distinguished between law and gospel and a god assigned to each. To this end the third revision of the text by the Latin editor (i.e. Tertullian) quite clearly divided the five books into the following arrangement:

Book One: refuting Marcion's other god
Book Two: Defending the Creator against Marcion
Book Three: defending Christ against Marcion's understanding (by strangely copying out a book originally written against the Jewish misunderstanding of Christ originally written by Justin
Book Four: the Gospel originally written by Justin
Book Five: the Apostle not originally written by Justin

Secret Alias · Post by **Secret Alias** » Thu May 02, 2019 5:55 am

If this was the division that the third author - let's call him Tertullian admits he created as a way of restoring what he calls 'his original work' after it fell into the hands of an 'apostate' - we have already outlined what the 'proto-work' must have looked like. Because the proto-work was almost certainly written by Justin and Justin didn't know the writings of Paul, the fifth book is likely to have been wholly developed by the third author. We also know that Book Three is largely made from Against the Jews by the third editor so we are left with sorting out a natural order from Books 2 and 4. This is what we will call the 'proto work' of Against Marcion.

The point is that we have in a sense become hypnotized by the notion that versions 1 through 3 must have had absolute continuity with one another. I am not so sure especially given that at least there is a clear sense that one of the authors argues for a two fold division of the godhead not along a 'good vs evil' continuum but clearly the Philonic 'good/mercy vs justice' parameters. What is interesting about this is that one can see a criticism of the Roman government in this original understanding - namely that laws are what make a society work. If someone is saying that mercy is greater or better than justice, one COULD BE SEEN AS saying that the government - the body which tends to social order through the law - is inferior to clemency, mercy.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus

Re: Signs that Against Marcion was Written During the Reign of Commodus