A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.25-27.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
25. [1] Quis dominus caeli invocabitur qui non prius factor ostenditur? Gratias enim, inquit, ago, et confiteor, domine caeli, quod ea quae erant abscondita sapientibus et prudentibus, revelaveris parvulis. Quae ista? et cuius? et a quo abscondita? et a quo revelata? Si a deo Marcionis abscondita et revelata, qui omnino nihil praemiserat in quo aliquid absconditum esse potuisset, non prophetias, non parabolas, non visiones, non ulla rerum aut verborum aut nominum argumenta per allegorias et figuras vel aenigmatum nebulas obumbrata, [2] sed ipsam magnitudinem sui absconderat, quam cum maxime per Christum revelabat, satis inique. Quid enim deliquerant sapientes et prudentes, ut absconderetur illis deus, ad quem cognoscendum non suffecerat sapientia atque prudentia illoruxn? Nulla via data ab ipso per aliquam operum praedicationem, vel vestigia per quae sapientes atque prudentes deducerentur. Quamquam et si in aliquo deliquissent erga deum ignotum, pone nunc notum, non tamen zeloten eum experiri debuissent, qui dissimilis creatoris inducitur. [3] Igitur si nec materias praemiserat in quibus aliquid occultasset, nec reos habuerat a quibus occultasset, nec debuerat occultasse etiam si habuisset, iam nec revelator ipse erit, qui absconditor non fuit, ita nec dominus caeli nec pater Christi; sed ille in quem competunt omnia. Nam et abscondit praemisso obscuritatis propheticae instrumento, cuius intellectum fides mereretur (Nisi enim credideritis, non intellegetis) et reos habuit sapientes atque prudentes ex ipsis operibus tot ac tantis intellegibilem deum non requirentes vel perperam in illum philosophantes et ingenia haereticis subministrantes, et novissime zelotes est. [4] Denique olim hoc per Esaiam contionabatur quod Christus gratulatur: Perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium celabo. Sicut et alibi tam abscondisse quam revelaturum esse significat: Et dabo illis thesauros absconditos, invisibiles aperiam illis. Et rursus: Quis alius disiciet signa ventriloquorum et divinationes ex corde, avertens in posteriora sapientes et cogitationes eorum infatuans? [5] Si autem et Christum suum illuminatorem nationum designavit: Posui te in lucem nationum, quas interpretamur in nomine parvulorum, sensu scilicet retro parvas et imprudentia infantes, iam vero et humilitate fidei pusillas, facilius utique credemus eundem etiam parvulis revelasse per Christum qui et retro absconderit et per Christum revelationem repromiserit. [6] Aut si deus Marcionis ea quae a creatore abscondita retro fuerant patefecit, ergo iam creatori negotium gessit, res eius edisserens. Sed in destructionem, inquis, uti traduceret eas. Ergo illis traduxisse debuerat quibus creator abscondidit, sapientibus et prudentibus. Si enim benignitate faciebat, illis erat agnitio praestanda quibus fuerat negata, non parvulis quibus nihil creator inviderat. [7] Et tamen usque adhuc, puto, probamus exstructionem potius legis et prophetarum inveniri in Christo quam destructionem. Omnia sibi tradita dicit a patre. Credas, si creatoris est Christus, cuius omnia: quia non minori se tradidit omnia filio creator quae per eum condidit, per sermonem suum scilicet. Ceterum si e0perxo&menoj ille, quae sunt omnia quae illi a patre sunt tradita? Quae sunt creatoris? [8] Ergo bona sunt quae pater filio tradidit, et bonus iam creator cuius omnia bona sunt, et ille iam non bonus qui in aliena bona invasit, ut filio traderet. Docens alieno abstinere, certe mendicissimus qui nec filium unde ditaret habuit nisi de alieno. Aut si nihil de creatoris traditum est ei a patre, ecquomodo hominem creatoris sibi vindicat? Aut si solus homo ei traditus est, omnia homo non est. Scriptura autem omnium edicit traditionem filio factam. [9] Sed et si omnia ad hominum genera, id est ad omnes nationes, interpretaberis, et has filio tradidisse creatoris est: Dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae. Aut si habet et ipse aliqua sua quae omnia filio traderet pariter cum homine creatoris, ostende unum aliquod ex omnibus in fidem, in exemplum, ne tam merito non credam eius esse omnia cuius nihil video, quam merito credam etiam quae non video eius esse cuius sunt universa quae video. [10] Sed, Nemo scit qui sit pater, nisi filius, et qui sit filius, nisi pater, et cuicunque filius revelaverit. Atque ita Christus ignotum deum praedicavit. Hinc enim et alii haeretici fulciuntur, opponentes creatorem omnibus notum, et Israeli secundum familiaritatem et nationibus secundum naturam. Et quomodo ipse testatur nec Israeli cognitum se? Israel autem me non cognovit, et populus me non intellexit; nec nationibus? [11] Ecce enim nec de nationibus, inquit, nemo. Propter quod et illas stillicidium situlae deputavit, et Sionem tanquam speculam in vinea dereliquit. Vide ergo an confirmatio sit propheticae vocis exprobrantis ignorantiam in deum humanam, quae fuerit ad filium usque. Nam et ideo subtexuit ab eo cognosci patrem cui filius revelaverit, quoniam ipse erat qui positus a patre illuminatio nationum annuntiabatur, utique de deo illuminandarum, etiam Israelis, utique per agnitionem dei pleniorem. [12] Ita non proficient argumenta in fidem dei alterius quae creatori competere possunt, quia quae non competunt creatori, haec poterunt in fidem proficere dei alterius. Si et sequentia inspicias, Beati oculi qui vident quae videtis: dico enim vobis, quia prophetae non viderunt quae vos videtis, de superiori sensu descendunt, adeo neminem ut decuit deum cognovisse, quando nec prophetae vidissent quae sub Christo videbantur. [13] Nam si non meus esset Christus, nec prophetarum hoc in loco mentionem collocasset. Quid enim mirum si non viderant res dei ignoti et tanto post aevo revelati? Quae autem fuisset felicitas eorum qui tunc videbant quae alii merito vidisse non poterant, si non erant consecuti repraesentationem eorum quae nunquam praedicarant, nisi quoniam qui poterant vidisse aeque dei sui res, quas etiam praedicaverant, non tamen viderant? Haec autem felicitas erit aliorum qui videbant quae alii tantum praedicaverant. [14] Denique ostendemus, et iam ostendimus, ea visa in Christo quae fuerant praedicata, abscondita tamen et ab ipsis prophetis, ut absconderentur et a sapientibus et a prudentibus saeculi. In evangelio veritatis legis doctor dominum aggressus, Quid faciens, inquit, vitam aeternam consequar? In haeretico vita solummodo posita est, sine aeternae mentione, ut doctor de ea vita videatur consuluisse quae in lege promittitur a creatore longaeva, et dominus ideo illi secundum legem responsum dedisse, Diliges dominum deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et totis viribus tuis, quoniam de lege vitae sciscitabatur. [15] Sed sciebat utique legis doctor quo pacto vitam legalem consequi posset, ut non de ea interrogasset cuius regulas etiam docebat. Sed quia et mortui iam suscitabantur a Christo, exsuscitatus ad spem aeternae vitae per exempla recidivae, ne plus aliquid observationis exigeret sublimior spes, idcirco consuluit de aeternae vitae consecutione. Itaque dominus, ut nec ipse alius, nec aliud novum inferens praeceptum quam quod principaliter ad omnem salutem et utramque vitam facit, ipsum caput ei legis opponit, omnifariam diligendi dominum deum suum. [16] Denique si de vita longaeva et ille consuluit et Christus respondit, quae sit penes creatorem, non de aeterna quae sit penes Marcionis deum, quomodo consequitur aeternam? Non utique eodem modo quo et longaevam. Pro differentia enim mercedum operarum quoque credenda distantia est. Ergo non ex dilectione dei tui consequetur vitam aeternam Marcionites, sicut longaevam dilector creatoris. [17] Sed quale est ut non magis diligendus sit qui aeternam pollicetur, si diligendus est qui longaevam repromittit? Ergo eiusdem erit utraque vita, cum eadem est utrique vitae captanda disciplina. Quod creator docet, id et Christo opus est diligi ut praestet, interveniente et hic illa praescriptione qua facilius apud eum debeant credi maiora apud quem minora praecedunt quam apud eum cui nullam de maioribus fidem aliqua minora praeparaverunt. [18] Viderit nunc si aeternam nostri addiderunt. Hoc mihi satis est, quod Christus ille aeternae, non longae, vitae invitator de longaeva consultus quam destruebat, non ad aeternam potius exhortatus est hominem quam inferebat. Quid, oro te, fecisset Christus creatoris si qui creatori diligendo aedificaverat hominem non erat creatoris? Credo, negasset diligendum creatorem.	25. [1] Who shall be invoked as the Lord of heaven, that does not first show Himself to have been the maker thereof? For He says, "I thank thee, (O Father, )and own Thee, Lord of heaven, because those things which had been hidden from the wise and prudent, Thou has revealed unto babes." What things are these? And whose? And by whom hidden? And by whom revealed? If it was by Marcion's god that they were hidden and revealed, it was an extremely iniquitous proceeding; for nothing at all had he ever produced in which anything could have been hidden----no prophecies, no parables, no visions, no evidences of things, or words, or names, obscured by allegories and figures, or cloudy enigmas, [2] but he had concealed the greatness even of himself, which he was with all his might revealing by his Christ. Now in what respect had the wise and prudent done wrong, that God should be hidden from them, when their wisdom and prudence had been insufficient to come to the knowledge of Him? No way had been provided by himself, by any declaration of his works, or any vestiges whereby they might become wise and prudent. However, if they had even failed in any duty towards a god whom they knew not, suppose him now at last to be known still they ought not to have found a jealous god in him who is introduced as unlike the Creator. [3] Therefore, since he had neither provided any materials in which he could have hidden anything, nor had any offenders from whom he could have hidden himself: since, again, even if he had had any, he ought not to have hidden himself from them, he will not now be himself the revealer, who was not previously the concealer; so neither will any be the Lord of heaven nor the Father of Christ but He in whom all these attributes consistently meet. For He conceals by His preparatory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the understanding of which is open to faith (for "if ye will not believe, ye shall not understand" ); and He had offenders in those wise and prudent ones who would not seek after God, although He was to be discovered in His so many and mighty works, or who rashly philosophized about Him, and thereby furnished to heretics their arts; and lastly, He is a jealous God. [4] Accordingly, that which Christ thanks God for doing, He long ago announced by Isaiah: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent will I hide." So in another passage He intimates both that He has concealed, and that He will also reveal: "I will give unto them treasures that have been hidden, and secret ones will I discover to them." And again: "Who else shall scatter the tokens of ventriloquists, and the devices of those who divine out of their own heart; turning wise men backward, and making their counsels foolish? " [5] Now, if He has designated His Christ as an enlightener of the Gentiles, saying, "I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles; " and if we understand these to be meant in the word babes ----as having been once dwarfs in knowledge and infants in prudence, and even now also babes in their lowliness of faith----we shall of course more easily understand how He who had once hidden "these things," and promised a revelation of them through Christ, was the same God as He who had now revealed them unto babes. [6] Else, if it was Marcion's god who revealed the things which had been formerly hidden by the Creator, it follows that he did the Creator's work by setting forth His deeds. But he did it, say you, for His destruction, that he might refute them. Therefore he ought to have refuted them to those from whom the Creator had hidden them, even the wise and prudent. For if he had a kind intention in what he did, the gift of knowledge was due to those from whom the Creator had detained it, instead of the babes, to whom the Creator had grudged no gift. [7] But after all, it is, I presume, the edification rather than the demolition of the law and the prophets which we have thus far found effected in Christ. "All things," He says, "are delivered unto me of my Father." You may believe Him, if He is the Christ of the Creator to whom all things belong; because the Creator has not delivered to a Son who is less than Himself all things, which He created by Him, that is to say, by His Word. If, on the contrary, he is the notorious stranger, what are the" all things" which have been delivered to him by the Father? Are they the Creator's? [8] Then the things which the Father delivered to the Son are good. and the Creator is therefore good, since all His "things" are good; whereas he is no longer good who has invaded another's good (domains) to deliver it to his son, thus teaching robbery of another's goods. Surely he must be a most mendacious being, who had no other means of enriching his son than by helping himself to another's property! Or else, if nothing of the Creator's has been delivered to him by the Father, by what right does he claim for himself (authority over) man? Or again, if man has been delivered to him, and man alone, then man is not "all things." But Scripture clearly says that a transfer of all things has been made to the Son. [9] If, however, you should interpret this "all" of the whole human race, that is, all nations, then the delivery of even these to the Son is within the purpose of the Creator: "I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession." If, indeed, he has some things of his own, the whole of which he might give to his son, along with the man of the Creator, then show some one thing of them all, as a sample, that I may believe; lest I should have as much reason not to believe that all things belong to him, of whom I see nothing, as I have ground for believing that even the things which I see not are His, to whom belongs the universe, which I see. [10] But "no man knoweth who the Father is, but the Son; and who the Son is, but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him." And so it was an unknown god that Christ preached! And other heretics, too, prop themselves up by this passage; alleging in opposition to it that the Creator was known to all, both to lsrael by familiar intercourse, and to the Gentiles by nature. Well, how is it He Himself testifies that He was not known to lsrael? "But Israel doth not know me, and my people doth not consider me; " nor to the Gentiles: [11] "For, behold," says He, "of the nations I have no man." Therefore He reckoned them "as the drop of a bucket," while "Sion He left as a look-out in a vineyard." See, then, whether there be not here a confirmation of the prophet's word, when he rebukes that ignorance of man toward God which continued to the days of the Son of man. For it was on this account that he inserted the clause that the Father is known by him to whom the Son has revealed Him, because it was even He who was announced as set by the Father to be a light to the Gentiles, who of course required to be enlightened concerning God, as well as to Israel, even by imparting to it a fuller knowledge of God. [12] Arguments, therefore, will be of no use for belief in the rival god which may be suitable for the Creator, because it is only such as are unfit for the Creator which will be able to advance belief in His rival. If you look also into the next words, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see, for I tell you that prophets have not seen the things which ye see," you will find that they follow from the sense above, that no man indeed had come to the knowledge of God as he ought to have done, since even the prophets had not seen the things which were being seen under Christ. [13] Now if He had not been my Christ, He would not have made any mention of the prophets in this passage. For what was there to wonder at, if they had not seen the things of a god who had been unknown to them, and was only revealed a long time after them? What blessedness, however, could theirs have been, who were then seeing what others were naturally unable to see, since it was of things which they had never predicted that they had not obtained the sight; if it were not because they might justly have seen the things pertaining to their God, which they had even predicted, but which they at the same time had not seen? This, however, will be the blessedness of others, even of such as were seeing the things which others had only foretold. [14] We shall by and by show, nay, we have already shown, that in Christ those things were seen which had been foretold, but yet had been hidden from the very prophets who foretold them, in order that they might be hidden also from the wise and the prudent. In the true Gospel, a certain doctor of the law comes to the Lord and asks, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life? "In the heretical gospel life only is mentioned, without the attribute eternal; so that the lawyer seems to have consulted Christ simply about the life which the Creator in the law promises to prolong, and the Lord to have therefore answered him according to the law, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength," since the question was concerning the conditions of mere life. [15] But the lawyer of course knew very well in what way the life which the law meant was to be obtained, so that his question could have had no relation to the life whose rules he was himself in the habit of teaching. But seeing that even the dead were now raised by Christ, and being himself excited to the hope of an eternal life by these examples of a restored one, he would lose no more time in merely looking on (at the wonderful things which had made him) so high in hope. He therefore consulted him about the attainment of eternal life. Accordingly, the Lord, being Himself the same, and introducing no new precept other than that which relates above all others to (man's) entire salvation, even including the present and the future life, places before him the very essence of the law----that he should in every possible way love the Lord his God. [16] If, indeed, it were only about a lengthened life, such as is at the Creator's disposal, that he inquired and Christ answered, and not about the eternal life, which is at the disposal of Marcion's god, how is he to obtain the eternal one? Surely not in the same manner as the prolonged life. For in proportion to the difference of the reward must be supposed to be also the diversity of the services. Therefore your disciple, Marcion, will not obtain his eternal life in consequence of loving your God, in the same way as the man who loves the Creator will secure the lengthened life. [17] But how happens it that, if He is to be loved who promises the prolonged I life, He is not much more to be loved who offers the eternal life? Therefore both one and the other life will be at the disposal of one and the same Lord; because one and the same discipline is to be followed for one and the other life. What the Creator teaches to be loved, that must He necessarily maintain also by Christ, for that rule holds good here, which prescribes that greater things ought to be believed of Him who has first lesser proofs to show, than of him for whom no preceding smaller presumptions have secured a claim to be believed in things of higher import. [18] It matters not then, whether the word eternal has been interpolated by us. It is enough for me, that the Christ who invited men to the eternal----not the lengthened----life, when consulted about the temporal life which he was destroying, did not choose to exhort the man rather to that eternal life which he was introducing. Pray, what would the Creator's Christ have done, if He who had made man for loving the Creator did not belong to the Creator? I suppose He would have said that the Creator was not to be loved!
26. [1] Cum in quodam loco orasset ad patrem illum superiorem, satis impudentibus et temerariis oculis suspiciens ad caelum creatoris, a quo tam aspero et saevo et grandine et fulmine potuisset elidi, sicut et Hierusalem suffigi ab eo potuit, aggressus eum ex discipulis quidam, Domine, inquit, doce nos orare, sicut et Ioannes discipulos suos docuit, scilicet quia alium deum aliter existimaret orandum. Hoc qui praesumpserit, prius est probet alium deum editum a Christo. [2] Nemo enim ante voluisset orare nosse quam didicisset quem oraret. Igitur si didicerat, proba. Si nusquam usque adhuc probas, scito illum in creatorem formam orationis postulasse, in quem etiam discipuli Ioannis orabant. Sed quia et Ioannes novum aliquem ordinem orationis induxerat, ideo hoc et a Christo discipulus eius expostulandum non immerito praesumpserat, ut et illi de proprio magistri sui instituto non alium, sed aliter, deum orarent. [3] Proinde nec Christus ante orationis notitiam discipulo contulisset quam dei ipsius. Ita et ipse in eum docuit orationem quem discipulus usque adhuc noverat. Denique sensus orationis quem deum sapiant recognosce. Cui dicam, Pater? ei qui me omnino non fecit, a quo originem non traho, an ei qui me faciundo et instruendo generavit? [4] A quo spiritum sanctum postulem? a quo nec mundialis spiritus praestatur, an a quo fiunt etiam angeli spiritus, cuius et in primordio spiritus super aquas ferebatur? Eius regnum optabo venire quem nunquam regem gloriae audivi, an in cuius manu etiam corda sunt regum? Quis dabit mihi panem cotidianum? qui nec milium mihi condit, an qui etiam de caelo panem angelorum cotidianum populo suo praestitit? Quis mihi delicta dimittet? qui ea non iudicando non retinet, an qui, si non dimiserit, retinebit ut iudicet? [5] Quis non sinet nos deduci in temptationem? quem poterit temptator non timere, an qui a primordio temptatorem angelum praedamnavit? Hoc ordine qui alii deo supplicat et non creatori, non orat illum sed infamat. Proinde a quo petam ut accipiam? apud quem quaeram ut inveniam? ad quem pulsabo ut aperiatur mihi? quis habet petenti dare, nisi cuius omnia, cuius sum etiam ipse qui peto? Quid autem perdidi apud deum illum, ut apud eum quaeram et inveniam? [6] Si sapientiam atque prudentiam, has creator abscondit: apud eum ergo quaeram. Si salutem et vitam, et has apud creatorem. Nihil alibi quaeretur ut inveniatur quam ubi latuit ut appareat. Sic nec aliorsum pulsabo quam unde sum fugatus. Denique si accipere et invenire et admitti laboris et instantiae fructus est illi qui petiit et quaesivit et pulsavit, intellege haec a creatore mandari et repromitti. [7] Ille enim deus optimus ultro veniens ad praestandum non suo homini, nullum illi laborem nec instantiam indixisset: iam enim non optimus, si non ultro daret non petenti, et invenire praestaret non quaerenti, et aperiret non pulsanti. Creator autem potuit indicere ista per Christum, ut, quia delinquendo homo offenderat deum suum, laboraret, et instantia petendi acciperet, et quaerendi inveniret, et pulsandi introiret. [8] Sic et praemissa similitudo nocturnum panis petitorem amicum facit non alienum, et ad amicum pulsantem, non ad ignotum. Amicus autem, etiam si offendit, magis creatoris est homo quam dei Marcionis. Itaque ad eum pulsat ad quem ius illi erat, cuius ianuam norat, quem habere panes sciebat, cubantem iam cum infantibus quos nasci voluerat. Etiam quod sero pulsatur, creatoris est tempvis. Illius et serum cuius saeculum et saeculi occasus. Ad deum autem novum nemo sero pulsasset, tantum quod lucescentem. Creator est qui et ianuam olim nationibus clauserit, quae olim pulsabatur a Iudaeis; [9] is et exsurgit et dat, etsi iam non quasi amico, non tamen quasi extraneo homini, sed quasi molesto, inquit. Molestum autem tam cito deus recens neminem pati potuit. Agnosce igitur et patrem quem etiam appellas creatorcm. Ipse est qui scit quid filii postulent. Nam et panem petentibus de caelo dedit manna, et carnem desiderantibus emisit ortygometram; non serpentem pro pisce, nec scorpium pro ovo. Illius autem erit non dare malum pro bono cuius utrumque sit. Ceterum deus Marcionis non habens scorpium non poterat id se dicere non daturum quod non habebat, sed ille qui habens et scorpium non dat. [10] Itaque et spiritum sanctum is dabit apud quem est et non sanctus. Cum surdum daemonium expulisset (ut et in ista specie curationis Esaiae occurrisset), in Beelzebub dictus eicere daemonia, Si ego, inquit, in Beelzebub eicio daemonia, filii vestri in quo eiciunt? hac voce quid magis portendit quam in eo eicere se in quo et filii eorum? In virtute scilicet creatoris. Nam si putas sic accipiendum: [11] Si ego in Beelzebub filii vestri in quo, quasi illos suggillaret in Beelzebub eicientes, resistet tibi prior sensus, non posse satanam dividi adversus semetipsum. Adeo nec illi in Beelzebub eiciebant, sed, ut diximus, in virtute creatoris, quam ut intellegi faceret, subiungit: Quodsi ego in digito dei expello daemonia, ergone appropinquavit in vos regnum dei? Apud Pharaonem enim venefici illi adhibiti adversus Moysen virtutem creatoris digitum dei appellaverunt. Digitus dei est hoc quod significaret etiam modicum, validissimum tamen. Hoc et Christus ostendens, commemorator, non obliterator, vetustatum scilicet suarum, virtutem dei digitum dei dixit, non alterius intellegendum quam eius apud quem hoc erat appellata. Ergo et regnum ipsius appropinquaverat cuius et virtus digitus vocabatur. [12] Merito igitur applicuit ad parabolam fortis illius armati, quem validior alius oppressit, principem daemoniorum, quem Beelzebub et satanam supra dixerat, significans digito dei oppressum, non creatorem ab alio deo subactum. Ceterum quomodo adhuc staret regnum eius in suis terminis et legibus et officiis quem, licet integro mundo, vel sic potuisset videri superasse validior ille deus Marcionis, si non secundum legem eius etiam Marcionitae morerentur, in terram defluendo, saepe et a scorpio docti non esse superatum creatorem? [13] Exclamat mulier de turba beatum uterum qui illum portasset, et ubera quae illum educassent. Et dominus, Immo beati qui sermonem dei audiunt et faciunt: quia et retro sic reiecerat matrem aut fratres, dum auditores et obsecutores dei praefert. Nam nec hic mater assistebat illi. Adeo nec retro negaverat natum. Cum id rursus audit, rursus proinde felicitatem ab utero et uberibus matris suae transtulit in discipulos, a qua non transtulisset si eam non haberet.	26. [1] When in a certain place he had been praying to that Father above, looking up with insolent and audacious eyes to the heaven of the Creator, by whom in His rough and cruel nature he might have been crushed with hail and lightning----just as it was by Him contrived that he was (afterwards) attached to a cross at Jerusalem----one of his disciples came to him and said, "Master, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." This he said, forsooth, because he thought that different prayers were required for different gods! Now, he who had advanced such a conjecture as this should first show that another god had been proclaimed by Christ. [2] For nobody would have wanted to know how to pray, before he had learned whom he was to pray to. If, however, he had already learned this, prove it. If you find nowhere any proof, let me tell you that it was to the Creator that he asked for instruction in prayer, to whom John's disciples also used to pray. But, inasmuch as John had introduced some new order of prayer, this disciple had not improperly presumed to think that he ought also to ask of Christ whether they too must not (according to some special rule of their Master) pray, not indeed to another god, but in another manner. [3] Christ accordingly would not have taught His disciple prayer before He had given him the knowledge of God Himself. Therefore what He actually taught was prayer to Him whom the disciple had already known. In short, you may discover in the import of the prayer what God is addressed therein. To whom can I say, "Father? " To him who had nothing to do with making me, from whom I do not derive my origin? Or to Him, who, by making and fashioning me, became my parent? [4] Of whom can I ask for His Holy Spirit? Of him who gives not even the mundane spirit; or of Him "who maketh His angels spirits," and whose Spirit it was which in the beginning hovered upon the waters. Whose kingdom shall I wish to come----his, of whom I never heard as the king of glory; or His, in whose hand are even the hearts of kings? Who shall give me my daily bread? Shall it be he who produces for me not a grain of millet-seed; or He who even from heaven gave to His people day by day the bread of angels? Who shall forgive me my trespasses? He who, by refusing to judge them, does not retain them; or He who, unless He forgives them, will retain them, even to His judgment? [5] Who shall suffer us not to be led into temptation? He before whom the tempter will never be able to tremble; or He who from the beginning has beforehand condemned the angel tempter? If any one, with such a form, invokes another god and not the Creator, he does not pray; he only blasphemes. In like manner, from whom must I ask that I may receive? Of whom seek, that I may find? To whom knock, that it may be opened to me? Who has to give to him that asks, but He to whom all things belong, and whose am I also that am the asker? What, however, have I lost before that other god, that I should seek of him and find it. [6] If it be wisdom and prudence, it is the Creator who has hidden them. Shall I resort to him, then, in quest of them? If it be health and life, they are at the disposal of the Creator. Nor must anything be sought and found anywhere else than there, where it is kept in secret that it may come to light. So, again, at no other door will I knock than at that out of which my privilege has reached me. In fine, if to receive, and to find, and to be admitted, is the fruit of labour and earnestness to him who has asked, and sought, and knocked, understand that these duties have been enjoined, and results promised, by the Creator. [7] As for that most excellent god of yours, coming as he professes gratuitously to help man, who was not his (creature), he could not have imposed upon him any labour, or (endowed him with) any earnestness. For he would by this time cease to be the most excellent god, were he not spontaneously to give to every one who does not ask, and permit every one who seeks not to find, and open to every one who does not knock. The Creator, on the contrary, was able to proclaim these duties and rewards by Christ, in order that man, who by sinning had offended his God, might toil on (in his probation), and by his perseverance in asking might receive, and in seeking might find, and in knocking might enter. [8] Accordingly, the preceding similitude represents the man who went at night and begged for the loaves, in the light of a friend and not a stranger, and makes him knock at a friend's house and not at a stranger's. But even if he has offended, man is more of a friend with the Creator than with the god of Marcion. At His door, therefore, does he knock to whom he had the right of access; whose gate he had found; whom he knew to possess bread; in bed now with His children, whom He had willed to be born. Even though the knocking is late in the day, it is yet the Creator's time. To Him belongs the latest hour who owns an entire age and the end thereof. As for the new god, however, no one could have knocked at his door late, for he has hardly yet seen the light of morning. It is the Creator, who once shut the door to the Gentiles, which was then knocked at by the Jews, [9] that both rises and gives, if not now to man as a friend, yet not as a stranger, but, as He says, "because of his importunity." Importunate, however, the recent god could not have permitted any one to be in the short time (since his appearance). Him, therefore, whom you call the Creator recognise also as "Father." It is even He who knows what His children require. For when they asked for bread, He gave them manna from heaven; and when they wanted flesh, He sent them abundance of quails----not a serpent for a fish, nor for an egg a scorpion. It will, however, appertain to Him not to give evil instead of good, who has both one and the other in His power. Marcion's god, on the contrary, not having a scorpion, was unable to refuse to give what he did not possess; only He (could do so), who, having a scorpion, yet gives it not. [10] In like manner, it is He who will give the Holy Spirit, at whose command is also the unholy spirit. When He cast out the "demon which was dumb" (and by a cure of this sort verified Isaiah), and having been charged with casting out demons by Beelzebub, He said, "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? " By such a question what does He otherwise mean, than that He ejects the spirits by the same power by which their sons also did----that is, by the power of the Creator? For if you suppose the meaning to be, [11] "If I by Beelzebub, etc., by whom your sons?"----as if He would reproach them with having the power of Beelzebub,----you are met at once by the preceding sentence, that "Satan cannot be divided against himself." So that it was not by Beelzebub that even they were casting out demons, but (as we have said) by the power of the Creator; and that He might make this understood, He adds: "But if I with the finger of God cast out demons, is not the kingdom of God come near unto you? " For the magicians who stood before Pharaoh and resisted Moses called the power of the Creator"the finger of God." It was the finger of God, because it was a sign that even a thing of weakness was yet abundant in strength. This Christ also showed, when, recalling to notice (and not obliterating) those ancient wonders which were really His own, He said that the power of God must be understood to be the finger of none other God than Him, under whom it had received this appellation. His kingdom, therefore, was come near to them, whose power was called His "finger." [12] Well, therefore, did He connect with the parable of "the strong man armed," whom "a stronger man still overcame," the prince of the demons, whom He had already called Beelzebub and Satan; signifying that it was he who was overcome by the finger of God, and not that the Creator had been subdued by another god. Besides, how could His kingdom be still standing, with its boundaries, and laws, and functions, whom, even if the whole world were left entire to Him, Marcion's god could possibly seem to have overcome as "the stronger than He," if it were not in consequence of His law that even Marcionites were constantly dying, by returning in their dissolution to the ground, and were so often admonished by even a scorpion, that the Creator had by no means been overcome? [13] "A (certain) mother of the company exclaims, `Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked; 'but the Lord said, `Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.'" Now He had in precisely similar terms rejected His mother or His brethren, whilst preferring those who heard and obeyed God. His mother, however, was not here present with Him. On that former occasion, therefore, He had not denied that He was her son by birth. On hearing this (salutation) the second time, He the second time transferred, as He had done before, the "blessedness" to His disciples from the womb and the paps of His mother, from whom, however, unless He had in her (a real mother) He could not have transferred it.
27. [1] Alibi malo purgare quae reprehendunt Marcionitae in creatore. Hic enim sufficit si ea in Christo reperiuntur. Ecce inaequalis et ipse, inconstans, levis, aliud docens aliud faciens, iubet omni petenti dare, et ipse signum petentibus non dat. Tanto aevo lucem suam ab hominibus abscondit, et negat lucernam abstrudendam, sed confirmat super candelabrum proponendam, ut omnibus luceat. Vetat remaledicere, multo magis utique maledicere, et Vae ingerit pharisaeis et doctoribus legis. Quis est tam similis dei mei Christus nisi ipsius? [2] Saepe iam fiximus nullo modo potuisse illum destructorem legis denotari si alium deum promulgasset. Ideo et tunc pharisaeus, qui illum vocarat ad prandium, retractabat penes se cur non prius tinctus esset quam recubuisset, secundum legem, qui deum legis circumferret. Iesus autem etiam interpretatus est ei legem, dicens illos calicis et catini exteriora emundare, interiora autem ipsorum plena esse rapina et iniquitate, ut significaret vasculorum munditias hominum esse intellegendas apud deum; quia et pharisaeus de homine, non de calice illoto, apud se tractaverat. Ideo exteriora, inquit, calicis lavatis, id est carnem, interiora autem vestra non emundatis, id est animam; adiciens, Nonne qui exteriora fecit, id est carnem, et interiora fecit, id est animam? [3] quo dicto aperte demonstravit ad eundem deum pertinere munditias hominis exterioris et interioris cuius uterque sit, praeponentis misericordiam non modo lavacro hominis, sed etiam sacrificio. Subiungit enim, Date quae habetis eleemosynam, et omnia munda erunt vobis. Quodsi et alius potest deus misericordiam mandasse, non tamen ante quam cognitus. Porro et hic apparet illos non de deo increpitos, sed de eius disciplina a quo illis et figurate vasculorum munditiae et manifeste misericordiarum opera imperabantur. [4] Sic et holuscula decimantes, vocationem autem et dilectionem dei praetereuntes obiurgat. Cuius dei vocationem et dilectionem, nisi cuius et rutam et mentam ex forma legis de decimis offerebant? Totum enim exprobrationis hoc erat quod modica curabant, ei utique cui maiora non exhibebant, dicenti, Diliges dominum deum tuum, ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex totis viribus tuis, qui te vocavit ex Aegypto. Ceterum nec tempus admisisset ut Christus tam praecoquam, immo tam acerbam adhuc dilectionem expostularet novo et recenti deo, ne dixerim nondum palam facto. [5] Primatum quoque captantes locorum et honorem salutationum cum incusat, sectam creatoris administrat, eiusmodi principes Sodomorum archontas appellantis, prohibentis etiam confidere in praepositos, immo et in totum miserrimum hominem pronuntiantis qui spem habet in homine. Quodsi propterea quis affectat principatum, ut de officiis aliorum glorietur, qui officia vetuit eiusmodi sperandi et confidendi in hominem, idem et affectatores principatuum increpuit. [6] Invehitur et in doctores ipsos legis, quod onerarent alios importabilibus oneribus, quae ipsi ne digito quidem aggredi auderent, non legis onera suggillans quasi detestator eius. Quomodo enim detestator, qui cum maxime potiora legis praetereuntes incusabat, eleemosynam et vocationem et dilectionem dei, ne haec quidem gravia, nedum decimas rutarum et munditias catinorum? Ceterum excusandos potius censuisset si importabilia portare non possent. Sed quae onera taxat? [7] quae ipsi de suo exaggerabant, docentes praecepta doctrinas hominum, commodorum suorum causa iungentes domum ad domum, ut quae proximi sunt auferrent, clamantes populum, amantes munera, sectantes retributionem, diripientes iudicata pauperam, uti esset illis vidua in rapinam et pupillus in praedam. De quibus idem Esaias: Vae qui valent in Hierusalem; et rursus: Qui vos postulant, dominantur vestri. Qui magis quam legis doctores? Hi si et Christo displicebant, ut sui displicebant. Alienae enim legis doctores non omnino pulsasset. [8] Cur autem Vae audiunt etiam quod aedificarent prophetis monimenta interemptis a patribus eorum, laude potius digni, qui ex isto opere pietatis testabantur se non consentire factis patrum, si non erat zelotes, qualem arguunt Marcionitae, delicta patrum de filiis exigentem usque in quartam nativitatem? [9] Quam vero clavem habebant legis doctores nisi interpretationem legis? ad cuius intellectum neque psi adibant, non credentes scilicet (Nisi enim credideritis, non intellegetis), neque alios admittebant, utique docentes praecepta potius et doctrinas hominum. Qui ergo nec ipsos introeuntes nec aliis aditum praestantes increpabat, obtrectator habendus est legis an fautor? Si obtrectator, placere debebant et praeclusores legis; si fautor, iam non et aemulus legis. [10] Sed haec omnia ad infuscandum creatorem ingerebat, ut saevum, erga quem delinquentes Vae habituri essent. Et quis saevum non potius timeret provocare deficiendo ab eo? Tanto magis ergo demerendum docebat quem timendum ingerebat. Sic oportebat Christum creatoris.	27. [1] I prefer elsewhere refuting the faults which the Marcionites find in the Creator. It is here enough that they are also found in Christ. Behold how unequal, inconsistent, and capricious he is! Teaching one thing and doing another, he enjoins "giving to every one that seeks; "and yet he himself refuses to give to those "who seek a sign." For a vast age he hides his own light from men, and yet says that a candle must not be hidden, but affirms that it ought to be set upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all. He forbids cursing again, and cursing much more of course; and yet he heaps his woe upon the Pharisees and doctors of the law. Who so closely resembles my God as His own Christ? [2] We have often already laid it down for certain, that He could not have been branded as the destroyer of the law if He had promulged another god. Therefore even the Pharisee, who invited Him to dinner in the passage before us, expressed some surprise in His presence that He had not washed before He sat down to meat, in accordance with the law, since it was the God of the law that He was proclaiming. Jesus also interpreted the law to him when He told him that they "made clean the outside of the cup and the platter, whereas their inward part was full of ravening and wickedness." This He said, to signify that by the cleansing of vessels was to be understood before God the purification of men, inasmuch as it was about a man, and not about an unwashed vessel, that even this Pharisee had been treating in His presence. He therefore said: "You wash the outside of the cup," that is, the flesh, "but you do not cleanse your inside part," that is, the soul; adding: "Did not He that made the outside," that is, the flesh, "also make the inward part," that is to say, the soul?----[3] by which assertion He expressly declared that to the same God belongs the cleansing of a man's external and internal nature, both alike being in the power of Him who prefers mercy not only to man's washing, but even to sacrifice. For He subjoins the command: "Give what ye possess as alms, and all things shall be clean unto you." Even if another god could have enjoined mercy, he could not have done so previous to his becoming known. Furthermore, it is in this passage evident that they were not reproved concerning their God, but concerning a point of His instruction to them, when He prescribed to them figuratively the cleansing of their vessels, but really the works of merciful dispositions. [4] In like manner, He upbraids them for tithing paltry herbs, but at the same time "passing over hospitality and the love of God. The vocation and the love of what God, but Him by whose law of tithes they used to offer their rue and mint? For the whole point of the rebuke lay in this, that they cared about small matters in His service of course, to whom they failed to exhibit their weightier duties when He commanded them: "Thou shalt love with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, the Lord thy God, who hath called thee out of Egypt." Besides, time enough had not yet passed to admit of Christ's requiring so premature----nay, as yet so distasteful ----a love towards a new and recent, not to say a hardly yet developed, deity. [5] When, again, He upbraids those who caught at the uppermost places and the honour of public salutations, He only follows out the Creator's course, who calls ambitious persons of this character "rulers of Sodom" who forbids us "to put confidence even in princes," and pronounces him to be altogether wretched who places his confidence in man. But whoever aims at high position, because he would glory in the officious attentions of other people, (in every such case, ) inasmuch as He forbade such attentions (in the shape) of placing hope and confidence in man, He at the same time censured all who were ambitious of high positions. [6] He also inveighs against the doctors of the law themselves, because they were "lading men with burdens grievous to be borne, which they did not venture to touch with even a finger of their own; " but not as if He made a mock of the burdens of the law with any feeling of detestation towards it. For how could He have felt aversion to the law, who used with so much earnestness to upbraid them for passing over its weightier matters, alms-giving, hospitality, and the love of God? Nor, indeed, was it only these great things (which He recognized), but even the tithes of rue and the cleansing of cups. But, in truth, He would rather have deemed them excusable for being unable to carry burdens which could not be borne. What, then, are the burdens which He censures? [7] None but those which they were accumulating of their own accord, when they taught for commandments the doctrines of men; for the sake of private advantage joining house to house, so as to deprive their neighbour of his own; cajoling the people, loving gifts, pursuing rewards, robbing the poor of the rights of judgment, that they might have the widow for a prey and the fatherless for a spoil. Of these Isaiah also says, "Woe unto them that are strong in Jerusalem!" and again, "They that demand you shall rule over you." And who did this more than the lawyers? Now, if these offended Christ, it was as belonging to Him that they offended Him. He would have aimed no blow at the teachers of an alien law. [8] But why is a "woe" pronounced against them for "building the sepulchres of the prophets whom their fathers had killed? " They rather deserved praise, because by such an act of piety they seemed to show that they did not allow the deeds of their fathers. Was it not because (Christ) was jealous of such a disposition as the Marcionites denounce, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the fourth generation? [9] What "key," indeed, was it which these lawyers had, but the interpretation of the law? Into the perception of this they neither entered themselves, even because they did not believe (for "unless ye believe, ye shall not understand"); nor did they permit others to enter, because they preferred to teach them for commandments even the doctrines of men. When, therefore, He reproached those who did not themselves enter in, and also shut the door against others, must He be regarded as a disparager of the law, or as a supporter of it? If a disparager, those who were hindering the law ought to have been pleased; if a supporter, He is no longer an enemy of the law. [10] But all these imprecations He uttered in order to tarnish the Creator as a cruel Being, against whom such as offended were destined to have a "woe." And who would not rather have feared to provoke a cruel Being, by withdrawing allegiance from Him? Therefore the more He represented the Creator to be an object of fear, the more earnestly would He teach that He ought to be served. Thus would it behove the Creator's Christ to act.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.28-30.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
28. [1] Merito itaque non placebat illi hypocrisis pharisaeorum, labiis scilicet amantium deum, non corde. Cavete, inquit discipulis, a fermento pharisaeorum, quod est hypocrisis, non praedicatio creatoris. Odit contumaces patris filius, non vult suos tales existere in illum, non in alium, in quem hypocrisis fuisset admissa, cuius exemplum a discipulis caveretur. [2] Ita pharisaeorum prohibet exemplum. In eum prohibebat illud admitti in quem admittebant pharisaei. Igitur quoniam hypocrisim eorum taxarat, utique celantem occulta cordis et incredulitatis secreta superficialibus officiis obumbrantem, quae clavem agnitionis habens ne ipsa introiret nec alios sineret, ideo adicit, Nihil autem opertum, quod non patefiet, et nihil absconditum, quod non dinoscetur; ne quis existimet illum dei ignoti retro et occulti revelationem et adagnitionem intentare, cum subiciat etiam quae inter se mussitarent vel tractarent, scilicet super ipso dicentes, Hic non expellit daemonia nisi in Beelzebub, in apertum processura, et in ore hominum futura, ex evangelii promulgatione. [3] Dehinc conversus ad discipulos, Dico autem, inquit, vobis amicis, nolite terreri ab eis qui vos solummodo occidere possunt, nec post hoc ullam in vobis habent potestatem. Sed iis erit Esaias praedicens: Vide quomodo iustus aufertur, et nemo advcrtit. Demonstrabo autem vobis quem timeatis: Timete eumqui postquam occiderit, potestatem habet mittendi in gehennam; creatorem utique significans: Itaque dico vobis, hunc timete. Et hoc in loco sufficeret mihi si quem timeri iubet offendi vetat, et quem offendi vetat demereri iubet, et qui haec mandat ipsius est cui timendo et non offendendo et demerendo procurat. [4] Sed habeo et de sequentibus sumere. Dico enim vobis, omnis qui confitebitur in me coram hominibus, confitebor in illo coram deo. Qui confitebuntur autem in Christo, occidi habebunt coram hominibus, nihil utique amplius passuri post occisionem ab illis. Hi ergo erunt quos supra praemonet ne timeant tantummodo occidi; ideo praemittens non timendam occisionem, ut subiungeret sustinendam confessionem: Et omnis qui negaverit me coram hominibus, denegabitur coram deo, ab eo utique qui illum confitentem confessurus fuisset. [5] Si enim confessorem confitebitur, ipse est qui et negatorem negabit. Porro si confessor est cui nihil timendum est post occisionem, negator erit cui timendum est etiam post mortem. Itaque cum creatoris sit quod timendum est post mortem, gehennae scilicet poena, et negator ergo creatoris est. Si autem negator, et confessor, qui post occisionem nihil ab homine passurus est, a deo plane passurus si negaret. Atque ita Christus creatoris est, qui ostendit negatores suos creatoris gehennam timere debere. [6] Post deterritam itaque negationem sequitur et blasphemiae formidandae admonitio: Qui dixerit in filium hominis, remittetur illi, qui autem dixerit in spiritum sanctum, non remittetur ei. Quodsi iam et remissio et retentio delicti iudicem deum sapiunt, huius erit spiritus sanctus non blasphemandus, non remissuri scilicet blasphemiam, sicut et supra non negandus, occisuri scilicet etiam in gehennam. [7] Quodsi et blasphemiam Christus a creatore avertit, quomodo adversarius ei venerit non scio. Aut si et per haec severitatem eius infuscat, non remissuri blasphemiam et occisuri etiam in gehennam, superest ut et illius diversi dei impune et spiritus blasphemetur et Christus negetur, et nihil intersit de cultu eius deve contemptu, et sicut de contemptu nulla poena, ita et de cultu nulla speranda sit merces. Perductos ad potestates prohibet ad interrogationem cogitare de responsione: Sanctus enim, inquit, spiritus docebit vos ipsa hora quid eloqui debeatis. [8] Si eiusmodi documentum creatoris est, eius erit et praeceptum cuius praecessit exemplum. Balaam prophetes in Arithmis arcessitus a rege Balach ad maledicendum Israelem, cum quo proelium inibat, simul spiritu implebatur, non ad quam venerat maledictionem, sed quam illi ipsa hora spiritus suggerebat benedictionem pronuntiabat, ante professus apud nuntios regis, mox etiam apud ipsum, id se pronuntiaturum quod deus ori eius indidisset. Hae sunt novae doctrinae novi Christi, quas olim famuli creatoris initiaverunt. [9] Ecce plane diversum exemplum Moysi et Christi. Moyses rixantibus fratribus ultro intercedit et iniuriosum increpat: Quid proximum tuum percutis? Et reicitur ab illo: Quis te constituit magistrum aut iudicem super nos? Christus vero postulatus a quodam ut inter illum et fratrem ipsius de dividunda haereditate componeret, operam suam, et quidem tam probae causae, denegavit. Iam ergo melior Moyses meus Christo tuo, fratrum paci studens, iniuriae occurrens. [10] Sed enim optimi et non iudicis dei Christus, Quis me, inquit, iudicem constituit super vos? Aliam vocem excusationis invenire non potuit ne ea uteretur qua improbus vir et impius frater assertorem probitatis atque pietatis excusserat. Denique probavit malam vocem, utendo ea, et malum factum, pacis inter fratres componendae declinatione. Aut numquid indigne tulerit hoc dicto fugatum Moysen, ideoque in causa pari disceptantium fratrum voluit illos commemoratione eiusdem dicti confudisse? Plane ita. Ipse enim tunc fuerat in Moyse, qui talia audierat, spiritus scilicet creatoris. [11] Puto iam alibi satis commendasse nos divitiarum gloriam damnari a deo nostro, ipsos dynastas detrahente de solio, et pauperes allevante de sterquilinio. Ab eo ergo erit et parabola divitis blandientis sibi de proventu agrorum suorum, cui deus dicit, Stulte, hac nocte animam tuam reposcent; quae autem parasti, cuius erunt? Sic denique rex de gazis et apothecis deliciarum suarum apud Persas gloriatus per Esaiam male audivit.	28. [1] Justly, therefore, was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees displeasing to Him, loving God as they did with their lips, but not with their heart. "Beware," He says to the disciples, "of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy," not the proclamation of the Creator. The Son hates those who refused obedience to the Father; nor does He wish His disciples to show such a disposition towards Him----not (let it be observed) towards another god, against whom such hypocrisy indeed might have been admissible, as that which He wished to guard His disciples against. [2] It is the example of the Pharisees which He forbids. It was in respect of Him against whom the Pharisees were sinning that (Christ) now forbade His disciples to offend. Since, then, He had censured their hypocrisy, which covered the secrets of the heart, and obscured with superficial offices the mysteries of unbelief, because (while holding the key of knowledge) it would neither enter in itself, nor permit others to enter in, He therefore adds, "There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid, which shall not be known," in order that no one should suppose that He was attempting the revelation and the recognition of an hitherto unknown and hidden god. When He remarks also on their murmurs and taunts, in saying of Him, "This man casteth out devils only through Beelzebub," He means that all these imputations would come forth to the light of day, and be in the mouths of men in consequence of the promulgation of the Gospel. [3] He then turns to His disciples with these words, "I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them which can only kill the body, and after that have no more power over you." They will, however, find Isaiah had already said, "See how the just man is taken away, and no man layeth it to heart." "But I will show you whom ye shall fear: fear Him who, after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell" (meaning, of course, the Creator); "yea, I say unto you, fear Him." Now, it would here be enough for my purpose that He forbids offence being given to Him whom He orders to be feared; and that He orders Him to be respected whom He forbids to be offended; and that He who gives these commands belongs to that very God for whom He procures this fear, this absence of offence, and this respect. [4] But this conclusion I can draw also from the following words: "For I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before God." Now they who shall confess Christ will have to be slain before men, but they will have nothing more to suffer after they have been put to death by them. These therefore will be they whom He forewarns above not to be afraid of being only killed; and this forewarning He offers, in order that He might subjoin a clause on the necessity of confessing Him: "Every one that denieth me before men shall be denied before God" ----by Him, of course, who would have confessed him, if he had only confessed God. [5] Now, He who will confess the confessor is the very same God who will also deny the denier of Himself. Again, if it is the confessor who will have nothing to fear after his violent death, it is the denier to whom everything will become fearful after his natural death. Since, therefore, that which will have to be feared after death, even the punishment of hell, belongs to the Creator, the denier, too, belongs to the Creator. As with the denier, however, so with the confessor: if he should deny God, he will plainly have to suffer from God, although from men he had nothing more to suffer after they had put him to death. And so Christ is the Creator's, because He shows that all those who deny Him ought to fear the Creator's hell. [6] After deterring His disciples from denial of Himself, He adds an admonition to fear blasphemy: "Whosoever shall speak against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." Now, if both the remission and the retention of sin savour of a judicial God, the Holy Ghost, who is not to be blasphemed, will belong to Him, who will not forgive the blasphemy; just as He who, in the preceding passage, was not to be denied, belonged to, Him who would, after He had killed, also cast into hell. [7] Now, since it is Christ who averts blasphemy from the Creator, I am at a loss to know in what manner His adversary. could have come. Else, if by these sayings He throws a black cloud of censure over the severity of Him who will not forgive blasphemy and will kill even to hell, it follows that the very spirit of that rival god may be blasphemed with impunity, and his Christ denied; and that there is no difference, in fact, between worshipping and despising him; but that, as there is no punishment for the contempt, so there is no reward for the worship, which men need expect. When "brought before magistrates," and examined, He forbids them "to take thought how they shall answer; ""for," says He, "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say." [8] If such an injunction as this comes from the Creator, the precept will only be His by whom an example was previously given. The prophet Balaam, in Numbers, when sent forth by king Balak to curse lsrael, with whom he was commencing war, was at the same moment filled with the Spirit. Instead of the curse which he was come to pronounce, he uttered the blessing which the Spirit at that very hour inspired him with; having previously declared to the king's messengers, and then to the king himself, that he could only speak forth that which God should put into his mouth. The novel doctrines of the new Christ are such as the Creator's servants initiated long before! [9] But see how clear a difference there is between the example of Moses and of Christ. Moses voluntarily interferes with brothers who were quarrelling, and chides the offender: "Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? "He is, however, rejected by him: "Who made thee a prince or a judge over us? " Christ, on the contrary, when requested by a certain man to compose a strife between him and his brother about dividing an inheritance, refused His assistance, although in so honest a cause. Well, then, my Moses is better than your Christ, aiming as he did at the peace of brethren, and obviating their wrong. [10] But of course the case must be different with Christ, for he is the Christ of the simply good and non-judicial god. "Who," says he, "made me a judge over you? " No other word of excuse was he able to find, without using that with which the wicked, man and impious brother had rejected the defender of probity and piety! In short, he approved of the excuse, although a bad one, by his use of it; and of the act, although a bad one, by his refusal to make peace between brothers. Or rather, would He not show His resentment at the rejection of Moses with such a word? And therefore did He not wish in a similar case of contentious brothers, to confound them with the recollection of so harsh a word? Clearly so. For He had Himself been present in Moses, who heard such a rejection----even He, the Spirit of the Creator. [11] I think that we have already, in another passage, sufficiently shown that the glory of riches is condemned by our God, "who putteth down the mighty from their throne, and exalts the poor from the dunghill." From Him, therefore, will proceed the parable of the rich man, who flattered himself about the increase of his fields, and to Whom God said: "Thou fool, this night shall they require thy soul of thee; then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided? " It was just in the like manner that the king Hezekiah heard from Isaiah the sad doom of his kingdom, when he gloried, before the envoys of Babylon, in his treasures and the deposits of his precious things.
29. [1] Quis nollet curam nos agere animae de victu et corpori de vestitu nisi qui ista homini ante prospexit et exinde praestans merito curam eorum tanquam aemulam liberalitatis suae prohibet? qui et substantiam ipsius animae accommodavit potiorem esca, et materiam ipsius corporis figuravit potiorem tunica, cuius et corvi non serunt nec metunt nec in apothecas condunt, et tamen aluntur ab ipso, cuius et lilia et foenum non texunt nec nent, et tamen vestiuntur ab ipso, cuius et Salomon gloriosissimus, nec ullo tamen flosculo cultior. [2] Ceterum nihil tam abruptum quam ut alius praestet, alius de praestantia eius secure agere mandet, et quidem derogator ipsius. Denique si quasi derogator creatoris non vult de eiusmodi frivolis cogitari de quibus nec corvi nec lilia laborent, ultro scilicet pro sua vilitate subiectis, paulo post parebit. Interim cur illos modicae fidei incusat, id est cuius fidei? [3] Eiusne quam nondum poterant perfectam exhibere deo tantum quod revelato, cum maxime discentes eum, an quam hoc ipso titulo debebant creatori, uti crederent haec illum ultro generi humano subministrare, nec de eis cogitarent? Nam et cum subicit, Haec enim nationes mundi quaerunt, non credendo scilicet in deum conditorem omnium et praebitorem, quos pares gentium nolebat, in eundem deum modicos fidei increpabat in quem gentes incredulas notabat. Porro cum et adicit, Scit autem pater opus esse haec vobis, prius quaeram quem patrem intellegi velit Christus. [4] Si ipsorum creatorem demonstrat, et bonum confirmat, qui scit quid filiis opus sit; sin illum alium deum, quomodo scit necessarium esse homini victum atque vestitum, quorum nihil praestitit? Si enim scisset, praestitisset. Ceterum si scit quae sunt homini necessaria, nec tamen praestitit, aut malignitate aut infirmitate non praestitit. Professus autem necessaria haec homini, utique bona confirmavit. Nihil enim mali necessarium. Et non erit iam depretiator operum et indulgentiarum creatoris, ut quod supra distuli expunxerim. [5] Porro si quae necessaria scit homini alius et prospexit et praestat, quomodo haec ipse promittit? An de alieno bonus est? Quaerite enim inquit regnum dei, et haec vobis adicientur. Utique ab ipso. Quodsi ab ipso, qualis est qui aliena praestabit? Si a creatore, cuius et sunt, quis est qui aliena promittat? Ea si regno accedunt, secundo gradu restituenda, eius est secundus gradus cuius et primus, eius victus atque vestitus cuius et regnum. [6] Ita tota promissio creatoris est parabolarum status, similitudinum peraequatio, si nec in alium spectant quam cui per omnia pariaverint. Sumus servi, dominum enim habemus deum. Succingere debemus lumbos, id est expediti esse ab impedimentis laciniosae vitae et implicitae. Item lucernas ardentes habere, id est mentes a fide accensas et operibus veritatis relucentes, atque ita expectare dominum, id est Christum. Unde redeuntem? si a nuptiis, creatoris est, cuius nuptiae; si non creatoris, nec ipse Marcion invitatus ad nuptias isset, deum suum intuens detestatorem nuptiarum. Defecit itaque parabola in persona domini, si non esset cui nuptiae competunt. [7] In sequenti quoque parabola satis errat qui furem illum, cuius horam si pater familiae sciret non sineret suffodi domum suam, in personam disponit creatoris. Fur enim creator quomodo videri potest, dominus totius hominis? Nemo sua furatur aut suffodit, sed ille potius qui in aliena descendit, et hominem a domino eius alienat. Porro cum furem nobis diabolum demonstret, cuius horam etiam in primordio si homo scisset nunquam ab eo suffossus esset, propterea iubet ut parati simus, quia qua non putamus hora filius hominis adveniet, non quasi ipse sit fur, sed iudex scilicet eorum qui se non paraverint, nec caverint furem. [8] Ergo si ipse est filius hominis, iudicem teneo, et in iudice creatorem defendo; si vero Christum creatoris in nomine filii hominis hoc loco ostendit, ut eum furem portendat, qui quando venturus sit ignoremus, habes supra praescriptum nerninem rei suae furem esse, salvo et illo, quod in quantum timendum creatorem ingerit, in tantum illi negotium agens creatoris est. [9] Itaque interroganti Petro in illos an et in omnes parabolam dixisset, ad ipsos et ad universos qui ecclesiis praefuturi essent proponit actorum similitudinem, quorum qui bene tractaverit conservos absentia domini reverso eo omnibus bonis praeponetur; qui vero secus egerit, reverso domino qua die non putaverit, hora qua non scierit, illo scilicet filio hominis, Christo creatoris, non fure sed iudice, segregabitur et pars eius cum infidelibus ponetur. [10] Proinde igitur aut et hic iudicem dominum opponit et illi catechizat, aut si deum optimum, iam et illum iudicem affirmat, licet nolit haereticus. Temperare enim temptant hunc sensum, cum deo eius vindicatur, quasi tranquillitatis sit et mansuetudinis segregare solummodo et partem eius cum infidelibus ponere, ac si non sit vocatus, ut statui suo redditus. Quasi non et hoc ipsum iudicato fiat. Stultitia! Quis erit exitus segregatorum ? Nonne amissio salutis? siquidem ab eis segregabuntur qui salutem consequentur. Quis igitur infidelium status? Nonne damnatio? [11] Aut si nihil patientur segregati et infideles, aeque ex diverso nihil consequentur retenti et fideles. Si vero consequentur salutem retenti et fideles, hanc amittant necesse est ex diverso segregati et infideles. Hoc erit iudicium, quod qui intendit creatoris est. Quem alium intellegam caedentem servos paucis aut multis plagis, et prout commisit illis ita et exigentem ab eis, quam retributorem deum? Cui me docet obsequi nisi remuneratori? [12] Proclamat Christus tuus: Ignem veni mittere in terram. Ille optimus, nullius gehennae dominus, qui paulo ante discipulos ne ignem postularent inhumanissimo viculo coercuerat, quando iste Sodomam et Gomorram nimbo igneo exussit, quando cantatum est: Ignis ante ipsum procedet et cremabit inimicos eius, quando et per Osee comminatus est: Ignem emittam in civitates Iudaeae, vel per Esaiam: Ignis exarsit ex indignatione mea. Non mentiatur. Si non est ille qui de rubo quoque ardenti vocem suam emisit, viderit quem ignem intellegendum contendas. [13] Etiam si figura est, hoc ipso quod de meo elemento argumenta sensui suo sumit meus est qui de meis utitur. Illius erit similitudo ignis cuius et veritas. Ipse melius interpretabitur ignis istius qualitatem, adiciens, Putatis venisse me pacem mittere in terram? non, dico vobis, sed separationem. Machaeram quidem scriptum est. Sed Marcion emendat; [14] quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae. Igitur et ignem eversionis intendit qui pacem negavit. Quale proelium, tale et incendium. Qualis machaera, talis et flamma; neutra congruens domino. Denique, Dividetur, inquit, pater in filium et filius in patrem, et mater in filiam et filia in matrem, et nurus in socrum et socrus in nurum. Hoc proelium inter parentes si in ipsis verbis tuba cecinit prophetae, vereor ne Michaeas Christo Marcionis praedicarit. [15] Et ideo hypocritas pronuntiabat, caeli quidem et terrae faciem probantes, tempus vero illud non dinoscentes, quo scilicet adimplens omnia quae super ipsos fuerunt praedicata nec aliter docens debuerat agnosci. Ceterum quis posset eius tempora nosse cuius per quae probaret non habebat. Merito exprobrat etiam quod iustum non a semetipsis iudicarent. Olim hoc mandat per Zachariam: Iustum iudicium et pacatorium iudicate; per Hieremiam: Facite iudicium et iustitiam; per Esaiam: Iudicate pupillo et iustificate viduam; imputans etiam vineae Sorech quod non iudicium fecisset sed clamorem. [16] Qui ergo docuerat ut facerent ex praecepto, is exigebat ut facerent et ex arbitrio. Qui seminaverat praeceptum, ille et redundantiam eius urgebat. Iam vero quam absurdum ut ille mandaret iuste iudicare qui deum iudicem iustum destruebat? Nam et iudicem, qui mittit in carcerem nec ducit inde nisi soluto etiam novissimo quadrante, in persona creatoris obtrectationis nomine disserunt. Ad quod necesse habeo eodem gradu occurrere. Quotienscunque enim severitas creatoris opponitur, totiens illius est Christus cui per timorem cogit obsequium.	29. [1] Who would be unwilling that we should distress ourselves about sustenance for our life, or clothing for our body, but He who has provided these things already for man; and who, therefore, while distributing them to us, prohibits all anxiety respecting them as an outrage against his liberality?----who has adapted the nature of "life" itself to a condition "better than meat," and has fashioned the material of "the body," so as to make it "more than raiment; "whose "ravens, too, neither sow nor reap, nor gather into storehouses, and are yet fed" by Himself; whose "lilies and grass also toil not, nor spin, and yet are clothed" by Him; whose "Solomon, moreover, was transcendent in glory, and yet was not arrayed like" the humble flower. [2] Besides, nothing can be more abrupt than that one God should be distributing His bounty, while the other should bid us take no thought about (so kindly a) distribution----and that, too, with the intention of derogating (from his liberality). Whether, indeed, it is as depreciating the Creator that he does not wish such trifles to be thought of, concerning which neither the crows nor the lilies labour, because, forsooth, they come spontaneously to hand by reason of their very worthlessness, will appear a little further on. Meanwhile, how is it that He chides them as being "of little faith?" What faith? [3] Does He mean that faith which they were as yet unable to manifest perfectly in a god who has hardly yet revealed, and whom they were in process of learning as well as they could; or that faith which they for this express reason owed to the Creator, because they believed that He was of His own will supplying these wants of the human race, and therefore took no thought about them? Now, when He adds, "For all these things do the nations of the world seek after," even by their not believing in God as the Creator and Giver of all things, since He was unwilling that they should be like these nations, He therefore upbraided them as being defective of faith in the same God, in whom He remarked that the Gentiles were quite wanting in faith. When He further adds, "But your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things," I would first ask, what Father Christ would have to be here understood? [4] If He points to their own Creator, He also affirms Him to be good, who knows what His children have need of; but if He refers to that other god, how does he know that food and raiment are necessary to man, seeing that he has made no such provision for him? For if he had known the want, he would have made the provision. If, however, he knows what things man has need of, and yet has failed to supply them, he is in the failure guilty of either malignity or weakness. But when he confessed that these things are necessary to man, he really affirmed that they are good. For nothing that is evil is necessary. So that he will not be any longer a depreciator of the works and the indulgences of the Creator, that I may here complete the answer which I deferred giving above. [5] Again, if it is another god who has foreseen man's wants, and is supplying them, how is it that Marcion's Christ himself promises them? Is he liberal with another's property? "Seek ye," says he, "the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you"----by himself, of course. But if by himself, what sort of being is he, who shall bestow the things of another? If by the Creator, whose all things are, then who is he that promises what belongs to another? If these things are "additions" to the kingdom, they must be placed in the second rank; and the second rank belongs to Him to whom the first also does; His are the food and raiment, whose is the kingdom. [6] Thus to the Creator belongs the entire promise, the full reality of its parables, the perfect equalization of its similitudes; for these have respect to none other than Him to whom they have a parity of relation in every point. We are servants because we have a Lord in our God. We ought "to have our loins girded: " in other words, we are to be free from the embarrassments of a perplexed and much occupied life; "to have our lights burning," that is, our minds kindled by faith, and resplendent with the works of truth. And thus "to wait for our Lord," that is, Christ. Whence "returning? "If "from the wedding," He is the Christ of the Creator, for the wedding is His. If He is not the Creator's, not even Marcion himself would have gone to the wedding, although invited, for in his god he discovers one who hates the nuptial bed. The parable would therefore have failed in the person of the Lord, if He were not a Being to whom a wedding is consistent. [7] In the next parable also he makes a flagrant mistake, when he assigns to the person of the Creator that "thief, whose hour, if the father of the family had only known, he would not have suffered his house to be broken through." How can the Creator wear in any way the aspect of a thief, Lord as He is of all mankind? No one pilfers or plunders his own property, but he rather acts the part of one who swoops down on the things of another, and alienates man from his Lord. Again, when He indicates to us that the devil is "the thief," whose hour at the very beginning of the world, if man had known, he would never have been broken in upon by him, He warns us "to be ready," for this reason, because "we know not the hour when the Son of man shall come" ----not as if He were Himself the thief, but rather as being the judge of those who prepared not themselves, and used no precaution against the thief. [8] Since, then, He is the Son of man, I hold Him to be the Judge, and in the Judge I claim the Creator. If then in this passage he displays the Creator's Christ under the title "Son of man," that he may give us some presage of the thief, of the period of whose coming we are ignorant, you still have it ruled above, that no one is the thief of his own property; besides which, there is our principle also unimpaired ----that in as far as He insists on the Creator as an object of fear, in so far does He belong to the Creator, and does the Creator's work. [9] When, therefore, Peter asked whether He had spoken the parable "unto them, or even to all," He sets forth for them, and for all who should bear rule in the churches, the similitude of stewards. That steward who should treat his fellow-servants well in his Lord's absence, would on his return be set as ruler over all his property; but he who should act otherwise should be severed, and have his portion with the unbelievers, when his lord should return on the day when he looked not for him, at the hour when he was not aware ----even that Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief, but a Judge. [10] He accordingly, in this passage, either presents to us the Lord as a Judge, and instructs us in His character, or else as the simply good god; if the latter, he now also affirms his judicial attribute, although the heretic refuses to admit it. For an attempt is made to modify this sense when it is applied to his god,----as if it were an act of serenity and mildness simply to sever the man off, and to assign him a portion with the unbelievers, under the idea that he was not summoned (before the judge), but only returned to his own state! As if this very process did not imply a judicial act! What folly! What will be the end of the severed ones? Will it not be the forfeiture of salvation, since their separation will be from those who shall attain salvation? What, again, will be the condition of the unbelievers? Will it not be damnation? [11] Else, if these severed and unfaithful ones shall have nothing to suffer, there will, on the other hand, be nothing for the accepted and the believers to obtain. If, however, the accepted and the believers shall attain salvation, it must needs be that the rejected and the unbelieving should incur the opposite issue, even the loss of salvation. Now here is a judgment, and He who holds it out before us belongs to the Creator. Whom else than the God of retribution can I understand by Him who shall "beat His servants with stripes," either "few or many," and shall exact from them what He had committed to them? Whom is it suitable for me to obey, but Him who remunerates? [12] Your Christ proclaims, "I am come to send fire on the earth." That most lenient being, the lord who has no hell, not long before had restrained his disciples from demanding fire on the churlish village. Whereas He burnt up Sodom and Gomorrah with a tempest of fire. Of Him the psalmist sang, "A fire shall go out before Him, and burn up His enemies round about." By Hoses He uttered the threat, "I will send a fire upon the cities of Judah; " and by Isaiah, "A fire has been kindled in mine anger." He cannot lie. If it is not He who uttered His voice out of even the burning bush, it can be of no importance what fire you insist upon being understood. [13] Even if it be but figurative fire, yet, from the very fact that he takes from my element illustrations for His own sense, He is mine, because He uses what is mine. The similitude of fire must belong to Him who owns the reality thereof. But He will Himself best explain the quality of that fire which He mentioned, when He goes on to say, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." It is written "a sword," but Marcion makes an emendation of the word, [14] just as if a division were not the work of the sword. He, therefore, who refused to give peace, intended also the fire of destruction. As is the combat, so is the burning. As is the sword, so is the flame. Neither is suitable for its lord. He says at last, "The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law." Since this battle among the relatives was sung by the prophet's trumpet in the very words, I fear that Micah must have predicted it to Marcion's Christ! [15] On this account He pronounced them "hypocrites," because they could "discern the face of the sky and the earth, but could not distinguish this time," when of course He ought to have been recognised, fulfilling (as he was) all things which had been predicted concerning them, and teaching them so. But then who could know the times of him of whom he had no evidence to prove his existence? Justly also does He upbraid them for "not even of themselves judging what is right." Of old does He command by Zechariah, "Execute the judgment of truth and peace; " by Jeremiah, "Execute judgment and righteousness; " by Isaiah, "Judge the fatherless, plead for the widow," charging it as a fault upon the vine of Sorech, that when "He looked for righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry" (of oppression). [16] The same God who had taught them to act as He commanded them, was now requiring that they should act of their own accord. He who had sown the precept, was now pressing to an abundant harvest from it. But how absurd, that he should now be commanding them to judge righteously, who was destroying God the righteous Judge! For the Judge, who commits to prison, and allows no release Out of it without the payment of "the very last mite," they treat of in the person of the Creator, with the view of disparaging Him. Which cavil, however, I deem it necessary to meet with the same answer. For as often as the Creator's severity is paraded before us, so often is Christ (shown to be) His, to whom He urges submission by the motive of fear.
30. [1] Quaestionem rursus de curatione sabbato facta quomodo discussit? Unusquisque vestrum sabbatis non solvit asinum aut bovem suum a praesepi et ducit ad potum? Ergo secundum condicionem legis operatus legem confirmavit, non dissolvit, iubentem nullum opus fieri nisi quod fieret omni animae, quanto potius humanae? Parabolarum congruentiam ubique recognoscor exigere. Simile est regnum dei, inquit, grano sinapis, quod accepit homo et seminavit in horto suo. [2] Quis in persona hominis intellegendus? Utique Christus, quia, licet Marcionis, filius hominis est dictus, qui accepit a patre semen regni, sermonem scilicet evangelii, et seminavit in horto suo, utique in mundo, puta nunc in homine. Sed cum in suo horto dixerit, nec mundus autem nec homo illius sit, sed creatoris, ergo qui in suum seminarit creator ostenditur. Aut si, ut hunc laqueum evadant, converterint hominis personam a Christo in hominem accipientem semen regni et seminantem in horto cordis sui, nec ipsa materia alii conveniet quam creatori. Quale est enim ut sit lenissimi dei regnum quod etiam iudicii fervor lacrimosa austeritate subsequitur? [3] De sequenti plane similitudine vereor ne forte alterius dei regno portendat. Fermento enim comparavit illud, non azymis quae familiariora sunt creatori. Congruit et haec coniectura mendicantibus argumenta. Itaque et ego vanitatem vanitate depellam, fermentationem quoque congruere dicens regno creatoris, quia post illam clibanus vel furnus gehennae sequatur. [4] Quotiens adhuc se iudicem ostendit et in iudice creatorem? Quotiens utique eiecit et damnat reiciendo? Sicut hic quoque, Cum surrexerit, inquit, pater familiae; quo? nisi quo dixit Esaias, Cum surrexerit comminuere terram? et cluserit ostium; utique excludendis iniquis. Quibus pulsantibus respondebit, Nescio unde sitis: et rursus enumerantibus quod coram illo ederint et biberint et in plateis eorum docuerit, adiciet, Recedite a me omnes operarii iniquitatis. Illic erit fletus et frendor dentium. Ubi? [5] foris scilicet, ubi erunt exclusi, ostio cluso ab eo. Ergo erit poena a quo fit exclusio in poenam, cum videbunt iustos introeuntes in regnum dei, se vero detineri foris. A quo? Si a creatore, quis erit ergo intus recipiens iustos in regnum? Deus bonus? Quid ergo illuc creatori, ut foris detineat in poenam quos adversarius eius exdusit, suscipiendos a se, si utique, magis in adversarii bilem? [6] Sed et ille exclusurus iniquos sciat utique creatorem illos detenturum in poenam aut non sciat oportet. Ergo aut nolente eo detinebuntur, et minor est illo qui detinet, cedens ei nolens; aut si vult ita fieri, ipse ita faciendum iudicavit, et non erit melior creatore ipse auctor infamiae creatoris. Haec si nulla ratione consistunt, ut alius punire alius liberare credatur, unius erit tam iudicium quam et regnum, et dum unius est utrumque, qui et iudicat creatoris est.	30. [1] When the question was again raised concerning a cure performed on the Sabbath-day, how did He discuss it: "Doth not each of you on the Sabbath loose his ass or his ox from the stall, and lead him away to watering? " When, therefore, He did a work according to the condition prescribed by the law, He affirmed, instead of breaking, the law, which commanded that no work should be done, except what might be done for any living being; and if for any one, then how much more for a human life? In the case of the parables, it is allowed that I everywhere require a congruity. "The kingdom of God," says He, "is like a grain of mustard-seed which a man took and cast into his garden." [2] Who must be understood as meant by the man? Surely Christ, because (although Marcion's) he was called "the Son of man." He received from the Father the seed of the kingdom, that is, the word of the gospel, and sowed it in his garden----in the world, of course ----in man at the present day, for instance. Now, whereas it is said, "in his garden," but neither the world nor man is his property, but the Creator's, therefore He who sowed seed in His own ground is shown to be the Creator. Else, if, to evade this snare, they should choose to transfer the person of the man from Christ to any person who receives the seed of the kingdom and sows it in the garden of his own heart, not even this meaning would suit any other than the Creator. For how happens it, if the kingdom belong to the most lenient god, that it is closely followed up by a fervent judgment, the severity of which brings weeping? [3] With regard, indeed, to the following similitude, I have my fears lest it should somehow presage the kingdom of the rival god! For He compared it, not to the unleavened bread which the Creator is more familiar with, but to leaven. Now this is a capital conjecture for men who are begging for arguments. I must, however, on my side, dispel one fond conceit by another," and contend with even leaven is suitable for the kingdom of the Creator, because after it comes the oven, or, if you please, the furnace of hell. [4] How often has He already displayed Himself as a Judge, and in the Judge the Creator? How often, indeed, has He repelled, and in the repulse condemned? In the present passage, for instance, He says, "When once the master of the house is risen up; " but in what sense except that in which Isaiah said, "When He ariseth to shake terribly the earth? " "And hath shut to the door," thereby shutting out the wicked, of course; and when these knock, He will answer, "I know you not whence ye are; "and when they recount how "they have eaten and drunk in His presence," He will further say to them, "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." But where? [5] Outside, no doubt, when they shall have been excluded with the door shut on them by Him. There will therefore be punishment inflicted by Him who excludes for punishment, when they shall behold the righteous entering the kingdom of God, but themselves detained without. By whom detained outside? If by the Creator, who shall be within receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good God. What, therefore, is the Creator about, that He should detain outside for punishment those whom His adversary shut out, when He ought rather to have kindly received them, if they must come into His hands, for the greater irritation of His rival? [6] But when about to exclude the wicked, he must, of course, either be aware that the Creator would detain them for punishment, or not be aware. Consequently either the wicked will be detained by the Creator against the will of the excluder, in which case he will be inferior to the Creator, submitting to Him unwillingly; or else, if the process is carried out with his will, then he himself has judicially determined its execution; and then he who is the very originator of the Creator's infamy, will not prove to be one whit better than the Creator. Now, if these ideas be incompatible with reason----of one being supposed to punish, and the other to liberate----then to one only power will appertain both the judgment and the kingdom and while they both belong to one, He who executeth judgment can be none else than the Christ of the Creator.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.31-33.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
31. [1] Ad prandium vel ad coenam quales vocari iubet? Quales ostenderat per Esaiam: Confringe panem tuum esurienti, et mendicos, et qui sine tecto sunt, induc in domum tuam, qui scilicet humanitatis istius vicem retribuere non possint. Hanc si Christus captari vetat, in resurrectione eam repromittens, creatoris est forma, cui non placent amantes munera, sectantes retributionem. Etiam invitatoris parabola cui magis parti occurrat expende. Homo quidam fecit coenam et vocavit multos. [2] Utique coenae paratura vitae aeternae saturitatem figurat. Dico primo extraneos et nullius iuris adfines invitari ad coenam non solere, certe facilius solere domesticos et familiares. Ergo creatoris est invitasse, ad quem pertinebant qui invitabantur, et per Adam qua homines, et per patres qua Iudaici, non eius ad quem neque natura pertinebant neque praerogativa. [3] Dehinc si is mittit ad convivas qui coenam paravit, sic quoque creatoris est coena, qui misit ad convivas admonendos, ante iam vocatos per patres, admonendos autem per prophetas, non qui neminem miserit ad monendum, nec qui nihil prius egerit ad vocandum, sed ipse descenderit subito, tantum quod innotescens iam invitans, tantum quod invitans iam in convivium cogens, eandem faciens horam coenandi et ad coenam invitandi. Excusant se invitati. [4] Si ab alio deo, merito, quia subito invitati; si non merito, ergo nec subito. Si autem non subito invitati, ergo a creatore, a quo olim, cuius denique declinaverant vocationem, tunc primo dicentes ad Aaronem, Fac nobis deos qui praeeant nobis; atque exinde aure audientes et non audientes, vocationem scilicet dei, qui pertinentissime ad hanc parabolam per Hieremiam, Audite, inquit, vocem meam, et ero vobis in dominum et vos mihi in populum, et ibitis in omnibus viis meis, quascunque mandavero vobis. Ecce invitatio dei. Et non audierunt, inquit, et non adverterunt aurem suam. Ecce recusatio populi. Sed abierunt in iis quae concupiverunt corde suo malo. Agrum emi, et boves mercatus sum, et uxorem duxi. [5] Et adhuc ingerit: Et emisi ad vos omnes famulos meos prophetas (hic erit spiritus sanctus, admonitor convivarum) die et ante lucem. Et non audiit populus meus, et non intendit auribus suis, et obduravit collum suum. Hoc ut patrifamiliae renuntiatum est, motus tunc (bene quod et motus, negat enim Marcion moveri deum suum, ita et hoc meus est) mandat de plateis et vicis civitatis facere sublectionem. Videamus an eo sensu quo rursus per Hieremiam: Numquid solitudo factus sum domui Israelis, aut terra in incultum derelicta? id est, Numquid non habeo quos allegam aut unde allegam? Quoniam dixit populus meus, Non venimus ad te. [6] Itaque misit ad alios vocandos ex eadem adhuc civitate. Dehinc loco abundante praecepit etiam de viis et sepibus colligi, id est nos iam de extraneis gentibus; illa scilicet aemulatione qua in Deuteronomio: Avertam faciem meam ab eis, et monstrabo quid illis in novissimis, id est alios possessuros locum eorum: quoniam genitura perversa est, filii in quibus fides non est. Illi obaemulati sunt me in non deo, et provocaverunt me in iram in idolis suis, et ego obaemulabor eos in non natione, in natione insipienti provocabo eos in iram, in nobis scilicet, quorum spem Iudaei gerunt, de qua illos gustaturos negat dominus, derelicta Sione, tanquam specula in vinea et in cucumerario casula, posteaquam et novissimam in Christum invitationem recusavit. [7] Quid ex hoc ordine secundum dispositionem et praedicationes creatoris recensendo competere potest illi, cuius nec ordinem habet nec dispositionem ad parabolae conspirationem qui totum opus semel fecit? Aut quae erit prima vocatio eius, et quae secundo actu admonitio? Ante debent alii excusare, postea alii convenisse. Nunc autem pariter utramque partem invitare venit, de civitate, de sepibus, adversus speculum parabolae. [8] Nec potest iam fastidiosos iudicare quos nunquam retro invitavit, quos cum maxime aggreditur. Aut si de futuro eos iudicat contempturos vocationem, ergo et sublectionem loco eorum ex gentibus de futuro portendit. Plane ad hoc secundo venturus est ut gentibus praedicet. Etsi venturus est autem, puto, non quasi vocaturus adhuc convivas, sed iam collocaturus. Interea qui coenae istius vocationem in caeleste convivium interpretaris spiritalis saturitatis et iocunditatis, memento et terrenas promissiones vini et olei et frumenti et ipsius civitatis aeque in spiritalia figurari a creatore.	31. [1] What kind of persons does He bid should be invited to a dinner or a supper? Precisely such as he had pointed out by Isaiah: "Deal thy bread to the hungry man; and the beggars----even such as have no home----bring in to thine house," because, no doubt, they are "unable to recompense" your act of humanity. Now, since Christ forbids the recompense to be expected now, but promises it "at the resurrection," this is the very plan of the Creator, who dislikes those who love gifts and follow after reward. Consider also to which deity is better suited the parable of him who issued invitations: "A certain man made a great supper, and bade many." [2] The preparation for the supper is no doubt a figure of the abundant provision of eternal life. I first remark, that strangers, and persons unconnected by ties of relationship, are not usually invited to a supper; but that members of the household and family are more frequently the favoured guests. To the Creator, then, it belonged to give the invitation, to whom also appertained those who were to be invited----whether considered as men, through their descent from Adam, or as Jews, by reason of their fathers; not to him who possessed no claim to them either by nature or prerogative. [3] My next remark is, if He issues the invitations who has prepared the supper, then, in this sense the supper is the Creator's, who sent to warn the guests. These had been indeed previously invited by the fathers, but were to be admonished by the prophets. It certainly is not the feast of him who never sent a messenger to warn----who never did a thing before towards issuing an invitation, but came down himself on a sudden----only then beginning to be known, when already giving his invitation; only then inviting, when already compelling to his banquet; appointing one and the same hour both for the supper and the invitation. But when invited, they excuse themselves. [4] And fairly enough, if the invitation came from the other god, because it was so sudden; if, however, the excuse was not a fair one, then the invitation was not a sudden one. Now, if the invitation was not a sudden one, it must have been given by the Creator----even by Him of old time, whose call they had at last refused. They first refused it when they said to Aaron, "Make us gods, which shall go before us; " and again, afterwards, when "they heard indeed with the ear, but did not understand" their calling of God. In a manner most germane to this parable, He said by Jeremiah: "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and ye shall walk in all my ways, which I have commanded you." This is the invitation of God. "But," says He, "they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear." This is the refusal of the people. "They departed, and walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart." "I have bought a field----and I have bought some oxen----and I have married a wife." [5] And still He urges them: "I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early even before day-light." The Holy Spirit is here meant, the admonisher of the guests. "Yet my people hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck." This was reported to the Master of the family. Then He was moved (He did well to be moved; for, as Marcion denies emotion to his god, He must be therefore my God), and commanded them to invite out of "the streets and lanes of the city." Let us see whether this is not the same in purport as His words by Jeremiah: "Have I been a wilderness to the house of Israel, or a land left uncultivated? " That is to say: "Then have I none whom I may call to me; have I no place whence I may bring them? ""Since my people have said, We will come no more unto thee." [6] Therefore He sent out to call others, but from the same city. My third remark is this, that although the place abounded with people, He yet commanded that they gather men from the highways and the hedges. In other words, we are now gathered out of the Gentile strangers; with that jealous resentment, no doubt, which He expressed in Deuteronomy: "I will hide my face from them, and I will show them what shall happen in the last days (how that others shall possess their place); for they are a froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy by that which is no god, and they have provoked me to anger with. their idols; and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people: I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation" ----even with us, whose hope the Jews still entertain. But this hope the Lord says they should not realize; "Sion being left as a cottages in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers," since the nation rejected the latest invitation to Christ. [7] (Now, I ask, ) after going through all this course of the Creator's dispensation and prophecies, what there is in it which can possibly be assigned to him who has done all his work at one hasty stroke, and possesses neither the Creator's course nor His dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again in what will consist his first invitation, and what his admonition at the second stage? Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must have accepted." But now he comes to invite both parties promiscuously out of the city, out of the hedges, contrary to the drift of the parable. [8] It is impossible for him now to condemn as scorners of his invitation those whom he has never yet invited, and whom he is approaching with so much earnestness. If, however, he condemns them beforehand as about to reject his call, then beforehand he also predicts the election of the Gentiles in their stead. Certainly he means to come the second time for the very purpose of preaching to the heathen. But even if he does mean to come again, I imagine it will not be with the intention of any longer inviting guests, but of giving to them their places. Meanwhile, you who interpret the call to this supper as an invitation to a heavenly banquet of spiritual satiety and pleasure, must remember that the earthly promises also of wine and oil and corn, and even of the city, are equally employed by the Creator as figures of spiritual things.
32. [1] Ovem et dragmam perditam quis requirit? nonne qui perdidit? Quis autem perdidit? nonne qui habuit? Quis vero habuit? nonne cuius fuit? Si igitur homo non alterius est res quam creatoris, is eum habuit cuius fuit, is perdidit qui habuit, is requisivit qui perdidit, is invenit qui quaesivit, is exultavit qui invenit. [2] Ita utriusque parabolae argumentum vacat circa eum cuius non est ovis neque dragma, id est homo. Non enim perdidit, quia non habuit; nec requisivit, quia non perdidit; nec invenit, quia nec requisivit; nec exultavit, quia non invenit. Atque adeo exultare illius est de paenitentia peccatoris, id est de perditi recuperatione, qui se professus est olira malle peccatoris paenitentiam quam mortem.	32. [1] Who sought after the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver? Was it not the loser? But who was the loser? Was it not he who once possessed them? Who, then, was that? Was it not he to whom they belonged? Since, then, man is the property of none other than the Creator, He possessed Him who owned him; He lost him who once possessed him; He sought him who lost him; He found him who sought him; He rejoiced who found him. [2] Therefore the purport of neither parable has anything whatever to do with him to whom belongs neither the sheep nor the piece of silver, that is to say, man. For he lost him not, because he possessed him not; and he sought him not, because he lost him not; and he found him not, because he sought him not; and he rejoiced not, because he found him not. Therefore, to rejoice over the sinner's repentance----that is, at the recovery of lost man----is the attribute of Him who long ago professed that He would rather that the sinner should repent and not die.
33. [1] Quibus duobus dominis neget posse serviri quia alterum offendi sit necesse altemm defendi, ipse declarat deum proponens et mammonam. Deinde mammonam quem intellegi velit, si interpretem non habes, ab ipso potes discere. Admonens enim nos de saecularibus suffragia nobis prospicere amicitiarum, secundum servi illius exemplum. qui ab actu summotus dominicos debitores deminutis cautionibus relevat in subsidium sibi, Et ego, inquit, dico vobis, facite vobis amicos de mammona iniustitiae, de nummo scilicet de quo et servus ille. [2] Iniustitiae enim auctorem et dominatorem totius saeculi nummum scimus omnes. Cui famulatam videns pharisaeorum cupiditatem amentavit hanc sententiam: Non potestis deo servire et mammonae. Irridebant denique pharisaei pecuniae cupidi, quod intellexissent scilicet mammonam de nummo dictum: ne quis existimet in mammona creatorem intellegendum et Christum a creatoris illos servitute revocasse. Quid? nunc potius ex hoc disce unum a Christo deum ostensum. Duos enim dominos nominavit, deum et mammonam, creatorem et nummum. Denique non potestis deo servire, utique ei cui servire videbantur, et mammonae, cui magis destinabantur. [3] Quodsi ipse alium se ageret, non duos dominos sed tres demonstrasset. Et creator enim dominus, quia deus, et utique magis dominus quam mammonas, magisque observandus, qua magis dominus. Quale est enim ut qui mammonam dominum dixerat, et cum deo iunxerat, vere ipsorum dominum taceret, id est creatorem? Aut numquid tacendo eo concessit serviendum ei esse, si solummodo sibi et mammonae negavit posse serviri? Ita cum unum deum ponit, nominaturus et creatorem si alius esset ipse, creatorem nominavit, quem dominum sine alio deo [non] posuit. [4] Et illud itaque relucebit, quomodo dictum, Si in mammona iniusto fideles non extitistis, quod verum est quis vobis credet? in nummo scilicet iniusto, non in creatore, quem et Marcion iustum facit. Et si in alieno fideles inventi non estis, meum quis dabit vobis? alienum enim debet esse a servis dei quod iniustum est. Creator autem quomodo alienus erat pharisaeis, proprius deus Iudaicae gentis? Si ergo haec non cadunt in creatorem, sed in mammonam, Quis vobis credet quod verius est? et, Quis vobis dabit quod meum est? non potest quasi alius dixisse de alterius dei gratia. [5] Tunc enim videretur ita dixisse, si eos in creatorem, non in mammonam, infideles notando per creatoris mentionem distinctiones fecisset dei alterius, non commissuri suam veritatem infidelibus creatoris: quomodo tunc alterius videri potest, si non ad hoc proponatur ut a re de qua agitur separetur. [6] Si autem et iustificantes se coram hominibus pharisaei spem mercedis in homine ponebant, illo eos sensu increpabat quo et propheta Hieremias: Miser homo, qui spem habet in homine. Si et adicit, Scit autem deus corda vestra, illius dei vim commemorabat qui lucernam se pronuntiabat, scrutantem renes et corda. Si superbiam tangit, Quod elatum est apud homines perosum est deo, Esaiam ponit ante oculos: Dies enim domini sabaoth, in omnem contumeliosum et superbum, in omnem sublimem et elatum, et humiliabuntur. [7] Possum iam colligere cur tanto aevo deus Marcionis fuerit in occulto. Expectabat, opinor, donec haec omnia disceret a creatore. Didicit ergo usque ad Ioannis tempora, atque ita exinde processit annuntiare regnum dei, dicens, Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, ex quo regnum dei annuntiatur. [8] Quasi non et nos limitein quendam agnoscamus Ioannem constitutum inter vetera et nova, ad quem desineret Iudaismus et a quo inciperet Christianismus, non tamen ut ab alia virtute facta sit sedatio legis et prophetarum, et initiatio evangelii in quo est dei regnum, Christus ipse. Nam et si probavimus et vetera transitura et nova successura praedicari a creatore, si et Ioannes antecursor et praeparator ostenditur viarum domini evangelium superducturi et regnum dei promulgaturi, et ex hoc iam quod Ioannes venit ipse erit Christus qui Ioannem erat subsecuturus ut antecursorem, et si desierunt vetera et coeperunt nova interstite Ioanne, non erit mirum quod ex dispositione est creatoris, ut undeunde magis probetur quam ex legis et prophetaram in Ioannem occasu et exinde ortu regnum dei. [9] Transeat igitur caelum et terra citius, sicut et lex et prophetae, quam unus apex verborum domini. Verbum enim, inquit Esaias, dei nostri manet in aevum. Nam quoniam in Esaia iam tunc Christus, sermo scilicet et spiritus creatoris, Ioannem praedicarat, vocem clamantis in deserto, Parate viam domini, in hoc venturum ut legis et prophetarum ordo exinde cessaret, per adimpletionem non per destructionem, et regnum dei a Christo annuntiaretur, ideo subtexuit facilius elementa transitura quam verba sua, confirmans hoc quoque quod de Ioanne dixerat non praeterisse.	33. [1] What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be served, on the ground that while one is pleased the other must needs be displeased, He Himself makes clear, when He mentions God and mammon. Then, if you have no interpreter by you, you may learn again from Himself what He would have understood by mammon. For when advising us to provide for ourselves the help of friends in worldly affairs, after the example of that steward who, when removed from his office, relieves his lord's debtors by lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help, He said, "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," that is to say, of money, even as the steward had done. [2] Now we are all of us aware that money is the instigator of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw the covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship to it, He hurled this sentence against them, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Then the Pharisees, who were covetous of riches, derided Him, when they understood that by mammon He meant money. Let no one think that under the word mammon the Creator was meant, and that Christ called them off from the service of the Creator. What folly! Rather learn therefrom that one God was pointed out by Christ. For they were two masters whom He named, God and mammon----the Creator and money. You cannot indeed serve God----Him, of course whom they seemed to serve----and mammon to whom they preferred to devote themselves. [3] If, however, he was giving himself out as another god, it would not be two masters, but three, that he had pointed out. For the Creator was a master, and much more of a master, to be sure, than mammon, and more to be adored, as being more truly our Master. Now, how was it likely that He who had called mammon a master, and had associated him with God, should say nothing of Him who was really the Master of even these, that is, the Creator? Or else, by this silence respecting Him did He concede that service might be rendered to Him, since it was to Himself alone and to mammon that He said service could not be (simultaneously) rendered? When, therefore, He lays down the position that God is one, since He would have been sure to mention the Creator if He were Himself a rival to Him, He did (virtually) name the Creator, when He refrained from insisting" that He was Master alone, without a rival god. [4] Accordingly, this will throw light upon the sense in which it was said, "If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? " "In the unrighteous mammon," that is to say, in unrighteous riches, not in the Creator; for even Marcion allows Him to be righteous: "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who will give to you that which is mine? " For whatever is unrighteous ought to be foreign to the servants of God. But in what way was the Creator foreign to the Pharisees, seeing that He was the proper God of the Jewish nation? Forasmuch then as the words, "Who will entrust to you the truer riches? "and, "Who will give you that which is mine? "are only suitable to the Creator and not to mammon, He could not have uttered them as alien to the Creator, and in the interest of the rival god. [5] He could only seem to have spoken them in this sense, if, when remarking their unfaithfulness to the Creator and not to mammon, He had drawn some distinctions between the Creator (in his manner of mentioning Him) and the rival god----how that the latter would not commit his own truth to those who were unfaithful to the Creator. How then can he possibly seem to belong to another god, if He be not set forth, with the express intention of being separated from the very thing which is in question. [6] But when the Pharisees "justified themselves before men," and placed their hope of reward in man, He censured them in the sense in which the prophet Jeremiah said, "Cursed is the man that trust-eth in man." Since the prophet went on to say, "But the Lord knoweth your hearts," he magnified the power of that God who declared Himself to be as a lamp, "searching the reins and the heart." When He strikes at pride in the words: "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God," He recalls Isaiah: "For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is arrogant and lifted up, and they shall be brought low." [7] I can now make out why Marcion's god was for so long an age concealed. He was, I suppose, waiting until he had learnt all these things from the Creator. He continued his pupillage up to the time of John, and then proceeded forthwith to announce the kingdom of God, saying: "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed." [8] Just as if we also did not recognise in John a certain limit placed between the old dispensation and the new, at which Judaism ceased and Christianity began----without, however, supposing that it was by the power of another god that there came about a cessation of the law and the prophets and the commencement of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ Himself. For although, as we have shown, the Creator foretold that the old state of things would pass away and a new state would succeed, yet, inasmuch as John is shown to be both the forerunner and the pre-parer of the ways of that Lord who was to introduce the gospel and publish the kingdom of God, it follows from the very fact that John has come, that Christ must be that very Being who was to follow His harbinger John. So that, if the old course has ceased and the new has begun, with John intervening between them, there will be nothing wonderful in it, because it happens according to the purpose of the Creator; so that you may get a better proof for the kingdom of God from any quarter, however anomalous, than from the conceit that the law and the prophets ended in John, and a new state of things began after him. [9] "More easily, therefore, may heaven and earth pass away----as also the law and the prophets----than that one tittle of the Lord's words should fail." "For," as says Isaiah: "the word of our God shall stand for ever." Since even then by Isaiah it was Christ, the Word and Spirit of the Creator, who prophetically described John as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord," and as about to come for the purpose of terminating thenceforth the course of the law and the prophets; by their fulfilment and not their extinction, and in order that the kingdom of God might be announced by Christ, He therefore purposely added the assurance that the elements would more easily pass away than His words fail; affirming, as He did, the further fact, that what He had said concerning John had not fallen to the ground.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.34-36.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
34. [1] Sed Christus divortium prohibet dicens, Qui dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit; qui dimissam a viro duxerit, aeque adulter est. Ut sic quoque prohibeat divortium, illicitum facit repudiatae matrimonium. Moyses vero pennittit repudium in Deuteronomio: Si sumserit quis uxorem, et habitaverit cum ea, et evenerit non invenire eam apud eum gratiam, eo quod inventum sit in illa impudicum negotium, scribet libellum repudii et dabit in manu eius, et dimittet illam de domo sua. Vides diversitatcm legis et evangelii, Moysi et Christi? [2] Plane. Non enim recepisti illud quoque evangelium eiusdem veritatis et eiusdem Christi, in quo prohibens divortium propriam quaestionem eius absolvit: Moyses propter duritiam cordis vestri praecepit libellum repudii dare; a primordio autcm non fuit sic; quia scilicet qui marem et feminam fecerat, Erunt duo, dixerat, in carne una: quod deus itaque iunxit, homo disiunxerit? [3] Hoc enim responso et Moysi constitutionem protexit, ut sui, et creatoris institutionem direxit, ut Christus ipsius. Sed quatenus ex his revincendus es quae recepisti, sic tibi occurram ac si meus Christus. Nonne et ipse prohibens divortium, et patrem tamen gestans eum qui marem et feminam iunxit, excusaverit potius quam destruxerit Moysi constitutionem? Sed ecce sic tuus sit iste Christus contrarium docens Moysi et creatori, ut, si non contrarium ostendero, meus sit. [4] Dico enim illum condicionaliter nunc fecisse divortii prohibitionem, si ideo quis dimittat uxorem ut aliam ducat. Qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem et aliam duxerit, adulterium commisit, et qui a marito dimissam duxerit, aeque adulter est, ex eadem utique causa dimissam qua non licet dimitti, ut alia ducatur; illicite enim dimissam pro indimissa ducens adulter est. [5] Manet enim matrimonium quod non rite diremptum est; manente matrimonio nubere adulterium est. Ita si condicionaliter prohibuit dimittere uxorem, non in totum prohibuit, et quod non prohibuit in totum, permisit alias, ubi causa cessat ob quam prohibuit. Et iam non contrarium Moysi docet, cuius praeceptum alicubi conservat, nondum dico confirmat. Aut si omnino ncgas permitti divortium a Christo, quomodo tu nuptias dirimis, nec coniungens marem et feminam, nec alibi coniunctos ad sacramentum baptismatis et eucharistiae admittens nisi inter se coniuraverint adversus fructum nuptiarum, ut adversus ipsum creatorem? Certe quid facit apud te maritus si uxor eius commiserit adulterium? Habebitne illam? Scilicet nec tuum apostolum sinere coniungi prostitutae membra Christi. [6] Habet itaque et Christum assertorem iustitia divortii. Iam hinc confirmatur ab illo Moyses, ex eodem titulo prohibens repudium quo et Christus, nisi inventum fuerit in muliere negotium impudicum. Nam et in evangelio Matthaei, Qui dimiserit, inquit, uxorem suam praeter causam adulterii, facit eam adulterari. Aeque adulter censetur et ille qui dimissam a viro duxerit. Ceterum praeter ex causa adulterii nec creator disiungit, quod ipse scilicet coniunxit, eodem alibi Moyse constituente eum qui ex compressione matrimonium fecerat non posse dimittere uxorem in omne tempus. [7] Quodsi ex violentia coactum matrimonium stabit, quanto magis ex convenientia voluntarium? sicut et prophetiae auctoritate, Uxorem iuventutis tuae non dimittes. Habes itaque Christum ultro vestigia ubique creatoris ineuntem tam in permittendo repudio quam in prohibendo. Habes etiam nuptiarum, quoquo velis latere, prospectorem, quas nec separari vult prohibendo repudium, nec cum macula haberi tunc permittendo divortium. Erubesce non coniungens quos tuus quoque Christus coniunxit. Erubesce etiam disiungens sine eo merito quo disiungi voluit et tuus Christus. [8] Debeo nunc et illud ostendere unde hanc sententiam deduxerit dominus quove direxerit. Ita enim plenius constabit eum non ad Moysen destruendum spectasse per repudii propositionem subito interpositam, quia nec subito interposita est, habens radicem ex eadem Ioannis mentione. Ioannes enim retundens Herodem quod adversus legem uxorem fratris sui defuncti duxisset, habentis filiam ex illa (non alias hoc permittente, immo et praecipiente lege, quam si frater illiberis decesserit, ut a fratre ipsius et ex costa ipsius supparetur semen illi), coniectus in carcerem fuerat ab eodem Herode, postmodum et occisus. [9] Facta igitur mentione Ioannis dominus, et utique successus exitus eius, illicitorum matrimoniorum et adulterii figura iaculatus est in Herodem, adulterum pronuntians etiam qui dimissam a viro duxerit, quo magis impietatem Herodis oneraret, qui non minus morte quam repudio dimissam a viro duxerat, et hoc fratre habente ex illa filiam, et vel eo nomine illicite, ex libidinis non ex legis instinctu, ac propterea propheten quoque assertorem legis occiderat. [10] Hoc mihi disseruisse proficiet etiam ad subsequens argumentum divitis apud inferos dolentis et pauperis in sinu Abrahae requiescentis. Nam et illud, quantum ad scripturae superficiem, subito propositum est, quantum ad intentionem sensus, et ipsum cohaeret mentioni Ioannis male tractati et suggillati Herodis male maritati, utriusque exitum deformans, Herodis tormenta et Ioannis refrigeria, ut iam audiret Herodes, Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, illos audiant. [11] Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit, scilicet ut utramque mercedem creatoris sive tormenti sive refrigerii apud inferos determinet eis positam qui legi et prophetis obedierint, Christi vero et dei sui caelestem definiat sinum et portum. Respondebimus ad haec, ipsa scriptura revincente oculos eius, quae ab inferis discernit Abrahae sinum pauperi. Aliud enim inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abrahae sinus. Nam et magnum ait intercidere regiones istas profundum et transitum utrinque prohibere. [12] Sed nec allevasset dives oculos, et quidem de longinquo, nisi in superiora, et de altitudinis longinquo per immensam illam distantiam sublimitatis et profunditatis. Unde apparet sapienti cuique, qui aliquando Elysios audierit, esse aliquam localem determinationem quae sinus dicta sit Abrahae ad rccipiendas animas filiorum eius, etiam ex nationibus, patris scilicet multarum nationum in Abrahae censum deputandarum, et ex eadem fide qua et Abraham deo credidit, nullo sub iugo legis nec in signo circumcisionis. [13] Eam itaque regionem sinum dico Abrahae, etsi non caelestem, sublimiorem tamen inferis, interim refrigerium praebituram animabus iustorum, donec consummatio rerum resurrectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat, tunc apparitura caelesti promissione, quam Marcion suo vindicat, quasi non a creatore promulgatam. [14] Ad quam ascensum suum Christus aedificat in caelum, secundum Amos, utique suis, ubi est et locus aeternus, de quo Esaias: Quis annuntiabit vobis locum aeternum, nisi scilicet Christus incedens in iustitia, loquens viam rectam, odio habens iniustitiam et iniquitatem? Quodsi aeternus locus repromittitur et ascensus in caelum aedificatur a creatore, promittente etiam semen Abrahae velut stellas caeli futurum, utique ob caelestem promissionem, salva ea promissione cur non capiat sinum Abrahae dici temporale aliquod animarum. fidelium receptaculum in quo iam delinietur futuri imago ac candida quaedam utriusque iudicii prospiciatur? [15] admonens quoque vos haereticos, dum in vita estis, Moysen et prophetas unum deum praedicantes creatorem, et unum Christum praedicantes eius, et utrumque iudicium poenae et salutis aeternae apud unicum deum positum, qui occidat et vivificet. Immo, inquit, nostri dei monela de caelo non Moysen et prophetas iussit audiri, sed Christum: Hunc audite. Merito. Tunc enim apostoli satis iam audierant Moysen et prophetas, qui secuti erant Christum, credendo Moysi et prophetis. [16] Nec enim accepisset Petrus dicere, Tu es Christus, antequam audisset et credidisset Moysi et prophetis, a quibus solis adhuc Christus annuntiabatur. Haec igitur fides eorum meruerat ut etiam voce caelesti confirmaretur, iubente illum audiri quem agnoverant evangelizantem pacem, evangelizantem bona, annuntiantem locum aeternum, aedificantem illis ascensum suum in caelum. [17] Apud inferos autem de eis dictum est: Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, audiant illos, qui non credebant, vel qui nec omnino sic credebant, esse post mortem superbiae divitiarum et gloriae deliciarum supplicia annuntiata a Moyse et prophetis, decreta autem ab eo deo qui de thronis deponit dynastas, et de sterquilinis elevat inopes. Ita cum utrinque pronuntiationis diversitas competat creatori, non erit divinitatum statuenda distantia, sed ipsarum materiaram.	34. [1] But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery." In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: "When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house." You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel---- between Moses and Christ? [2] To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ. There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: "Moses," says He, "because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so" ----for this reason, indeed, because He who had "made them male and female" had likewise said, "They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." [3] Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated than abolished the enactment of Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them. [4] I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. His words are: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery," ----"put away," that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced. [5] Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit "the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot." [6] Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. [7] Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: "Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth." Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in for-bidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. [8] I have now to show whence the Lord derived this decision of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless, when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife, seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband), and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. [9] The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother's wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled thereto by his lust, not by the prescription of the (Levirate) law----for, as his brother had left a daughter, the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account; and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death. [10] The remarks I have advanced on this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of the rich man tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's bosom. For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage. It sets forth in bold outline the end of both of them, the "torments" of Herod and the "comfort" of John, that even now Herod might hear that warning: "They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." [11] Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; whilst he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham's bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment. "Hell" (I take it) means one thing, and "Abraham's bosom" another. "A great gulf" is said to separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other. [12] Besides, the rich man could not have "lifted up his eyes," and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth. It must therefore be evident to every man of intelligence who has ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some determinate place called Abraham's bosom, and that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham's children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is "the father of many nations," which must be classed amongst his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. [13] This region, therefore, I call Abraham's bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the "full recompense of their reward." This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them. [14] Amos, however, tells us of "those stories towards heaven" which Christ "builds"----of course for His people. There also is that everlasting abode of which Isaiah asks, "Who shall declare unto you the eternal place, but He (that is, of course, Christ) who walketh in righteousness, speaketh of the straight path, hateth injustice and iniquity? " Now, although this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps) to heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of Abraham shall be even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not be possible, without any injury to that promise, that by Abraham's bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory of both judgments? [15] If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the prophets declare one only God, the Creator, and His only Christ, and how that both awards of everlasting punishment and eternal salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills and who makes alive. Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the command. This is true enough. For the apostles had by that time sufficiently heard Moses and the prophets, for they had followed Christ, being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. [16] For even Peter would not have been able to say, "Thou art the Christ," unless he had beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been hitherto announced. Their faith, indeed, had deserved this confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear Him, whom they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven. [17] Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!"----event hose who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely believe that after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raiseth up the poor from dunghills. Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods, but only a difference in the actual matters before us.
35. [1] Conversus ibidem ad discipulos Vae dicit auctori scandalorum, expedisse ei si natus non fuisset, aut si molino saxo ad collum deligato praecipitatus esset in profundum, quam unum ex illis modicis utique discipulis eius scandalizasset. Aestima quale supplicium comminetur illi. Nec enim alius ulciscetur scandalum discipulorum eius. [2] Agnosce igitur et iudicem et illo affectu pronuntiantem de cura suorum quo et creator retro: Qui tetigerit vos, ac si pupillam oculi mei tangat. Idem sensus eiusdem est. Peccantem fratrem iubet corripi; quod qui non fecerit, utique deliquit, aut ex odio volens fratrem in delicto perseverare, aut ex acceptione personae parcens ei, habens Leviticum: Non odies fratrem tuum in animo tuo, traductione traduces proximum tuum, utique et fratrem, et non sumes propter illum delictum. [3] Nec mirum si ita docet qui pecora quoque fratris tui, si errantia in via inveneris, prohibet despicias quominus ea reducas fratri, nedum ipsum sibi. Sed et veniam des fratri in te delinquenti iubet, etiam septies. Parum plane. Plus est enim apud creatorem, qui nec modum statuit, in infinitum pronuntians fratris malitiae memor ne sis, nec petenti eam praestes mandat sed et non petenti. Non enim dones offensam vult, sed obliviscaris. [4] Lex leprosorum quantae sit interpretationis erga species ipsius vitii et inspectationis summi sacerdotis nostrum erit scire, Marcionis morositatem legis opponere, ut et hic Christum aemulum eius affirmet, praevenientem sollemnia legis etiam in curatione decem leprosorum, quos tantummodo ire iussos ut se ostenderent sacerdotibus, in itinere purgavit, sine tactu iam et sine verbo, tacita potestate et sola voluntate; [5] quasi necesse sit semel remediatore languorum et vitiorum annuntiato Christo et de effectibus probato, de qualitatibus curationum retractari, aut creatorem in Christo ad legem provocari, si quid aliter quam lege distinxit ipse perfecit; cum aliter utique dominus per semetipsum operetur sive per filium, aliter per prophetas famulos suos, maxime documenta virtutis et potestatis, quae ut clariora et validiora, qua propria, distare a vicariis fas est. Sed eiusmodi et alibi iam dicta sunt in documento superiore. [6] Nunc etsi praefatus est multos tunc fuisse leprosos apud Israelem in diebus Helisaei prophetae et neminem eorum purgatum nisi Naaman Syrum, non utique et numerus faciet ad differentiam deorum, in destructionem creatoris unum remediantis et praelationem eius qui decem emundarit. Quis enim dubitabit plures potuisse curari ab eo qui unum curasset quam ab illo decem qui nunquam retro unum? [7] Sed hac cum maxime pronuntiatione diffidentiam Israelis vel superbiam pulsat, quod cum multi essent illic leprosi et prophetes non deesset, etiam edito documento nemo decucurrisset ad deum operantem in prophetis. Igitur quoniam ipse erat authenticus pontifex dei patris, inspexit illos secundum legis arcanum, significantis Christum esse verum disceptatorem et elimatorem humanarum macularum. Sed et quod in manifesto fuit legis praecepit, Ite, ostendite vos sacerdotibus. Cur, si illos ante erat emundaturus? An quasi legis illusor, ut in itinere curatis ostenderet nihil esse legem cum ipsis sacerdotibus? [8] Et utique viderit, si cui tam opiniosus videbitur Christus. Immo digniora sunt interpretanda et fidei iustiora: ideo illos remediatos, qua secundum legem iussi abire ad sacerdotes obaudierant; neque enim credibile est emeruisse medicinam a destructore legis observatores legis. Sed cur pristino leproso nihil tale praecepit? Quia nec Helisaeus Syro Naaman; et tamen non idcirco non erat creatoris. Satis respondi; sed qui credidit, intellegit etiam altius aliquid. [9] Disce igitur et causas. In Samariae regionibus res agebatur, unde erat et unus interim ex leprosis. Samaria autem desciverat ab Israele, habens schisma illud ex novem tribubus, quas avulsas per Achiam prophetam collocaverat apud Samariam Hieroboam. Sed et alias semper sibi placentes erant Samaritani de montibus et puteis patrum, sicut in evangelio Ioannis Samaritana illa in colloquio domini apud puteum: Nae tu maior sis, [10] et cetera; et rursus: Patres nostri in isto monte adoraverunt, et vos dicitis quia Hierosolymis oportet adorare. Itaque qui et per Amos Vae dixerit eis qui confident in monte Samariae, iam et ipsam restituere dignatus de industria iubet ostendere se sacerdotibus, utique qui non erant nisi ubi et templum, subiciens Samaritam Iudaeo, quoniam ex Iudaeis salus, licet Israelitae et Samaritae. Tota enim promissio tribui Iudae Christus fuit; ut scirent Hierosolymis esse et sacerdotes et templum et matricem religionis et fontem, non puteum, salutis. [11] Et ideo, ut vidit agnovisse legem illos Hierosolymis expungendam, ex fide iam iustificandos sine legis ordine remediavit. Unde et unum illum solutum ex decem memorem divinae gratiae Samariten miratus, non mandat offerre munus ex lege, quia satis iam obtulerat gloriam deo reddens, hoc et domino volente interpretari legem. Et tamen cui deo gratiam reddidit Samarites, quando nec Israelites alium deum usque adhuc didicisset? Cui alii quam cui omnes remediati retro a Christo? Et ideo, Fides tua te salvum fecit, audiit, quia intellexerat veram se deo omnipotenti oblationem, gratiarum scilicet actionem, apud verum templum et verum pontificem eius Christum facere debere. [12] Sed nec pharisaei possunt videri de alterius dei regno consuluisse dominum quando venturum sit, quamdiu alius a Christo editus deus non erat, nec ille de alterius regno respondisse quam de cuius consulebatur. Non venit, inquit, regnum dei cum observatione, nec dicunt, Ecce hic, ecce illic: ecce enim regnum dei intra vos est. Quis non ita interpretabitur: Intra vos est, id est in manu, in potestate vestra, si audiatis, si faciatis dei praeceptum? [13] Quodsi in praecepto est dei regnum, propone igitur contra, secundum nostras antitheses, Moysen, et una sententia est. Praeceptum, inquit, excelsum non est, nec longe a te. Non est in caelo, ut dicas, Quis ascendet in caelum et deponet nobis illud, et auditum illud facieraus? nec ultra mare est, ut dicas, Quis transfretabit et sumet illud nobis, et auditum illud faciemus? Prope te est verbum, in ore tuo, et in corde tuo, et in manibus tuis facere illud. Hoc erit, Non hic, nec illic; ecce enim intra vos est regnum dei. [14] Et ne argumentetur audacia haeretica de regno creatoris, de quo consulebatur, non de suo, respondisse eis dominum, sequentia obsistunt. Dicens enim filium hominis ante multa pati et reprobari oportere, ante adventum suum, in quo et regnum substantialiter revelabitur, suum ostendit et regnum de quo responderat, quod passiones et reprobationes ipsius expectabat. Reprobari autem habens, et postea agnosci et assumi et extolli, etiam ipsum verbum reprobari inde decerpsit ubi in lapidis aenigmate utraque revelatio eius apud David canebatur, prima recusabilis, secunda honorabilis. [15] Lapis, inquit, quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, iste factus est in caput anguli: a domino factum est hoc. Vanum enim, si credidimus deum de contumelia aut gloria scilicet alicuius praedicasse, ut non eum portenderet quem et in lapidis et in petrae et in montis figura portenderat. Sed si de suo loquitur adventu, cur eum diebus Noe et Loth comparat tetris et atrocibus, deus et lenis et mitis? Cur admonet meminisse uxoris Loth, quae praeceptum creatoris non impune contempsit, si non cum iudicio venit vindicandorum praeceptomm suorum? [16] Etiam si vindicat ut ille, si iudicat me, non debuit per eius documenta formare quem destruit, ne ille me formare videatur. Si vero et hic non de suo loquitur adventu sed de Iudaei Christi, expectemus etiam nunc ne quid de suo praedicet, illum interim esse credentes quem omni loco praedicat.	35. [1] Then, turning to His disciples, He says: "Woe unto him through whom offences come! It were better for him if he had not been born, or if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones," that is, one of His disciples. Judge, then, what the sort of punishment is which He so severely threatens. For it is no stranger who is to avenge the offence done to His disciples. [2] Recognise also in Him the Judge, and one too, who expresses Himself on the safety of His followers with the same tenderness as that which the Creator long ago exhibited: "He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of my eye." Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked. If one failed in this duty of reproof, he in fact sinned, either because out of hatred he wished his brother to continue in sin, or else spared him from mistaken friendship, although possessing the injunction in Leviticus: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt seriously rebuke, and on his account shalt not contract sin." [3] Nor is it to be wondered at, if He thus teaches who forbids your refusing to bring back even your brother's cattle, if you find them astray in the road; much more should you bring back your erring brother to himself. He commands you to forgive your brother, should he trespass against you even "seven times." But that surely, is a small matter; for with the Creator there is a larger grace, when He sets no limits to forgiveness, indefinitely charging you "not to bear any malice against your brother," and to give not merely to him who asks, but even to him who does not ask. For His will is, not that you should forgive an offence, but forget it. [4] The law about lepers had a profound meaning as respects the forms of the disease itself, and of the inspection by the high priest. The interpretation of this sense it will be our task to ascertain. Marcion's labour, however, is to object to us the strictness of the law, with the view of maintaining that here also Christ is its enemy----forestalling its enactments even in His cure of the ten lepers. These He simply commanded to show themselves to the priest; "and as they went, He cleansed them" ----without a touch, and without a word, by His silent power and simple will. [5] Well, but what necessity was there for Christ, who had been once for all announced as the healer of our sicknesses and sins, and had proved Himself such by His acts, to busy Himself with inquiries into the qualities and details of cures; or for the Creator to be summoned to the scrutiny of the law in the person of Christ? If any pan of this healing was effected by Him in a way different from the law, He yet Himself did it to perfection; for surely the Lord may by Himself, or by His Son, produce after one manner, and after another manner by His servants the prophets, those proofs of His power and might especially, which (as excelling in glory and strength, because they are His own acts) rightly enough leave in the distance behind them the works which are done by His servants. But enough has been already said on this point in a former passage. [6] Now, although He said in a preceding chapter, that "there were many lepers in lsrael in the days of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian," yet of course the mere number proves nothing towards a difference in the gods, as tending to the abasement of the Creator in curing only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt that many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him who had never healed one before? [7] But His main purpose in this declaration was to strike at the unbelief or the pride of Israel, in that (although there were many lepers amongst them, and a prophet was not wanting to them) not one had been moved even by so conspicuous an example to betake himself to God who was working in His prophets. Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself the veritable High Priest of God the Father, He inspected them according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind. However, what was obviously required by the law He commanded should be done: "Go," said He, "show yourselves to the priests." Yet why this, if He meant to cleanse them first? Was it as a despiser of the law, in order to prove to them that, having been cured already on the road, the law was now nothing to them, nor even the priests? [8] Well, the matter must of course pass as it best may, if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these! But there are certainly better interpretations to be found of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that they were cleansed on this account, because they were obedient, and went as the law required, when they were commanded to go to the priests; and it is not to be believed that persons who observed the law could have found a cure from a god that was destroying the law. Why, however, did He not give such a command to the leper who first returned? Because Elisha did not in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the Creator's agent? This is a sufficient answer. But the believer knows that there is a profounder reason. [9] Consider, therefore, the true motives. The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged one of the lepers. Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with it the disaffected nine tribes, which, having been alienated by the prophet Ahijah, Jeroboam settled in Samaria. Besides, the Samaritans were always pleased with the mountains and the wells of their ancestors. Thus, in the Gospel of John, the woman of Samaria, when conversing with the Lord at the well, says, "No doubt Thou art greater," [10] etc.; and again, "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." Accordingly, He who said, "Woe unto them that trust in the mountain of Samaria," vouchsafing now to restore that very region, purposely requests the men "to go and show themselves to the priests," because these were to be found only there where the temple was; submitting the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as "salvation was of the Jews," whether to the Israelite or the Samaritan. To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly appertained the promised Christ, in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both the priests and the temple; that there also was the womb of religion, and its living fountain, not its mere "well." [11] Seeing, therefore, that they recognised the truth that at Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled, He healed them. whose salvation was to come of faith without the ceremony of the law. Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when "he glorified God; for thus did the Lord will that the law's requirement should be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the Samaritan gave thanks, because thus far not even had an Israelite heard of another god? Who else but He by whom all had hitherto been healed through Christ? And therefore it was said to him, "Thy faith hath made thee whole," because he had discovered that it was his duty to render the true oblation to Almighty God----even thanksgiving----in His true temple, and before His true High Priest Jesus Christ. [12] But it is impossible either that the Pharisees should seem to have inquired of the Lord about the coming of the kingdom of the rival god, when no other god has ever yet been announced by Christ; or that He should have answered them concerning the kingdom of any other god than Him of whom they were in the habit of asking Him. "The kingdom of God," He says, "cometh not with observation; neither do they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Now, who will not interpret the words "within you" to mean in your hand, within your power, if you hear, and do the commandment of God? [13] If, however, the kingdom of God lies in His commandment, set before your mind Moses on the other side, according to our antitheses, and you will find the self-same view of the case. "The commandment is not a lofty one, neither is it far off from thee. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, `Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 'nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, `Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 'But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands, to do it." This means, "Neither in this place nor that place is the kingdom of God; for, behold, it is within you." [14] And if the heretics, in their audacity, should contend that the Lord did not give an answer about His own kingdom, but only about the Creator's kingdom, concerning which they had inquired, then the following words are against them. For He tells them that "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected," before His coming, at which His kingdom will be really revealed. In this statement He shows that it was His own kingdom which His answer to them had contemplated, and which was now awaiting His own sufferings and rejection. But having to be rejected and afterwards to be acknowledged, and taken up and glorified, He borrowed the very word "rejected" from the passage, where, under the figure of a stone, His twofold manifestation was celebrated by David----the first in rejection, the second in honour: [15] "The stone," says He, "which the builders rejected, is become the head-stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing." Now it would be idle, if we believed that God had predicted the humiliation, or even the glory, of any Christ at all, that He could have signed His prophecy for any but Him whom He had foretold under the figure of a stone, and a rock, and a mountain. If, however, He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare it with the days of Noe and of Lot, which were dark and terrible----a mild and gentle God as He is? Why does He bid us "remember Lot's wife," who despised the Creator's command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts? [16] If He really does punish, like the Creator, if He is my Judge, He ought not to have adduced examples for the purpose of instructing me from Him whom He yet destroys, that He might not seem to be my instructor. But if He does not even here speak of His own coming, but of the coming of the Hebrew Christ, let us still wait in expectation that He will vouchsafe to us some prophecy of His own advent; meanwhile we will continue to believe that He is none other than He whom He reminds us of in every passage.
36. [1] Nam et orandi perseverantiam et instantiam mandans parabolam iudicis ponit coacti audire viduam instantia et perseverantia interpellationum eius. Ergo iudicem deum ostendit orandum, non se, si non ipse est iudex. Sed subiunxit facturum deum vindictam electorum suorum. Si ergo ipse erit iudex qui et vindex, creatorem ergo meliorem deum probavit, quem electorum suorum clamantium ad eum die et nocte vindicem ostendit. Et tamen cum templum creatoris inducit, et duos adorantes diversa mente describit, pharisaeum in superbia, publicanum in humilitate, ideoque alterum reprobatum, alterum iustificatum descendisse, utique docendo qua disciplina sit orandum, eum et hic orandum constituit a quo relaturi essent eam orandi disciplinam, sive reprobatricem superbiae sive iustificatricem humilitatis. [2] Alterius dei nec templum nec oratores nec iudicium invenio penes Christum, nisi creatoris. Illum iubet adorare in humilitate, ut allevatorem humilium, non in superbia, ut destructorem superborum. Quem alium adorandum mihi ostendit? qua disciplina? qua spe? Neminem, opinor. Nam et quam docuit orationem, creatori probavimus convenire. Aliud est si etiam adorari, qua deus optimus et ultro bonus, non vult. [3] Sed quis optimus, nisi unus, inquit, deus? Non quasi ex duobus diis unum optimum ostenderit, sed unum esse optimum deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus qua solus deus. Et utique optimus, qui pluit super iustos et iniustos, et solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos, sustinens et alens et iuvans etiam Marcionitas. [4] Denique interrogatus ab illo quodam, Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo? de praeceptis creatoris an ea sciret, id est faceret, expostulavit, ad contestandum praeceptis creatoris vitam acquiri sempiternam: cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adulescentia, Unum, inquit, tibi deest: omnia, quaecunque habes, vcnde et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in caelo, et veni, sequere me. [5] Age, Marcion, omnesque iam commiserones et coodibiles eius haeretici, quid audebitis dicere? Resciditne Christus priora praecepta, non occidendi, non adulterandi, non furandi, non falsum testandi, diligendi patrem et matrem? an et illa servavit et quod deerat adiecit? Quamquam et hoc praeceptum largitionis in egenos ubique diffusum sit in lege et prophetis, uti gloriosissimus ille observator praeceptorum pecuniam multo cariorem habiturus traduceretur. [6] Salvum est igitur et hoc in evangelio: Non veni dissolvere legem et prophetas, sed potius adimplere. Simul et cetera dubitatione liberavit, manifestando unius esse et dei nomen et optimi, et vitam aeternam et thesaurum in caelo, et semetipsum, cuius praecepta supplendo et conservavit et auxit, secundum Michaeam quoque hoc loco recognoscendus, dicentem, Si annuntiavit tibi, homo, quid bonum, aut quid a te dominus exquirit quam facere iudicium, diligere misericordiam, et paratum esse sequi dominum deum tuum? [7] Et homo enim Christus annuntians quid sit bonum; scientiam legis: Praecepta, inquit, scis; facere iudicium: Vende, inquit, quae habes; diligere misericordiam: Et da, inquit, egenis; paratum esse ire cum domino: Et veni, inquit, sequere me. [8] Tam distincta fuit a primordio Iudaea gens per tribus et populos et familias et domos, ut nemo facile ignorari de genere potuisset, vel de recentibus Augustianis censibus, adhuc tunc fortasse pendentibus. Iesus autem Marcionis (et natus non dubitaretur qui homo videbatur) utique, qua non natus, nullam potuerat generis sui in publico habuisse notitiam, sed erat unus aliqui deputandus ex iis qui quoquo modo ignoti habebantur. [9] Cum igitur praetereuntem illum caecus audisset, cur exclamavit, Iesu, fili David, miserere mei! nisi quia filius David, id est ex familia David, non temere deputabatur per matrem et fratres, qui aliquando ex notitia utique annuntiati ei fuerant? Sed antecedentes increpabant caecum, uti taceret. Merito, quoniam quidem vociferabatur, non quia de David filio mentiebatur. Aut doce increpantes illos scisse quod Iesus non esset filius David, ut idcirco silentium caeco indixisse credantur. [10] Sed et si doceres, facilius illos ignorasse praesumeret quam dominum falsam in se praedicationem sustinere potuisse. Sed patiens dominus. Non tamen confirmator erroris, immo etiam detector creatoris, ut non prius hanc caecitatem hominis illius enubilasset, ne ultra Iesum filium David existimaret. Atquin ne patientiam eius infamaretis, nec ullam rationem dissimulationis illi affigeretis, nec filium David negaretis, manifestissime confirmavit caeci praedicationem et ipsa remuneratione medicinae et testimonio fidei. Fides, inquit, tua te salvum fecit. [11] Quid vis caecum credidisse? Ab illo deo descendisse Iesum ad deiectionem creatoris, ad destructionem legis et prophetarum? non illum esse qui ex radice Iesse et ex fructu lumborum David destinabatur, caecorum quoque remunerator? Sed nondum, puto, eiusmodi tunc caeci erant qualis Marcion, ut haec fuerit caeci illius fides qua crediderit in voce, Iesu fili David. [12] Qui hoc se et cognovit et cognosci ab omnibus voluit, fidem hominis etsi melius oculatam, etsi veri luminis compotem, exteriore quoque visione donavit, ut et nos regulam simulque mercedem fidei disceremus. Qui vult videre Iesum, David filium credat per virginis censum. Qui non ita credet, non audiet ab illo, Fides tua te salvum fecit, atque ita caecus remanebit, ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim. Sic enim caecus caecum deducere solet. [13] Nam si aliquando Davidem in recuperatione Sionis offenderant caeci resistentes quominus admitteretur (in figuram populi proinde caeci, non admissuri quandoque Christum filium David), ideo Christus ex diverso caeco subvenit, ut hinc se ostenderet non esse filium David, ut ex animi diversitate bonus caecis, quos ille iusserat caedi. Et cur fidei et quidem pravae praestitisse se dixit? Atquin et hoc filius David, antithesim de suo retundam. [14] Nam et qui David offenderant, caeci; nunc vero eiusdem carnis homo supplicem se obtulerat filio David. Idcirco ei satisfacienti quodammodo placatus filius David restituit lumina, cum testimonio fidei, qua hoc ipsum crediderat, exorandum sibi esse filium David. Et tamen David audacia hominum, puto, offenderit, non valetudo.	36. [1] When He recommends perseverance and earnestness in prayer, He sets before us the parable of the judge who was compelled to listen to the widow, owing to the earnestness and importunity of her requests. He show us that it is God the judge whom we must importune with prayer, and not Himself, if He is not Himself the judge. But He added, that "God would avenge His own elect." Since, then, He who judges will also Himself be the avenger, He proved that the Creator is on that account the specially good God, whom He represented as the avenger of His own elect, who cry day and night to Him, And yet, when He introduces to our view the Creator's temple, and describes two men worshipping therein with diverse feelings----the Pharisee in pride, the publican in humility----and shows us how they accordingly went down to their homes, one rejected, the other justified, He surely, by thus teaching us the proper discipline of prayer, has determined that that God must be prayed to from whom men were to receive this discipline of prayer----whether condemnatory of pride, or justifying in humility. [2] I do not find from Christ any temple, any suppliants, any sentence (of approval or condemnation) belonging to any other god than the Creator. Him does He enjoin us to worship in humility, as the lifter-up of the humble, not in pride, because He brings down the proud. What other god has He manifested to me to receive my supplications? With what formula of worship, with what hope (shall I approach him? ) I trow, none. For the prayer which He has taught us suits, as we have proved, none but the Creator. It is, of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely and spontaneously good God! [3] But who is this good God? There is, He says, "none but one." It is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God. Now, undoubtedly, He is the good God who "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; " sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves! [4] When afterwards "a certain man asked him, `Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? '" (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that is, in other words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to testify that it was by the Creator's precepts that eternal life is acquired. Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." [5] Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore convicted of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity). [6] This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them." He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too----whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts. He may likewise be discovered in the following passage of Micah, saying: "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord thy God? " [7] Now Christ is the man who tells us what is good, even the knowledge of the law. "Thou knowest," says He, "the commandments." "To do justly"----"Sell all that thou hast; ""to love mercy"----"Give to the poor: ""and to be ready to walk with God"----"And come," says He, "follow me." [8] The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent----even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time. But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person's having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known. [9] Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me? " unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner, to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety? "Those, however, who went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace." And properly enough; because he was very noisy, not because he was wrong about the son of David Else you must show me, that those who rebuked him were aware that Jesus was not the Son of David, in order that they may be supposed to have had this reason for imposing silence on the blind man. [10] But even if you could show me this, still (the blind man) would more readily have presumed that they were ignorant, than that the Lord could possibly have permitted an untrue exclamation about Himself. But the Lord "stood patient." Yes; but not as confirming the error, for, on the contrary, He rather displayed the Creator. Surely He could not have first removed this man's blindness, in order that he might afterwards cease to regard Him as the Son of David! However, that you may not slander His patience, nor fasten on Him any charge of dissimulation, nor deny Him to be the Son of David, He very pointedly confirmed the exclamation of the blind man----both by the actual gift of healing, and by bearing testimony to his faith: "Thy faith," say Christ, "hath made thee whole." [11] What would you have the blind man's faith to have been? That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David's loins, the restorer also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone----blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of the blind man, and have induced him to confide in the mere name, of Jesus, the Son of David. [12] He, who knew all this of Himself, and wished others to know it also, endowed the faith of this man----although it was already gifted with a better sight, and although it was in possession of the true light----with the external vision likewise, in order that we too might learn the rule of faith, and at the same time find its recompense. Whosoever wishes to see Jesus the Son of David must believe in Him; through the Virgin's birth. He who will not believe this will not hear from Him the salutation, "Thy faith hath saved thee." And so he will remain blind, falling into Antithesis after Antithesis, which mutually destroy each other, just as "the blind man leads the blind down into the ditch." [13] For (here is one of Marcion's Antitheses): whereas David in old time, in the capture of Sion, was offended by the blind who opposed his admission (into the stronghold) ----in which respect (I should rather say) that they were a type of people equally blind, who in after-times would not admit Christ to be the son of David----so, on the contrary, Christ succoured the blind man, to show by this act that He was not David's son, and how different in disposition He was, kind to the blind, while David ordered them to be slain. If all this were so, why did Marcion allege that the blind man's faith was of so worthless a stamp? The fact is, the Son of David so acted, that the Antithesis must lose its point by its own absurdity. [14] Those persons who offended David were blind, and the man who now presents himself as a suppliant to David's son is afflicted with the same infirmity. Therefore the Son of David was appeased with some sort of satisfaction by the blind man when He restored him to sight, and added His approval of the faith which had led him to believe the very truth, that he must win to his help the Son of David by earnest entreaty. But, after all, I suspect that it was the audacity (of the old Jebusites) which offended David, and not their malady.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.37-39.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
37. [1] Consequitur et Zachaei domus salutem. Quo merito? Numquid vel ille crediderat Christum a Marcione venisse? Atquin adhuc in auribus erat omnium vox illa caeci, Miserere mei, Iesu fili David, et omnis populus laudes referebat deo, non Marcionis, sed David. Enimvero Zachaeus etsi allophylus, fortasse tamen aliqua notitia scripturarum ex commercio Iudaico afflatus, plus est autem <si> et ignorans Esaiam praecepta eius impleverat. Confringito, inquit, panem tuum esurienti, et non habentes tectum in domum tuam inducito: hoc cum maxime agebat, exceptum domo sua pascens dominum. Et nudum si videris, contegito: hoc cum maxime promittebat, in omnia misericordiae opera dimidium substantiae offerens, dissolvens violentiorum contractuum obnexus et dimittens conflictatos in laxamentum, et omnem conscriptionem iniquam dissipans, dicendo, Et si cui quid per calumniam eripui, quadruplum reddo. Itaque dominus, Hodie, inquit, salus huic domui. [2] Testimonium dixit salutaria esse quae praeceperat prophetes creatoris. Cum vero dicit, Venit enim filius hominis salvum facere quod periit, iam non contendo eum venisse ut salvum faceret quod perierat, cuius fuerat et cui perierat quod salvum venerat facere, sed in alterius quaestionis gradum dirigo. De homine agi nulla dubitatio est. [3] Hic cum ex duabus substantiis constet, ex corpore et anima, quaerendum est ex qua substantiae specie periisse videatur. Si ex corpore, ergo corpus perierat, anima non. Quod perierat, salvum facit filius hominis: habet igitur et caro salutem. Si ex anima perierat, animae perditio saluti destinatur: caro, quae non periit, salva est. Si totus homo perierat ex utraque substantia, totus homo salvus fiat necesse est, et elisa est sententia haereticomm negantium carnis salutem. Iam et Christus creatoris confirmatur, qui secundum creatorem totius hominis salutem pollicebatur. [4] Servorum quoque parabola, qui secundum rationem feneratae pecuniae dominicae diiudicantur, iudicem ostendit deum, etiam ex parte severitatis, non tantum honorantem verum et auferentem quod quis videatur habuisse. Aut si et hic creatorem finxerit austerum, tollentem quod non posuerit et metentem quod non severit, hic quoque me ille instruit cuius pecuniam ut fenerem edocet.	37. [1] "Salvation comes to the house" of Zacchaeus even. For what reason? Was it because he also believed that Christ came by Marcion? But the blind man's cry was still sounding in the ears of all: "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me." And "all the people gave praise unto God"----not Marcion's, but David's. Now, although Zacchaeus was probably a Gentile, he yet from his intercourse with Jews had obtained a smattering of their Scriptures, and, more than this, had, without knowing it, fulfilled the precepts of Isaiah: "Deal thy bread," said the prophet, "to the hungry, and bring the poor that are cast out into thine house." This he did in the best possible way, by receiving the Lord, and entertaining Him in his house. "When thou seest the naked cover him." This he promised to do, in an equally satisfactory way, when he offered the half of his goods for all works of mercy. So also "he loosened the bands of wickedness. undid the heavy burdens, let the oppressed go free, and broke every yoke," when he said, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." Therefore the Lord said, "This day is salvation come to this house." [2] Thus did He give His testimony, that the precepts of the Creator spoken by the prophet tended to salvation. But when He adds, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," my present contention is not whether He was come to save what was lost, to whom it had once belonged, and from whom what He came to save had fallen away; but I approach a different question. Man, there can be no doubt of it, is here the subject of consideration. [3] Now, since he consists of two parts, body and soul, the point to be inquired into is, in which of these two man would seem to have been lost? If in his body, then it is his body, not his soul, which is lost. What, however, is lost, the Son of man saves. The body, therefore, has the salvation. If, (on the other hand, ) it is in his soul that man is lost, salvation is designed for the lost soul; and the body which is not lost is safe. If, (to take the only other supposition, ) man is wholly lost, in both his natures, then it necessarily follows that salvation is appointed for the entire man; and then the opinion of the heretics is shivered to pieces, who say that there is no salvation of the flesh. And this affords a confirmation that Christ belongs to the Creator, who followed the Creator in promising the salvation of the whole man. [4] The parable also of the (ten) servants, who received their several recompenses according to the manner in which they had increased their lord's money by trading proves Him to be a God of judgment----even a God who, in strict account, not only bestows honour, but also takes away what a man seems to have. Else, if it is the Creator whom He has here delineated as the "austere man," who "takes up what he laid not down, and reaps what he did not sow," my instructor even here is He, (whoever He may be, ) to whom belongs the money He teaches me fruitfully to expend.
38. [1] Sciebat Christus baptisma Ioannis unde esset. Et cur quasi nesciens interrogabat? Sciebat non responsuros sibi pharisaeos. Et cur frustra interrogabat? An ut ex ore ipsorum iudicaret illos, vel ex corde? Refer ergo et haec ad excusationem creatoris et ad comparationem Christi, et considera iam quid secuturum esset si quid pharisaei ad interrogationem renuntiassent. Puta illos renuntiasse humanum Ioannis baptisma, statim lapidibus elisi fuissent. Existeret aliqui Marcion adversus Marcionem, qui diceret, O deum optimum, o deum diversum a creatoris exemplis! sciens praeceps ituros homines ipse illos in praerupium imposuit. [2] Sic enim et de creatore in arboris lege tractatur. Sed de caelis fuit baptisma Ioannis. Et quare, inquit Christus, non credidistis ei? Ergo qui credi voluerat Ioanni, increpaturus quod non credidissent, eius erat cuius sacramentum Ioannes administrabat. Certe nolentibus renuntiare quid saperent, cum et ipse vicem opponit, Et ego non dico vobis in qua virtute haec facio, malum malo reddidit. [3] Reddite quae Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt dei deo. Quae erunt dei? Quae similia sunt denario Caesaris; imago scilicet et similitudo eius. Hominem igitur reddi iubet creatori, in cuius imagine et similitudine et nomine et materia expressus est. Quaerat sibi monetam deus Marcionis, Christus denarium hominis suo Caesari iubet reddi, non alieno; nisi quod necesse est, qui suum denarium non habet. [4] Iusta et digna praescriptio est in omni quaestione ad propositum interrogationis pertinere debere sensum responsionis: ceterum aliud consulenti aliud respondere dementis est. Quo magis absit a Christo quod ne homini quidem convenit. Sadducaei, resurrectionis negatores, de ea habentes interrogationem, proposuerant domino ex lege materiam mulieris quae septem fratribus ex ordine defunctis secundum praeceptum legale nupsisset, cuius viri deputanda esset in resurrectione. [5] Haec fuit materia quaestionis, haec substantia consultationis. Ad hoc respondisse Christum necesse est. Neminem timuit, ut quaestiones aut declinasse videatur, aut per occasionem earum quod alias palam non docebat subostendisse. Respondit igitur huius quidem aevi filios nubere. Vides quam pertinenter ad causam. Quia de aevo venturo quaerebatur, in quo neminem nubere definiturus praestruxit hic quidem nubi ubi sit et mori. Quos vero dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione a mortuis, neque nubere neque nubi, quia nec morituri iam sint, cum similes angelorum fiant, dei et resurrectionis filii facti. [6] Cum igitur sensus responsionis non ad aliud sit dirigendus quam ad propositum interrogationis, si hoc sensu responsionis propositum absolvitur interrogationis, non aliud responsio domini sapit quam quo quaestio absolvitur. Habes et tempora permissarum et negatarum nuptiarum, non cx sua propria sed ex resurrectionis quaestione. Habes et ipsius resurrectionis confirmationem, et totum quod sadducaei sciscitabantur, non de alio deo interrogantes, nec de proprio nuptiarum iure quaerentes. [7] Quodsi ad ea facis respondere Christum de quibus non est consultus, negas eum de quibus interrogatus est respondere potuisse, sadducaeoram scilicet sapientia captum. Ex abundanti nunc et post praescriptionem retractabo adversus argumentationes cohaerentes. Nacti enim scripturae textum ita in legendo decucurrerunt: Quos autem dignatus est deus illius aevi. Illius aevi deo adiungunt, quo alium deum faciant illius aevi; cum sic legi oporteat: Quos autem dignatus est deus, ut facta hic distinctione post deum ad sequentia pertineat illius aevi, id est, quos dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione. [8] Non enim de deo, sed de statu illius aevi consulebatur, cuius uxor futura esset post resurrectionem in illo aevo. Sic et de ipsis nuptiis responsum subvertunt, ut, Filii huius aevi nubunt et nubuntur, de hominibus dictum sit creatoris nuptias permittentis, se autem, quos deus illius aevi, alter scilicet, dignatus sit resurrectione, iam et hic non nubere, quia non sint filii huius aevi; quando de nuptiis illius aevi consultus, non de huius, eas negaverat de quibus consulebatur. [9] Itaque qui ipsam vim et vocis et pronuntiationis et distinctionis exceperant, nihil aliud senserunt quam quod ad materiam consultationis pertinebat. Atque adeo scribae, Magister, inquiunt, bene dixisti. Confirmaverat enim resurrectionem, formam eius edendo, adversus sadducaeorum opinionem. Denique testimonium eorum qui ita eum respondisse praesumpserant non recusavit. [10] Si autem scribae Christum filium David existimabant, ipse autem David dominum eum appellat, quid hoc ad Christum? Non David errorem scribarum obtundebat, sed honorem Christo David procurabat, quem dominum Christum magis quam filium David confirmabat, quod non congrueret destructori creatoris. At ex nostra parte quam conveniens interpretatio! Nam qui olim a caeco illo filius David fuerat invocatus, quod tunc reticuit, non habens in praesentia scribas, nunc ultro coram eis de industria protulit, ut se, quem caecus secundum scribarum doctrinam filium tantum David praedicarat, dominum quoque eius ostenderet, remunerata quidem fide caeci, qua filium David crediderat illum, pulsata vero traditione scribarum, qua non et dominum eum norant. Quodcunque ad gloriam spectaret Christi creatoris, sic non alius tueretur quam Christus creatoris.	38. [1] Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was." Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have been immediately stoned to death. Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually on the very precipice. [2] For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree. But John's baptism was "from heaven." "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye not believe him? " He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate, when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things," He returned evil for evil! [3] "Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." What will be "the things which are God's? "Such things as are like Caesar's denarius----that is to say, His image and similitude. That, therefore, which he commands to be "rendered unto God," the Creator, is man, who has been stamped with His image, likeness, name, and substance. Let Marcion's god look after his own mint. Christ bids the denarius of man's imprint to be rendered to His Caesar, (His Caesar I say, ) not the Caesar of a strange god. The truth, however, must be confessed, this god has not a denarius to call his own! [4] In every question the just and proper rule is, that the meaning of the answer ought to be adapted to the proposed inquiry. But it is nothing short of madness to return an answer altogether different from the question submitted to you. God forbid, then, that we should expect from Christ conduct which would be unfit even to an ordinary man! The Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, in a discussion on that subject, had proposed to the Lord a case of law touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. The question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in the resurrection? [5] This, (observe, ) was the gist of the inquiry, this was the sum and substance of the dispute. And to it Christ was obliged to return a direct answer. He had nobody to fear; that it should seem advisable for Him either to evade their questions, or to make them the occasion of indirectly mooting a subject which He was not in the habit of teaching publicly at any other time. He therefore gave His answer, that "the children of this world marry." You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. "But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection." [6] If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn on any other point than on the proposed question, and since the question proposed is fully understood from this sense of the answer, then the Lord's reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which the question is clearly understood. You have both the time in which marriage is permitted, and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable, laid before you, not on their own account, but in consequence of an inquiry about the resurrection. You have likewise a confirmation of the resurrection itself, and the whole question which the Sadducees mooted, who asked no question about another god, nor inquired about the proper law of marriage. [7] Now, if you make Christ answer questions which were not submitted to Him, you, in fact, represent Him as having been unable to solve the points on which He was really consulted, and entrapped of course by the cunning of the Sadducees. I shall now proceed, by way of supererogation, and after the rule (I have laid down about questions and answers), to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them. They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by reading it thus: "Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy." They add the phrase "of that world" to the word "god," whereby they make another god"the god of that world; "whereas the passage ought to be read thus: "Those whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world" (removing the distinguishing phrase "of this world" to the end of the clause, in other words, "Those whom God shall account worthy of obtaining and rising to that world." [8] For the question submitted to Christ had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It was: "Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection? " They thus subvert His answer respecting the essential question of marriage, and apply His words, "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage," as if they referred to the Creator's men, and His permission to them to marry; whilst they themselves whom the god of that world----that is, the rival god----accounted worthy of the resurrection, do not marry even here, because they are not children of this world. But the fact is, that, having been consulted about marriage in that world, not in this present one, He had simply declared the non-existence of that to which the question related. [9] They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice, and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed, "Master, Thou hast well said." For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. [10] If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord, what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute an error of the Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ, when he more prominently affirmed that He was his Lord than his Son,----an attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of the Creator. But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as "the Son of David," then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord, in order that He might show Himself whom the Mind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord. He thus honoured the blind man's faith which had acknowledged His Sonship to David; but at the same time He struck a blow at the tradition of the Scribes, which prevented them from knowing that He was also (David's) Lord. Whatever had relation to the glory of the Creator's Christ, no other would thus guard and maintain but Himself the Creator's Christ.
39. [1] Olim constitit de nominum proprietate ei illam (competere) qui prior et Christum suum in homines annuntiaret et Iesum transnominaret. Constabit itaque et de impudentia eius qui multos dicat venturos in nomine ipsius, quod non sit ipsius, si non Christus et Iesus creatoris est, ad quem proprietas nominum pertinet, amplius et prohibeat eos recipi quoram et ipse par sit, ut qui proinde in nomine venit alieno: si non ipsius erat a mendacio nominis praevenire discipulos, qui per proprietatem nominis possidebat veritatem eius. [2] Venient denique illi dicentes, Ego sum Christus. Recipies eos, qui consimilem recepisti. Et hic enim in nomine suo venit. Quid nunc, quod et ipse veniet nominum dominus, Christus et Iesus creatoris? Reicies illum? Et quam iniquum, quam iniustum et optimo deo indignum, ut non recipias eum in nomine suo venientem, qui alium in nomine eius recepisti! [3] Videamus et quae signa temporibus imponat. Bella, opinor, et regnum super regnum, et gentem super gentem, et pestem, et fames terraeque motus, et formidines, et prodigia de caelo, quae omnia severo et atroci deo congruunt. Haec cum adicit etiam oportere fieri, quem se praestat? destructorem an probatorcm creatoris? Cuius dispositiones confirmat impleri oportere, quas ut optimus tam tristes quam atroces abstulisset potius quam constituisset, si non ipsius fuissent. [4] Ante haec autem persecutiones eis praedicat et passiones venturas, in martyrium utique et in salutem. Accipe praedicatum in Zacharia: Dominus, inquit, omnipotens proteget eos, et consument illos et lapidabunt lapidibus fundae et bibent sanguinem illorum velut vinum et replebunt pateras quasi altaris, et salvos eos faciet dominus illo die velut oves, populum suum, quia lapides sancti volutant. [5] Et ne putes haec in passiones praedicari, quae illos tot bellorum nomine ab allophylis manebant, respice ad species. Nemo in praedicatione bellorum legitimis armis debellandorum lapidationem enumerat popularibus coetibus magis et inermi tumultui familiarem. Nemo tanta in bello sanguinis flumina paterarum capacitate metitur, aut unius altaris cruentationi adaequat. Nemo oves appellat eos qui in bello armati et ipsi ex eadem feritate certantes cadunt, sed qui in sua proprietate atque patientia dedentes potius semetipsos quam vindicantes trucidantur. [6] Denique, Quia lapides, inquit, sancti volutant, non quia milites pugnant. Lapides enim sunt et fundamenta, super quae nos aedificamur, extructi, secundum Paulum, super fundamentum apostolorum, qui lapides sancti oppositi omnium offensui volutabant. Et hic igitur ipse vetat cogitari quid responderi oporteat apud tribunalia, qui et Balaam quod non cogitaverat, immo contra quam cogitaverat, suggessit, et Moysi causato linguae tarditatem os repromisit. Et sapientiam ipsam, cui nemo resisteret, per Esaiam demonstravit: Hic dicet, Ego dei sum, et clamabit in nomine Iacob, et alius inscribetur in nomine Israelis. [7] Quid enim sapientius et incontradicibilius confessione simplici et exserta in martyris nomine cum deo invalescentis, quod est interpretatio Israelis? Nec mirum si is cohibuit praecogitationem qui et ipse a patre excepit pronuntiandi tempestive subministrationem: Dominus mihi dat linguam disciplinae, quando debeam proferre sermonem; nisi Marcion Christum non subiectum patri infert. [8] A proximis quoque persecutiones, et nominis ex odio utique blasphemiam praedicatam, non debeo rursus ostendere. Sed per tolerantiam, inquit, salvos facietis vosmetipsos: de qua scilicet psalmus, Tolerantia, inquit, iustorum non periet in finem. Quia et alibi: Honorabilis mors iustorum; ex tolerantia sine dubio, quia et Zacharias: Corona autem erit eis qui toleraverint. [9] Sed ne audeas argumentari apostolos ut alterius dei praecones a Iudaeis vexatos, memento prophetas quoque eadem a Iudaeis passos, tamen non alterius dei apostolos fuisse quam creatoris. Sed monstrato dehinc tempore excidii, cum coepisset vallari exercitibus Hierusalem, signa iam ultimi finis enarrat, solis et lunae siderumque prodigia, et in terra angustias nationum obstupescentium velut a sonitu maris fluctuantis, pro expectatione imminentium orbi malorum. Quod et ipsae vires caelorum concuti habeant, accipe Ioelem: Et dabo prodigia in caelo, et in terra sanguinem et ignem et fumi vaporem: sol convertetur in tenebras et in sanguinem luna, priusquam adveniat dies magnus et illustris domini. Habes et Abacuc: Fluminibus disrumpetur terra, videbunt te et parturient populi: disperges aquas gressu; dedit abyssus sonum suum, sublimitas timoris eius elata est: sol et luna constitit in suo ordine, in lucem coruscationes tuae ibunt, in fulgorem fulgur scutum tuum : in comminatione tua diminues terram, et in indignatione tua depones nationes. [10] Conveniunt, opinor, et domini pronuntiationes et prophetarum de concussionibus mundi et orbis, elementorum et nationum. Post haec quid dominus? Et tunc videbunt filium hominis venientem de caelis cum plurima virtute. Cum autem haec fient, erigetis vos, et levabitis capita, quoniam appropinquavit redemptio vestra: in tempore scilicet regni, de quo subiecta erit ipsa parabola. [11] Sic et vos cum videritis omnia haec fieri, scitote appropinquasse regnum dei. Hic erit dies magnus domini et illustris, venientis de caelis filii hominis, secundum Danielem: Ecce cum caeli nubibus tanquam filius hominis adveniens, et cetera; et data est illi regia potestas, quam in parabola postulaturus exierat, relicta pecunia servis qua feneraretur: et universae nationes, quas promiserat ei in psalmo pater: Postula de me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam: Et gloria omnis serviens illi, et potestas eius aeterna quae non auferetur, et regnum eius quod non corrumpetur, quia nec morientur in illo nec nubent, sed erunt sicut angeli. [12] De eodem adventu filii hominis et fructu eius apud Abacuc: Existi in salutem populi tui ad salvos faciendos christos tuos; erecturos scilicet se et capita levaturos, in tempore regni redemptos. Igitur cum et haec quae sunt promissionum proinde conveniant sicut et illa quae sunt concussionum, ex consonantia propheticarum et dominicarum pronuntiationum, nullam hic poteris interstruere distinctionem, ut concussiones quidem referas ad creatorem, saevitiae scilicet deum, quas nec sinere, nedum expectare deberet deus optimus, promissiones vero deo optimo deputes, quas creator ignorans illum non prophetasset. Aut si suas prophetavit, non distantes a promissionibus Christi, par erit in libertate optimo deo, nec plus videbitur a Christo tuo repromitti quam a meo filio hominis. [13] Ipsum decursum scripturae evangelicae ab interrogatione discipulorum usque ad parabolam fici ita invenies contextu sensus filio hominis hinc atque illinc adhaerere ut in illum compingat et tristia et laeta et concussiones et promissiones, nec possis separare ab illo alteram partem. [14] Unius enim filii hominis adventu constituto inter duos exitus concussionum et promissionum necesse est ad unum pertineant filium hominis et incommoda nationum et vota sanctorum, qui ita positus est in medio ut communis exitibus ambobus, alterum conclusurus adventu suo, id est incommoda nationum, alterum incipiens, id est vota sanctorum, ut, sive mei Christi concesseris adventum filii hominis, quo mala imminentia ei deputes [15] quae adventum eius antecedunt, cogaris etiam bona ei adscribere quae ab adventu eius oriuntur, sive tui malueris, quo bona ei adscribas quae ab adventu eius oriuntur, cogaris mala quoque ei deputare quae adventum eius antecedunt. Tam enim mala cohaerent adventui filii hominis antecedendo quam et bona subsequendo. Quaere igitur quem ex duobus Christis constituas in persona unius filii hominis in quam utraque dispositio referatur. Aut et creatorem optimum aut et deum tuum asperum dedisti natura. [16] In summa ipsius parabolae considera exempluna. Aspice ficum et arbores omnes: cum fructum protulerint, intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse; sic et vos cum videritis haec fieri, scitote in proximo esse regnum dei. Si enim fructificationes arbuscularum signum aestivo tempori praestant, antecedendo illud, proinde conflictationes orbis signum praenotant regni, praecedendo illud. Omne autem signum eius est <cuius et> res cuius est signum, et omni rei ab eo imponitur signum cuius est res. [17] Ita si conflictationes signa sunt regni, sicut fructificationes aestatis, ergo et regnum creatoris est, cuius conflictationes deputantur quae signa sunt regni. Praemiserat oportere haec fieri tam atrocia, tam dira, deus optimus, certe a prophetis et a lege praedicata; adeo legem et prophetas non destruebat, cum quae praedicaverant confirmat perfici oportere. [18] Adhuc ingerit non transiturum caelum ac terram, nisi omnia peragantur. Quaenam ista? Si quae a creatore sunt, merito sustinebunt elementa domini sui ordinem expungi; si quae a deo optimo, nescio an sustineat caelum et terra perfici quae aemulus statuit. Hoc si patietur creator, zelotes deus non est. Transeat age nunc terra et caelum; sic enim dominus eorum destinavit: dum verbum eius maneat in aevum; sic enim et Esaias praenuntiavit. Admoneantur et discipuli, ne quando graventur corda eorum crapula et ebrietate et saecularibus curis, et insistat eis repentinus dies ille velut laqueus, utique oblitis deum ex plenitudine et cogitatione mundi. Moysi erit admonitio. Adeo is liberabit a laqueo diei illius qui hanc admonitionem retro intulit. [19] Erant et loca alia apud Hierusalem ad docendum, erant et extra Hierusalem ad secedendum. Sed enim per diem in templo docebat, ut qui per Osee praedixerat: In templo meo me invenerunt, et illic disputatum est ad eos. Ad noctem vero in elaeonem secedebat. Sic enim Zacharias demonstrarat: Et stabunt pedes eius in monte elaeone. Erant horae quoque auditorio competentes. Diluculo conveniendum erat, quia per Esaiam cum dixisset, Dominus dat mihi linguam disciplinae, adiecit, Apposuit mihi mane aurem ad audiendum. Si hoc est prophetias dissolvere, quid erit adimplere?	39. [1] As touching the propriety of His names, it has already been seen that both of them" are suitable to Him who was the first both to announce His Christ to mankind, and to give Him the further name of Jesus. The impudence, therefore, of Marcion's Christ will be evident, when he says that many will come in his name, whereas this name does not at all belong to him, since he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom these names do properly appertain; and more especially when he prohibits those to be received whose very equal in imposture he is, inasmuch as he (equally with them ) comes in a name which belongs to another----unless it was his business to warn off from a mendaciously assumed name the disciples (of One) who, by reason of His name being properly given to Him, possessed also the verity thereof. [2] But when "they shall by and by come and say, I am Christ," they will be received by you, who have already received one altogether like them. Christ, however, comes in His own name. What will you do, then, when He Himself comes who is the very Proprietor of these names, the Creator's Christ and Jesus? Will you reject Him? But how iniquitous, how unjust and disrespectful to the good God, that you should not receive Him who comes in His own name, when you have received another in His name! [3] Now, let us see what are the signs which He ascribes to the times. "Wars," I observe, "and kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation, and pestilence, and famines, and earthquakes, and fearful sights, and great signs from heaven" ----all which things are suitable for a severe and terrible God. Now, when He goes on to say that "all these things must needs come to pass," what does He represent Himself to be? The Destroyer, or the Defender of the Creator? For He affirms thai these appointments of His must fully come to pass; but surely as the good God, He would have frustrated rather than advanced events so sad and terrible, if they had not been His own (decrees). [4] "But before all these," He foretells that persecutions and sufferings were to come upon them, which indeed were "to turn for a testimony to them," and for their salvation. Hear what is predicted in Zechariah: "The Lord of hosts shall protect them; and they shall devour them, and subdue them with sling-stones; and they shall drink their blood like wine, and they shall fill the bowls as it were of the altar. And the Lord shall save them in that day, even His people, like sheep; because as sacred stones they roll," etc. [5] And that you may not suppose that these predictions refer to such sufferings as await them from so many wars with strangers, consider the nature (of the sufferings). In a prophecy of wars which were to be waged with legitimate arms, no one would think of enumerating stones as weapons, which are better known in popular crowds and unarmed tumults. Nobody measures the copious streams of blood which flow in war by bowlfuls, nor limits it to what is shed upon a single altar. No one gives the name of sheep to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, and while repelling force with force, but only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience, rather than fighting in self-defence. [6] In short, as he says, "they roll as sacred stones," and not like soldiers fight. Stones are they, even foundation stones, upon which we are ourselves edified----"built," as St. Paul says, "upon the foundation of the apostles," who, like "consecrated stones," were rolled up and down exposed to the attack of all men. And therefore in this passage He forbids men "to meditate before what they answer" when brought before tribunals, even as once He suggested to Balaam the message which he had not thought of, nay, contrary to what he had thought; and promised "a mouth" to Moses, when he pleaded in excuse the slowness of his speech, and that wisdom which, by Isaiah, He showed to be irresistible: "One shall say, I am the Lord's, and shall call himself by the name of Jacob, and another shall subscribe himself by the name of lsrael." [7] Now, what plea is wiser and more irresistible than the simple and open" confession made in a martyr's cause, who "prevails with God"----which is what "Israel" means? Now, one cannot wonder that He forbade "premeditation," who actually Himself received from the Father the ability of uttering words in season: "The Lord hath given to me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season (to him that is weary); " except that Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father. [8] That persecutions from one's nearest friends are predicted, and calumny out of hatred to His name, I need not again refer to. But "by patience," says He, "ye shall yourselves be saved." Of this very patience the Psalm says, "The patient endurance of the just shall not perish for ever; " because it is said in another Psalm, "Precious (in the sight of the Lord) is the death of the just"----arising, no doubt, out of their patient endurance, so that Zechariah declares: "A crown shall be to them that endure." [9] But that you may not boldly contend that it was as announcers of another god that the apostles were persecuted by the Jews, remember that even the prophets suffered the same treatment of the Jews, and that they were not the heralds of any other god than the Creator. Then, having shown what was to be the period of the destruction, even "when Jerusalem should begin to be compassed with armies," He described the signs of the end of all things: "portents in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity----like the sea roaring----by reason of their expectation of the evils which are coming on the earth." That "the very powers also of heaven have to be shaken," you may find in Joel: "And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth----blood and fire, and pillars of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come." In Habakkuk also you have this statement: "With rivers shall the earth be cleaved; the nations shall see thee, and be in pangs. Thou shalt disperse the waters with thy step; the deep uttered its voice; the height of its fear was raised; the sun and the moon stood still in their course; into light shall thy coruscations go; and thy shield shall be (like) the glittering of the lightning's flash; in thine anger thou shalt grind the earth, and shalt thresh the nations in thy wrath." [10] There is thus an agreement, I apprehend, between the sayings of the Lord and of the prophets touching the shaking of the earth, and the elements, and the nations thereof. But what does the Lord say afterwards? "And then shall they see the Son of man coming from the heavens with very great power. And when these things shall come to pass, ye shall look up, and raise your heads; for your redemption hath come near," that is, at the time of the kingdom, of which the parable itself treats. [11] "So likewise ye, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand." This will be the great day of the Lord, and of the glorious coming of the Son of man from heaven, of which Daniel wrote: "Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven," etc. "And there was given unto Him the kingly power," which (in the parable) "He went away into a far country to receive for Himself," leaving money to His servants wherewithal to trade and get increase ----even (that universal kingdom of) all nations, which in the Psalm the Father had promised to give to Him: Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance." "And all that glory shall serve Him; His dominion shall be an everlasting one, which shall not be taker from Him, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed," because in it "men shall not die, neither shall they marry, but be like the angels." [12] It is about the same advent of the Son of man and the benefits thereof that we read in Habakkuk: "Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people, even to save Thine anointed ones, ----in other words, those who shall look up and lift their heads, being redeemed in the time of His kingdom. Since, therefore, these descriptions of the promises, on the one hand, agree together, as do also those of the great catastrophes, on the other----both in the predictions of the prophets and the declarations of the Lord, it will be impossible for you to interpose any distinction between them, as if the catastrophes could be referred to the Creator, as the terrible God, being such as the good god (of Marcion) ought not to permit, much less expect----whilst the promises should be ascribed to the good god, being such as the Creator, in His ignorance of the said god, could not have predicted. If, however, He did predict these promises as His own, since they differ in no respect from the promises of Christ, He will be a match in the freeness of His gifts with the good god himself; and evidently no more will have been promised by your Christ than by my Son of man. [13] (If you examine) the whole passage of this Gospel Scripture, from the inquiry of the disciples down to the parable of the fig-tree you will find the sense in its connection suit in every point the Son of man, so that it consistently ascribes to Him both the sorrows and the joys, and the catastrophes and the promises; nor can you separate them from Him in either respect. [14] For as much, then, as there is but one Son of man whose advent is placed between the two issues of catastrophe and promise, it must needs follow that to that one Son of man belong both the judgments upon the nations, and the prayers of the saints. He who thus comes in midway so as to be common to both issues, will terminate one of them by inflicting judgment on the nations at His coming; and will at the same time commence the other by fulfilling the prayers of His saints: so that if (on the one hand) you grant that the coming of the Son of man is (the advent) of my Christ, then, when you ascribe to Him the infliction of the judgments [15] which precede His appearance, you are compelled also to assign to Him the blessings which issue from the same. If (on the other hand) you will have it that it is the coming of your Christ, then, when you ascribe to him the blessings which are to be the result of his advent, you are obliged to impute to him likewise the infliction of the evils which precede his appearance. For the evils which precede, and the blessings which immediately follow, the coming of the Son of man, are both alike indissolubly connected with that event. Consider, therefore, which of the two Christs you choose to place in the person of the Son of man, to whom you may refer the execution of the two dispensations. You make either the Creator a most beneficent God, or else your own god terrible in his nature! [16] Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: "Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near." Now, if the fructification of the common trees be an antecedent sign of the approach of summer, so in like manner do the great conflicts of the world indicate the arrival of that kingdom which they precede. But every sign is His, to whom belong the thing of which it is the sign; and to everything is appointed its sign by Him to whom the thing belongs. [17] If, therefore, these tribulations are the signs of the kingdom, just as the maturity of the trees is of the summer, it follows that the kingdom is the Creator's to whom are ascribed the tribulations which are the signs of the kingdom. Since the beneficent Deity had premised that these things must needs come to pass, although so terrible and dreadful, as they had been predicted by the law and the prophets, therefore He did not destroy the law and the prophets, when He affirmed that what had been foretold therein must be certainly fulfilled. [18] He further declares, "that heaven and earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled." What things, pray, are these? Are they the things which the Creator made? Then the elements will tractably endure the accomplishment of their Maker's dispensation. If, however, they emanate from your excellent god, I much doubt whether the heaven and earth will peaceably allow the completion of things which their Creator's enemy has determined! If the Creator quietly submits to this, then He is no "jealous God." But let heaven and earth pass away, since their Lord has so determined; only let His word remain for evermore! And so Isaiah predicted that it should. Let the disciples also be warned, "lest their hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this world; and so that day come upon them unawares, like a snare " ----if indeed they should forget God amidst the abundance and occupation of the world. Like this will be found the admonition of Moses,----so that He who delivers from "the snare" of that day is none other than He who so long before addressed to men the same admonition [19] Some places there were in Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire ----"in the day-time He was teaching in the temple; "just as He had foretold by Hosea: "In my house did they find me, and there did I speak with them." "But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives." For thus had Zechariah pointed out: "And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives." Fit hours for an audience there also were. "Early in the morning" must they resort to Him, who (having said by Isaiah, "The Lord giveth me the tongue of the learned") added, "He hath appointed me the morning, and hath also given me an ear to hear." Now if this is to destroy the prophets, what will it be to fulfil them?

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40-43.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
40. [1] Proinde scit et quando pati oporteret eum cuius passionem lex figurat. Nam ex tot festis Iudaeorum paschae diem elegit. In hoc enim sacramentum pronuntiarat Moyses, Pascha est domini. Ideo et aflfectum suum ostendit: Concupiscentia concupivi pascha edere vobiscum, antequam patiar. O legis destructorem, qui concupierat etiam pascha servare! Nimirum vervecina illum Iudaica delectaret? An ipse erat qui tanquam ovis ad victimam adduci habens, et tanquam ovis coram tondente sic os non aperturus, figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat? [2] Poterat et ab extraneo quolibet tradi: ne dicerem et in hoc psalmum expunctum: Qui mecum panem edit, levabit in me plantam. Poterat et sine praemio tradi. Quanta enim opera traditoris circa eum qui populum coram offendens nec tradi magis potuisset quam invadi? Sed hoc alii competisset Christo, non qui prophetias adimplebat. Scriptum est enim: Pro eo quod venumdedere iustum. Nam et quantitatem et exitum pretii, postea Iuda paenitente revocati et in emptionem dati agri figuli, sicut in evangelio Matthaei continetur, Hieremias praecanit: Et acceperunt triginta argenteos, pretium appretiati, vel honorati, et dederunt eos in agrum figuli. [3] Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret deus), acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus: ceterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit quia corporis carebat veritate, ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis crucifigeretur. Cur autem panem corpus suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit? Non intellegens veterem fuisse istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis per Hieremiam, Adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum, dicentes, Venite coniciamus lignum in panem eius, scilicet crucem in corpus eius. [4] Itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem satis declaravit corpus suum vocans panem. Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit. Nullius enim corporis sanguis potest esse nisi carnis. Nam et si qua corporis qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, certe sanguinem nisi carnea non habebit. [5] Ita consistet probatio corporis de testimonio carnis, probatio carnis de testimonio sanguinis. Ut autem et sanguinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas, aderit Esaias: Quis, inquit, qui advenit ex Edom, rubor vestimentorum eius ex Bosor, sic decorus in stola violenta cum fortitudine? Quare rubra vestimenta tua, et indumenta sicut de foro torcularis pleno conculcato? [6] Spiritus enim propheticus velut iam contemplabundus dominum ad passionem venientem, carne scilicet vestitum, ut in ea passum, cruentum habitum carnis in vestimentorum rubore designat, conculcatae et expressae vi passionis tanquam in foro torcularis; quia exinde quasi cruentati homines de vini rubore descendunt. Multo manifestius Genesis in benedictione Iudae, ex cuius tribu carnis census Christi processurus, iam tunc Christum in Iuda delineabat: Lavabit, inquit, in vino stolam suam et in sanguine uvae amictum suum, stolam et amictum carnem demonstrans et vinum sanguinem. Ita et nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit.	40. [1] In like manner does He also know the very time it behoved Him to suffer, since the law prefigures His passion. Accordingly, of all the festal days of the Jews He chose the passover. In this Moses had declared that there was a sacred mystery: "It is the Lord's passover." How earnestly, therefore, does He manifest the bent of His soul: "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer." What a destroyer of the law was this, who actually longed to keep its passover! Could it be that He was so fond of Jewish lamb? But was it not because He had to be "led like a lamb to the slaughter; and because, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so was He not to open His mouth," that He so profoundly wished to accomplish the symbol of His own redeeming blood? [2] He might also have been betrayed by any stranger, did I not find that even here too He fulfilled a Psalm: "He who did eat bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." And without a price might He have been betrayed. For what need of a traitor was there in the case of one who offered Himself to the people openly, and might quite as easily have been captured by force as taken by treachery? This might no doubt have been well enough for another Christ, but would not have been suitable in One who was accomplishing prophecies. For it was written, "The righteous one did they sell for silver." The very amount and the destination of the money, which on Judas' remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a fee, and appropriated to the purchase of a potter's field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah: "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued and gave them for the potter's field." [3] When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread," which means, of course, the cross upon His body. [4] And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood," affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. [5] Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, "Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress? " [6] The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, "He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes" ----in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
41. [1] Vae, ait, per quem traditur filius hominis. Ergo iam Vae constat imprecationis et comminationis inclamationem intellegendam et irato et offenso deputandam; nisi si Iudas impune erat tantum sceleris relaturus. Aut si impune, vacat Vae: si non impune, utique ab eo puniendus in quem scelus traditionis admisit. Porro si sciens passus est hominem quem ipse comitatui suo asciverat in tantum scelus ruere, noli iam de creatore circa Adam retractare quae in tuum quoque deum retorquentur; aut ignorasse illum, qui non ex providentia obstitit peccaturo, aut obsistere non potuisse si ignorabat, aut noluisse si et sciebat et poterat; atquc ita malitiosum iudicandum, qui passus sit hominem suum ex delicto perire. [2] Suadeo igitur agnoscas potius et in isto creatorem, quam parem illi deum optimum adversus sententiam tuam facias. Nam et Petrum praesumptorie aliquid elocutum negationi potius destinando, zdoten deum tibi ostendit. Debuit etiam osculo tradi propheticus scilicet Christus, ut eius scilicet filius qui labiis a populo diligebatur. Perductus in consessum an ipse esset Christus interrogatur. De quo Christo Iudaei quaesissent nisi de suo? Cur ergo non vcl tunc alium eis prodidit? Ut pati posset, inquis. Id est ut ille optimus ignorantes adhuc in scelus mergeret. Atquin et si dixisset, passurus esset: [3] Si dixero, enim inquit, vobis non credetis: porro non credituri perseverassent in necem eius. Et cur non magis passurus esset, si alterius dei ac per hoc adversarium creatoris se manifestasset? Ergo non ut pateretur, alium se tunc quoque supersedit ostendere; sed quoniam ex ore eius confessionem extorquere cupiebant, nec confesso tamen credituri, qui eum ex operibus scripturas adimplentibus agnovisse debuerant, ita eius fuit occultasse se cui ultro debebatur agnitio. [4] Et tamen adhuc eis manum porrigens, Abhinc, inquit, erit filius hominis sedens ad dexteram virtutis dei. Suggerebat enim se ex Danielis prophetia filium hominis, et e psalmo David sedentem ad dexteram dei. Itaque ex isto dicto et scripturae comparatione illuminati quem se vellet intellegi, Ergo, inquiunt, tu dei filius es? Cuius dei, nisi quem solum noverant? Cuius dei, nisi quem in psalmo meminerant dixisse filio suo, Sede ad dexteram meam? Sed respondit, Vos dicitis, quasi non ego. [5] Atquin confirmavit id se esse quod illi dixerant, dum rursus interrogant. Unde autem probabis interrogative et non ipsos confirmative pronuntiasse, Ergo tu filius dei es? Ut, quia oblique ostenderat se per scripturas filium dei intellegendum, sic senserunt, Ergo tu dei es filius, quod te non vis aperte dicere, aeque ita et ille, Vos dicitis, confirmative respondit; et adeo sic fuit pronuntiatio eius, ut perseveraverint in eo quod pronuntiatio sapiebat.	41. [1] "Woe," says He, "to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!" Now it is certain that in this woe must be understood the imprecation and threat of an angry and incensed Master, unless Judas was to escape with impunity after so vast a sin. If he were meant to escape with impunity, the "woe" was an idle word; if not, he was of course to be punished by Him against whom he had committed the sin of treachery. Now, if He knowingly permitted the man, whom He deliberately elected to be one of His companions, to plunge into so great a crime, you must no longer use an argument against the Creator in Adam's case, which may now recoil on your own God: either that he was ignorant, and had no foresight to hinder the future sinner; or that he was unable to hinder him, even if he was ignorant; or else that he was unwilling, even if he had the foreknowledge and the ability; and so deserved the stigma of maliciousness, in having permitted the man of his own choice to perish in his sin. [2] I advise you therefore (willingly) to acknowledge the Creator in that god of yours, rather than against your will to be assimilating your excellent god to Him. For in the case of Peter, too, he gives you proof that he is a jealous God, when he destined the apostle, after his presumptuous protestations of zeal, to a flat denial of him, rather than prevent his fall. The Christ of the prophets was destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss, for He was the Son indeed of Him who was "honoured with the lips" by the people. When led before the council, He is asked whether He is the Christ. Of what Christ could the Jews have inquired but their own? Why, therefore, did He not, even at that moment, declare to them the rival (Christ)? You reply, In order that He might be able to suffer. In other words, that this most excellent god might plunge men into crime, whom he was still keeping in ignorance. But even if he had told them, he would yet have to suffer. [3] For he said, "If I tell you, ye will not believe." And refusing to believe, they would have continued to insist on his death. And would he not even more probably still have had to suffer, if had announced himself as sent by the rival god, and as being, therefore, the enemy of the Creator? It was not, then, in order that He might suffer, that He at that critical moment refrained from proclaiming Himself the other Christ, but because they wanted to extort a confession from His mouth, which they did not mean to believe even if He had given it to them, whereas it was their bounden duty to have acknowledged Him in consequence of His works, which were fulfilling their Scriptures. It was thus plainly His course to keep Himself at that moment unrevealed, because a spontaneous recognition was due to Him. [4] But yet for all this, He with a solemn gesture says, "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God." For it was on the authority of the prophecy of Daniel that He intimated to them that He was "the Son of man," and of David's Psalm, that He would "sit at the right hand of God." Accordingly, after He had said this, and so suggested a comparison of the Scripture, a ray of light did seem to show them whom He would have them understand Him to be; for they say: "Art thou then the Son of God? " Of what God, but of Him whom alone they knew? Of what God but of Him whom they remembered in the Psalm as having said to His Son, "Sit Thou on my right hand? "Then He answered, "Ye say that I am; " as if He meant: It is ye who say this----not I. [5] But at the same time He allowed Himself to be all that they had said, in this their second question. By what means, however, are you going to prove to us that they pronounced the sentence "Ergo tu filius Dei es" interrogatively, and not affirmatively? Just as, (on the one hand, ) because He had shown them in an indirect manner, by passages of Scripture, that they ought to regard Him as the Son of God, they therefore meant their own words, "Thou art then the Son of God," to be taken in a like (indirect) sense, as much as to say, "You do not wish to say this of yourself plainly, so, (on the other hand, ) He likewise answered them, "Ye say that I am," in a sense equally free from doubt, even affirmatively; and so completely was His statement to this effect, that they insisted on accepting that sense which His statement indicated.
42. [1] Perductum enim illum ad Pilatum onerare coeperunt quod se regem diceret Christum, sine dubio dei filium, sessurum ad dei dexteram. Ceterum alio eum titulo gravassent, incerti an filium dei se dixisset, nisi, Vos dicitis, sic pronuntiasset, hoc se esse quod dicerent. Pilato quoque interroganti, Tu es Christus? proinde, Tu dicis, ne metu potestatis videretur amplius respondisse. [2] Constitutus est igitur dominus in iudicio; et statuit in iudicio populum suum. Ipse dominus in iudicium venit cum presbyteris et archontibus populi, secundum Esaiam. Atque exinde omne scriptum passionis suae implevit. Tumultuatae sunt ibidem nationes, et populi meditati sunt inania: astiterunt reges terrae, et archontes congregati sunt in unum adversus dominum et adversus Christum eius. Nationes, Romani qui cum Pilato fuerant; populi, tribus Israelis; reges, in Herode; archontes, in summis sacerdotibus. [3] Nam et Herodi velut munus a Pilato missus Osee vocibus fidem reddidit: de Christo enim prophetaverat, Et vinctum eum ducent xenium regi. Delectatus est denique Herodes viso Iesu, nec vocem ullam ab eo audivit. Tanquam agnus enim coram tondente, sic non aperuit os suum, quia dominus dederat illi linguam disciplinae, ut sciret quomodo eum oporteret proferre sermonem, illam scilicet linguam quam in psalmo adglutinatam gutturi suo tunc probabat non loquendo. [4] Et Barrabas quidem nocentissimus vita ut bonus donatur, Christus vero iustissimus ut homicida morti expostulatur. Sed et duo scelesti circumfiguntur illi, ut inter iniquos scilicet deputaretur. Vestitum plane eius a militibus divisum, partim sorte concessum, Marcion abstulit, respiciens psalmi prophetiam: Dispertiti sibi sunt vestimenta mea, et in vestitum meum sortem miserunt. Aufer igitur et crucem ipsam. Idem enim psalmus de eo non tacet: Foderunt manus meas et pedes meos. Totus in illo exitus legitur. Circumdederunt me canes, synagoga maleficorum circumvallavit me: omnes qui spectabant me, naso irridebant me: locuti sunt labiis, et capita moverunt: Speravit in deum, liberet eum. Quo iam testimonium vestimentorum? Habe falsi tui praedam; totus psalmus vestimenta sunt Christi. [5] Ecce autem et elementa concutiuntur. Dominus enim patiebatur ipsorum. Ceterum adversario laeso caelum luminibus floruisset, magis sol radiis insultasset, magis dies stetisset, libenter spectans pendentem in patibulo Christum Marcionis. Haec argumenta quoque mihi competissent, et si non fuissent praedicata. Caelum, inquit Esaias, vestiam tenebris. Hic erit dies de quo et Amos: Et erit illa die, dicit dominus, occidet sol meridie (habes et horae sextae significationem), et contenebrabit super terram. Scissum est et templi velum, angeli eruptione, derelinquentis filiam Sionis tanquam in vinea speculam et in cucumerario casulam. [6] O quantum perseveravit etiam tricesimo psalmo Christum ipsum reddere! Vociferatur ad patrem, ut et moriens ultima voce prophetas adimpleret. Hoc dicto expiravit. Quis? spiritus semetipsum, an caro spiritum? Sed spiritus semetipsum expirare non potuit. Alius est qui expirat, alius qui expiratur. Si spiritus expiratur, ab alio expiretur necesse est. Quodsi solus spiritus fuisset, discessisse potius diceretur quam expirasse. Quis igitur expirat spiritum nisi caro, quae et spirat quando illum habet, et ita eum cum amittit expirat? [7] Denique si caro non fuit, sed phantasma carnis, phantasma autem spiritus fuit, spiritus autem semetipsum expiravit et expirando discessit, sine dubio phantasma discessit cum spiritus, qui erat phantasma, discessit, et nusquam comparuit phantasma cum spiritu. Nihil ergo remansit in ligno, nihil pependit etiam post expirationem, nihil de Pilato postulatum, nihil de patibulo detractum, nihil sindone involutum, nihil sepulcro novo conditum. Atquin non nihil. Quid igitur illud fuit? Si phantasma, adhuc ergo inerat et Christus. Si discesserat Christus, ergo abstulerat phantasma. [8] Superest impudentiae haereticae dicere phantasma illic phantasmatis remansisse. Sed si et Ioseph corpus fuisse noverat quod tota pietate tractavit, ille Ioseph qui non consenserat in scelere Iudaeis, Beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum, et in via peccatorum non stetit, et in cathedra pestium non sedit.	42. [1] For when He was brought before Pilate, they proceeded to urge Him with the serious charge , of declaring Himself to be Christ the King; that is, undoubtedly, as the Son of God, who was to sit at God's right hand. They would, however, have burdened Him with some other title, if they had been uncertain whether He had called Himself the Son of God----if He had not pronounced the words, "Ye say that I am," so as (to admit) that He was that which they said He was. Likewise, when Pilate asked Him, "Art thou Christ (the King)? "He answered, as He had before (to the Jewish council) "Thou sayest that I am" in order that He might not seem to have been driven by a fear of his power to give him a fuller answer. [2] "And so the Lord hath stood on His trial." And he placed His people on their trial. The Lord Himself comes to a trial with "the elders and rulers of the people," as Isaiah predicted. And then He fulfilled all that had been written of His passion. At that time "the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain things; the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ." The heathen were Pilate and the Romans; the people were the tribes of Israel; the kings were represented in Herod, and the rulers in the chief priests. [3] When, indeed, He was sent to Herod gratuitously by Pilate, the words of Hosea were accomplished, for he had prophesied of Christ: "And they shall carry Him bound as a present to the king." Herod was "exceeding glad" when he saw Jesus, but he heard not a word from Him. For, "as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth," because "the Lord had given to Him a disciplined tongue, that he might know how and when it behoved Him to speak" ----even that "tongue which clove to His jaws," as the Psalm said it should, through His not speaking. [4] Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released, as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer. Moreover two malefactors are crucified around Him, in order that He might be reckoned amongst the transgressors. Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it all (from his Gospel), for he had his eye upon the Psalm: "They parted my garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture." You may as well take away the cross itself! But even then the Psalm is not silent concerning it: "They pierced my hands and my feet." Indeed, the details of the whole event are therein read: "Dogs compassed me about; the assembly of the wicked enclosed me around. All that looked upon me laughed me to scorn; they did shoot out their lips and shake their heads, (saying, ) He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him." Of what use now is (your tampering with) the testimony of His garments? If you take it as a booty for your false Christ, still all the Psalm (compensates) the vesture of Christ. [5] But, behold, the very elements are shaken. For their Lord was suffering. If, however, it was their enemy to whom all this injury was done, the heaven would have gleamed with light, the sun would have been even more radiant, and the day would have prolonged its course ----gladly gazing at Marcion's Christ suspended on his gibbet! These proofs would still have been suitable for me, even if they had not been the subject of prophecy. Isaiah says: "I will clothe the heavens with blackness." This will be the day, concerning which Amos also writes: And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that the sun shall go down at noon and the earth shall be dark in the clear day." (At noon) the veil of. the temple was rent" by the escape of the cherubim, which "left the daughter of Sion as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." [6] With what constancy has He also, in Psalm , laboured to present to us the very Christ! He calls with a loud voice to the Father, "Into Thine hands I commend my spirit," that even when dying He might expend His last breath in fulfilling the prophets. Having said this, He gave up the ghost." Who? Did the spirit give itself up; or the flesh the spirit? But the spirit could not have breathed itself out. That which breathes is one thing, that which is breathed is another. If the spirit is breathed it must needs be breathed by another. If, however, there had been nothing there but spirit, it would be said to have departed rather than expired. What, however, breathes out spirit but the flesh, which both breathes the spirit whilst it has it, and breathes it out when it loses it? [7] Indeed, if it was not flesh (upon the cross), but a phantom of flesh (and a phantom is but spirit, and so the spirit breathed its own self out, and departed as it did so), no doubt the phantom departed, when the spirit which was the phantom departed: and so the phantom and the spirit disappeared together, and were nowhere to be seen. Nothing therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung there, after "the giving up of the ghost; " there was nothing to beg of Pilate, nothing to take down from the cross, nothing to wrap in the linen, nothing to lay in the new sepulchre. Still it was not nothing that was there. What was there, then? If a phantom Christ was yet there. If Christ had departed, He had taken away the phantom also. [8] The only shift left to the impudence of the heretics, is to admit that what remained there was the phantom of a phantom! But what if Joseph knew that it was a body which he treated with so much piety? That same Joseph "who had not consented" with the Jews in their crime? The "happy man who walked not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful."
43. [1] Oportuerat etiam sepultorem domini prophetari ac iam tunc merito benedici, si nec mulierum illarum officium praeterit prophetia quae ante lucem convenerunt ad sepulcrum cum odorum paratura. De hoc enim per Osee, Ut quaerant, inquit, faciem meam, ante lucem vigilabunt ad me dicentes, Eamus et convertamur ad dominum, quia ipse eripuit et curabit nos, percussit et miserebitur nostri, sanabit nos post biduum, in die tertia resurgemus. [2] Quis enim haec non credat in recogitatu mulierum illarum volutata inter dolorem praesentis destitutionis, qua percussae sibi videbantur a domino, et spem resurrectionis ipsius, qua restitui rite arbitrantur? Corpore autem non invento sublata erat sepultura eius de medio, secundum Esaiam. Sed et duo ibidem angeli apparuerunt. Tot fere laterensibus uti solebat in duobus testibus consistens dei sermo. Revertentes quoque a sepulcro mulieres, et ab illa angelorum visione, prospiciebat Esaias: Mulieres, inquit, venientes a visione, venite, ad renuntiandam scilicet domini resurrectionem. [3] Bene autem quod incredulitas discipulorum perseverabat, ut in finem usque defensio nostra consisteret Christum Iesum non alium se discipulis edidisse quam prophetarum. Nam cum duo ex illis iter agerent et dominus eis adhaesisset, non comparens quod ipse esset, etiam dissimulans de conscientia rei gestae, Nos autem putabamus, inquiunt, ipsum esse redemptorem Israelis, utique suum Christum, id est creatoris. [4] Adeo nec alium se ediderat illis. Ceterum non existimarent eum creatoris, et cum creatoris existimaretur, non sustinuisset hanc de se existimationem, si non is esset qui existimatur. Aut ipse erit auctor erroris et praevaricator veritatis, adversus dei optimi titulum. Sed nec post resurrectionem alium se eis ostendit quam quem existimatum sibi dixerant. Plane invectus est in illos: O insensati et tardi corde in non credendo omnibus quae locutus est ad vos. Quae locutus non alterius se dei esse probat, sed eiusdem dei. [5] Nam eadem et angeli ad mulieres: Rememoramini quae locutus sit vobis in Galilaea, dicens quod oportet tradi filium hominis et crucifigi et tertia die resurgere. Et quare oportebat, nisi quia ita a deo creatore scriptum? Igitur increpavit illos ut de sola passione scandalizatos, et ut dubios de fide resurrectionis annuntiatae sibi a feminis, per quae non crediderant ipsum fuisse quem existimarant. Itaque quod existimaverant, id volens credi se, eum se confirmabat quem existimaverant, creatoris scilicet Christum, redemptorem Israelis. [6] De corporis autem veritate quid potest clarius? cum haesitantibus eis ne phantasma esset, immo phantasma credentibus, Quid turbati estis? inquit, et quid cogitationes subeunt in corda vestra? Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse sum, quoniam spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. [7] Et Marcion quaedam contraria sibi illa, credo industria, eradere de evangelio suo noluit, ut ex his quae eradere potuit nec erasit, illa quae erasit aut negetur erasisse aut merito erasisse dicatur. Nec parcit nisi eis quae non minus aliter interpretando quam delendo subvertit. Vult itaque sic dictum quasi, Spiritus ossa non habet sicut me videtis habentem, ad spiritum referatur, sicut me videtis habentem, id est non habentem ossa sicut et spiritus. Et quae ratio tortuositatis istius, cum simpliciter pronuntiare potuisset, Quia spiritus ossa noh habet, sicut me videtis non habentem? [8] Cur autem inspectui eorum manus et pedes suos offert, quae membra ex ossibus constant, si ossa non habebat? Cur adicit, Et scitote quia ego sum, quem scilicet corporeum retro noverant? Aut si phantasma erat usquequaque, cur illos phantasma credentes increpabat? Atquin adhuc eis non credentibus propterea cibum desideravit, ut se ostenderet etiam dentes habere. [9] Implevimus, ut opinor, sponsionem. Exhibuimus Iesum Christum prophetarum doctrinis, sententiis, affectibus, sensibus, virtutibus, passionibus, etiam resurrectione, non alium quam creatoris; siquidem et apostolos mittens ad praedicandum universis nationibus, in omnem terram exire sonum eorum et in terminos terrae voces eorum, psalmum adimplendo praecepit. Misereor tui, Marcion, frustra laborasti. Christus enim Iesus in evangelio tuo meus est.	43. [1] It was very meet that the man who buried the Lord should thus be noticed in prophecy, and thenceforth be "blessed; " since prophecy does not omit the (pious) office of the women who resorted before day-break to the sepulchre with the spices which they had prepared. For of this incident it is said by Hosea: "To seek my face they will watch till day-light, saying unto me, Come, and let us return to the Lord: for He hath taken away, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up; after two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up." [2] For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when "they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus)," "His sepulture was removed from the midst of them," according to the prophecy of Isaiah. "Two angels however, appeared there." For just so many honorary companions were required by the word of God, which usually prescribes "two witnesses." Moreover, the women, returning from the sepulchre, and from this vision of the angels, were foreseen by Isaiah, when he says, "Come, ye women, who return from the vision; " that is, "come," to report the resurrection of the Lord. [3] It was well, however, that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order that to the last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets. For as two of them were taking a walk, and when the Lord had joined their company, without its appearing that it was He, and whilst He dissembled His knowledge of what had just taken place, they say: "But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel," ----meaning their own, that is, the Creator's Christ. [4] So far had He been from declaring Himself to them as another Christ! They could not, however, deem Him to be the Christ of the Creator; nor, if He was so deemed by them, could He have tolerated this opinion concerning Himself, unless He were really He whom He was supposed to be. Otherwise He would actually be the author of error, and the prevaricator of truth, contrary to the character of the good; God. But at no time even after His resurrection did He reveal Himself to them as any other than what, on their own showing, they had always thought Him to be. He pointedly reproached them: "O fools, and slow of heart in not believing that which He spake unto you." By saying this, He proves that He does not belong to the rival god, but to the same God. [5] For the same thing was said by the angels to the women: "Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again." "Must be delivered up; "and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? He therefore upbraided them, because they were offended solely at His passion, and because they doubted of the truth of the resurrection which had been reported to them by the women, whereby (they showed that) they had not believed Him to have been the very same as they had thought Him to be. Wishing, therefore, to be believed by them in this wise, He declared Himself to be just what they had deemed Him to be----the Creator's Christ, the Redeemer of lsrael. [6] But as touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When they were doubting whether He were not a phantom----nay, were supposing that He was one----He says to them, "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have." [7] Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him----I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining them away as by expunging them from the text. Thus, in the passage before us, he would have the words, "A spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have," so transposed, as to mean, "A spirit, such as ye see me to be, hath not bones; "that is to say, it is not the nature of a spirit to have bones. But what need of so tortuous a construction, when He might have simply said, "A spirit hath not bones, even as you observe that I have not?" [8] Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination----limbs which consist of bones----if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, "Know that it is I myself," when they had before known Him to be corporeal? Else, if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them for supposing Him to be a phantom? But whilst they still believed not, He asked them for some meat, for the express purpose of showing them that He had teeth. [9] And now, as I would venture to believe, we have accomplished our undertaking. We have set forth Jesus Christ as none other than the Christ of the Creator. Our proofs we have drawn from His doctrines, maxims, affections, feelings, miracles, sufferings, and even resurrection----as foretold by the prophets. Even to the last He taught us (the same truth of His mission), when He sent forth His apostles to preach His gospel "among all nations; " for He thus fulfilled the psalm: "Their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For the Jesus Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.1-3.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUINTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V
1. [1] Nihil sine origine nisi deus solus. Quae quantum praecedit in statu omnium rerum, tantum praecedat necesse est etiam in retractatu earum, ut constare de statu possit, quia nec habeas dispicere quid quale sit, nisi certus an sit, cum cognoveris unde sit. Et ideo ex opusculi ordine ad hanc materiam devolutus apostoli quoque originem a Marcione desidero, novus aliqui discipulus nec ullius alterius auditor, qui nihil interim credam nisi nihil temere credendum, temere porro credi quodcunque sine originis agnitione creditur, quique dignissime ad sollicitudinem redigam istam inquisitionem, cum is mihi affirmatur apostolus quem in albo apostolorum apud evangelium non deprehendo. [2] Denique audiens postea eum a domino allectum, iam in caelis quiescente, quasi inprovidentiam existimo si non ante scivit illum sibi necessarium Christus, sed iam ordinato officio apostolatus et in sua opera dimisso, ex incursu, non ex prospectu, adiciendum existimavit, necessitate, ut ita dixerim, non voluntate. Quamobrem, Pontice nauclere, si nunquam furtivas merces vel illicitas in acatos tuas recepisti, si nullum omnino onus avertisti vel adulterasti, cautior utique et fidelior in dei rebus, edas velim nobis, quo symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum, quis illum tituli charactere percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis imposuerit, ut possis eum constanter exponere, ne illius probetur qui omnia apostolatus eius instrumenta protulerit. [3] Ipse se, inquit, apostolum est professus, et quidem non ab hominibus nec per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum. Plane profiteri potest semetipsum quis, verum professio eius alterius auctoritate conficitur. Alius scribit, alius subscribit, alius obsignat, alius actis refert. Nemo sibi et professor et testis est. Praeter haec utique legisti multos venturos qui dicant, Ego sum Christus. [4] Si est qui se Christum mentiatur, quanto magis qui se apostolum praedicet Christi? Adhuc ego in persona discipuli et inquisitoris conversor, ut iam hinc et fidem tuam obtundam, qui unde eam probes non habes, et impudentiam suffundam, qui vindicas, et unde possis vindicare non recipis. Sit Christus, sit apostolus, ut alterius, dum non probantur nisi de instrumento creatoris. [5] Nam mihi Paulum etiam Genesis olim repromisit. Inter illas enim figuras et propheticas super filios suos benedictiones Iacob cum ad Beniamin direxisset, Beniamin, inquit, lupus rapax ad matutinum comedet adhuc, et ad vesperam dabit escam. Ex tribu enim Beniamin oriturum Paulum providebat, lupum rapacem ad matutinum comedentem, id est prima aetate vastaturum pecora domini ut persecutorem ecclesiarum, dehinc ad vesperam escam daturum, id est devergente iam aetate oves Christi educaturum ut doctorem nationum. [6] Nam et Saulis primo asperitas insectationis erga David, dehinc paenitentia et satisfactio, bona pro malis recipientis, non aliud portendebat quam Paulum in Saule secundum tribus et Iesum in David secundum virginis censum. Haec figurarum sacramenta si tibi displicent, certe Acta Apostolorum hunc mihi ordinem Pauli tradiderunt, a te quoque non negandum. Inde apostolum ostendo persecutorem, non ab hominibus neque per hominem; inde et ipsi credere inducor; inde te a defensione eius expello, nec timeo dicentem, Tu ergo negas apostolum Paulum? Non blasphemo quem tueor. Nego, ut te probare compellam. [7] Nego, ut meum esse convincam. Aut si ad nostram fidem spectas, recipe quae eam faciunt. Si ad tuam provocas, ede quae eam praestruunt. Aut proba esse quae credis; aut si non probas, quomodo credis? Aut qualis es adversus eum credens a quo solo probatur esse quod credis? [8] Habe nunc et apostolum de meo sicut et Christum, tam meum apostolum quam et Christum. Iisdem et hic dimicabimus lineis, in ipso gradu provocabimus praescriptionis, oportere scilicet et apostolum qui creatorisnegetur, immo et adversus creatorem proferatur, nihil docere, nihil sapere, nihil velle secundum ereatorem, et inprimis tanta constantia alium deum edicere quanta a lege creatoris abrupit. Neque enim verisimile est ut avertens a Iudaismo non pariter ostenderet in cuius dei fidem averteret, quia nemo transire posset a creatore nesciens ad quem transeundum sibi esset. [9] Sive enim Christus iam alium deum revelaverat, sequebatur etiam apostoli testatio, vel ne non eius dei apostolus haberetur quem Christus revelaverat, et quia non licebat abscondi ab apostolo qui iam revelatus fuisset a Christo: sive nihil tale de deo Christus revelaverat, tanto magis ab apostolo debuerat revelari, qui iam non posset ab alio, non credendus sine dubio si nec ab apostolo revelatus. Quod idcirco praestruximus, ut iam hinc profiteamur nos proinde probaturos nullum alium deum ab apostolo circumlatum, sicut probavimus nec a Christo, ex ipsius utique epistulis Pauli, quas proinde mutilatas etiam de numero forma iam haeretici evangelii praeiudicasse debebit.	1. [1] There is nothing without a beginning but God alone. Now, inasmuch as the beginning: occupies the first place in the condition of all things, so it must necessarily take precedence in the treatment of them, if a clear knowledge is to be arrived at concerning their condition; for you could not find the means of examining even the quality of anything, unless you were certain of its existence, and that after discovering its origin. Since therefore I am brought, in the course of my little work, to this point, I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostles even----I, who am to some degree a new disciple, the follower of no other master; who at the same time can believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be believed hastily (and that I may further say is hastily believed, which is believed without any examination of its beginning); in short, I who have the best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful solution, since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue of the apostles. [2] Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection; by necessity (so to speak), and not voluntary choice, although the members of the apostolate had been duly ordained, and were now dismissed to their several missions. Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings. [3] He professes himself to be "an apostle"----to use his own, words----"not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ." Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person. One man signs, another countersigns; one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records. No one is at once a proposer and a seconder to himself. Besides, you have read, no doubt, that "many shall come, saying, I am Christ." [4] Now if any one can pretend that he is Christ, how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ! But still, for my own part, I appear in the character of a disciple and an inquirer; that so I may even thus both refute your belief, who have nothing to support it, and confound your shamelessness, who make claims without possessing the means of establishing them. Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god; but what matter? since they are only to draw their proofs out of the Testament of the Creator. [5] Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised me the Apostle Paul. For among the types and prophetic blessings which he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his attention to Benjamin, exclaimed, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning He shall devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment." He foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order words, in the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord's sheep, as a persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which means that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the Gentiles. [6] Then, again, in Saul's conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and reparation, on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saul----belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe----and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin's genealogy. Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man; " thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. [7] I deny him, to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our belief you should admit the particulars which comprise it. If you challenge us to your belief, (pray) tell us what things constitute its basis. Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in your proof, (tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours, believing in opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you believe? [8] Take now from my point of view the apostle, in the same manner as you have received the Christ----the apostle shown to be as much mine as the Christ is. And here, too, we will fight within the same lines, and challenge our adversary on the mere ground of a simple rule, that even an apostle who is said not to belong to the Creator----nay, is displayed as in actual hostility to the Creator----can be fairly regarded as teaching nothing, knowing nothing, wishing nothing in favour of the Creator whilst it would be a first principle with him to set forth another god with as much eagerness as he would use in withdrawing us from the law of the Creator. It is not at all likely that he would call men away from Judaism without showing them at the same time what was the god in whom he invited them to believe; because nobody could possibly pass from allegiance to the Creator without knowing to whom he had to cross over. [9] For either Christ had already revealed another god----in which case the apostle's testimony would also follow to the same effect, for fear of his not being else regarded as an apostle of the god whom Christ had revealed, and because of the impropriety of his being concealed by the apostle who had been already revealed by Christ----or Christ had made no such revelation concerning God; then there was all the greater need why the apostle should reveal a God who could now be made known by no one else, and who would undoubtedly be left without any belief at all, if he were revealed not even by an apostle. We have laid down this as our first principle, because we wish at once to profess that we shall pursue the same method here in the apostle's case as we adopted before in Christ's case, to prove that he proclaimed no new god; that is, we shall draw our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul himself. Now, the garbled form in which we have found the heretic's Gospel will have already prepared us to expect to find the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness----and that even as respects their number.
2. DE EPISTULA AD GALATAS. [1] Principalem adversus Iudaismum epistulam nos quoque confitemur quae Galatas docet. Amplectimur etenim omnem illam legis veteris abolitionem, ut et ipsam de creatoris venientem dispositione, sicut saepe iam in isto ordine tractavimus de praedicata novatione a prophetis dei nostri. Quodsi creator quidem vetera cessura promisit, novis scilicet orituris, Christus vero tempus distinx<it decess>ionis istius (lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem), terminum in Ioanne statuens inter utrumque ordinem desinentium exinde veterum et incipientium novorum, necessarie et apostolus in Christo post Ioannem revelato vetera infirmat nova vero confirmat, atque ita non alterius dei fidem curat quam creatoris, apud quem et vetera decessura praedicabantur. [2] Igitur et legis destructio et evangelii aedificatio pro me faciunt in ista quoque epistula ad eam Galatarum praesumptionem pertinentes qua praesumebant Christum, ut puta creatoris, salva creatoris lege credendum, quod adhuc incredibile videretur legem a suo auctore deponi. Porro si omnino alium deum ab apostolo audissent, ultro utique scissent abscedendum sibi esse a lege eius dei quem reliquissent alium secuti. Quis enim expectaret diutius discere quod novam deberet sectari disciplinam, qui novum deum recepisset? [3] Immo quia eadem quidem divinitas praedicabatur in evangelio quae semper nota fuerat in lege, disciplina vero non eadem, hic erat totus quaestionis status, an lex creatoris ab evangelio deberet excludi in Christo creatoris. Denique aufer hunc statum, et vacat quaestio. Vacante autem quaestione ultro omnibus agnoscentibus discedendum sibi esse ab ordine creatoris per fidem dei alterius nulla apostolo materia competisset id tam presse docendi quod ultro fides ipsa dictasset. [4] Igitur tota intentio epistulae istius nihil aliud docet quam legis discessionem venientem de creatoris dispositione, ut adhuc suggeremus. Si item nullius novi dei exserit mentionem, quod nusquam magis fecisset quam in ista materia, ut rationem scilicet ablegandae legis unica hac et sufficientissima definitione proponeret novae divinitatis, apparet quomodo scribat, Miror vos tam cito transferri ab eo qui vos vocavit in gratiam ad aliud evangelium, ex conversatione aliud, non ex religione, ex disciplina, non ex divinitate: quoniam quidem evangelium Christi a lege evocare deberet ad gratiam, non a creatore ad alium deum. [5] Nemo enim illos moverat a creatore, ut viderentur sic ad aliud evangelium transferri quasi dum ad creatorem transferuntur. Nam et adiciens quod aliud evangelium omnino non esset, creatoris confirmat id quod esse defendit. Si enim et creator evangelium repromittit, dicens per Esaiam, Ascende in montem excelsum, qui evangelizas Sioni, extolle vocem in valentia tua, qui evangelizas Hierusalem; item ad apostolorum personam, Quam tempestivi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona, utique et nationibus evangelizantium, quoniam et, In nomine eius, inquit, nationes sperabunt, Christi scilicet, cui ait, Posui te in lumen nationum; est autem evangelium etiam dei novi, quod vis tunc ab apostolo defensum; iam ergo duo sunt evangelia apud duos deos, et mentitus erit apostolus dicens quod aliud omnino non est, cum sit et aliud, cum sic suum evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret. Sed fortasse, ut fugias hinc, Et ideo, dices, subtexuit, Licet angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit, quia et creatorem sciebat evangelizaturum. [6] Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo adstringeris. Duo enim evangelia confirmare non est eius qui aliud iam negarit. Tamen lucet sensus eius qui suam praemisit personam: Sed et si nos aut angelus de caelo aliter evangelizaverit. Verbi enim gratia dictum est.Ceterum si nec ipse aliter evangelizaturus, utique nec angelus. Ita angelum ad hoc nominavit, quo multo magis hominibus non esset credendum, quando nec angelo nec apostolo, non angelum ad evangelium referret creatoris. [7] Exinde decurrens ordinem conversionis suae de persecutore in apostolum scripturam Apostolicorum confirmat, apud quam ipsa etiam epistulae istius materia recognoscitur, intercessisse quosdam qui dicerent circumcidi oportere et observandam esse Moysi legem, tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos ex auctoritate spiritus renuntiasse non esse imponenda onera hominibus quae patres ipsi non potuissent sustinere. Quodsi et ex hoc congruunt Paulo Apostolorum Acta, cur ea respuatis iam apparet, ut deum scilicet non alium praedicantia quam creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam creatoris, quando nec promissio spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita quam de instrumento Actorum. Quae utique verisimile non est ex parte quidem apostolo convenire, cum ordinem eius secundum ipsius testimonium ostendunt, ex parte vero dissidere, cum divinitatem in Christo creatoris annuntiant, ut praedicationem quidem apostolorum non sit secutus Paulus, qui formam ab eis dedocendae legis accepit.	2. [1] The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator,----a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God. Now, if the Creator indeed promised that "the ancient things should pass away," to be superseded by a new course of things which should arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, "The law and the prophets were until John" ----thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating----and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate "the old things" and confirm "the new," and yet promote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance it was foretold that the ancient things should pass away. [2] Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel help my argument even in this epistle, wherein they both have reference to the fond assumption of the Galatians, which led them to suppose that faith in Christ (the Creator's Christ, of course) was obligatory, but without annulling the law, because it still appeared to them a thing incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author. Again, if they had at all heard of any other god from the apostle, would they not have concluded at once, of themselves, that they must give up the law of that God whom they had left, in order to follow another? For what man would be long in learning, that he ought to pursue a new discipline, after he had taken up with a new god? [3] Since, however, the same God was declared in the gospel which had always been so well known in the law, the only change being in the dispensation, the sole point of the question to be discussed was, whether the law of the Creator ought by the gospel to be excluded in the Christ of the Creator? Take away this point, and the controversy falls to the ground. Now, since they would all know of themselves, on the withdrawal of this point, that they must of course renounce all submission to the Creator by reason of their faith in another god, there could have been no call for the apostle to teach them so earnestly that which their own belief must have spontaneously suggested to them. [4] Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator----a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind. Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law----especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another gospel" ----He means) "another" as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; "another" as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god. [5] For nobody had induced them to apostatize from the Creator, that they should seem to "be removed to another gospel," simply when they return again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another," he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: "Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion good tidings; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest the gospel to Jerusalem." Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good" ----even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the Gentiles trust; " that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I have given thee as a light of the Gentiles." However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel, since there is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! [6] But you thus entangle yourself still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel." It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel. He said "angel" in this way, that he might show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply an angel to the gospel of the Creator. [7] He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor to an apostle----confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles, in which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear." Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these should be found in agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator's Christ----as if Paul did not follow the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescription of not teaching the Law.
3. [1] Denique ad patrocinium Petri ceterorumque apostolorum ascendisse Hierosolymam post annos quatuordecim scribit, ut conferret cum illis de evangelii sui regula, ne in vacuum tot annis cucurrisset aut curreret, si quid scilicet citra formam illorum evangelizaret. Adeo ab illis probari et constabiliri desiderarat, quos, si quando, vultis Iudaismi magis adfines subintellegi. [2] Cum vero nec Titum dicit circumcisum, iam incipit ostendere solam circumcisionis quaestionem ex defensione adhuc legis concussam ab eis quos propterea falsos et superinducticios fratres appellat, non aliud statuere pergentes quam perseverantiam legis, ex fide sine dubio integra creatoris, atque ita pervertentes evangelium, non interpolatione scripturae qua Christum creatoris effingerent, sed retentione veteris disciplinae ne legem creatoris excluderent. [3] Ergo propter falsos, inquit, superinducticios fratres, qui subintraverant ad speculandam libertatem nostram quam habemus in Christo, ut nos subigerent servituti, nec ad horam cessimus subiectioni. Intendamus enim et sensui ipsi et causae eius, et apparebit vitiatio scripturae. Cum praemittit, Sed nec Titus, qui mecum erat, cum esset Graecus, coactus est circumcidi, dehinc subiungit, Propter superinducticios falsos fratres, et reliqua, contrarii utique facti incipit reddere rationem, ostendens propter quid fecerit quod nec fecisset nec ostendisset si illud propter quod fecit non accidisset. [4] Denique dicas velim, si non subintroissent falsi illi fratres ad speculandam libertatem eorum, cessissent subiectioni? Non opinor. Ergo cesserunt, quia fuerunt propter quos cederetur. Hoc enim rudi fidei et adhuc de legis observatione suspensae competebat, ipso quoque apostolo ne in vacuum cucurrisset aut curreret suspecto. [5] Itaque frustrandi erant falsi fratres, speculantes libertatem Christianam, ne ante eam in servitutem abducerent Iudaismi quam Paulus sciret se non in vacuum cucurrisse, quam dexteras ei darent antecessores, quam ex censu eorum in nationes praedicandi munus subiret. Necessario igitur cessit ad tempus, et sic ei ratio constat Timotheum circumcidendi et rasos introducendi in templum, quae in Actis edicuntur, adeo vera, ut apostolo consonent profitenti factum se Iudaeis Iudaeum ut Iudaeos lucrifaceret, et sub lege agentem propter eos qui sub lege agerent, sic et propter superinductos illos, et omnibus novissime omnia factum ut omnes lucraretur. [6] Si haec quoque intellegi ex hoc postulant, id quoque nemo dubitabit, eius dei et Christi praedicatorem Paulum cuius legem quamvis excludens, interim tamen pro temporibus admiserat, statim amoliendam si novum deum protulisset. Bene igitur quod et dexteras Paulo dederunt Petrus et Iacobus et Ioannes, et de officii distributione pepigerunt, ut Paulus in nationes, illi in circumcisionem, tantum ut meminissent egenorum, et hoc secundum legem creatoris, pauperes et egenos foventis, sicut in evangelii vestri retractatu probatum est. [7] Adeo constat de lege sola fuisse quaestionem, dum ostenditur quid ex lege custodiri convenerit. Sed reprehendit Petrum non recto pede incedentem ad evangelii veritatem. Plane reprehendit, non ob aliud tamen quam ob inconstantiam victus, quem pro personarum qualitate variabat, timens eos qui erant ex circumcisione, non ob aliquam divinitatis perversitatem, de qua et aliis in faciem restitisset, qui de minore causa conversationis ambiguae Petro ipsi non pepercit. Sed quomodo Marcionitae volunt credi? [8] De cetero pergat apostolus, negans ex operibus legis iustificari hominem, sed ex fide. Eiusdem tamen dei cuius et lex. Nec enim laborasset fidem a lege discernere, quam diversitas ipsius divinitatis ultro discrevisset, si fuisset. Merito non reaedificabat quae destruxit. Destrui autem lex habuit ex quo vox Ioannis clamavit in eremo: Parate vias domini, ut fierent rivi et colles et montes repleti et humiliati, et tortuosa et aspera in rectitudinem et in campos, id est legis difficultates in evangelii facilitates. Meminerat iam et psalmi esse tempus: Disrumpamus a nobis vincula eorum, et abiciamus a nobis iugum ipsorum; ex quo tumultuatae sunt gentes et populi meditati sunt inania, astiterunt reges terrae et magistratus congregati sunt in unum adversus dominum et adversus Christum ipsius; ut iam ex fidei libertate iustificetur homo, non ex legis servitute, quia iustus ex fide vivit. [9] Quod si prophetes Abacuc praenuntiavit, habes et apostolum prophetas confirmantem, sicut et Christus. Eius ergo dei erit fides in qua vivet iustus, cuius et lex in qua non iustificatur operarius. Proinde si in lege maledictio est, in fide vero benedictio, utrumque habes propositum apud creatorem: Ecce posui, inquit, ante te maledictionem et benedictionern. Non potes distantiam vindicare, quae etsi rerum est, non ideo auctorum, quae ab uno auctore proponitur. Cur autem Christus factus sit pro nobis maledictio ipso apostolo edocente, manifestum est quam nobiscum faciat, id est secundum fidem creatoris. [10] Neque enim quia creator pronuntiavit, Maledictus omnis in ligno suspensus, ideo videbitur alterius dei esse Christus et idcirco a creatore iam tunc in lege maledictus. Et quomodo praemaledixisset eum creator quem ignorat? Cur autem non magis competat creatori filium suum dedisse maledictioni suae quam illi deo tuo subdidisse maledictioni, et quidem pro homine alieno? Denique si atrox videtur hoc in creatore circa filium, proinde tuo in deo; si vero rationale et in tuo, proinde et in meo, et magis in meo. [11] Facilius enim crederetur eius esse per maledictionem Christi benedictionem prospexisse homini qui et maledictionem aliquando et benedictionem proposuerit ante hominem, quam qui neutrum unquam sit apud te professus. Accepimus igitur benedictionem spiritalem per fidem, inquit, ex qua scilicet vivit iustus, secundum creatorem. Hoc est ergo quod dico, eius dei fidem esse cuius est forma gratiae fidei. Sed et cum adicit: Omnes enim filii estis fidei, ostenditur quid supra haeretica industria eraserit, mentionem scilicet Abrahae, qua nos apostolus filios Abrahae per fidem affirmat, secundum quam mentionem hic quoque filios fidei notavit. Ceterum quomodo filii fidei? et cuius fidei, si non Abrahae? [12] Si enim Abraham deo credidit, et deputatum est iustitiae, atque exinde pater multarum nationum meruit nuncupari, nos autem credendo deo magis proinde iustificamur, sicut Abraham, et vitam proinde consequimur, sicut iustus ex fide vivit: sic fit ut et supra filios nos Abrahae pronuntiarit, qua patris fidei, et hic filios fidei, per quam Abraham pater nationum fuerat repromissus. Ipsum quod fidem a circumcisione revocabat, nonne Abrahae filios constituere quaerebat, qui in carnis integritate crediderat? Denique alterius dei fides ad formam dei alterius non potest admitti, ut credentes iustitiae deputet, ut iustos vivere faciat, ut nationes filios fidei dicat. Totum hoc eius est apud quem ante iam notum est.	3. [1] But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us that "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem," in order to confer with them about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case, ) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method. So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! [2] When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised," he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in." These persons went no further than to insist on a continuance of the law, retaining unquestionably a sincere belief in the Creator. They perverted the gospel in their teaching, not indeed by such a tampering with the Scripture as should enable them to expunge the Creator's Christ, but by so retaining the ancient régime as not to exclude the Creator's law. [3] Therefore he says: "Because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave place by subjection not even for an hour." Let us only attend to the clear sense and to the reason of the thing, and the perversion of the Scripture will be apparent. When he first says, "Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised," and then adds, "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in," etc., he gives us an insight into his reason for acting in a clean contrary way, showing us wherefore he did that which he would neither have done nor shown to us, if that had not happened which induced him to act as he did. [4] But then I want you to tell us whether they would have yielded to the subjection that was demanded, if these false brethren had not crept in to spy out their liberty? I apprehend not. They therefore gave way (in a partial concession), because there were persons whose weak faith required consideration. For their rudimentary belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of the law, deserved this concessive treatment, when even the apostle himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in vain. [5] Accordingly, the false brethren who were the spies of their Christian liberty must be thwarted in their efforts to bring it under the yoke of their own Judaism before that Paul discovered whether his labour had been in vain, before that those who preceded him in the apostolate gave him their right hands of fellowship, before that he entered on the office of preaching to the Gentiles, according to their arrangement with him. He therefore made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised, and the Nazarites introduced into the temple, which incidents are described in the Acts. Their truth may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle's own profession, how "to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them that were under the law, as under the law,"----and so here with respect to those who come in secretly,----"and lastly, how he became all things to all men, that he might gain all." [6] Now, inasmuch as the circumstances require such an interpretation as this, no one will refuse to admit that Paul preached that God and that Christ whose law he was excluding all the while, however much he allowed it, owing to the times, but which he would have had summarily to abolish if he had published a new god. Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and themselves to the circumcision. Their agreement, also, "to remember the poor" was in complete conformity with the law of the Creator, which cherished the poor and needy, as has been shown in our observations on your Gospel. [7] It is thus certain that the question was one which simply regarded the law, while at the same time it is apparent what portion of the law it was convenient to have observed. Paul, however, censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of "eating," which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) "fearing them which were of the circumcision," but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another god. For if such a question had arisen, others also would have been "resisted face to face" by the man who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively small matter of his doubtful conversation. But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? [8] For the rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith: " faith, however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also. For of course he would have bestowed no labour on severing faith from the law, when the difference of the god would, if there had only been any, have of itself produced such a severance. Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown." The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth ----in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel. For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; " since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels; "when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ," in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law, "because the just shall live by his faith." [9] Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the apostle here confirming the prophets, even as Christ did. The object, therefore, of the faith whereby the just man shall live, will be that same God to whom likewise belongs the law, by doing which no man is justified. Since, then, there equally are found the curse in the law and the blessing in faith, you have both conditions set forth by the Creator: "Behold," says He, "I have set before you a blessing and a curse." You cannot establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why, however, "Christ was made a curse for us," is declared by the apostle himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the Creator's appointment. [10] But yet it by no means follows, because the Creator said of old, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed even then in the law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by anticipation one whom He knew not of? Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have submitted Him to the malediction of that god of yours,----in behalf, too, of man, who is an alien to him? Now, if this appointment of the Creator respecting His Son appears to you to be a cruel one, it is equally so in the case of your own god; if, on the contrary, it be in accordance with reason in your god, it is equally so----nay, much more so----in mine. [11] For it would be more credible that that God had provided blessing for man, through the curse of Christ, who formerly set both a blessing and a curse before man, than that he had done so, who, according to you, never at any time pronounced either. "We have received therefore, the promise of the Spirit," as the apostle says, "through faith," even that faith by which the just man lives, in accordance with the Creator's purpose. What I say, then, is this, that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith. But when he also adds, "For ye are all the children of faith," it becomes dear that what the heretic's industry erased was the mention of Abraham's name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be "children of Abraham," and after mentioning him he expressly called us "children of faith" also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham's? [12] For since "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness; " since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called "the father of many nations," whilst we, who are even more like him in believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was, and thereby also obtain life----since the just lives by his faith,----it therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us "sons of Abraham," since he is in faith our (common) father, so here also he named us "children of faith," for it was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many) nations. As to the fact itself of his calling off faith from circumcision, did he not seek thereby to constitute us the children of Abraham, who had believed previous to his circumcision in the flesh? In short, faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation of the other, so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children through faith. Such a dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown ' by the natural meaning.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.4-6.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUINTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V
4. [1] Sub eadem Abrahae mentione, dum ipso sensu revincatur, Adhuc, inquit, secundum hominem dico: dum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus positi, ad deserviendum eis. Atquin non est hoc humanitus dictum. Non enim exemplum est, sed veritas. Quis enim parvulus, utique sensu, quod sunt nationes, non elementis subiectus est mundi, quae pro deo suspicit? Illud autem fuit, quod cum Secundum hominem dixisset, tamen testamentum hominis nemo spernit aut superordinat. [2] Exemplo enim humani testamenti permanentis divinum tuebatur. Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius: non dixit seminibus, quasi pluribus, sed semini, tanquam uni, quod Christus est. Erubescat spongia Marcionis! Nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit, cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit. Cum autem evenit impleri tempus, misit deus filium suum, utique is qui etiam ipsorum temporum deus est quibus saeculum constat, qui signa quoque temporum ordinavit, soles et lunas et sidera et stellas, qui filii denique sui revelationem in extremitatem temporum et disposuit et praedicavit: In novissimis diebus erit manifestus mons domini, et, In novissimis diebus effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem, secundum Ioelem. Ipsius erat sustinuisse tempus impleri cuius erat etiam finis temporis, sicut initium. [3] Ceterum deus ille otiosus, nec operationis nec praedicationis ullius, atque ita nec temporis alicuius, quid omnino egit quod efficeret tempus impleri et iam implendum sustineri? Si nihil, satis vanum est ut creatoris tempora sustinuerit serviens creatori. Cui autem rei misit filium suum? Ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, hoc est ut efficeret tortuosa in viam rectam et aspera in vias lenes, secundum Esaiam, ut vetera transirent et nova orirentur, lex nova ex Sion et sermo domini ex Hierusalem, et ut adoptionem filiorum acciperemus, utique nationes, quae filii non eramus. [4] Et ipse enim lux erit nationum, et in nomine eius nationes sperabunt. Itaque ut certum esset nos filios dei esse, misit spiritum suum in corda nostra, clamantem: Abba, pater. In novissimis enim, inquit, diebus effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem. Cuius gratia, nisi cuius et promissio gratiae? [5] Quis pater, nisi qui et factor? Post has itaque divitias non erat revertendum ad infirma et mendica elementa. Elementa autem apud Romanos quoque etiam primae litterae solent dici. Non ergo per mundialium elementorum derogationem a deo eoram avertere cupiebat, etsi dicendo supra, Si ergo his qui non natura sunt dei servitis, physicae, id est naturalis, superstitionis elementa pro deo habentis suggillabat errorem, nec sic tamen elementorum deum taxans. Sed quae velit intellegi elementa, primas scilicet litteras legis, ipse declarat. [6] Dies observatis et menses et tempora et annos, et sabbata ut opinor et coenas puras et ieiunia et dies magnos. Cessare enim ab his quoque, sicut et circumcisione, oportebat ex decretis creatoris, qui et per Esaiam, Neomenias vestras et sabbata et diem magnum non sustinebo, ieiunium et ferias et cerimonias vestras odit anima mea; et per Amos, Odi, reieci cerimonias vestras, et non odorabor in frequentiis vestris; item per Osee, Avertam universas iocunditates eius et cerimonias eius et sabbata et neomenias eius et omnes frequentias eius. [7] Quae ipse constituerat, inquis, erasit? Magis quam alius; aut si alius, ergo ille adiuvit sententiam creatoris, auferens quae et ille damnaverat. Sed non huius loci quaestio cur leges suas creator infregerit. Sufficit quod infracturum probavimus, ut confirmetur nihil apostolum adversus creatorem determinasse, cum et ipsa amolitio legis a creatore sit. [8] Sed ut furibus solet aliquid excidere de praeda in indicium, ita credo et Marcionem novissimam Abrahae mentionem dereliquisse, nulla magis auferenda, etsi ex parte convertit. Si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla et alium ex libera, sed qui ex ancilla carnaliter natus est, qui vero ex libera per repromissionem: quae sunt allegorica, id est aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum, unum a monte Sina in synagogam Iudaeorum secundum legem generans in servitutem, aliud super omnem principatum generans, vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo sed et in futuro, quae est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam ecclesiam; ideoque adicit, Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii sed liberae, utique manifestavit et Christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et Iudaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae, atque ita eius dei esse utramque dispositionem apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis delineationem. [9] Ipsum quod ait, Qua libertate Christus nos manumisit, nonne eum constituit manumissorem qui fuit dominus? Alienos enim servos nec Galba manumisit, facilius liberos soluturus. Ab eo igitur praestabitur libertas apud quem fuit servitus legis. Et merito. Non decebat manumissos rursus iugo servitutis, id est legis, adstringi, iam psalmo adimpleto: Disrumpamus vincula eorum et abiciamus a nobis iugum ipsorum, postquam archontes congregati sunt in unum adversus dominum et adversus Christum ipsius. [10] De servitute igitur exemptos ipsam servitutis notam eradere perseverabat, circumcisionem, ex praedicationis scilicet propheticae auctoritate, memor dictum per Hieremiam, Et circumcidimini praeputia cordis vestri; quia et Moyses, Circumcidetis duricordiam vestram, id est non carnem. Denique si circumcisionem ab alio deo veniens excludebat, cur etiam praeputiationem negat quicquam valere in Christo, sicut et circumcisionem? [11] praeferre enim debebat aemulam eius quam expugnabat, si ab aemulo circumcisionis deo esset. Porro quia et circumcisio et praeputiatio uni deo deputabantur, ideo utraque in Christo vacabat propter fidei praelationem, illius fidei de qua erat scriptum: Et in nomine eius nationes credent, illius fidei quam dicendo per dilectionem perfici sic quoque creatoris ostendit. Sive enim dilectionem dicit quae in deum, et hoc creatoris est, Diliges deum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex totis viribus tuis ; sive quae in proximum, Et proximum tuum tanquam te, creatoris est. [12] Qui autem turbat vos, iudicium feret. A quo deo? Ab optimo? Sed ille non iudicat. A creatore? Sed nec ille damnabit assertorem circumcisionis. Quodsi non erit alius qui iudicet nisi creator, iam ergo non damnabit legis defensores nisi qui ipse eam cessare constituit. Quid nunc si et confirmat illam ex parte qua debet? Tota enim, inquit, lex in vobis adimpleta est: Diliges proximum tuum tanquam te. [13] Aut si sic vult intellegi, Adimpleta est, quasi iam non adimplenda, ergo non vult ut diligam proximum tanquam me, ut et hoc cum lege cessaverit. Sed perseverandum erit senaper in isto praecepto. Ergo lex creatoris etiam ab adversario probata est, nec dispendium sed compendium ab eo consecuta est, redacta summa in unum iam praeceptum. Sed nec hoc alii magis competit quam auctori. Atque adeo cum dicit, Onera vestra invicem sustinete et sic adimplebitis legem Christi, si hoc non potest fieri nisi quis diligat proximum sibi tanquam se, apparet, Diliges proximum tibi tanquam te, per quod auditur, Invicem onera vestra portate, Christi esse legem, quae sit creatoris, atque ita Christum creatoris esse, dum Christi est lex creatoris. [14] Erratis, deus non deridetur. Atquin derideri potest deus Marcionis, qui nec irasci novit nec ulcisci. Quod enim severit homo, hoc et metet. Ergo retributionis et iudicii deus intentat. Bonum autem facientes non fatigemur, et Dum habemus tempus, operemur bonum. Nega creatorem bonum facere praecepisse, et diversa doctrina sit diversae divinitatis. Porro si retributionem praedicat, ab eodem erit et corruptionis messis et vitae. [15] Tempore autem suo metemus, quia et Ecclesiasticus, Tempus inquit erit omni rei. Sed et mihi, famulo creatoris, mundus crucifixus est, non tamen deus mundi, et ego mundo, non tamen deo mundi. Mundum enim quantum ad conversationem eius posuit, cui renuntiando mutuo transfigimur et invicem morimur. Persecutores vocat Christi. Cum vero adicit stigmata Christi in corpore suo gestare se (utique corporalia competunt), iam non putativam, sed veram et solidam carnem professus est Christi, cuius stigmata corporalia ostendit.	4. [1] "But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world." This, however, was not said "after the manner of men." For there is no figure here, but literal truth. For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." [2] For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not 'to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed, 'which is Christ." Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son" ----the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. [3] But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law," in other words, to "make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says ----in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," and "that we might receive the adoption of sons," that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons. [4] For He is to be "the light of the Gentiles," and "in His name shall the Gentiles trust." That we may have, therefore the assurance that we are the children of God, "He hath sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." For "in the last days," saith He," I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the promise thereof? [5] Who is (our) Father, but He who is also our Maker? Therefore, after such affluence (of grace), they should not have returned "to weak and beggarly elements." By the Romans, however, the rudiments of learning are wont to be called elements. He did not therefore seek, by any depreciation of the mundane elements, to turn them away from their god, although, when he said just before, "Howbeit, then, ye serve them which by nature are no gods," he censured the error of that physical or natural superstition which holds the elements to be god; but at the God of those elements he aimed not in this censure. He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by "elements," even the rudiments of the law: [6] "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" ----the sabbaths, I suppose, and "the preparations," and the fasts, and the "high days." For the cessation of even these, no less than of circumcision, was appointed by the Creator's decrees, who had said by Isaiah, "Your new moons, and your sabbaths, and your high days I cannot bear; your fasting, and feasts, and ceremonies my soul hateth; " also by Amos, "I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies; " and again by Hosea, "I will cause to cease all her mirth, and her feast-days, and her sabbaths, and her new moons, and all her solemn assemblies." [7] The institutions which He set up Himself, you ask, did He then destroy? Yes, rather than any other. Or if another destroyed them, he only helped on the purpose of the Creator, by removing what even He had condemned. But this is not the place to discuss the question why the Creator abolished His own laws. It is enough for us to have proved that He intended such an abolition, that so it may be affirmed that the apostle determined nothing to the prejudice of the Creator, since the abolition itself proceeds from the Creator. [8] But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's name he has left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage required his erasure more than this, even his partial alteration of the text. "For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorized" (that is to say, they presaged something besides the literal history); "for these are the two covenants," or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans), as we have found the word interpreted," the one from the Mount Sinai," in relation to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, "which gendereth to bondage"----"the other gendereth" (to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, "which is the mother of us all," in which we have the promise of (Christ's) holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free." In this passage he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a noble birth, being sprung, as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son of Abraham who was born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the bond maid came the legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations, therefore, emanate from that same God by whom, as we have found, they were both sketched out beforehand. [9] When he speaks of "the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free," does not the very phrase indicate that He is the Liberator who was once the Master? For Galba himself never liberated slaves which were not his own, even when about to restore free men to their liberty. By Him, therefore, will liberty be bestowed, at whose command lay the enslaving power of the law. And very properly. It was not meet that those who had received liberty should be "entangled again with the yoke of bondage" ----that is, of the law; now that the Psalm had its prophecy accomplished: "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, since the rulers have gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ." [10] All those, therefore, who had been delivered from the yoke of slavery he would earnestly have to obliterate the very mark of slavery----even circumcision, on the authority of the prophet'sprediction. He remembered how that Jeremiah had said, "Circumcise the foreskins of your heart; " as Moses likewise had enjoined, "Circumcise your hard hearts" ----not the literal flesh. If, now, he were for excluding circumcision, as the messenger of a new god, why does he say that "in Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision? [11] For it was his duty to prefer the rival principle of that which he was abolishing, if he had a mission from the god who was the enemy of circumcision. Furthermore, since both circumcision and uncircumcision were attributed to the same Deity, both lost their power in Christ, by reason of the excellency of faith----of that faith concerning which it had been written, "And in His name shall the Gentiles trust? " ----of that faith "which," he says "worketh by love." By this saying he also shows that the Creator is the source of that grace. For whether he speaks of the love which is due to God, or that which is due to one's neighbor----in either case, the Creator's grace is meant: for it is He who enjoins the first in these words, "Thou shalt love God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength; " and also the second in another passage: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." [12] "But he that troubleth you shall have to bear judgment." From what God? From (Marcion's) most excellent god? But he does not execute judgment. From the Creator? But neither will He condemn the maintainer of circumcision. Now, if none other but the Creator shall be found to execute judgment, it follows that only He, who has determined on the cessation of the law, shall be able to condemn the defenders of the law; and what, if he also affirms the law in that portion of it where it ought (to be permanent)? "For," says he, "all the law is fulfilled in you by this: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' " [13] If, indeed, he will have it that by the words "it is fulfilled" it is implied that the law no longer has to be fulfilled, then of course he does not mean that I should any more love my neighbour as myself, since this precept must have ceased together with the law. But no! we must evermore continue to observe this commandment. The Creator's law, therefore, has received the approval of the rival god, who has, in fact, bestowed upon it not the sentence of a summary dismissal, but the favour of a compendious acceptance; the gist of it all being concentrated in this one precept! But this condensation of the law is, in fact, only possible to Him who is the Author of it. When, therefore, he says, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ," since this cannot be accomplished except a man love his neighbour as himself, it is evident that the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (which, in fact, underlies the injunction, "Bear ye one another's burdens"), is really "the law of Christ," though literally the law of the Creator. Christ, therefore, is the Creator's Christ, as Christ's law is the Creator's law. [14] "Be not deceived, God is not mocked." But Marcion's god can be mocked; for he knows not how to be angry, or how to take vengeance. "For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." It is then the God of recompense and judgment who threatens this. "Let us not be weary in well-doing; " and "as we have opportunity, let us do good." Deny now that the Creator has given a commandment to do good, and then a diversity of precept may argue a difference of gods. If, however, He also announces recompense, then from the same God must come the harvest both of death and of life. [15] But "in due time we shall reap; " because in Ecclesiastes it is said, "For everything there will be a time." Moreover, "the world is crucified unto me," who am a servant of the Creator----"the world," (I say, ) but not the God who made the world----"and I unto the world," not unto the God who made the world. The world, in the apostle's sense, here means life and conversation according to worldly principles; it is in renouncing these that we and they are mutually crucified and mutually slain. He calls them "persecutors of Christ." But when he adds, that "he bare in his body the scars of Christ"----since scars, of course, are accidents of body ----he therefore expressed the truth, that the flesh of Christ is not putative, but real and substantial, the scars of which he represents as borne upon his body.
5. DE EPISTULA AD CORINTHIOS PRIMA. [1] Praestructio superioris epistulae ita duxit, ut de titulo eius non retractaverim, certus et alibi retractari eum posse, communem scilicet et eundem in epistulis omnibus. Quod non utique salutem praescribit eis quibus scribit, sed gratiam et pacem, non dico. Quid illi cum Iudaico adhuc more, destructori Iudaismi? Nam et hodie Iudaei in pacis nomine appellant, et retro in scripturis sic salutabant. Sed intellego illum defendisse officio suo praedicationem creatoris: Quam maturi pedes evangelizantium bona, evangelizantium pacem. [2] Evangelizator enim bonorum, id est gratiae dei, pacem quam praeferendam sciebat. Haec cum a deo patre nostro et domino Iesu annuntians communibus nominibus utatur, competentibus nostro quoque sacramento, non puto dispici posse quis deus pater et dominus Iesus praedicetur, nisi ex accedentibus cui magis competant. [3] Primo quidem patrem dominum praescribo non alium agnoscendum quam et hominis et universitatis creatorem et institutorem: porro patri etiam domini nomen accedere ob potestatem, quod et filius per patrem capiat: dehinc gratiam et pacem non solum eius esse a quo praedicabantur, sed eius qui fuerit offensus. Nec gratia enim fit nisi offensae, nec pax nisi belli. [4] Et populus autem per disciplinae transgressionem et omne hominum genus per naturae dissimulationem et deliquerat et rebellaverat adversus creatorem. Deus autem Marcionis, et quia ignotus, non potuit offendi, et quia nescit irasci. Quae ergo gratia a non offenso? quae pax a non rebellato? [5] Ait crucem Christi stultitiam esse perituris, virtutem autem et sapientiam dei salutem consecuturis; et ut ostenderet unde hoc eveniret, adicit: Scriptum est enim, Perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium irritam faciam. Si haec creatoris sunt, et quae ad causam crucis pertinent stultitiae deputat, ergo ct crux et per crucem Christus ad creatorem pertinebit, a quo praedicatum est quod ad crucem pertinet. [6] Aut si creator, qua aemulus, idcirco sapientiam abstulit ut crux Christi scilicet adversarii stultitia deputetur, ecquomodo potest aliquid ad crucem Christi non sui creator pronuntiasse, quem ignorabat cum praedicabat? Sed et cur apud dominum optimum et profusae misericordiae alii salutem referunt, credentes crucem virtutem et sapientiam dei esse, alii perditionem, quibus Christi crux stultitia reputatur, si non creatoris est aliquam et populi et humani generis offensam detrimento sapientiae atque prudentiae multasse? [7] Hoc sequentia confirmabunt, cum dicit, Nonne infatuavit deus sapientiam mundi? cumque et hic adicit quare: Quoniam in dei sapientia non intellexit mundus per sapientiam dominum, boni duxit deus per stultitiam praedicationis salvos facere credentes. Sed prius de mundo disceptabo, quatenus subtilissimi haeretici hic vel maxime mundum per dominum mundi interpretantur, nos autem hominem qui sit in mundo intellegimus, ex forma simplici loquelae humanae, qua plerumque id quod continet ponimus pro eo quod continetur. Circus clamavit, et forum locutum est, et basilica fremuit, id est qui in his locis rem egerunt. Igitur quia homo, non deus, mundi in sapientia non cognovit deum, quem cognoscere debuerat, et Iudaeus in sapientia scripturarum et omnis gens in sapientia operum, ideo deus idem qui in sapientia sua non erat agnitus statuit sapientiam hominum stultitia repercutere, salvos faciendo credentes quosque in stultam crucis praedicationem. [8] Quoniam Iudaei signa desiderant, qui iam de deo certi esse debuerant, et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt, qui suam scilicet, non dei, sapientiam sistunt. Ceterum si novus deus praedicaretur, quid deliquerant Iudaei signa desiderantes quibus crederent, aut Graeci sapientiam sectantes cui magis crederent? Ita et remuneratio ipsa in Iudaeos et Graecos et zeloten deum confirmat et iudicem, qui ex retributione aemula et iudice infatuaverit sapientiam mundi. Quodsi eius sunt et causae cuius adhibentur scripturae, ergo de creatore tractans apostolus non intellecto creatorem utique docet intellegendum. [9] Etiam quod scandalum Iudaeis praedicat Christum, prophetiam super illo consignat creatoris, dicentis per Esaiam, Ecce posui in Sion lapidem offensionis et petram scandali. Petra autem fuit Christus: etiam Marcion servat. Quid est autem stultum dei sapientius hominibus, nisi crux et mors Christi? Quid infirmum dei fortius homine, nisi nativitas et caro dei? Ceterum si nec natus ex virgine Christus nec carne constructus ac per hoc neque crucem neque mortem vere perpessus est, nihil in illo fuit stultum et infirmum; nec iam stulta mundi elegit deus ut confundat sapientiam, nec infirma mundi elegit deus ut confundat fortia, nec inhonesta et minima et contemptibilia, quae non sunt, id est quae non vere sunt, ut confundat quae sunt, id est quae vere sunt. Nihil enim a deo dispositum est vere modicum et ignobile et contemptibile, sed quod ab homine. Apud creatorem autem etiam vetera stultitiae et infirmitati et inhonestati et pusillitati et contemptui deputari possunt. [10] Quid stultius, quid infirmius, quam sacrificiorum cruentorum et holocaustomatum nidorosorum a deo exactio? Quid infirmius quam vasculorum et grabatorum purgatio? Quid inhonestius quam carnis iam erubescentis alia dedecoratio? Quid tam humile quam talionis indictio? Quid tam contemptibile quam ciborum exceptio? Totum, quod sciam, vetus testamentum omnis haereticus irridet. Stulta enim mundi elegit deus, ut confundat sapientiam (Marcionis deus nihil tale, quia nec aemulatur contraria contrariis redarguere), ne glorietur omnis caro, ut, quemadmodum scriptum est, Qui gloriatur, in domino glorietur. In quo? utique in eo qui hoc praecepit: nisi creator praecepit ut in deo Marcionis glorietur.	5. [1] My preliminary remarks on the preceding epistle called me away from treating of its superscription, for I was sure that another opportunity would occur for considering the matter, it being of constant recurrence, and in the same form too, in every epistle. The point, then, is, that it is not (the usual) health which the apostle prescribes for those to whom he writes, but "grace and peace." I do not ask, indeed, what a destroyer of Judaism has to do with a formula which the Jews still use. For to this day they salute each other with the greeting of "peace," and formerly in their Scriptures they did the same. But I understand him by his practice plainly enough to have corroborated the declaration of the Creator: "How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good, who preach the gospel of peace!" [2] For the herald of good, that is, of God's "grace" was well aware that along with it "peace" also was to be proclaimed. Now, when he announces these blessings as "from God the Father and the Lord Jesus," he uses titles that are common to both, and which are also adapted to the mystery of our faith; and I suppose it to be impossible accurately to determine what God is declared to be the Father and the Lord Jesus, unless (we consider) which of their accruing attributes are more suited to them severally. [3] First, then, I assert that none other than the Creator and Sustainer of both man and the universe can be acknowledged as Father and Lord; next, that to the Father also the title of Lord accrues by reason of His power, and that the Son too receives the same through the Father; then that "grace and peace" are not only His who had them published, but His likewise to whom offence had been given. For neither does grace exist, except after offence; nor peace, except after war. [4] Now, both the people (of Israel) by their transgression of His laws, and the whole race of mankind by their neglect of natural duty, had both sinned and rebelled against the Creator. Marcion's god, however, could not have been offended, both because he was unknown to everybody, and because he is incapable of being irritated. What grace, therefore, can be had of a god who has not been offended? What peace from one who has never experienced rebellion? [5] "The cross of Christ," he says, "is to them that perish foolishness; but unto such as shall obtain salvation, it is the power of God and the wisdom of God." And then, that we may known from whence this comes, he adds: "For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.' " Now, since these are the Creator's words, and since what pertains to the doctrine of the cross he accounts as foolishness, therefore both the cross, and also Christ by reason of the cross, will appertain to the Creator, by whom were predicted the incidents of the cross. [6] But if the Creator, as an enemy, took away their wisdom in order that the cross of Christ, considered as his adversary, should be accounted foolishness, how by any possibility can the Creator have foretold anything about the cross of a Christ who is not His own, and of whom He knew nothing, when He published the prediction? But, again, how happens it, that in the system of a Lord who is so very good, and so profuse in mercy, some carry off salvation, when they believe the cross to be the wisdom and power of God, whilst others incur perdition, to whom the cross of Christ is accounted folly;----(how happens it, I repeat, ) unless it is in the Creator's dispensation to have punished both the people of Israel and the human race, for some great offence committed against Him, with the loss of wisdom and prudence? [7] What follows will confirm this suggestion, when he asks, "Hath not God infatuated the wisdom of this world? " and when he adds the reason why: "For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." But first a word about the expression "the world; " because in this passage particularly, the heretics expend a great deal of their subtlety in showing that by world is meant the lord of the world. We, however, understand the term to apply to any person that is in the world, by a simple idiom of human language, which often substitutes that which contains for that which is contained. "The circus shouted," "The forum spoke," and "The basilica murmured," are well-known expressions, meaning that the people in these places did so. Since then the man, not the god, of the world in his wisdom knew not God, whom indeed he ought to have known (both the Jew by his knowledge of the Scriptures, and all the human race by their knowledge of God's works), therefore that God, who was not acknowledged in His wisdom, resolved to smite men's knowledge with His foolishness, by saving all those who believe in the folly of the preached cross. [8] "Because the Jews require signs," who ought to have already made up their minds about God, "and the Greeks seek after wisdom," who rely upon their own wisdom, and not upon God's. If, however, it was a new god that was being preached, what sin had the Jews committed, in seeking after signs to believe; or the Greeks, when they hunted after a wisdom which they would prefer to accept? Thus the very retribution which overtook both Jews and Greeks proves that God is both a jealous God and a Judge, inasmuch as He infatuated the world's wisdom by an angry and a judicial retribution. Since, then, the causes are in the hands of Him who gave us the Scriptures which we use, it follows that the apostle, when treating of the Creator, (as Him whom both Jew and Gentile as yet have) not known, means undoubtedly to teach us, that the God who is to become known (in Christ) is the Creator. [9] The very "stumbling-block" which he declares Christ to be "to the Jews," points unmistakeably to the Creator's prophecy respecting Him, when by Isaiah He says: "Behold I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence." This rock or stone is Christ. This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still. Now, what is that "foolishness of God which is wiser than men," but the cross and death of Christ? What is that "weakness of God which is stronger than men," but the nativity and incarnation of God? If, however, Christ was not born of the Virgin, was not constituted of human flesh, and thereby really suffered neither death nor the cross there was nothing in Him either of foolishness or weakness; nor is it any longer true, that "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; "nor, again, hath "God chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; "nor "the base things" and the least things "in the world, and things which are despised, which are even as nothing" (that is, things which really are not), "to bring to nothing things which are" (that is, which really are). For nothing in the dispensation of God is found to be mean, and ignoble, and contemptible. Such only occurs in man's arrangement. The very Old Testament of the Creator itself, it is possible, no doubt, to charge with foolishness, and weakness, and dishonour and meanness, and contempt. [10] What is more foolish and more weak than God's requirement of bloody sacrifices and of savoury holocausts? What is weaker than the cleansing of vessels and of beds? What more dishonourable than the discoloration of the reddening skin? What so mean as the statute of retaliation? What so contemptible as the exception in meats and drinks? The whole of the Old Testament, the heretic, to the best of my belief, holds in derision. For God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound its wisdom. Marcion's god has no such discipline, because he does not take after (the Creator) in the process of confusing opposites by their opposites, so that "no flesh shall glory; but, as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." In what Lord? Surely in Him who gave this precept. Unless, forsooth, the Creator enjoined us to glory in the god of Marcion.
6. [1] Igitur per haec omnia ostendit cuius dei sapientiam loquatur inter perfectos, eius scilicet qui sapientiam sapientium abstulerit et prudentiam prudentium irritam fecerit, qui infatuaverit sapientiam mundi, stulta eligens eius et disponens in salutem. Hanc dicit sapientiam in occulto fuisse quac fuerit in stultis et in pusillis et inhonestis, quae latuerit etiam sub figuris, allegoriis et aenigmatibus, revelanda postmodum in Christo, posito in lumen nationum a creatore promittente per Esaiae vocem patefacturum se thesauros invisibiles et occultos. [2] Nam ut absconderit aliquid is deus qui nihil egit omnino in quod aliquid abscondisse existimaretur, satis incredibile. Ipse si esset, latere non posset, nedum aliqua eius sacramenta. Creator autem tam ipse notus quam et sacramenta eius, palam scilicet decurrentia apud Israel, sed de significantiis obumbrata, in quibus sapientia dei delitescebat, inter perfectos narranda suo in tempore, proposita vero in proposito dei ante saecula. [3] Cuius et saecula, nisi creatoris? Si enim et saecula temporibus structa sunt, tempora autem diebus et mensibus et annis compinguntur, dies porro et menses et anni solibus et lunis et sideribus creatoris signantur in hoc ab eo positis (Et erunt, enim inquit, in signa mensium et annorum), apparet et saecula creatoris esse, et omne quod ante saecula propositum dicatur non alterius esse quam cuius et saecula. [4] Aut probet dei sui saecula Marcion; ostendat et mundum ipsum in quo saecula deputentur, vas quodammodo temporum, et signa aliqua vel ordinem eorum. Si nihil demonstrat, revertor ut et illud dicam, Cur autem ante saecula creatoris proposuit gloriam nostram? Posset videri eam ante saecula proposuisse quam introductione saeculi revelasset. At cum id facit paene iam totis saeculis creatoris prodactis, vane ante saecula proposuit, et non magis intra saecula, quod revelaturus erat paene post saecula. [5] Non enim eius est festinasse in proponendo cuius et retardasse in revelando. Creatori autem competit utrumque, et ante saecula proposuisse et in fine saeculorum revelasse, quia et quod proposuit et revelavit medio spatio saeculorum in figuris et aenigmatibus et allegoriis praeministravit. Sed quia subicit de gloria nostra, quod eam nemo ex principibus huius aevi scierit, ceterum si scissent nunquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent, argumentatur haereticus quod principes huius aevi dominum, alterius scilicet dei Christum, cruci confixerint, ut et hoc in ipsum recidat creatorem. [6] Porro cui supra ostendimus quibus modis gloria nostra a creatore sit deputanda, praeiudicatum esse debebit eam quae in occulto fuerit apud creatorem merito ignotam etiam ab omnibus virtutibus et potestatibus creatoris, quia nec famulis liceat consilia nosse dominorum, nedum illis apostatis angelis ipsique principi transgressionis, diabolo, quos magis extraneos fuisse contenderim ob culpam ab omni conscientia dispositionum creatoris. [7] Sed iam nec mihi competit principes huius aevi virtutes et potestates interpretari creatoris, quia ignorantiam illis adscribit apostolus, Iesum autem et secundum nostrum evangelium diabolus quoque in temptatione cognovit, et secundum commune instrumentum spiritus nequam sciebat eum sanctum dei esse et Iesum vocari et in perditionem eorum venisse. Etiam parabola fortis illius armati, quem alius validior oppressit et vasa eius occupavit, si in creatoris accipitur apud Marcionem, iam nec ignorasse ultra potuit creator deum gloriae dum ab eo opprimitur, nec in cruce eum figere adversus quem valere non potuit, et superest ut secundum me quidem credibile sit scientes virtutes et potestates creatoris deum gloriae Christum suum crucifixisse, qua desperatione et malitiae redundantia servi quoque scelestissimi dominos suos interficere non dubitant. Scriptum est enim apud me satanam in Iudam introisse. [8] Secundum autem Marcionem nec apostolus hoc loco patitur ignorantiam adscribi virtutibus creatoris in gloriae dominum, quia scilicet non illas vult intellegi principes huius aevi. Quodsi non videtur de spiritalibus dixisse principibus, ergo de saecularibus dixit, de populo principali, utique non inter nationes, de ipsis archontibus eius, de rege Herode, etiam de Pilato, et quo maior principatus huius aevi Romana dignitas praesidebat. [9] Ita et cum destruuntur argumentationes diversae partis, nostrae expositiones aedificantur. Sed vis adhuc gloriam nostram dei tui esse et apud eum in occulto fuisse. Et quare adhuc eodem et deus instrumento et apostolus nititur? Quid illi cum sententiis prophetarum ubique? Quis enim cognovit sensum domini, et quis illi consiliarius fuit? Esaias est. Quid illi etiam cum exemplis dei nostri? [10] Nam quod architectum se prudentem affirmat, hoc invenimus significari depalatorem disciplinae divinae a creatore per Esaiam: Auferam, enim inquit, a Iudaea inter cetera et sapientem architectum. Et numquid ipse tunc Paulus destinabatur, de ludaea, id est de Iudaismo, auferri habens in aedificationem Christianismi, positurus unicum fundamentum, quod est Christus? quia et de hoc per eundem prophetam creator, Ecce ego, inquit, inicio in fundamenta Sionis lapidem pretiosum, honorabilem, et qui in eum crediderit non confundetur. [11] Nisi si structorem se terreni operis deus profitebatur, ut non de Christo suo significaret qui futurus esset fundamentum credentium in eum; super quod prout quisque superstruxerit, dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam, si opus eius per ignem probabitur, si merces illi per ignem rependetur, creatoris est: quia per ignem iudicatur vestra superaedificatio, utique sui fundamenti, id est sui Christi. Nescitis quod templum dei sitis, et in vobis inhabitet spiritus dei? Si homo et res et opus et imago et similitudo et caro per terram et anima per afflatum creatoris est, totus ergo in alieno habitat deus Marcionis si non creatoris sumus templum. [12] Quodsi templum dei quis vitiaverit, vitiabitur, utique a deo templi. Ultorem intentans, creatorem intentabis. Stulti estote, ut sitis sapientes. Quare? Sapientia enim huius mundi stultitia est penes deum. Penes quem deum? Si nihil nobis et ad hunc sensum pristina praeiudicaverunt, bene quod et hic adstruit: Scriptum est enim, Deprehendens sapientes in nequitia illorum; et rursus, Dominus scit cogitationes sapientium, quod sint supervacuae. [13] In totum enim praescriptum a nobis erit, nulla illum sententia uti potuisse eius dei quem destruere deberet, si non illi doceret. Ergo, inquit, nemo glorietur in homine. Et hoc secundum creatoris disciplinam: Miserum hominem, qui spem habet in hominem! et, Bonum est fidere in deo quam fidere in hominibus; ita et gloriari.	6. [1] By all these statements, therefore, does he show us what God he means, when he says, "We speak the wisdom of God among them that are perfect." It is that God who has confounded the wisdom of the wise, who has brought to nought the understanding of the prudent, who has reduced to folly the world's wisdom, by choosing its foolish things, and disposing them to the attainment of salvation. This wisdom, he says, once lay hidden in things that were foolish, weak, and lacking in honour; once also was latent under figures, allegories, and enigmatical types; but it was afterwards to be revealed in Christ, who was set "as a light to the Gentiles," by the Creator who promised through the mouth of Isaiah that He would discover "the hidden treasures, which eye had not seen." [2] Now, that that god should have ever hidden anything who had never made a cover wherein to practise concealment, is in itself a wholly incredible idea. If he existed, concealment of himself was out of the question----to say nothing of any of his religious ordinances. The Creator, on the contrary, was as well known in Himself as His ordinances were. These, we know, were publicly instituted in Israel; but they lay overshadowed with latent meanings, in which the wisdom of God was concealed to be brought to light by and by amongst "the perfect," when the time should come, but "pre-ordained in the counsels of God before the ages." [3] But whose ages, if not the Creator's? For because ages consist of times, and times are made up of days, and months, and years; since also days, and months, and years are measured by suns, and moons, and stars, which He ordained for this purpose (for "they shall be," says He, "for signs of the months and the years"), it clearly follows that the ages belong to the Creator, and that nothing of what was fore-ordained before the ages can be said to be the property of any other being than Him who claims the ages also as His own. [4] Else let Marcion show that the ages belong to his god. He must then also claim the world itself for him; for it is in it that the ages are reckoned, the vessel as it were of the times, as well as the signs thereof, or their order. But he has no such demonstration to show us. I go back therefore to the point, and ask him this question: Why did (his god) fore-ordain our glory before the ages of the Creator? I could understand his having predetermined it before the ages, if he had revealed it at the commencement of time. But when he does this almost at the very expiration of all the ages of the Creator, his predestination before the ages, and not rather within the ages, was in vain, because he did not mean to make any revelation of his purpose until the ages had almost run out their course. [5] For it is wholly inconsistent in him to be so forward in planning purposes, who is so backward in revealing them. In the Creator, however, the two courses were perfectly compatible----both the predestination before the ages and the revelation at the end thereof, because that which He both fore-ordained and revealed He also in the intermediate space of time announced by the pre-ministration of figures, and symbols, and allegories. But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator Himself. [6] Any one, however, who has seen from what we have already said how our glory must be regarded as issuing from the Creator, will already have come to the conclusion that, inasmuch as the Creator settled it in His own secret purpose, it properly enough was unknown to all the princes and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression himself, the devil; for I should contend that these, on account of their fall, were greater strangers still to any knowledge of the Creator's dispensations. [7] But it is no longer open to me even to interpret the princes and powers of this world as the Creator's, since the apostle imputes ignorance to them, whereas even the devil according to our Gospel recognised Jesus in the temptation, and, according to the record which is common to both (Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew that Jesus was the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that He was come to destroy them. The parable also of the strong man armed, whom a stronger than he overcame and seized his goods, is admitted by Marcion to have reference to the Creator: therefore the Creator could not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome by him; nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope with. The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that we must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation and excessive malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even hesitate to slay their masters. For it is written in my Gospel that "Satan entered into Judas." [8] According to Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under consideration does not allow the imputation of ignorance, with respect to the Lord of glory, to the powers of the Creator; because, indeed, he will have it that these are not meant by "the princes of this world." But (the apostle) evidently did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant secular ones, those of the princely people, (chief in the divine dispensation, although) not, of course, amongst the nations of the world, and their rulers, and king Herod, and even Pilate, and, as represented by him, that power of Rome which was the greatest in the world, and then presided over by him. [9] Thus the arguments of the other side are pulled down, and our own proofs are thereby built up. But you still maintain that our glory comes from your god, with whom it also lay in secret. Then why does your god employ the self-same Scripture which the apostle also relies on? What has your god to do at all with the sayings of the prophets? "Who hath discovered the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? " So says Isaiah. What has he also to do with illustrations from our God? [10] For when (the apostle) calls himself "a wise master-builder," we find that the Creator by Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches out the divine discipline by the same title, "I will take away from Judah the cunning artificer," etc. And was it not Paul himself who was there foretold, destined "to be taken away from Judah"----that is, from Judaism----for the erection of Christianity, in order "to lay that only foundation, which is Christ? " Of this work the Creator also by the same prophet says, "Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious stone and honourable; and he that resteth thereon shall not be confounded." [11] Unless it be, that God professed Himself to be the builder up of an earthly work, that so He might not give any sign of His Christ, as destined to be the foundation of such as believe in Him, upon which every man should build at will the superstructure of either sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch as it is the Creator's function, when a man's work shall be tried by fire, (or) when a reward shall be recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire that the test is applied to the building which you erect upon the foundation which is laid by Him, that is, the foundation of His Christ. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? " Now, since man is the property, and the work, and the image and likeness of the Creator, having his flesh, formed by Him of the ground, and his soul of His afflatus, it follows that Marcion's god wholly dwells in a temple which belongs to another, if so be we are not the Creator's temple. [12] But "if any man defile the temple of God, he shall be himself destroyed" ----of course, by the God of the temple. If you threaten an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. "Ye must become fools, that ye may be wise." Wherefore? "Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." With what God? Even if the ancient Scriptures have contributed nothing in support of our view thus far, an excellent testimony turns up in what (the apostle) here adjoins: "For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness; and again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." [13] For in general we may conclude for certain that he could not possibly have cited the authority of that God whom he was bound to destroy, since he would not teach for Him. "Therefore," says he, "let no man glory in man; " an injunction which is in accordance with the teaching of the Creator, "wretched is the man that trusteth in man; " again, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to confide in man; " and the same thing is said about glorying (in princes).

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.7-9.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUINTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V
7. [1] Et occulta tenebrarum ipse illuminabit, utique per Christum, qui Christum illuminationem repromisit, se quoque lucernam pronuntiavit, scrutantem corda et renes. Ab illo erit et laus unicuique a quo et contrarium laudis, ut a iudice. Certe, inquis, vel hic mundum deum mundi interpretatur, dicendo, Spectaculum facti sumus mundo et angelis et horninibus: quia si mundum homines mundi significasset, non etiam homines postmodum nominasset. Immo ne ita argumentareris, providentia spiritus sancti demonstravit quomodo dixisset, Spectaculum facti sumus mundo, dum angelis qui mundo ministrant, et hominibus quibus ministrant. [2] Verebatur nimirum tantae constantiae vir, ne dicam spiritus sanctus, praesertim ad filios scribens, quos in evangelio generaverat, libere deum mundi nominare, adversus quem nisi exserte non posset videri praedicare. Non defendo secundum legem creatoris displicuisse illum qui mulierem patris sui habuit. Communis et publicae religionis secutus sit disciplinam. Sed cum eum damnat dedendum satanae, damnatoris dei praeco est. Viderit et quomodo dixerit, In interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus sit in die domini, dum et de carnis interitu et de salute spiritus iudicarit, et auferri iubens malum de medio creatoris frequentissimam sententiam commemoraverit: [3] Expurgate vetus fermentum, ut sitis nova conspersio, sicut estis azymi. Ergo azymi figurae erant nostrae apud creatorem. Sic et pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Quare pascha Christus, si non pascha figura Christi per similitudinem sanguinis salutaris pecoris et Christi? Quid nobis et Christo imagines induit sollemnium creatoris, si non erant nostrae? [4] Avertens autem nos a fornicatione manifestat carnis resurrectionem. Corpus, inquit, non fornicationi sed domino, et dominus corpori, ut templum deo et deus templo. Templum ergo deo peribit, et deus templo? Atquin vides, Qui dominum suscitavit, et nos suscitabit; in corpore quoque suscitabit, quia corpus domino, et dominus corpori. Et bene quod aggerat, Nescitis corpora vestra membra esse Christi? Quid dicet haereticus? Membra Christi non resurgent, quae nostra iam non sunt? Empti enim sumus pretio magno. [5] Plane nullo, si phantasma fuit Christus nec habuit ullam substantiam corporis quam pro nostris corporibus dependeret. Ergo et Christus habuit quo nos redimeret, et si aliquo magno redemit haec corpora, in quae eadem committenda fornicatio non erit, ut in membra iam Christi non nostra, utique sibi salva praestabit quae magno comparavit. Iam nunc quomodo honorabimus, quomodo tollemus deum in corpore perituro? [6] Sequitur de nuptiis congredi, quas Marcion constantior apostolo prohibet. Etenim apostolus, etsi bonum continentiae praefert, tamen coniugium et contrahi permittit et usui esse, et magis retineri quam disiungi suadet. Plane Christus vetat divortium, Moyses vero permittit. Marcion totum concubitum auferens fidelibus (viderint enim catechumeni eius), repudium ante nuptias iubens, cuius sententiam sequitur, Moysi an Christi? [7] Atquin et Christus cum praecipit mulierem a viro non discedere, aut si discesserit mancre innuptam aut reconciliari viro, et repudium permisit, quod non in totum prohibuit, et matrimonium confirmavit, quod primo vetuit disiungi, et si forte disiunctum voluit reformari. Sed et continentiae quas ait causas? [8] Quia tempus in collecto est. Putaveram, quia deus alius in Christo; et tamen a quo est collectio temporis, ab eo erit et quod collectioni temporis congruit. Nemo alieno tempori consulit. Pusillum deum affirmas tuum, Marcion, quem in aliquo coangustat tempus creatoris. Gerte praescribens tantum in domino esse nubendum, ne qui fidelis ethnicum matrimonium contrahat, legem tuetur creatoris, allophylorum nuptias ubique prohibentis. [9] Sed, Et si sunt qui dicuntur dei, sive in caelis sive in terris, apparet quomodo dixerit; non quasi vere sint, sed quia sint qui dicantur, quando non sint. De idolis enim coepit de idolothytis disputaturus: Scimus quod idolum nihil sit. Creatorem autem et Marcion deum non negat; ergo non potest videri apostolus creatorem quoque inter eos posuisse qui dei dicantur et tamen non sint, quando, et si fuissent, nobis tamen unus esset deus pater. Ex quo omnia nobis, nisi cuius omnia? Quaenam ista? Habes in praeteritis, Omnia vestra sunt, sive Paulus, sive Apollo, sive Cephas, sive mundus, sive vita, sive mors, sive praesentia, sive futura. [10] Adeo omnium deum creatorem facit, a quo et mundus et vita et mors, quae alterius dei esse non possunt. Ab eo igitur inter omnia et Christus. Ex labore suo unumquemque docens vivere oportere satis exempla praemiserat militum pastorum rusticorum; sed divina illi auctoritas deerat. Legem igitur opponit creatoris ingratis, quam destruebat; sui enim dei nullam talem habebat. Bovi, inquit, terenti os non obligabis, et adicit, Numquid de bubus pertinet ad dominum? etiam de bubus propter homines benignum? Propter nos enim scriptum est, inquit. [11] Ergo et legem allegoricam secundum nos probavit, et de evangelio viventibus patrocinantem, ac propter hoc non alterius esse evangelizatores quam cuius lex quae prospexit illis, cum dicit, Propter nos enim scriptum est. Sed noluit uti legis potestate, quia maluit gratis laborare. Hoc ad gloriam suam retulit, quam negavit quemquam evacuaturum, non ad legis destructionem qua alium probavit usurum. Ecce enim et in petram offendit caecus Marcion de qua bibebant in solitudine patres nostri. Si enim petra illa Christus fuit, utique creatoris, cuius et populus, cui rei figuram extranei sacramenti interpretatur? An ut hoc ipsum doceret figurata fuisse vetera in Christum ex illis recensendum? Nam et reliquum exitum populi decursurus praemittit, Haec autem exempla nobis sunt facta. [13] Dic mihi, a creatore alterius quidem ignoti dei hominibus exempla sunt facta, an alius deus ab alio mutuatur exempla, et quidem aemulo? De illo me terret sibi a quo fidem meam transfert. Meliorem me illi adversarius faciet? Iam si deliquero eadem quae et populus, eademne passurus sum, an non? Atquin si non eadem, vane mihi timenda proponit quae non sum passurus. Passurus autem a quo ero? Si a creatore, qualia infligere ipsius est? et quale erit ut peccatorem aemuli sui puniat magis quam e contrario foveat deus zelotes? Si ab illo deo, atquin punire non novit. Ita tota ista propositio apostoli nulla ratione consistit, si non ad disciplinam creatoris est. [14] Denique et in clausula praefationi respondet. Haec autem quemadmodum evenerunt illis, scripta sunt ad nos commonendos, in quos fines aevorum decucurrerunt. O creatorem et praescium iam et admonitorem alienorum Christianorum! Praetereo si quando paria eorum quae retractata sunt, quaedam et breviter expungo. Magnum argumentum dei alterius permissio omnium obsoniorum adversus legem. Quasi non et ipsi confiteamur legis onera dimissa, sed ab eo qui imposuit, qui novationem repromisit. Ita et cibos qui abstulit, reddidit quod et a primordio praestitit. Ceterum si quis alius deus fuisset, destructor dei nostri, nihil magis suos prohibuisset quam de copiis adversarii vivere.	7. [1] "And the hidden things of darkness He will Himself bring to light," even by Christ; for He has promised Christ to be a Light, and Himself He has declared to be a lamp, "searching the hearts and reins." From Him also shall "praise be had by every man," from whom proceeds, as from a judge, the opposite also of praise. But here, at least, you say he interprets the world to be the God thereof, when he says: "We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." For if by world he had meant the people thereof, he would not have afterwards specially mentioned "men." To prevent, however, your using such an argument as this, the Holy Ghost has providentially explained the meaning of the passage thus: "We are made a spectacle to the world," i.e. "both to angels," who minister therein, "and to men," who are the objects of their ministration. [2] Of course, a man of the noble courage of our apostle (to say nothing of the Holy Ghost) was afraid, when writing to the children whom he had begotten in the gospel, to speak freely of the God of the world; for against Him he could not possibly seem to have a word to say, except only in a straightforward manner! I quite admit, that, according to the Creator's law, the man was an offender" who had his father's wife." He followed, no doubt, the principles of natural and public law. When, however, he condemns the man "to be delivered unto Satan," he becomes the herald of an avenging God. It does not matter that he also said, "For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord," since both in the destruction of the flesh and in the saving of the spirit there is, on His part, judicial process; and when he bade "the wicked person be put away from the midst of them," he only mentioned what is a very frequently recurring sentence of the Creator. [3] "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened." The unleavened bread was therefore, in the Creator's ordinance, a figure of us (Christians). "For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." But why is Christ our passover, if the passover be not a type of Christ, in the similitude of the blood which saves, and of the Lamb, which is Christ? Why does (the apostle) clothe us and Christ with symbols of the Creator's solemn rites, unless they had relation to ourselves? [4] When, again, he warns us against fornication, he reveals the resurrection of the flesh. "The body," says he, "is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body," just as the temple is for God, and God for the temple. A temple will therefore pass away with its god, and its god with the temple. You see, then, how that "He who raised up the Lord will also raise us up." In the body will He raise us, because the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And suitably does he add the question: "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? " What has the heretic to say? That these members of Christ will not rise again, for they are no longer our own? "For," he says, "ye are bought with a price." [5] A price! surely none at all was paid, since Christ was a phantom, nor had He any corporeal substance which He could pay for our bodies! But, in truth, Christ had wherewithal to redeem us; and since He has redeemed, at a great price, these bodies of ours, against which fornication must not be committed (because they are now members of Christ, and not our own), surely He will secure, on His own account, the safety of those whom He made His own at so much cost! Now, how shall we glorify, how shall we exalt, God in our body, which is doomed to perish? [6] We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more continent than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution there of. Christ plainly forbids divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it. Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? [7] Even Christ, however, when He here commands "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial bond to be resumed by reconciliation. But what reasons does (the apostle) allege for continence? [8] Because "the time is short." I had almost thought it was because in Christ there was another god! And yet He from whom emanates this shortness of the time, will also send what suits the said brevity. No one makes provision for the time which is another's. You degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by the Creator's time. Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be "only in the Lord," that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers. [9] But when he says, "although there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth," the meaning of his words is clear----not as if there were gods in reality, but as if there were some who are called gods, without being truly so. He introduces his discussion about meats offered to idols with a statement concerning idols (themselves): "We know that an idol is nothing in the world." Marcion, however, does not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without being so; since, even if they had been gods, "to us there is but one God, the Father." Now, from whom do all things come to us, but from Him to whom all things belong? And pray, what things are these? You have them in a preceding part of the epistle: "All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come." [10] He makes the Creator, then the God of all things, from whom proceed both the world and life and death, which. cannot possibly belong to the other god. From Him, therefore, amongst the "all things" comes also Christ. When he teaches that every man ought to live of his own industry, he begins with a copious induction of examples----of soldiers, and shepherds, and husbandmen. But he wanted divine authority. What was the use, however, of adducing the Creator's, which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god had no such authority! (The apostle) says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," and adds: "Doth God take care of oxen? "Yes, of oxen, for the sake of men! For, says he, "it is written for our sakes." [11] Thus he showed that the law had a symbolic reference to ourselves, and that it gives its sanction in favour of those who live of the gospel. (He showed) also, that those who preach the gospel are on this account sent by no other god but Him to whom belongs the law, which made provision for them, when he says: "For our sakes was this writ. ten." Still he declined to use this power which the law gave him, because he preferred working without any restraint. Of this he boasted, and suffered no man to rob him of such glory ----certainly with no view of destroying the law, which he proved that another man might use. [12] For behold Marcion, in his blindness, stumbled at the rock whereof our fathers drank in the wilderness. For since "that rock was Christ," it was, of course, the Creator's, to whom also belonged the people. But why resort to the figure of a sacred sign given by an extraneous god? Was it to teach the very truth, that ancient things prefigured the Christ who was to be educed out of them? For, being about to take a cursory view of what befell the people (of Israel) he begins with saying: "Now these things happened as examples for us." [13] Now, tell me, were these examples given by the Creator to men belonging to a rival god? Or did one god borrow examples from another, and a hostile one too? He withdraws me to himself in alarm from Him from whom he transfers my allegiance. Will his antagonist make me better disposed to him? Should I now commit the same sins as the people, shall I have to suffer the same penalties, or not? But if not the same, how vainly does he propose to me terrors which I shall not have to endure! From whom, again, shall I have to endure them? If from the Creator, What evils does it appertain to Him to inflict? And how will it happen that, jealous God as He is, He shall punish the man who offends His rival, instead of rather encouraging him. If, however, from the other god----but he knows not how to punish. So that the whole declaration of the apostle lacks a reasonable basis, if it is not meant to relate to the Creator's discipline. [14] But the fact is, the apostle's conclusion corresponds to the beginning: "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." What a Creator! how prescient already, and considerate in warning Christians who belong to another god! Whenever cavils occur the like to those which have been already dealt with, I pass them by; certain others I despatch briefly. A great argument for another god is the permission to eat of all kinds of meats, contrary to the law. Just as if we did not ourselves allow that the burdensome ordinances of the law were abrogated----but by Him who imposed them, who also promised the new condition of things. The same, therefore, who prohibited meats, also restored the use of them, just as He had indeed allowed them from the beginning. If, however, some strange god had come to destroy our God, his foremost prohibition would certainly have been, that his own votaries should abstain from supporting their lives on the resources of his adversary.
8. [1] Caput viri Christus est. Quis Christus? qui non est viri auctor? Caput enim ad auctoritatem posuit, auctoritas autem non alterius erit quam auctoris. Cuius denique viri caput est ? Certe de quo subicit, Vir enim non debet caput velare, cum sit dei imago. Igitur si creatoris est imago (ille enim Christum sermonem suum intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram), quomodo possum alterum habere caput, non eum cuius imago sum? [2] Cum enim imago sim creatoris, non est in me locus capitis alterius. Sed et quare mulier potestatem super caput habere debebit? Si quia ex viro et propter virum facta est, secundum institutionem creatoris, sic quoque eius disciplinam apostolus curavit de cuius institutione causas disciplinae interpretatur. Adicit etiam, Propter angelos. Quos? id est cuius? Si creatoris apostatas, merito, ut illa facies quae eos scandalizavit notam. quandam referat de habitu humilitatis et obscuratione decoris: si vero propter angelos dei alterius, quid veretur, si nec ipsi Marcionitae feminas appetunt? [3] Saepe iam ostendimus haereses apud apostolum inter mala ut malum poni, et eos probabiles intellegendos qui haereses ut malum fugiant. Proinde panis et calicis sacramento iam in evangelio probavimus corporis et sanguinis dominici veritatem adversus phantasma Marcionis. Sed et omnem iudicii mentionem creatori competere, ut deo iudici, toto paene opere tractatum est. [4] Nunc de spiritalibus dico, haec quoque in Christum a creatore promissa, sub illa praescriptione, iustissima opinor, qua non alterius credenda sit exhibitio quam cuius probata fuerit repromissio. Pronuntiavit Esaias, Prodibit virga de radice Iesse, et flos de radice ascendet, et requiescet super eum spiritus domini. Dehinc species eius enumerat: Spiritus sapientiae et intellegentiae, spiritus consilii et valentiae, et spiritus agnitionis et religionis, spiritus eum replebit timoris dei. Christum enim in floris figura ostendit oriturum ex virga profecta de radice Iesse, id est virgine generis David, filii Iesse, in quo Christo consistere haberet tota substantia spiritus, non quasi postea obventura illi qui semper spiritus dei fuerit, ante carnem quoque, ne ex hoc argumenteris prophetiam ad eum Christum pertinere qui ut homo tantum ex solo censu David postea consecuturus sit dei sui spiritum, sed quoniam exinde quo floruisset in carne sumpta ex stirpe David, requiescere in illo omnis haberet operatio gratiae spiritalis, et concessare et finem facere, quantum ad Iudaeos; [5] sicut et res ipsa testatur, nihil exinde spirante penes illos spiritu creatoris, ablato a Iudaea sapiente et prudente architecto et consiliario et propheta, ut hoc sit, Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem. Accipe nunc quomodo et a Christo in caelum recepto charismata obventura pronuntiarit. Ascendit in sublimitatem, id est in caelum: captivam duxit captivitatem, id est mortem vel humanam servitutem: dedit data filiis hominurn, id est donativa quae charismata dicimus. Eleganter Filiis hominum ait, non passim Hominibus, nos ostendens filios hominum, id est vere hominum, apostolorum. [6] In evangelio, enim inquit, ego vos generavi, et, Filii mei quos parturio rursus. Iam nunc et illa promissio spiritus absolute facta per loelem: In novissimis diebus effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem, et prophetabunt filii filiaeque eorum, et super servos et ancillas meas de meo spiritu effundam. [7] Et utique si in novissimos dies gratiam spiritus creator repromisit, Christus autem spiritalium dispensator in novissimis diebus apparuit, dicente apostolo, At ubi tempus expletum est misit deus filium suum, et rursus, Quia tempus iam in collecto est, apparet et de temporum ultimorum praedicatione hanc gratiam spiritus ad Christum praedicatoris pertinere. Compara denique species apostoli et Esaiae. [8] Alii, inquit, datur per spiritum sermo sapientiae: statim et Esaias spiritum sapientiae posuit. Alii sermo scientiae: hic erit sermo intellegentiae et consilii. Alii fides in eodem spiritu: hic erit spiritus religionis et timoris dei. Alii donum curationum, alii virtutum: hic erit valentiae spiritus. Alii prophetia, alii distinctio spirituum, alii genera linguarum, alii interpretatio linguarum: hic erit agnitionis spiritus. [9] Vide apostolum et in distributione facienda unius spiritus et in specialitate interpretanda prophetae conspirantem, Possum dicere, ipsum quod corporis nostri per multa et diversa membra unitatem charismatum variorum compagini adaequavit, eundem et corporis humani et spiritus sancti dominum ostendit, qui merita charismatum noluerit esse in corpore spiritus quae nec in corpore humano collocavit, qui de dilectione quoque omnibus charismatibus praeponenda apostolum instruxerit principali praecepto, quod probavit et Christus, [10] Diliges dominum de totis praecordiis et totis viribus et tota anima tua et proximum tuum tanquam te ipsum. Et si quod in lege scriptum esset commemorat, in aliis linguis et in aliis labiis locuturum creatorem, cum hac commemoratione charisma linguarum confirmat, nec hic potest videri alienum charisma creatoris praedicatione confirmasse. [11] Aeque praescribens silentium mulieribus in ecclesia, ne quid discendi duntaxat gratia loquantur (ceterum prophetandi ius et illas habere iam ostendit, cum mulieri etiam prophetanti velamen imponit), ex lege accipit subiciendae feminae auctoritatem, quam, ut semel dixerim, nosse non debuit nisi in destructionem. [12] Sed ut iam a spiritalibus recedamus, res ipsae probare debebunt quis nostrum temere deo suo vindicet, et an nostrae parti possit opponi, haec et si creator repromisit in suum Christum nondum revelatum, ut Iudaeis tantum destinatum, suas habitura in suo tempore in suo Christo et in suo populo operationes. Exhibeat itaque Marcion dei sui dona, aliquos prophetas, qui tamen non de humano sensu sed de dei spiritu sint locuti, qui et futura praenuntiarint et cordis occulta traduxerint; edat aliquem psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, duntaxat spiritalem, in ecstasi, id est amentia, si qua linguae interpretatio accessit; probet etiam mihi mulierem apud se prophetasse ex illis suis sanctioribus feminis magnidicam: si haec omnia facilius a me proferuntur, et utique conspirantia regulis et dispositionibus et disciplinis creatoris, sine dubio dei mei erit et Christus et spiritus et apostolus. Habet professionem meam qui voluerit eam exigere.	8. [1] "The head of every man is Christ." What Christ, if He is not the author of man? The head he has here put for authority; now "authority" will accrue to none else than the "author." Of what man indeed is He the head? Surely of him concerning whom he adds soon afterwards: "The man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image of God." Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness" ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? [2] For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head. But wherefore "ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because "she was created for the man," and taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. He adds: "Because of the angels." What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning. It is right that that face which was a snare to them should wear some mark of a humble guise and obscured beauty. If, however, the angels of the rival god are referred to, what fear is there for them? for not even Marcion's disciples, (to say nothing of his angels, ) have any desire for women. [3] We have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil among "works of the flesh," and that he would have those persons accounted estimable who shun heresies as an evil thing. In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively to the Creator as to a God who judges. [4] Now, on the subject of "spiritual gifts," I have to remark that these also were promised by the Creator through Christ; and I think that we may derive from this a very just conclusion that the bestowal of a gift is not the work of a god other than Him who is proved to have given the promise. Here is a prophecy of Isaiah "There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up from his root; and upon Him shall rest the Spirit of the Lord." After which he enumerates the special gifts of the same "The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of religion. And with the fear of the Lord shall the Spirit fill Him." In this figure of a flower he shows that Christ was to arise out of the rod which sprang from the stem of Jesse; in other words, from the virgin of the race of David, the son of Jesse. In this Christ the whole substantia of the Spirit would have to rest, not meaning that it would be as it were some subsequent acquisition accruing to Him who was always, even before His incarnation, the Spirit of God; so that you cannot argue from this that the prophecy has reference to that Christ who (as mere man of the race only of David) was to obtain the Spirit of his God. (The prophet says, ) on the contrary, that from the time when (the true Christ) should appear in the flesh as the flower predicted, rising from the root of Jesse, there would have to rest upon Him the entire operation of the Spirit of grace, which, so far as the Jews were concerned, would cease and come to an end. [5] This result the case itself shows; for after this time the Spirit of the Creator never breathed amongst them. From Judah were taken away "the wise man, and the cunning artificer, and the counsellor, and the prophet; " that so it might prove true that "the law and the prophets were until John." Now hear how he declared that by Christ Himself, when returned to heaven, these spiritual gifts were to be sent: "He ascended up. on high," that is, into heaven; "He led captivity captive," meaning death or slavery of man; "He gave gifts to the sons of men," that is, the gratuities, which we call charismata. He says specifically "sons of men," and not men promiscuously; thus exhibiting to us those who were the children of men truly so called, choice men, apostles. [6] "For," says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel; " and "Ye are my children, of whom I travail again in birth." Now was absolutely fulfilled that promise of the Spirit which was given by the word of Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy; and upon my servants and upon my handmaids will I pour out of my Spirit." [7] Since, then, the Creator promised the gift of His Spirit in the latter days; and since Christ has in these last days appeared as the dispenser of spiritual gifts (as the apostle says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son; " and again, "This I say, brethren, that the time is short" ), it evidently follows in connection with this prediction of the last days, that this gift of the Spirit belongs to Him who is the Christ of the predicters. Now compare the Spirit's specific graces, as they are described by the apostle, and promised by the prophet Isaiah. [8] "To one is given," says he, "by the Spirit the word of wisdom; "this we see at once is what Isaiah declared to be "the spirit of wisdom." "To another, the word of knowledge; "this will be "the (prophet's) spirit of understanding and counsel." "To another, faith by the same Spirit; "this will be "the spirit of religion and the fear of the Lord." "To another, the gifts of healing, and to another the working of miracles; "this will be "the spirit of might." "To another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another divers kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues; "this will be "the spirit of knowledge." [9] See how the apostle agrees with the prophet both in making the distribution of the one Spirit, and in interpreting His special graces. This, too, I may confidently say: he who has likened the unity of our body throughout its manifold and divers members to the compacting together of the various gifts of the Spirit, shows also that there is but one Lord of the human body and of the Holy Spirit. This Spirit, (according to the apostle's showing, ) meant not that the service of these gifts should be in the body, nor did He place them in the human body); and on the subject of the superiority of love above all these gifts, He even taught the apostle that it was the chief commandment, just as Christ has shown it to be: [10] "Thou shalt love the Lord with all thine heart and soul, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thine own self." When he mentions the fact that "it is written in the law," how that the Creator would speak with other tongues and other lips, whilst confirming indeed the gift of tongues by such a mention, he yet cannot be thought to have affirmed that the gift was that of another god by his reference to the Creator's prediction. [11] In precisely the same manner, when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience. Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it. [12] But that we may now leave the subject of spiritual gifts, facts themselves will be enough to prove which of us acts rashly in claiming them for his God, and whether it is possible that they are opposed to our side, even if the Creator promised them for His Christ who is not yet revealed, as being destined only for the Jews, to have their operations in His time, in His Christ, and among His people. Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer ----only let it be by the Spirit, in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his. Now all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator; therefore without doubt the Christ, and the Spirit, and the apostle, belong severally to my God. Here, then, is my frank avowal for any one who cares to require it.
9. [1] Interim Marcionites nihil huiusmodi exhibebit, qui timct iam pronuntiare cuius magis Christus nondum sit revelatus. Sicut meus expectandus est, qui a primordio praedicatus est, illius idcirco non est, quia non a primordio sit. Melius nos credimus in Christum futurum quam haereticus in nullum. [2] Mortuorum resurrectionem quomodo quidam tunc negarint prius dispiciendum est. Utique eodem modo quo et nunc; siquidem semper resurrectio carnis negatur. Ceterum animam et sapientium plures divinam vindicantes salvam repromittunt, et vulgus ipsum ea praesumptione defunctos colit qua animas eorum manere confidit: ceterum corpora aut ignibus statim aut feris aut etiam diligentissime condita temporibus tamen aboleri manifestum est. Si ergo carnis resurrectionem negantes apostolus retundit, utique adversus illos tuetur quod illi negabant, carnis scilicet resurrectionem. Habes compendio responsum. [3] Cetera iam ex abundanti. Nam et ipsum quod mortuorum resurrectio dicitur, exigit defendi proprietates vocabulorum. Ita vocabulum mortuum non est nisi quod amisit animam, de cuius facultate vivebat. Corpus est quod amittit animam et amittendo fit mortuum; ita mortui vocabulum corpori competit. Porro si resurrectio mortui est, mortuum autem non aliud est quam corpus, corporis erit resurrectio. [4] Sic et resurrectionis vocabulum non aliam rem vindicat quam quae cecidit. Surgere enim potest dici et quod omnino non cecidit, quod semper retro iacuit. Resurgere autem non est nisi eius quod cecidit; iterum enim surgendo, quia cecidit, resurgere dicitur. RE enim syllaba iterationi semper adhibetur. Cadere ergo dicimus corpus in terram per mortem, sicut et res ipsa testatur, ex dei lege. Corpori enim dictum est, Terra es et in terram ibis. Ita quod de terra est ibit in terram. Hoc cadit quod in terram abit, hoc resurgit quod cadit. [5] Quia per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio. Hic mihi et Christi corpus ostenditur in nomine hominis, qui constat ex corpore, ut saepe iam docuimus. Quodsi sic in Christo vivificamur omnes sicut mortificamur in Adam, quando in Adam corpore mortificemur, sic necesse est in Christo corpore vivificemur. Ceterum similitudo non constat si non in eadem substantia mortificationis in Adam, vivificatio concurrat in Christo. Sed interposuit adhuc aliquid de Christo, et propter praesentem disceptationem non omittendum. [6] Tanto magis enim probabitur carnis resurrectio, quanto Christum eius dei ostendero apud quem creditur carnis resurrectio. Cum dicit, Oportet enim regnare eum, donec ponat inimicos eius sub pedes eius, iam quidem et ex hoc ultorem deum edicit, atque exinde ipsum qui hoc Christo repromiserit: Sede ad dexteram meam donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum: virgam virtutis tuae emittet dominus ex Sion, et dominabitur in medio inimicorum tuorum tecum. [7] Sed necesse est ad meam sententiam pertinere defendam eas scripturas quas et Iudaei nobis avocare conantur. Dicunt denique hunc psalmum in Ezechiam cecinisse, quia is sederit ad dexteram templi, et hostes eius averterit deus et absumpserit; propterea igitur et cetera, Ante luciferum ex utero generavi te, in Ezechiam convenire et in Ezechiae nativitatem. Nos edimus evangelia (de quorum fide aliquid utique iam in tanto opere istos confirmasse debemus), nocturna nativitate declarantia dominum, ut hoc sit ante luciferum, et ex stella magis intellecta, et ex testimonio angeli qui nocte pastoribus annuntiavit natum esse cum maxime Christum, et ex loco partus, in diversorium enim ad noctem convenitur. [8] Fortassean et mystice factum sit ut nocte Christus nasceretur, lux veritatis futurus ignorantiae tenebris. Sed nec, Generavi te, edixisset deus, nisi filio vero. Nam etsi de toto populo ait, Filios generavi, sed non adiecit Ex utero. Cur autem adiecit Ex utero tam vane, quasi aliqui hominum ex utero natus dubitaretur, nisi quia curiosius voluit intellegi in Christum: Ex utero generavi te, id est ex solo utero, sine viri semine, carni deputans <quod> ex utero, spiritui quod ex ipso. His accedit, Tu es sacerdos in aevum. Nec sacerdos autem Ezechias, nec in aevum, etsi fuisset. Secundum ordinem, inquit, Melchisedec. [9] Quid Ezechias ad Melchisedec altissimi sacerdotem, et quidem non circumcisum, qui Abraham circumcisum iam accepta decimarum oblatione benedixit? At in Christum conveniet ordo Melchisedec, quoniam quidem Christus proprius et legitimus dei antistes, praeputiati sacerdotii pontifex, tum in nationibus constitutus, a quibus magis suscipi habebat, cognituram se quandoque circumcisionem et Abrahae gentem, cum ultimo venerit, acceptatione et benedictione dignabitur. Est et alius psalmus ita incipiens: Deus, iudicium tuum regi da, id est Christo regnaturo, et iustitiam tuam filio regis, id est populo Christi. [10] Filii enim eius sunt qui in ipso renascuntur. Sed et hic psalmus Salomoni canere dicetur. Quae tamen soli competunt Christo docere non poterunt etiam cetera non ad Salomonem, sed ad Christum pertinere? Descendit, inquit, tanquam imber super vellus, et velut stillae destillantes in terram; placidum descensum eius et insensibilem describens de caelo in carnem. Salomon autem etsi descendit alicunde, non tamen sicut imber, quia non de caelo. Sed simpliciora quaeque proponam. [11] Dominabitur, inquit, a mari ad mare, et a flumine usque ad terminos terrae. Hoc soli datum est Christo; ceterum Salomon uni et modicae Iudaeae imperavit. Adorabunt illum omnes reges. Quem omnes, nisi Christum? Et servient ei omnes nationes. Cui omnes, nisi Christo? Sit nomen eius in aevum. Cuius nomen in aeternum, nisi Christi? Ante solem manebit nomen eius. Ante solem enim sermo dei, id est Christus. [12] Et benedicentur in illo universae gentes. In Salomone nulla natio benedicitur, in Christo vero omnis. Quid nunc, si et deum eum iste psalmus demonstrat? Et beatum eum dicent: quoniam, Benedictus dominus deus Israelis, qui facit mirabilia solus: benedictum nomen gloriae eius, et replebitur universa terra gloria eius. [13] Contra Salomon, audeo dicere, etiam quam habuit in deo gloriam amisit per mulierem in idololatriam usque pertractus. Itaque cum in medio psalmo illud quoque positum sit: Inimici eius pulverem lingent, subiecti utique pedibus ipsius, ad illud pertinebit propter quod hunc psalmum et intuli et ad meam sententiam defendi, ut confirmaverim et regni gloriam et inimicorum subiectionem secundum dispositionem creatoris, consecuturus non alium credendum quam creatoris.	9. [1] Meanwhile the Marcionite will exhibit nothing of this kind; he is by this time afraid to say which side has the better right to a Christ who is not yet revealed. Just as my Christ is to be expected, who was predicted from the beginning, so his Christ therefore has no existence, as not having been announced from the beginning. Ours is a better faith, which believes in a future Christ, than the heretic's, which has none at all to believe in. [2] Touching the resurrection of the dead, let us first inquire how some persons then denied it. No doubt in the same way in which it is even now denied, since the resurrection of the flesh has at all times men to deny it. But many wise men claim for the soul a divine nature, and are confident of its undying destiny, and even the multitude worship the dead in the presumption which they boldly entertain that their souls survive. As for our bodies, however, it is manifest that they perish either at once by fire or the wild beasts, or even when most carefully kept by length of time. When, therefore, the apostle refutes those who deny the resurrection of the flesh, he indeed defends, in opposition to them, the precise matter of their denial, that is, the resurrection of the body. You have the whole answer wrapped up in this. [3] All the rest is superfluous. Now in this very point, which is called the resurrection of the dead, it is requisite that the proper force of the words should be accurately maintained. The word dead expresses simply what has lost the vital principle, by means of which it used to live. Now the body is that which loses life, and as the result of losing it becomes dead. To the body, therefore, the term dead is only suitable. Moreover, as resurrection accrues to what is dead, and dead is a term applicable only to a body, therefore the body alone has a resurrection incidental to it. [4] So again the word Resurrection, or (rising again), embraces only that which has fallen down. "To rise," indeed, can be predicated of that which has never fallen down, but had already been always lying down. But "to rise again" is predicable only of that which has fallen down; because it is by rising again, in consequence of its having fallen down, that it is said to have re-risen. For the syllable RE always implies iteration (or happening again). We say, therefore, that the body falls to the ground by death, as indeed facts themselves show, in accordance with the law of God. For to the body it was said, ("Till thou return to the ground, for out of it wast thou taken; for) dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." That, therefore, which came from the ground shall return to the ground. Now that falls down which returns to the ground; and that rises again which falls down. [5] "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection." Here in the word man, who consists of bodily substance, as we have often shown already, is presented to me the body of Christ. But if we are all so made alive in Christ, as we die in Adam, it follows of necessity that we are made alive in Christ as a bodily substance, since we died in Adam as a bodily substance. The similarity, indeed, is not complete, unless our revival in Christ concur in identity of substance with our mortality in Adam. But at this point (the apostle) has made a parenthetical statement concerning Christ, which, bearing as it does on our present discussion, must not pass unnoticed. [6] For the resurrection of the body will receive all the better proof, in proportion as I shall succeed in showing that Christ belongs to that God who is believed to have provided this resurrection of the flesh in His dispensation. When he says, "For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet," we can see at once from this statement that he speaks of a God of vengeance, and therefore of Him who made the following promise to Christ: "Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The rod of Thy strength shall the Lord send forth from Sion, and He shall rule along with Thee in the midst of Thine enemies." [7] It is necessary for me to lay claim to those Scriptures which the Jews endeavour to deprive us of, and to show that they sustain my view. Now they say that this Psalm was a chant in honour of Hezekiah, because "he went up to the house of the Lord," and God turned back and removed his enemies. Therefore, (as they further hold, ) those other words, "Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb," are applicable to Hezekiah, and to the birth of Hezekiah. We on our side have published Gospels (to the credibility of which we have to thank them for having given some confirmation, indeed, already in so great a subject ); and these declare that the Lord was born at night, that so it might be "before the morning star," as is evident both from the star especially, and from the testimony of the angel, who at night announced to the shepherds that Christ had at that moment been born, and again from the place of the birth, for it is towards night that persons arrive at the (eastern)" inn." [8] Perhaps, too, there was a mystic purpose in Christ's being born at night, destined, as He was, to be the light of the truth amidst the dark shadows of ignorance. Nor, again, would God have said, "I have begotten Thee," except to His true Son. For although He says of all the people (Israel), "I have begotten children," yet He added not "from the womb." Now, why should He have added so superfluously this phrase "from the womb" (as if there could be any doubt about any one's having been born from the womb), unless the Holy Ghost had wished the words to be with especial care understood of Christ? "I have begotten Thee from the womb," that is to say, from a womb only, without a man's seed, making it a condition of a fleshly body that it should come out of a womb. What is here added (in the Psalm), "Thou art a priest for ever," relates to (Christ) Himself. Hezekiah was no priest; and even if he had been one, he would not have been a priest for ever. "After the order," says He, "of Melchizedek." [9] Now what had Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, and him uncircumcised too, who blessed the circumcised Abraham, after receiving from him the offering of tithes? To Christ, however, "the order of Melchizedek" will be very suitable; for Christ is the proper and legitimate High Priest of God. He is the Pontiff of the priesthood of the uncircumcision, constituted such, even then, for the Gentiles, by whom He was to be more fully received, although at His last coming He will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to acknowledge Him. Well, then, there is also another Psalm, which begins with these words: "Give Thy judgments, O God, to the King," that is, to Christ who was to come as King, "and Thy righteousness unto the King's son," that is, to Christ's people; [10] for His sons are they who are born again in Him. But it will here be said that this Psalm has reference to Solomon. However, will not those portions of the Psalm which apply to Christ alone, be enough to teach us that all the rest, too, relates to Christ, and not to Solomon? "He shall come down," says He, "like rain upon a fleece, and like dropping showers upon the earth," describing His descent from heaven to the flesh as gentle and unobserved. Solomon, however, if he had indeed any descent at all, came not down like a shower, because he descended not from heaven. But I will set before you more literal points. [11] "He shall have dominion," says the Psalmist, "from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." To Christ alone was this given; whilst Solomon reigned over only the moderately-sized kingdom of Judah. "Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him." Whom, indeed, shall they all thus worship, except Christ? "All nations shall serve Him." To whom shall all thus do homage, but Christ? "His name shall endure for ever." Whose name has this eternity of fame, but Christ's? "Longer than the sun shall His name remain," for longer than the sun shall be the Word of God, even Christ. [12] "And in Him shall all nations be blessed." In Solomon was no nation blessed; in Christ every nation. And what if the Psalm proves Him to be even God? "They shall call Him blessed." (On what ground? ) Because blessed Is the Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wonderful things." "Blessed also is His glorious name, and with His glory shall all the earth be filled." [13] On the contrary, Solomon (as I make bold to affirm) lost even the glory which he had from God, seduced by his love of women even into idolatry. And thus, the statement which occurs in about the middle of this Psalm, "His enemies shall lick the dust" (of course, as having been, (to use the apostle's phrase, ) "put under His feet" ), will bear upon the very object which I had in view, when I both introduced the Psalm, and insisted on my opinion of its sense,----namely, that I might demonstrate both the glory of His kingdom and the subjection of His enemies in pursuance of the Creator's own plans, with the view of laying down this conclusion, that none but He can be believed to be the Christ of the Creator.

[Ben C. Smith]

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.10-12.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUINTUS	Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book V
10. [1] Revertamur nunc ad resurrectionem, cui et alias quidem proprio volumine satisfecimus, omnibus haereticis resistentes; sed nec hic desumus, propter eos qui illud opusculum ignorant. Quid, ait, facient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si mortui non resurgunt? Viderit institutio ista. Kalendae, si forte,Februariae respondebunt illi, pro mortuis petere. Noli ergo apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem eius denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem, quanto illi qui vane pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc facerent. [2] Habemus illum alicubi unius baptismi definitorem. Igitur et pro mortuis tingui pro corporibus est tingui; mortuum enim corpus ostendimus. Quid facient qui pro corporibus baptizantur, si corpora non resurgunt? Atque adeo recte hunc gradum figimus, ut et apostolus secundam disceptationem aeque de corpore induxerit. Sed dicent quidam, Quomodo mortui resurgent? quo autem corpore venient? [3] Defensa etenim resurrectione, quae negabatur, consequens erat de qualitate corporis retractare, quae non videbatur. Sed de ista cum aliis congredi convenit. Marcion enim in totum carnis resurrectionem non admittens et soli animae salutem repromittens, non qualitatis sed substantiae facit quaestionem. Porro et ex his manifestissime obducitur quae apostolus ad qualitatem corporis tractat propter illos qui dicunt, Quomodo resurgent mortui? quo autem corpore venient? Iam enim praedicavit resurrecturum esse corpus, si de corporis qualitate tractavit. [4] Denique si proponit exempla grani tritici, vel alicuius eiusmodi, quibus det corpus deus prout volet, si unicuique seminum proprium ait esse corpus, ut aliam quidem carnem hominum, aliam vero pecudum et volucrum, et corpora caelestia atque terrena, et aliam gloriam solis, et lunae aliam, et stellarum aliam,—nonne carnalern et corporalem portendit resurrectionem, quam per carnalia et corporalia exempla commendat? nonne etiam ab eo deo eam spondet a quo sunt et exempla? Sic et resurrectio, inquit. [5] Quomodo? Sicut et granum, corpus seritur corpus resurgit. Seminationem denique vocavit dissolutionem corporis in terram, quia seritur in corruptela, <in dedecoratione, in infirmitate, resurgit autem in incorruptelam,> in honestatem, in virtutem. Cuius ille ordo in dissolutione, eius et hic in resurrectione corporis, scilicet sicut et granum. Ceterum si auferas corpus resurrectioni quod dedisti dissolutioni, ubi consistet diversitas exitus? Proinde et si seritur animale, resurgit spiritale, etsi habet aliquod proprium corpus anima vel spiritus, ut possit videri corpus animale animam significare et corpus spiritale spiritum, non ideo animam dicit in resurrectione spiritum futuram, sed corpus, quod cum anima nascendo et per animam vivendo animale dici capit, futurum spiritale dum per spiritum surgit in aeternitatem. [6] Denique si non anima, sed caro seminatur in corruptela, dum dissolvitur in terram, iam non anima erit corpus animale, sed caro quae fuit corpus animale, siquidem de animali efficitur spiritale, sicut et infra dicit, Non primum quod spiritale. Ad hoc enim et de ipso Christo praestruit: [7] Factus primus homo Adam in animam vivam, novissimus Adam in spiritum vivificantem; licet stultissimus haereticus noluerit ita esse, dominum enim posuit novissimum pro novissimo Adam, veritus scilicet ne, si et dominum novissimum haberet Adam, et eiusdem Christum defenderemus in Adam novissimo cuius et primum. [8] Sed falsum relucet. Cur enim primus Adam, nisi quia et novissimus Adam? Non habent ordinem inter se nisi paria quaeque et eiusdem vel nominis vel substantiae vel auctoris. Nam etsi potest in diversis quoque esse aliud primum, aliud novissimum, sed unius auctoris. Ceterum si et auctor alius, et ipse quidem potest novissimus dici. Quod tamen intulerit, primum est; novissimum autem, si primo par sit. Par autem primo non est, quia non eiusdem auctoris est. Eodem modo et in nomine hominis revincetur. [9] Primus, inquit, homo de humo terrenus, secundus dominus de caelo. Quare secundus, si non homo, quod et primus? Aut numquid et primus dominus, si et secundus? Sed sufficit si in evangelio filium hominis adhibet Christum, et hominem et in homine Adam eum negare non poterit. [10] Sequentia quoque eum comprimunt. Cum enim dicit apostolus, Qualis qui de terra, homo scilicet, tales et terreni, homines utique, ergo et qualis qui de caelo homo, tales et qui de caelo homines. Non enim poterat hominibus terrenis non homines caelestes opposuisse, ut statum ac spem studiosius distingueret in appellationis societate. Statu enim ac spe dicit terrenos atque caelestes, homines tamen ex pari, qui secundum exitum aut in Adam aut in Christo deputantur. Et ideo iam ad exhortationem spei caelestis, Sicut portavimus, inquit, imaginem terreni, portemus et imaginem caelestis, non ad substantiam ullam referens resurrectionis, sed ad praesentis temporis disciplinam. [11] Portemus enim, inquit, non portabimus, praeceptive, non promissive, volens nos sicut ipse incessit ita incedere, et a terreni, id est veteris, hominis imagine abscedere, quae est carnalis operatio. Denique quid subiungit? Hoc enim dico, fratres, quia caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt, opera scilicet carnis et sanguinis, quibus et ad Galatas scribens abstulit dei regnum, solitus et alias substantiam pro operibus substantiae ponere, ut cum dicit eos qui in carne sunt deo placere non posse. Quando enim placere poterimus deo, nisi dum in carne hac sumus? [12] Aliud tempus operationis nullum opinor est. Sed si in carne quamquam constituti carnis opera fugiamus, tum non erimus in carne, dum non in substantia carnis non sumus, sed in culpa. Quodsi in nomine carnis, opera non substantiam carnis iubemur exponere, operibus ergo carnis, non substantiae carnis, in nomine carnis denegatur dei regnum. [13] Non enim id damnatur in quo male fit, sed id quod fit. Venenum dare scelus est, calix tamen in quo datur reus non est. Ita et corpus carnalium operum vas est, anima est autem quae in illo venenum alicuius mali facti temperat. Quale est autem ut, si anima auctrix operum carnis merebitur dei regnum per expiationem eorum quae in corpore admisit, corpus ministrum solummodo in damnatione permaneat? Venefico absoluto calix erit puniendus? Et tamen non utique carni defendimus dei regnum, sed resurrectionem substantiae suae, quasi ianuam regni, per quam aditur. [14] Ceterum aliud resurrectio, aliud regnum. Primo enim resurrectio, dehinc regnum. Resurgere itaque dicimus carnem, sed mutatam consequi rcgnum. Resurgent enim mortui incorrupti, illi scilicet qui fuerant corrupti dilapsis corporibus in interitum. Et nos mutabimur, in atomo, in oculi momentaneo motu. Oportet enim corruptivum hoc, tenens utique carnem suam dicebat apostolus, induere incorruptelam, et mortale hoc immortalitatem, ut scilicet habilis substantia efficiatur regno dei. Erimus enim sicut angeli. Haec erit demutatio carnis, sed resuscitatae. Aut si nulla erit, quomodo induet incorruptelam et immortalitatem? [15] Aliud igitur facta per demutationem tunc consequetur dei regnum, iam non caro nec sanguis, sed quod illi corpus deus dederit. Et ideo recte apostolus: Caro et sanguis regnum dei non consequentur, demutationi illud adscribens, quae accedit resurrectioni. [16] Si autem tunc fiet verbum quod scriptum est apud creatorem, Ubi est, mors, victoria tua vel contentio tua? Ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? (verbum autem hoc creatoris est per prophetam), eius erit et res, id est regnum, cuius et verbum fiet in regno. Nec alii deo gratias dicit quod nobis victoriam utique de morte referre praestiterit, quam illi a quo verbum insultatorium de morte et triumphatorium accepit.	10. [1] Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours. But we will not be wanting (in some defence of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. "What," asks he, "shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? " Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. [2] We have the apostle in another passage defining "but one baptism." To be "baptized for the dead" therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body; for, as we have shown, it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body, if the body rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say) that the next question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body. But "some man will say, 'How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come? '" [3] Having established the doctrine of the resurrection which was denied, it was natural to discuss what would be the sort of body (in the resurrection), of which no one had an idea. On this point we have other opponents with whom to engage, For Marcion does not in any wise admit the resurrection of the flesh, and it is only the salvation of the soul which he promises; consequently the question which he raises is not concerning the sort of body, but the very substance thereof. Notwithstanding, he is most plainly refuted even from what the apostle advances respecting the quality of the body, in answer to those who ask, "How are the dead raised up? with what body do they come? "For as he treated of the sort of body, he of course ipso facto proclaimed in the argument that it was a body which would rise again. [4] Indeed, since he proposes as his examples "wheat grain, or some other grain, to which God giveth a body, such as it hath pleased Him; " since also he says, that "to every seed is its own body; " that, consequently, "there is one kind of flesh of men, whilst there is another of beasts, and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial; and that there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars" ----does he not therefore intimate that there is to be a resurrection of the flesh or body, which he illustrates by fleshly and corporeal samples? Does he not also guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from whom proceed all the (creatures which have served him for) examples? "So also," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead." [5] How? Just as the grain, which is sown a body, springs up a body. This sowing of the body he called the dissolving thereof in the ground, "because it is sown in corruption," (but "is raised) to honour and power." Now, just as in the case of the grain, so here: to Him will belong the work in the revival of the body, who ordered the process in the dissolution thereof. If, however, you remove the body from the resurrection which you submitted to the dissolution, what becomes of the diversity in the issue? Likewise, "although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Now, although the natural principle of life and the spirit have each a body proper to itself, so that the "natural body" may fairly be taken to signify the soul, and "the spiritual body" the spirit, yet that is no reason for supposing the apostle to say that the soul is to become spirit in the resurrection, but that the body (which, as being born along with the soul, and as retaining its life by means of the soul, admits of being called animal (or natural ) will became spiritual, since it rises through the Spirit to an eternal life. [6] In short, since it is not the soul, but the flesh which is "sown in corruption," when it turns to decay in the ground, it follows that (after such dissolution) the soul is no longer the natural body, but the flesh, which was the natural body, (is the subject of the future change), forasmuch as of a natural body it is made a spiritual body, as he says further down, "That was not first which is spiritual." For to this effect he just before remarked of Christ Himself: [7] "The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Our heretic, however, in the excess of his folly, being unwilling that the statement should remain in this shape, altered "last Adam" into "last Lord; " because he feared, of course, that if he allowed the Lord to be the last (or second) Adam, we should contend that Christ, being the second Adam, must needs belong to that God who owned also the first Adam. [8] But the falsification is transparent. For why is there a first Adam, unless it be that there is also a second Adam? For things are not classed together unless they be severally alike, and have an identity of either name, or substance, or origin. Now, although among things which are even individually diverse, one must be first and another last, yet they must have one author. If, however, the author be a different one, he himself indeed may be called the last. But the thing which he introduces is the first, and that only can be the last, which is like this first in nature. It is, however, not like the first in nature, when it is not the work of the same author. In like manner (the heretic) will be refuted also with the word "man:" [9] "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." Now, since the first was a man, how can there be a second, unless he is a man also? Or, else, if the second is "Lord," was the first "Lord" also? It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his Gospel he admits the Son of man to be both Christ and Man; so that he will not be able to deny Him (in this passage), in the "Adam" and the "man" (of the apostle). [10] What follows will also be too much for him. For when the apostle says, "As is the earthy," that is, man, "such also are they that are earthy"----men again, of course; "therefore as is the heavenly," meaning the Man, from heaven, "such are the men also that are heavenly." For he could not possibly have opposed to earthly men any heavenly beings that were not men also; his object being the more accurately to distinguish their state and expectation by using this name in common for them both. For in respect of their present state and their future expectation he calls men earthly and heavenly, still reserving their parity of name, according as they are reckoned (as to their ultimate conditions ) in Adam or in Christ. Therefore, when exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the heavenly," ----language which relates not to any condition of resurrection life, but to the rule of the present time. [11] He says, Let us bear, as a precept; not We shall bear, in the sense of a promise----wishing us to walk even as he himself was walking, and to put off the likeness of the earthly, that is, of the old man, in the works of the flesh. For what are this next words? "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God. In other passages also he is accustomed to put the natural condition instead of the works that are done therein, as when he says, that "they who are in the flesh cannot please God." Now, when shall we be able to please God except whilst we are in this flesh? [12] There is, I imagine, no other time wherein a man can work. If, however, whilst we are even naturally living in the flesh, we yet eschew the deeds of the flesh, then we shall not be in the flesh; since, although we are not absent from the substance of the flesh, we are notwithstanding strangers to the sin thereof. Now, since in the word flesh we are enjoined to put off, not the substance, but the works of the flesh, therefore in the use of the same word the kingdom of God is denied to the works of the flesh, not to the substance thereof. [13] For not that is condemned in which evil is done, but only the evil which is done in it. To administer poison is a crime, but the cup in which it is given is not guilty. So the body is the vessel of the works of the flesh, whilst the soul which is within it mixes the poison of a wicked act. How then is it, that the soul, which is the real author of the works of the flesh, shall attain to the kingdom of God, after the deeds done in the body have been stoned for, whilst the body, which was nothing but (the soul's) ministering agent, must remain in condemnation? Is the cup to be punished, but the poisoner to escape? Not that we indeed claim the kingdom of God for the flesh: all we do is, to assert a resurrection for the substance thereof, as the gate of the kingdom through which it is entered. [14] But the resurrection is one thing, and the kingdom is another. The resurrection is first, and afterwards the kingdom. We say, therefore, that the flesh rises again, but that when changed it obtains the kingdom. "For the dead shall be raised incorruptible," even those who had been corruptible when their bodies fell into decay; "and we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. For this corruptible"----and as he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh----"must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality," in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. "For we shall be like the angels." This will be the perfect change of our flesh----only after its resurrection. Now if, on the contrary, there is to be no flesh, how then shall it put on incorruption and immortality? [15] Having then become something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it. Rightly then does the apostle declare, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; " for this (honour) does he ascribe to the changed condition which ensues on the resurrection. [16] Since, therefore, shall then be accomplished the word which was written by the Creator, "O death, where is thy victory"----or thy struggle? "O death, where is thy sting? " ----written, I say, by the Creator, for He wrote them by His prophet ----to Him will belong the gift, that is, the kingdom, who proclaimed the word which is to be accomplished in the kingdom. And to none other God does he tell us that "thanks" are due, for having enabled us to achieve "the victory" even over death, than to Him from whom he received the very expression of the exulting and triumphant challenge to the mortal foe.
11. DE EPISTULA SECUNDA AD CORINTHIOS. [1] Si deus commune vocabulum factum est vitio erroris humani, quatenus plures dei dicuntur atque creduntur in saeculo, benedictus tamen deus domini nostri Iesu Christi non alius quam creator intellegetur qui et universa benedixit, habes Genesim; et ab universis benedicitur, habes Danielem. Proinde si pater potest dici sterilis deus, nullius magis nomine quam creatoris; misericordiarum tamen pater idem erit qui misericors et miserator et misericordiae plurimus est dictus. [2] Habes apud Ionam cum ipso misericordiae exemplo quam Ninivitis exorantibus praestitit: facilis et Ezechiae fletibus flecti, et Achab marito lezabelis deprecanti sanguinem ignoscere Nabuthae, et David agnoscenti delictum Statim indulgere, malens scilicet paenitentiam peccatoris quam mortem, utique ex misericordiae affectu. Si quid tale Marcionis deus edidit vel edixit, agnoscam patrem misericordiarum. [3] Si vero ex eo tempore hunc titulum ei adscribit quo revelatus, quasi exinde sit pater misericordiarum quo liberare instituit genus humanum, atquin et nos ex eo tempore negamus illum ex quo dicitur revelatus. Non potest igitur aliquid ei adscribere quem tunc ostendit cum aliquid ei adscribit. Si enim prius constaret eum esse, tunc et adscribi ei potest. Accidens enim est quod adscribitur, accidentia autem antecedit ipsius rei ostensio cui accidunt, maxime cum iam alterius est quod adscribitur ei qui prius non sit ostensus. Tanto magis negabitur esse, quanto per quod affirmatur esse eius est qui iam ostensus est. [4] Sic et testamentum novum non alterius erit quam qui illud repromisit; etsi non littera, at eius spiritus; hoc erit novitas. Denique qui litteram tabulis lapideis inciderat, idem et de spiritu edixerat, Effundam de meo spiritu in omnem carnem. Et si littera occidit, spiritus vero vivificat, eius utrumque est qui ait, Ego occidam et ego vivificabo, percutiam et sanabo. Olim duplicem vim creatoris vindicavimus, et iudicis et boni, littera occidentis per legem et spiritu vivificantis per evangelium. Non possunt duos deos facere quae, etsi diversa, apud unum recenseri praevenerunt. [5] Commemorat et de velamine Moysi, quo faciem tegebat incontemplabilem filiis Israel. Si ideo ut claritatem maiorem defenderet novi testamenti quod manet in gloria, quam veteris quod evacuari habebat, hoc et meae convenit fidei praeponenti evangelium legi, et vide ne magis meae. Illic enim erit superponi quid, ubi fuerit et illud cui superponitur. At cum dicit, Sed obtunsi sunt sensus mundi, non utique creatoris, sed populi qui in mundo est. De Israele enim dicit, Ad hodiernum usque velamen idipsum in corde eorum. Figuram ostendit fuisse velamen faciei in Moyse velaminis cordis in populo, quia nec nunc apud illos perspiciatur Moyses corde, sicut nec facie tunc. [6] Quid est ergo adhuc velatum in Moyse quod pertineat ad Paulum, si Christus creatoris a Moyse praedicatus nondum venit? quomodo iam operta et velata adhuc denotantur corda Iudaeorum, nondum exhibitis praedicationibus Moysi, id est de Christo, in quo eum intellegere deberent? Quid ad apostolum Christi alterius, si dei sui sacramenta Iudaei non intellegebant, nisi quia velamen cordis illorum ad caecitatem, qua non perspexerant Christum Moysi, pertinebat? [7] Denique quod sequitur, Cum vero converterit ad deum, auferetur velamen, hoc Iudaeo proprie dicit apud quem et est velamen Moysi, qui cum transierit in fidem Christi, intellegit Moysen de Christo praedicasse. Ceterum quomodo auferetur velamentum creatoris in Christo dei alterius, cuius sacramenta velasse non potuit creator, ignoti videlicet ignota? [8] Dicit ergo nos iam aperta facie, utique cordis, quod velatum est in Iudaeis, contemplantes Christum eadem imagine transfigurari a gloria, qua scilicet et Moyses transfigurabatur a gloria domini, in gloriam. Ita corporalem Moysi illuminationem de congressu domini et corporale velamen de infirmitate populi proponens, et spiritalem revelationem et spiritalem claritatem in Christo superducens, tanquam a domino, inquit, spirituum, totum ordinem Moysi figuram ignorati apud Iudaeos, agniti vero apud nos Christi fuisse testatur. [9] Scimus quosdam sensus ambiguitatem pati posse de sono pronuntiationis aut de modo distinctionis, cum duplicitas earum intercedit. Hanc Marcion captavit sic legendo: In quibus deus aevi huius, ut creatorem ostendens deum huius aevi alium suggerat deum alterius aevi. Nos contra sic distinguendum dicimus: In quibus deus, dehinc: aevi huius excaecavit mentes infidelium; In quibus, Iudaeis infidelibus, in quibus opertum est aliquibus evangelium adhuc sub velamine Moysi. Illis enim deus, labiis diligentibus eum, corde autem longe absistentibus ab eo minatus fuerat: Aure audietis et non audietis, oculis videbitis et non videbitis, et: Nisi credideritis nec intellegetis, et: Auferam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium irritam faciam. [10] Haec autem non utique de evangelio dei ignoti abscondendo minabatur. Ita etsi huius aevi deus, sed infidelium huius aevi excaecat cor, quod Christum eius non ultro recognoverint de scripturis intellegendum. Et positum in ambiguitate distinctionis hactenus tractasse, ne adversario prodesset, contentus victoriae, nae ultro possum et in totum contentionem hanc praeterisse. [11] Simpliciori responso prae manu erit esse huius aevi dominum diabolum interpretari, qui dixerit, propheta referente, Ero similis altissimi, ponam in nubibus thronum meum; sicut et tota huius aevi superstitio illi mancipata est qui excaecet infidelium corda et inprimis apostatae Marcionis. Denique non vidit occurrentem sibi clausulam sensus: Quoniam deus, qui dixit ex tenebris lucem lucescere, reluxit in cordibus nostris ad illuminationem agnitionis suae in persona Christi. [12] Quis dixit, Fiat lux? Et de illuminatione mundi quis Christo ait, Posui te in lumen nationum, sedentium scilicet in tenebris et in umbra mortis? Cui respondet spiritus in psalmo ex providentia futuri: Significatum est, inquit, super nos lumen personae tuae, domine. Persona autem dei Christus dominus. Unde et apostolus supra, Qui est imago, inquit, dei. Igitur si Christus persona creatoris dicentis, Fiat lux, et Christus et apostoli et evangelium et velamen et Moyses et tota series, secundum testimonium clausulae creatoris est, dei huius aevi, certe non eius qui nunquam dixit, Fiat lux. Praetereo hic et de alia epistula, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptam habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. [13] Ait enim meminisse nationes quod illo in tempore cum essent sine Christo, alieni ab Israele, sine conversatione et testamentis et spe promissionis, etiarn sine deo essent, in mundo utique, etsi de creatore. Ergo si nationes sine deo dixit esse, deus autem illis diabolus est, non creator, apparet dominum aevi huius eum intellegendum quem nationes pro deo receperunt, non creatorem, quem ignorant. [14] Quale est autem ut non eiusdem habeatur thesaurus in fictilibus vasis nostris cuius et vasa sunt? Nam si gloria dei est in fictilibus vasis tantum thesauri haberi, vasa autem fictilia creatoris sunt, ergo et gloria creatoris est, cuius vasa eminentiam virtutis dei sapiunt, et virtus ipsa; quia propterea in vasa fictilia cornmissa sunt, ut eminentia eius probaretur. [15] Ceterum iam non erit alterius dei gloria ideoque nec virtus, sed magis dedecus et infirmitas, cuius eminentiam fictilia et quidem aliena ceperunt. Quodsi haec sunt fictilia vasa, in quibus tanta nos pati dicit, in quibus etiam mortificationem circumferimus dei, satis ingratus deus et iniustus, si non et hanc substantiam resuscitaturus est, in qua pro fide eius tanta tolerantur, in qua et mors Christi circumfertur, in qua et eminentia virtutis consecratur. Sed enim proponit, Ut et vita Christi manifestetur in corpore nostro, scilicet sicut et mors eius circumfertur in corpore. De qua ergo Christi vita dicit? qua nunc vivimus in illo? [16] Et quomodo in sequentibus non ad visibilia nec ad temporalia, sed ad invisibilia et ad aeterna, id est non ad praesentia, sed ad futura exhortatur? Quodsi de futura vita dicit Christi, in corpore eam dicens apparituram, manifeste carnis resurrectionem praedicavit, exteriorem quidem hominem nostrum corrumpi dicens, et non quasi aeterno interitu post mortem, verum laboribus et incommodis, de quibus praemisit adiciens, Et non deficiemus. Nam et interiorem hominem nostrum renovari de die in diem dicens hic utrumque demonstrat, et corporis corruptionem ex vexatione temptationum et animi renovationem ex contemplatione promissionum.	11. [1] If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be "gods many" ), yet "the blessed God," (who is "the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ," will be understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had made), as you find in Genesis, and is Himself "blessed by all things," as Daniel tells us. Now, if the title of Father may be claimed for (Marcion's) sterile god, how much more for the Creator? To none other than Him is it suitable, who is also "the Father of mercies," and (in the prophets) has been described as "full of compassion, and gracious, and plenteous in mercy." [2] In Jonah you find the signal act of His mercy, which He showed to the praying Ninevites. How inflexible was He at the tears of Hezekiah! How ready to forgive Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, the blood of Naboth, when he deprecated His anger. How prompt in pardoning David on his confession of his sin ----preferring, indeed, the sinner's repentance to his death, of course because of His gracious attribute of mercy. Now, if Marcion's god has exhibited or proclaimed any such thing as this, I will allow him to be "the Father of mercies." [3] Since, however, he ascribes to him this title only from the time he has been revealed, as if he were the father of mercies from the time only when he began to liberate the human race, then we on our side, too, adopt the same precise date of his alleged revelation; but it is that we may deny him! It is then not competent to him to ascribe any quality to his god, whom indeed he only promulged by the fact of such an ascription; for only if it were previously evident that his god had an existence, could he be permitted to ascribe an attribute to him. The ascribed attribute is only an accident; but accidents are preceded by the statement of the thing itself of which they are predicated, especially when another claims the attribute which is ascribed to him who has not been previously shown to exist. Our denial of his existence will be all the more peremptory, because of the fact that the attribute which is alleged in proof of it belongs to that God who has been already revealed. [4] Therefore "the New Testament" will appertain to none other than Him who promised it----if not "its letter, yet its spirit; " and herein will lie its newness. Indeed, He who had engraved its letter in stones is the same as He who had said of its spirit, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Even if "the letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth life; " and both belong to Him who says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal." We have already made good the Creator's claim to this twofold character of judgment and goodness ----"killing in the letter" through the law, and "quickening in the Spirit" through the Gospel. Now these attributes, however different they be, cannot possibly make two gods; for they have already (in the prevenient dispensation of the Old Testament) been found to meet in One. [5] He alludes to Moses' veil, covered with which "his face could not be stedfastly seen by the children of Israel." Since he did this to maintain the superiority of the glory of the New Testament, which is permanent in its glory, over that of the Old, "which was to be done away," this fact gives support to my belief which exalts the Gospel above the law and you must look well to it that it does not even more than this. For only there is superiority possible where was previously the thing over which superiority can be affirmed. But then he says, "But their minds were blinded" ----of the world; certainly not the Creator's mind, but the minds of the people which are in the world. Of Israel he says, Even unto this day the same veil is upon their heart; " showing that the veil which was on the face of Moses was a figure of the veil which is on the heart of the nation still; because even now Moses is not seen by them in heart, just as he was not then seen by them in eye. [6] But what concern has Paul with the veil which still obscures Moses from their view, if the Christ of the Creator, whom Moses predicted, is not yet come? How are the hearts of the Jews represented as still covered and veiled, if the predictions of Moses relating to Christ, in whom it was their duty to believe through him, are as yet unfulfilled? What had the apostle of a strange Christ to complain of, if the Jews failed in understanding the mysterious announcements of their own God, unless the veil which was upon their hearts had reference to that blindness which concealed from their eyes the Christ of Moses? [7] Then, again, the words which follow, "But when it shall turn to the Lord, the evil shall be taken away," properly refer to the Jew, over whose gaze Moses' veil is spread, to the effect that, when he is turned to the faith of Christ, he will understand how Moses spoke of Christ. But how shall the veil of the Creator be taken away by the Christ of another god, whose mysteries the Creator could not possibly have veiled----unknown mysteries, as they were of an unknown god? [8] So he says that "we now with open face" (meaning the candour of the heart, which in the Jews had been covered with a veil), "beholding Christ, are changed into the same image, from that glory" (wherewith Moses was transfigured as by the glory of the Lord) "to another glory." By thus setting forth the glory which illumined the person of Moses from his interview with God, and the veil which concealed the same from the infirmity of the people, and by superinducing thereupon the revelation and the glory of the Spirit in the person of Christ----"even as," to use his words, "by the Spirit of the Lord" ----he testifies that the whole Mosaic system was a figure of Christ, of whom the Jews indeed were ignorant, but who is known to us Christians. [9] We are quite aware that some passages are open to ambiguity, from the way in which they are read, or else from their punctuation, when there is room for these two causes of ambiguity. The latter method has been adopted by Marcion, by reading the passage which follows, "in whom the God of this world," as if it described the Creator as the God of this world, in order that he may, by these words, imply that there is another God for the other world. We, however, say that the passage ought to be punctuated with a comma after God, to this effect: "In whom God hath blinded the eyes of the unbelievers of this world." "In whom" means the Jewish unbelievers, from some of whom the gospel is still hidden under Moses' veil. Now it is these whom God had threatened for "loving Him indeed with the lip, whilst their heart was far from Him," in these angry words: "Ye shall hear with your ears, and not understand; and see with your eyes, but not perceive; " and, "If ye will not believe, ye shall not understand; " and again, "I will take away the wisdom of their wise men, and bring to nought the understanding of their prudent ones." [10] But these words, of course, He did not pronounce against them for concealing the gospel of the unknown God. At any rate, if there is a God of this world, He blinds the heart of the unbelievers of this world, because they have not of their own accord recognised His Christ, who ought to be understood from His Scriptures. Content with my advantage, I can willingly refrain from noticing to any greater length this point of ambiguous punctuation, so as not to give my adversary any advantage, indeed, I might have wholly omitted the discussion. [11] A simpler answer I shall find ready to hand in interpreting "the god of this world" of the devil, who once said, as the prophet describes him: "I will be like the Most High; I will exalt my throne in the clouds." The whole superstition, indeed, of this world has got into his hands, so that he blinds effectually the hearts of unbelievers, and of none more than the apostate Marcion's. Now he did not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the light of the knowledge (of His glory) in the face of (Jesus) Christ." [12] Now who was it that said; "Let there be light? " And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to the world: "I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles" ----to them, that is, "who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death? " (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, hath been displayed upon us." Now the countenance (or person ) of the Lord here is Christ. Wherefore the apostle said above: Christ, who is the image of God." Since Christ, then, is the person of the Creator, who said, "Let there be light," it follows that Christ and the apostles, and the gospel, and the veil, and Moses----nay, the whole of the dispensations----belong to the God who is the Creator of this world, according to the testimony of the clause (above adverted to), and certainly not to him who never said, "Let there be light." I here pass over discussion about another epistle, which we hold to have been written to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans. [13] In it he tells them to remember, that at the time when they were Gentiles they were without Christ, aliens from (the commonwealth of) Israel, without intercourse, without the covenants and any hope of promise, nay, without God, even in his own world, as the Creator thereof. Since therefore he said, that the Gentiles were without God, whilst their god was the devil, not the Creator, it is clear that he must be understood to be the lord of this world, whom the Gentiles received as their god----not the Creator, of whom they were in ignorance. [14] But how does it happen, that "the treasure which we have in these earthen vessels of ours" should not be regarded as belonging to the God who owns the vessels? Now since God's glory is, that so great a treasure is contained in earthen vessels, and since these earthen vessels are of the Creator's make, it follows that the glory is the Creator's; nay, since these vessels of His smack so much of the excellency of the power of God, that power itself must be His also! Indeed, all these things have been consigned to the said "earthen vessels" for the very purpose that His excellence might be manifested forth. [15] Henceforth, then, the rival god will have no claim to the glory, and consequently none to the power. Rather, dishonour and weakness will accrue to him, because the earthen vessels with which he had nothing to do have received all the excellency! Well, then, if it be in these very earthen vessels that he tells us we have to endure so great sufferings, in which we bear about with us the very dying of God, (Marcion's) god is really ungrateful and unjust, if he does not mean to restore this same I substance of ours at the resurrection, wherein so much has been endured in loyalty to him, in which Christ's very death is borne about, wherein too the excellency of his power is treasured. For he gives prominence to the statement, "That the life also of Christ may be manifested in our body," as a contrast to the preceding, that His death is borne about in our body. Now of what life of Christ does he here speak? Of that which we are now living? [16] Then how is it, that in the words which follow he exhorts us not to the things which are seen and are temporal, but to those which are not seen and are eternal ----in other words, not to the present, but to the future? But if it be of the future life of Christ that he speaks, intimating that it is to be made manifest in our body, then he has clearly predicted the resurrection of the flesh. He says, too, that "our outward man perishes," not meaning by an eternal perdition after death, but by labours and sufferings, in reference to which he previously said, "For which cause we will not faint." Now, when he adds of "the inward man" also, that it "is renewed day by day," he demonstrates both issues here----the wasting away of the body by the wear and tear of its trials, and the renewal of the soul by its contemplation of the promises.
12. [1] Terreni domicilii nostri non sic ait habere nos domum aeternam, non manu factam, in caelo, quia quae manu facta sit creatoris intereat in totum dissoluta post mortem. Haec enim ad mortis metum et ad ipsius dissolutionis contristationem consolandam retractans etiam per sequentia manifestius, cum subicit ingemere nos de isto tabernaculo corporis terreni, quod de caelo est superindui cupientes; siquidem et despoliati non inveniemur nudi, id est recipiemus quod despoliati sumus, id est corpus. Et rursus: Etenim qui sumus in isto tabernaculo corporis, ingemimus quod gravemur, nolentes exui sed superindui. [2] Hic enim expressit quod in prima epistula strinxit: Et mortui resurgent incorrupti, qui iam obierunt, et nos mutabimur, qui in carne fuerimus deprehensi a deo. Et illi enim resurgent incorrupti, recepto scilicet corpore, et quidem integro, ut ex hoc sint incorrupti; et hi propter temporis ultimum iam momentum et propter merita vexationum antichristi compendium mortis, sed mutati, consequentur superinduti magis quod de caelo est quam exuti corpus. [3] Ita si hi super corpus induent caeleste illud, utique et mortui recipient corpus, super quod et ipsi induant incorruptelam de caelo; quia et de illis ait, Necesse est corruptivum istud induere incorruptelam et mortale istud immortalitatem. Illi induunt cum receperint corpus, isti superinduunt quia non amiserint corpus, et ideo non temere dixit nolentes exui corpore sed superindui, id est nolentes mortem experiri sed vita praeveniri, uti devoretur mortale hoc a vita, dum eripitur morti per superindumentum demutationis. [4] Ideo quia ostendit hoc melius esse, ne contristemur mortis si forte praeventu, et arrabonem nos spiritus dicit a deo habere, quasi pignoratos in eandem spem superindumenti, et abesse a domino, quamdiu in carne sumus, ac propterea debere boni ducere abesse potius a corpore et esse cum domino, ut et mortem libenter excipiamus. Atque adeo omnes ait nos oportere manifestari ante tribunal Christi, ut recipiat unusquisque quae per corpus admisit sive bonum sive malum. [5] Si enim tunc retributio meritorum, quomodo iam aliqui cum deo poterunt deputari? Et tribunal autem nominando et dispunctionem boni ac mali operis utriusque sententiae iudicem ostendit, et corporum omnium repraesentationem confirmavit. Non enim poterit quod corpore admissum est non corpore iudicari. Iniquus enim deus, si non per id punitur quis aut iuvatur per quod operatus est. [6] Si qua ergo conditio nova in Christo, vetera transierunt, ecce nova facta sunt omnia, impleta est Esaiae prophetia. Si etiam iubet ut mundemus nos ab inquinamento carnis et sanguinis, non substantiam <negat, sed opera substantiae> capere regnum dei. Si et virginem sanctam destinat ecclesiam adsignare Christo, utique ut sponsam sponso, non potest imago coniungi inimico veritatis rei ipsius. Si et pseudapostolos dicit operarios dolosos transfiguratores sui, per hypocrisin scilicet, conversationis non praedicationis adulteratae reos taxat. [7] Adeo de disciplina, non de divinitate dissidebatur. Si transfiguratur satanas in angelum lucis, non potest hoc dirigi in creatorem. Deus enim non angelus creator; in deum lucis, non in angelum, transfigurare se dictus esset, si non eum satanan significaret quem et nos et Marcion angelum novimus. [8] De paradiso suus stilus est ad omnem quam patitur quaestionem. Hic illud forte mirabor, si proprium potuit habere paradisum deus nullius terrenae dispositionis, nisi si etiam paradiso creatoris precario usus est, sicut et mundo. Et tamen hominem tollere ad caelum creatoris exemplum est in Helia. Magis vero mirabor dominum optimum, percutiendi et saeviendi alienum, nec proprium saltem sed creatoris angelum satanae colaphizando apostolo suo applicuisse, et ter ab eo obsecratum non concessisse. Emendat igitur et deus Marcionis secundum creatorem elatos aemulantem, ut deponentem scilicet de solio dynastas. Aut numquid ipse est qui et in corpus Iob dedit satanae potestatem, ut virtus in infirmitate 9 comprobaretur? Quid et formam legis adhuc tenet Galatarum castigator, in tribus testibus praefiniens staturum omne verbum? Quid et non parsurum se peccatoribus comminatur, lenissimi dei praedicator? Immo et ipsam durius agendi in praesentia potestatem a domino datam sibi affirmat. Nega nunc, haeretice, timeri deum tuum, cuius apostolus timebatur!	12. [1] As to the house of this our earthly dwelling-place, when he says that "we have an eternal home in heaven, not made with hands," he by no means would imply that, because it was built by the Creator's hand, it must perish in a perpetual dissolution after death. He treats of this subject in order to offer consolation against the fear of death and the dread of this very dissolution, as is even more manifest from what follows, when he adds, that "in this tabernacle of our earthly body we do groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with the vesture which is from heaven, if so be, that having been unclothed, we shall not be found naked; "in other words, shall regain that of which we have been divested, even our body. And again he says: "We that are in this tabernacle do groan, not as if we were oppressed with an unwillingness to be unclothed, but (we wish)to be clothed upon." [2] He here says expressly, what he touched but lightly in his first epistle, where he wrote: ) "The dead shall be raised Incorruptible (meaning those who had undergone mortality), "and we shall be changed" (whom God shall find to be yet in the flesh). Both those shall be raised incorruptible, because they shall regain their body----and that a renewed one, from which shall come their incorruptibility; and these also shall, in the crisis of the last moment, and from their instantaneous death, whilst encountering the oppressions of anti-christ, undergo a change, obtaining therein not so much a divestiture of body as "a clothing upon" with the vesture which is from heaven. [3] So that whilst these shall put on over their (changed) body this, heavenly raiment, the dead also shall for their part recover their body, over which they too have a supervesture to put on, even the incorruption of heaven; because of these it was that he said: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." The one put on this (heavenly) apparel, when they recover their bodies; the others put it on as a supervesture, when they indeed hardly lose them (in the suddenness of their change). [4] It was accordingly not without good reason that he described them as "not wishing indeed to be unclothed," but (rather as wanting) "to be clothed upon; " in other words, as wishing not to undergo death, but to be surprised into life, "that this moral (body) might be swallowed up of life," by being rescued from death in the supervesture of its changed state. This is why he shows us how much better it is for us not to be sorry, if we should be surprised by death, and tells us that we even hold of God "the earnest of His Spirit" (pledged as it were thereby to have "the clothing upon," which is the object of our hope), and that "so long as we are in the flesh, we are absent from the Lord; " moreover, that we ought on this account to prefer "rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord," and so to be ready to meet even death with joy. In this view it is that he informs us how "we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according as he hath done either good or bad." [5] Since, however, there is then to be a retribution according to men's merits, how will any be able to reckon with God? But by mentioning both the judgment-seat and the distinction between works good and bad, he sets before us a Judge who is to award both sentences, and has thereby affirmed that all will have to be present at the tribunal in their bodies. For it will be impossible to pass sentence except on the body, for what has been done in the body. God would be unjust, if any one were not punished or else rewarded in that very condition, wherein the merit was itself achieved. [6] "If therefore any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old; things are passed away; behold, all things are become new; " and so is accomplished the prophecy of Isaiah. When also he (in a later passage) enjoins us "to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and blood" (since this substance enters not the kingdom of Gods ); when, again, he "espouses the church as a chaste virgin to Christ," a spouse to a spouse in very deed, an image cannot be combined and compared with what is opposed to the real nature the thing (with which it is compared). when he designates "false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves" into likenesses of himself, of course by their hypocrisy, he charges them with the guilt of disorderly conversation, rather than of false doctrine. [7] The contrariety, therefore, was one of conduct, not of gods. If "Satan himself, too, is transformed into an angel of light," such an assertion must not be used to the prejudice of the Creator. The Creator is not an angel, but God. Into a god of light, and not an angel of light, must Satan then have been said to be transformed, if he did not mean to call him "the angel," which both we and Marcion know him to be. [8] On Paradise is the title of a treatise of ours, in which is discussed all that the subject admits of. I shall here simply wonder, in connection with this matter, whether a god who has no dispensation of any kind on earth could possibly have a paradise to call his own----without perchance availing himself of the paradise of the Creator, to use it as he does His world----much in the character of a mendicant. And yet of the removal of a man from earth to heaven we have an instance afforded us by the Creator in Elijah. But what will excite my surprise still more is the case (next supposed by Marcion), that a God so good and gracious, and so averse to blows and cruelty, should have suborned the angel Satan----not his own either, but the Creator's----"to buffet" the apostle, and then to have refused his request, when thrice entreated to liberate him! It would seem, therefore, that Marcion's god imitates the Creator's conduct, who is an enemy to the proud, even "putting down the mighty from their seats." Is he then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his "strength might be made perfect in weakness? " [9] How is it that the censurer of the Galatians still retains the very formula of the law: "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established? " How again is it that he threatens sinners "that he will not spare" them ----he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that "the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!" Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost, ) that your god is an object to be feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!